• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-opened Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
That homily sounds fine on paper but in reality, I feel sure that if Capt Andresson was not incapacitated he surely would have given the correct May Day message at least fifteen minutes earlier and arranged evacuation sooner.

Many of the survivors who escaped wearing nothing but underpants or nightwear - as that is how incredibly little time they had to get out - expressed surprised to find on getting into a life raft (cf Barney, Sörman) the crew fully kitted out. So the crews' claims that they were running around all over the place seem a bit unlikely.
If you have a survival suite next to you, it's a minute or so to get in it. If it's not next to you, maybe you don't spend the time to go looking for it if you think that what you are doing is important.

The passengers of course does not have that option.

Some crew apparently found it possible. For those that didn't survive, we don't know if they chose not to get in a suite, didn't find one, couldn't for some reason, or did not even undestand the situation until it was too late.
 
...in reality, I feel sure that if Capt Andresson was not incapacitated he surely would have given the correct May Day message at least fifteen minutes earlier and arranged evacuation sooner.


On what basis do you arrive at this level of surety?

And didn't the ship sink on 28th September? (It's "Mayday", not "May Day")
 
What science do you practice?

Er, business science.

To get into say, Harvard Business School (alma mater of business guru Michael Porter):

"HBS students come from engineering, economics, social sciences, business/commerce, and math and physical science backgrounds, with no one undergrad program representing a majority of admitted students."

These all look like sciences to me.
 
Just to repeat (for it may have got swamped by.... other issues):

Is there any (reliable) information concerning precisely which part(s) of the bow visor were submitted for these recent tests?
 
Er, business science.

To get into say, Harvard Business School (alma mater of business guru Michael Porter):

"HBS students come from engineering, economics, social sciences, business/commerce, and math and physical science backgrounds, with no one undergrad program representing a majority of admitted students."

These all look like sciences to me.

I've hilighted the sciences. The rest is humanities.

You're not a scientist.
 
So add some appropriate detail to the correction. What exactly have you done to "practice science?"



Yes, and if pressed I could speak at length about what I did to attain that and how I have practiced it for thirty years. You seem to be either unable or unwilling to do the same for your claims.

You made statements that presumed you knew how scientists do their work. You're being asked to provide the foundation for that purported knowledge. You're not being picked on.

I don't think my personal information is any business of yours and as a practising professional I am loathe to share my professional credentials on a public chat forum for obvious reasons. You have no authority to cancel out my credentials just because you disagree with me.
 
No one is trying to cancel out your credentials, just to find out whether they are relevant. Stop being overdramatic.

Incidentally you can find Jay's real name and qualifications quite easily, and I've supplied mine on here before.

ETA: Your claim that it is "personal information" is a ludicrous over-reach. We aren't asking for your home address, just what science you have done.
 
Er, business science.

To get into say, Harvard Business School (alma mater of business guru Michael Porter):

"HBS students come from engineering, economics, social sciences, business/commerce, and math and physical science backgrounds, with no one undergrad program representing a majority of admitted students."

These all look like sciences to me.


No. That's merely pointing out that many people with science-based backgrounds attend Harvard Business School.

The term "business science" refers specifically and solely (in my experience, at least) to computational analysis and business-specific software applications.


(And I wonder why you chose a Forbes Magazine article titled "How to get into Harvard Business School" to, ahem, support your argument....)
 
I am sure a highly qualified Materials Science expert is quite aware of that.

So am I, that's the source of heat on the parts. How hot do you think oxy-acetyline cutters and arc welders are?

If any of the parts are forged what temperature do you think they were heated to?
 
Last edited:
I don't think my personal information is any business of yours...

"What science do you practice?" is not asking for personal information.

...and as a practising professional I am loathe to share my professional credentials on a public chat forum for obvious reasons.

You have no problem telling us you're a chartered accountant, and how that's a prestigious achievement. But when you say you're a scientist, and people want to know more detail, all of a sudden that's a personal affront to you. Do you see how that looks suspicious?

You have no authority to cancel out my credentials just because you disagree with me.

I'm not trying to "cancel out" your credentials. I'm simply endeavoring to discover what the basis of your claimed expertise in science is.
 
No. That's merely pointing out that many people with science-based backgrounds attend Harvard Business School.

