Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 09:06:21 -0700, "khobar"
wrote:

"Dr. George O. Bizzigotti" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 03:53:25 GMT, Tank Fixer
wrote:

[regarding Prof. Jones' qualifications as a structural engineer]

Since he has this PHD in physics is he qualified to say discuss
oceanography ?

My answer would have to be yes. At best, a Ph.D. is a degree that
teaches you how to do scholarly research. There are many Ph.D.'s who
have made important contributions in fields outside the one in which
they were initially educated. As an example using the two fields about
which Tank Fixer asked, D. James Baker holds a Ph. D. in experimental
physics and was Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration during the Clinton Administration.

I'm sorry to have to disagree with you, George. As you said, *at best* a
Ph.D. is a degree that teaches you *how* to do scholarly research - it does
not demonstrates that you actually havedone scholarly research. So unless
Jones has actually done the research on oceanography he is no more qualified
discuss it than any non-Ph.D.

I don't think we disagree; my point here was simply that a Ph.D. in
the relevant subject is not a requirement to join a scientific
discussion, although it certainly helps. I didn't state this
explicitly, but I also based my comment on the fuzziness of boundaries
between scientific disciplines. There are some Ph.D.'s in physics that
learn a great deal about engineering structures (those that design
some of the huge detectors, for example) whereas others have no
exposure at all. Although each science has a "core" component, many
lay people don't realize that there are few if any bright line
boundaries anymore. I have colleagues who do "physical chemistry" in
Chemistry departments and Jones has colleagues who do "chemical
physics" in Physics departments, and most of them could do the exact
same research in either setting.

The "how" aspect of a Ph.D. means the holder has the capability to
bootstrap into another field. Your point is a good one; such
bootstrapping typically requires a few years of intense work. There's
no guarantee that a given individual has made that investment before
he or she starts publishing in a new field. Peer review (which appears
to have been weak in the case of Jones' paper) tends to keep people
from publishing in new areas without doing such work, but there's no
"Science Police" to check (which I think is a good thing; the
contributions of many scientists doing cross-diciplinary work so
valuable as to vastly outweigh the occasional dilettante).

As I've seen in the past there are those who have Ph.D's who seem to believe
their word should be taken at face value merely on the strength of them
having a Ph.D. This seems to be what Prof. Jones is doing, or, at the very
least, what his "supporters" are trying to do for him.

My observation is that it is mostly Jones' fellow travelers making
the ex cathedra argument; if Jones himself is doing so he's certainly
being more subtle than TRUTH.

[snip]

I have stated before that Jones' arguments should be evaluated on
their merits. His credentials do not entitle those arguments to any
special deference, but neither do they disqualify those arguments
because his discipline is less relevant to the issue than some other
disciplines.

In my opinion, his credentials most certainly do disqualify those arguments
if all he offers as qualification are his credentials and nothing more.

Here again, I think we agree. You are evaluating Jones argument and
finding it lacking, and so you reject his hypothesis. That he has a
Ph.D. in physics is irrelevant, because you would make the same
evaluation if the argument were advanced by someone else with no Ph.D.
in physics. I would presume that if Jones had an airtight argument for
his hypothesis you would accept it because it was a better argument,
not because of his Ph.D. of his field. That's what I meant by my
assertion; evaluate the argument, not the credentials.

I would add as a side note that credentials can be a useful
consideration in how much caution is appropriate before making a
counterargument. If I were to argue with Jones about physics, which is
his field but not mine, I would make very certain that I studied up on
the physics before I criticized Jones. In the area of the WTC
collapse, neither Jones nor I are structural engineers, and it's
apparent even to a non-engineer that Jones has an overly simplified
view of structures, so I don't feel much need to study up on
structural engineering to point that out.

Regards,

George
************************************************** ********************
Dr. George O. Bizzigotti Telephone: (703) 610-2115
Mitretek Systems, Inc. Fax: (703) 610-1558
3150 Fairview Park Drive South E-Mail:
Falls Church, Virginia, 22042-4519
************************************************** ********************
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***