• 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.
JayUtah said:
No.



No, pointing out that someone is using a common, distractive rhetorical strategy is not at all the same as calling that person names.
Click to expand...

You and someone else (Swoop) said that a Gish Gallop isn't properly a logical fallacy. Of course it all depends on what one means by fallacy.

Among the informal fallacies (that is, the list commonly taught in baby logic courses) are fallacies of distraction, such as Straw Man, Ad Hominem and Appeal to Pity. Each of these distracts discussion from the argument at hand to a different consideration. Each of these rhetorical strategies are also commonly referred to as (informal) logical fallacies.

I don't like the term "Gish Gallop". I'm stodgy and don't like any newfangled introduction of terminology for no good reason. "Whataboutism" is a juvenile way to refer to "Ad hominem tu quoque" (usually, sometimes other fallacies apply) and it sticks in my craw. Gish Gallop is a bit different than any of the standard fallacies that come to mind, because it's about failure to rebut a counterargument and moving to a whole new topic, hoping to find some argument that the opponent cannot respond to. It's throwing spaghetti at the wall.

But though it doesn't fit any standard list of fallacies, it is a behavior intended to distract and avoid serious discussion. I don't see any reason to tussle over whether it is a "proper" informal fallacy or not.

Nor do I see any reason to quibble over whether Vixen knows what it means. This thread isn't intended to highlight Vixen's every apparent ignorance, from Cockney slang to Gish Gallop to how many folks were "threatened" by the Salisbury poisonings (that one was my own distraction). Every time we focus on random misstatements, oddities and one-off nonsense claims, we end up ignoring the real substantive claims.

It was good to point out that of course 700deg. can be reached outside a laboratory, because that was relevant. Focusing on Vixen's new insistence that, yes, outside a laboratory you can weld, but not in a living room, is tempting and entertaining but utterly beside the point. Living rooms have ******* to do with the Estonia, so no need to belabor that particular claim.

Just a thought.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Disbelief said:
So where does she say detonation? Everything she talks about can be attributed to welding.
Click to expand...

The slides actually say "no sign of contact deformation" in two places that I see.

ETA: but to be honest I'm just googling to figure out what that means. I saw "contact detonation" at first glance.
 
Last edited:
phiwum said:
Every time we focus on random misstatements, oddities and one-off nonsense claims, we end up ignoring the real substantive claims.
Click to expand...

I haven't ignored the substantive claims. I've written on them at length, only to have Vixen ignore them or change subject, often by hurling ill-founded accusations such as the one under discussion. Therefore I will continue to call out behavior that I find objectionable in a debate, regardless of how they are named or taxonomized.

ETA: Yes, I agree that classifying a Gish gallop depends on how a fallacy is defined. My reason for not accepting it as an informal fallacy is that it's more properly a rhetorical technique. A single argument can be fallacious, e.g., an ad hominem argument. A Gish gallop is a rhetorical tactic involving several individual arguments, each of which can be logically sound. It is not the soundness of the argument or arguments that is in question, it's the gallop.
 
Last edited:
I disagree. We have someone who keeps making claims (despite her protests that she isn't) that are demonstratealy false and show a complete lack of understanding of any of the topics that are related to the main topic. Sure, home welding kits are not per se related to the Estonia incident, but Vixen has attempted to argue against the reasonable suggestion of several people that the high heat residue found in a particular spot was due to welding y making very specific and very, very wrong claims about how welding works.

Sure, arguing about whether a Gish Gallop is a fallacy isn't directly related to the Estonia, but again, people have made the valid accusation that Vixen is Gish Galloping PLUS Vixen herself has told someone they don't know what a Gish Gallop is. Therefore explaining what a gish gallop is IS part of the topic.

Sure, Vixen not being a scientist is not DIRECTLY related to the specific topic of the sinking of the Estonia, but she is the one who is making specific claims about what a scientist would or would not do in order to bolster her arguments. At this point is IS valid to challenge her claims of expertise on the subject of how scientists act y challenging her claims of eing one.