Ditto law. There's no undergraduate program specifically in law, so law students come from a variety of backgrounds, including science and engineering. The people who run the business parts of my business have appropriate degrees in business. They also have undergraduate degrees in the relevant sciences such as chemistry, physics, and engineering. The scientists who work for me have degrees in physics, chemistry, engineering, and so forth -- most up to the doctoral level. These are scientists. That is, the work they do is the image most people conjure up when they hear the word "scientist."

The term "business science" refers specifically and solely (in my experience, at least) to computational analysis and business-specific software applications.

Yes, that's also my understanding of what "business science" refers to specifically. The reason this is such an acute conversation is that "science" is a grossly overloaded term. Many people study topics that could be considered sciences in one way or another, largely as opposed to "arts" and "humanities." However, "I am a scientist," is usually intended to mean something more specific. And in the context of how to interpret the language used by metallurgists offering their findings, it must mean that specific thing.
 
It's not ignorance. You aren't a scientist. That's fine! Neither am I.
Just because your ego can't take being told that you're not a scientist doesn't make you one.

Nothing to do with ego. As I said, qualifications mean little in real life. I know plenty of economists who considered themselves scientists (the ones who became professional, not just graduates). A close relative took Natural Sciences at Uni...he specialised in the mathematics side (having had physics,
chemistry, pure, applied, advanced maths and statistics at A-L A*_ yet obtained an MSci. (Undergraduate degree). The continued debate as to whether something is a science is pointless IMV. Reminds me of a friend's aunt who on hearing he was doing a double science in physics and philosophy at London Uni she said, 'Oh that's not as good as a BA!'

It is pure snobbish nonsense. You are just dealing in put-downs aren't you? It's very thinly veiled.
 
Ditto law. There's no undergraduate program specifically in law, so law students come from a variety of backgrounds, including science and engineering. The people who run the business parts of my business have appropriate degrees in business. They also have undergraduate degrees in the relevant sciences such as chemistry, physics, and engineering. The scientists who work for me have degrees in physics, chemistry, engineering, and so forth -- most up to the doctoral level. These are scientists. That is, the work they do is the image most people conjure up when they hear the word "scientist."



Yes, that's also my understanding of what "business science" refers to specifically. The reason this is such an acute conversation is that "science" is a grossly overloaded term. Many people study topics that could be considered sciences in one way or another, largely as opposed to "arts" and "humanities." However, "I am a scientist," is usually intended to mean something more specific. And in the context of how to interpret the language used by metallurgists offering their findings, it must mean that specific thing.

You should have said you were referring to 'physical sciences' only then (which excludes maths).

There are plenty of people with science degrees who have never gone into science as a profession. That is why someone who is say, a chartered surveyor can say he or she is a scientist, whereas someone who just has a degree from years ago could not, to the same degree.

I am qualified to go to the USA and work as a CPA should I want to so don't tell me that does not count in your books.
 
Last edited:
An MSci is not an undergrad degree, it's a post-grad degree. Master of Sciences. You can only take an MSci after you've got a BSc.

It's not just qualifications that matter, but if you do not have the relevant qualifications then you are likely not equipped to deal with the work of being a scientist.

I do not have a degree in accounting. I'm likely not equipped to handle the work of an accountant.

I'm also not a scientist.

Your attempts to reframe this as attempting to put you down rings hollow because I've outright stated that not being a scientist is not a point of shame. I'm not one, but I don't make the claim to be one. You have made the claim that you are a scientist, so we have asked you what qualifications you have and what work you have done in science in order to call yourself a scientist.
 
As I said, qualifications mean little in real life.

Then you should have no problem conceding that your formal qualifications are irrelevant, if indeed that is the case. And if you believe that your subsequent real-life experience in "practicing science" qualifies you to claim the title "scientist," then you should have no problem elaborating when asked.

It is pure snobbish nonsense. You are just dealing in put-downs aren't you? It's very thinly veiled.

No, it's you getting caught once again trying to pretend you're something you're not, and being wholly unable to admit the error that arises from that.
 
You should have said you were referring to 'physical sciences' only then (which excludes maths).

You had no problem being non-specific when you insinuated you knew how scientists did their jobs and why they used specific language.

I am qualified to go to the USA and work as a CPA should I want to so don't tell me that does not count in your books.

No one is telling you that. They are telling you -- appropriately enough -- that being a chartered accountant is not the same thing as being a scientist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom