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

[JayUtah]

But I would say running an enterprise is science based as all kinds of formulae are employed, although there are no empirical experiments to perform in a lab.

Dragging this back to the original point, the question is what scientists mean when they say or write a certain formulaic phrase in public. That has nothing to do with what other aspects of a scientist's daily practice might be mimicked in other occupations. Familiarity with the communicative conventions of science generally requires actual experience in the occupation of science, not merely academic experience that might fall under the broader umbrella of science.

You wrongly interpreted "is consistent with" to be an argument about statistical uncertainty in the outcomes. Science certainly deals with statistical uncertainty in many areas, but that's simply not what's being alluded to by the phrase. Your argument was essentially, "This is what a scientist means by this." But that's not what a scientist means by that. He means something totally different -- importantly different. And you were wrong because, not being a scientist, you didn't have that particular knowledge.

Statistical significance is expressly about causation. When you perform a well-formed experiment and apply the appropriate statistical analysis and controls to the observations, you come up with a p-value that explicitly says, "I can state to this computed level of probability that A caused B." In contrast, the statement, "Observation B is consistent with hypothetical cause A," on the other hand, expressly disavows that any test has been made to see whether A is the actual cause of B. It is a statement of prima facie premises only. Scientists go to great lengths to communicate their findings accurately, and it causes them no end of distress when non-scientists undermine that and attribute to them conclusions they have not drawn.

 

[Vixen]

And your reluctance to share the details of that, after you made them relevant and after you were asked to supply them, is what makes your approach suspicious. You seem to prefer to keep your qualifications a mystery and hope for the benefit of the doubt than to remove doubt and accept whatever consequences ensue.

You have no reason to demand to be accepted as a scientist if you refuse to elaborate what you think that means and how you think you have met the criteria.

I happen to be a private person. I haven't demanded 'to be accepted as a scientist'. You can call me whatever you like, as long as it is not 'early in the morning'. I don't like being wrongly accused, though. I think that is reprehensible behaviour.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Know what Vixen, I stand corrected. I was wrong regarding the MSci, having looked more in depth into your link. I apologise for my error.

 

[JayUtah]

No, that is wrong.

I have an MSci in Natural Sciences from Durham.
It is an Undergrad degree.

Having also been bitten along these lines, I admonish my American colleagues not to assume that our experience in the organization of American education at various levels translates directly to the U.K. system. It appears we use many similar words and conventions that nevertheless have different meanings in the two systems.

 

[Vixen]

The frst 3 years of the MSci are just a BSc equivalence. Note that the MSci is a 4 year course and a BSc is a 3 year course, unless you already have a BSc in which case the Msci is a 1 year course. The actual masters course is the 4th year of specialisation.

No...That's...how did you get that from what I said?

Jay is a scientist. He does science. I am not a scientist. I do not do science.

You are not a scientist. You do not do science.


I did not claim you did not, I am simply saying that doesn't make you a scientist.

I did modules in my degree that were historical in nature. I studied history and used this study to answer questions on history. That doesn't make me a historian, any more than your course makes you a scientist. Stop throwing a tantrum because we will not allow you to falsely represent yourself.

Further, I thought the university courses didn't matter anymore? That you weren't an 18 or 20 year old who cared about your degree because you had moved past that?

It either matters or it does not. It cannot matter when it suits you and be irrelevant when it is inconvenient.

Look. I have a close relative who did that MSci degree. There was just one graduation day. OK?


You cannot define me because you know nothing about me. Using yourself as a reference point is an exercise in futility.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

But I'm British.

 

[whoanellie]

NT

 

[Vixen]

You think you're a scientist. Thinking does not make it so. You are not a scientist. You certainly don't make your living as one.

You used 'degree of freedom' incorrectly. How would that make in simpler for the casual reader.

I was making the point that in scientific results nothing is ever described as a 100% certainty, that's all, even if the decimal points go to ten places on 99.9999999%

You are clearly not a scientist.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Look. I have a close relative who did that MSci degree. There was just one graduation day. OK?

Yes, and you are correct on this and I apologise.

You cannot define me because you know nothing about me.

I know that you're not a scientist.

Using yourself as a reference point is an exercise in futility.

I have only done so as a comparison. I am not a scientist. I've not studied science since A Level and I haven't done anything in my work life, or even really in my personal life that I could class as science. I've looked into it, particularly astrophysics, but I wouldn't claim to be a scientist.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

You cannot define me because you know nothing about me.

You are clearly not a scientist.

Hilarious.

 

[Mojo]

Tell that to Jay Utah and 'Mark Corrigan' as they are the ones who keep insisting it is relevant.

No, you’re insisting that it’s relevant. They’re saying that they can’t tell whether it is relevant because you refuse to say what it is.

 

[Vixen]

It was not rude, it was a simple statement of fact.

I could just as easily say JayUtah is not an expert in the Middle Eastern conflict. That isn't an insult, it is simply true. You are not a scientist. Stop whining for us to accept that you are.

Incidentally, your claim that you couldn't care less if we accept you as a scientist or not is at direct odds with the massive temper tantrum you are throwing, including attempting to paint your critics as rude and abusive when we are very clearly not.

Furthermore, your claim that you have no thrown abuse at us is belied by the fact you told the lie that your interlocutors were telling callous jokes about the dead, and the further lie that we are being abusive and unfair to you.

I wouldn't be so rude as to tell JayUtah what he is and what he isn't. Basic manners.

 

[JayUtah]

I haven't demanded 'to be accepted as a scientist'.

You have done little else over the past two or three pages of the thread.

I don't like being wrongly accused, though. I think that is reprehensible behaviour.

You haven't shown that you were wrongly accused. Further, your longstanding pattern in this thread, if not in the forum as a whole, is to misrepresent your critics -- or simply just shove words in their mouths they never said -- for the purpose of accusing them of reprehensible behavior. If you focused as much effort on attempting to understand the subjects others are trying to educate you about as you do on vilifying your debate opponents, we would all be much better off.

 

[Vixen]

I don't see 'business' or 'accounting' listed in the 'range of subjects' for a MSci degree.....

Psychology is included. My close relative did psychology as his option, together with loads of maths.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I wouldn't be so rude as to tell JayUtah what he is and what he isn't. Basic manners.

You are clearly not a scientist.

Again, hilarious.

No, it isn't basic manners. If someone comes into a conversation and starts to talk about their opinions on a topic, it is not rude and is indeed perfectly proper to ask what their expertise on the subject is. If they show a distinct lack of knowledge in an area it is not rude to state that they do not appear to be an expert. If they subsequently attempt to redefine what being an expert means so that they qualify despite not being an expert, telling them they are not an expert is not rude.

If I were to continually talk about how the Finns spoke Flemish, would it be rude to tell me I'm not an expert in the Finns?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Psychology is included. My close relative did psychology as his option, together with loads of maths.

I studied psychology for my A-levels. I am not a psychologist. You may or may not have studied science as part of your degree, that does not make you a scientist.

 

[JayUtah]

I wouldn't be so rude as to tell JayUtah what he is and what he isn't.

No, your rudeness lies elsewhere. You have no problem shoving words into my mouth that I never said and commenting on my character because of it. You have no problem asserting that the most well-known scholar on the subject of eyewitness testimony is nothing more than a hired gun for law suits. And we could go on. If I were you, I would not hold myself up as the paragon of good manners in this thread.

 

[whoanellie]

I happen to be a private person. I haven't demanded 'to be accepted as a scientist'. You can call me whatever you like, as long as it is not 'early in the morning'. I don't like being wrongly accused, though. I think that is reprehensible behaviour.

For someone who thinks they are a private person, you've shared an awful lot about your background. For someone who doesn't care what we think of you, you've spent a lot of keystrokes trying to convince us you are a scientist. You haven't been wrongly accused of not being a scientist. You've wrongly claimed to be a scientist. If you were a scientist, or someone who was scientifically literate, your posts would show it. They show the opposite.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Is anyone else reminded of Jabba's claim that he was a "certified statistician" which turned out to have been him starting but not even completing an intro to stats course as part of his degree?

 

[Vixen]

Which I am not, despite having lived in the Middle East for a time. I have no knowledge of, and not a whole lot of interest in, the politics of the Middle East or the history of its conflicts. I'm fascinated by the archaeology of the region, and was privileged to observe ruins and artifacts. But I'm by no means an archaeologist either.



Even if I were caught dropping naive, incorrect propositions on the basis of my limited understanding of Middle East conflicts, it would still remain a statement of fact and not an insult no matter how much discomfort it might cause me to be reminded I am not speaking from knowledge or expertise.

I never claimed to be an expert, either.