I think it is not only too simplistic to say that the only thing we should discuss is the Estonia itself in this topic, but it also works to the advantage of the person making far fetched nonsense claims. This is because while they can throw nonsense like claiming to be a scientist into the thread in order to bolster their arguments by lending them credibility they do not deserve, if we are not allowed to challenge this false credibility then it looks like we are tacitly accepting it.

I'm not saying we should jump on Vixen for every single spelling error ever, but when she makes a claim as to how secret service agencies work, we should not be hamstrung in not being allowed to question her credentials because they aren't very specifically to do with the sinking of the Estonia.
 
lobosrul5 said:
The slides actually say "no sign of contact deformation" in two places that I see.

ETA: but to be honest I'm just googling to figure out what that means. I saw "contact detonation" at first glance.
Click to expand...

I saw that as well. I'm just trying to figure out what Vixen actually thinks is being said here.

I have 25 years working in manufacturing, specifically in welding of vehicles together along with the building of tooling that does this. While I do not consider myself an expert, I know a bit more than the average person about welding. I know I could buy a portable welder and do many types of welding in my living room if I desired.
 
Thanks for posting those Vixen. I gather that posts #3129, 3130 and 3131 contain Westermann's observations, but #3133 and #3135 don't. Is that right?

More specifically, I presume the description of "plastic deformation due to a detonation" in post #3135 is not anything Westermann wrote.
 
lobosrul5 said:
The slides actually say "no sign of contact deformation" in two places that I see.

ETA: but to be honest I'm just googling to figure out what that means. I saw "contact detonation" at first glance.
Click to expand...

Contact deformation refers to the deformation causes by two objects contacting and then deforming one, the other or both. Sometime the signs of contact causing the deformation can be quite aperient, such as surface indentations, sometimes not. At times depending on the mechanics of the contact, structure of the elements including surrounding support or strengthening elements the contact (or bearing area) can be well away from the deformation and failure area. Also depending on the distribution of loading in the bearing area the contact can be sufficiently distributive to not make distinctive contact deformation indications but still cause deformation and failure of the part.

ETA; Contact mechanics
 
Last edited:
Jack by the hedge said:
Thanks for posting those Vixen. I gather that posts #3129, 3130 and 3131 contain Westermann's observations, but #3133 and #3135 don't. Is that right?
Click to expand...

I gathered the same thing, and also that #3128 may not be Westermann's work either.

Vixen, please post the links to where you obtained these slides, so that we can determine which are the scientist's original statements and what other statements may have been made by others.
 
The Man said:
Contact deformation refers to the deformation causes by two objects contacting and then deforming one, the other or both. Sometime the signs of contact causing the deformation can be quite aperient, such as surface indentations, sometimes not. At times depending on the mechanics of the contact, structure of the elements including surrounding support or strengthening elements the contact (or bearing area) can be well away from the deformation and failure area. Also depending on the distribution of loading in the bearing area the contact can be sufficiently distributive to not make distinctive contact deformation indications but still cause deformation and failure of the part.

ETA; Contact mechanics
Click to expand...

You ninja'ed me on this, but yes it is correct. Hitting the top of a metal stake with a metal hammer will cause the top of the stake to "mushroom" -- i.e., it will deform in response to the hammer blows and do so in a way that even looking at it with the naked eye would compel you to conclude, "This has been hit with a hammer."

The problem with concluding that no contact deformation has occurred is that it typically presumes the surfaces in question are not conformal. Parts that are designed to fit together and which undergo contact stress are not necessarily going to show classic signs of contact deformation. Further, the proposition that no signs of contact deformation are seen in (1) small specimens or (2) materials with significant surface contamination is at best inconclusive.
 
whoanellie said:
For the record, I'll note "requires temperature and time" which hardly seems to be consistent with a detonation. Cue Mr. Brightside is a fire alarm in 3, 2, 1.
Click to expand...

Mister Skylight, but yes. The thing you have to keep in mind when evaluating metallurgical analysis (and similar things) is that the effects accumulate the in specimen. If you note that one effect is consistent with melting and resolidification, and another effect is consistent with a low strain-rate deformation, you can't conclude that the two effects were produced at the same time by the same set of events. It's a mistake to look for one cataclysm that caused all of what you see.
 
In my entirely inexpert opinion, I shall feel no surprise if the report says parts of the visor show indications of at some time being welded together and at some time torn apart.
 
JayUtah said:
Region 1 looks like a fillet weld to me, where the abutting plate has sheared away. Your thoughts?
Click to expand...

That's what it looks like from the picture, but would be nice to look at it in person to get more detail.

whoanellie said:
For the record, I'll note "requires temperature and time" which hardly seems to be consistent with a detonation. Cue Mr. Brightside is a fire alarm in 3, 2, 1.
Click to expand...

Welding is simplified as heat and time, and if it's spot welding you add pressure.
 
JayUtah said:
You ninja'ed me on this, but yes it is correct. Hitting the top of a metal stake with a metal hammer will cause the top of the stake to "mushroom" -- i.e., it will deform in response to the hammer blows and do so in a way that even looking at it with the naked eye would compel you to conclude, "This has been hit with a hammer."
Click to expand...

Way back when I was working in an engineering lab, investigating field returns of our products was SOP. "This has been hit with a hammer." was always the shortest, most definitive and most obvious causal investigation conclusion.
 
Looking for comments by those more knowledgeable but it seems to me, even in close contact with a metal surface, a high explosive (not a shape charge) would not couple a lot of heat energy into the metal surface. There might be a heat-affected zone for some distance beneath the surface, but it would be more in the manner of a light case-hardening. I don't mean to ignore the deformation of the metal. What do others here think?

TIA
 
JayUtah said:
I haven't ignored the substantive claims. I've written on them at length, only to have Vixen ignore them or change subject, often by hurling ill-founded accusations such as the one under discussion. Therefore I will continue to call out behavior that I find objectionable in a debate, regardless of how they are named or taxonomized.

ETA: Yes, I agree that classifying a Gish gallop depends on how a fallacy is defined. My reason for not accepting it as an informal fallacy is that it's more properly a rhetorical technique. A single argument can be fallacious, e.g., an ad hominem argument. A Gish gallop is a rhetorical tactic involving several individual arguments, each of which can be logically sound. It is not the soundness of the argument or arguments that is in question, it's the gallop.
Click to expand...

It's fair to say that you don't ignore substantive issues. But I do think the thread gets clogged by all these diversions.
 
phiwum said:
It's fair to say that you don't ignore substantive issues. But I do think the thread gets clogged by all these diversions.
Click to expand...

They aren't diversions though. As I said in my last post, the ability to answer the issues raised is directly liked to the subject at hand.

We aren't going off topic, the ability to deal with these issues is of vital importance given the stances Vixen is taking in the thread.
 
phiwum said:
It's fair to say that you don't ignore substantive issues. But I do think the thread gets clogged by all these diversions.
Click to expand...

The diversions aren't coming from JayUtah, though. If false or erroneous claims of fact, or misinterpretations of evidence are used to support a position they need to be refuted/rebutted/corrected (or at very least highlighted as such), otherwise they will be treated as if they are successful arguments that have proved a point.

This, of course, assumes argument in good faith from all parties. Hiyo Silver, away!(1) (2) (3)



1 An example of Kentish Arrhythmical Slang, which all the cool kids are using on the TikTok (as opposed to Arrhythmic Slang of Kent, which the kids reject as it uses the old Kent 'a', which renders the phase 'catch up' as 'ketchup', and they're all about the sriracha these days).

2 Not to be confused with 'hi ho silver lining', which is frankly obscene, and shouldn't be used in polite company.

3 All that being said, I've no idea what it means.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom