The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

Mojo said:
Perhaps he had a GmBh.
Click to expand...
Oh good grief.

Still, I'm sure that when Vixen checks back into this thread she will explain why she made the claim that Lt Cdr Braidwood had an OBE. And also why she included GmBh as part of Dr Neubert's name as if it was some kind of postnominal.
 
Agatha said:
Oh good grief.

Still, I'm sure that when Vixen checks back into this thread she will explain why she made the claim that Lt Cdr Braidwood had an OBE. And also why she included GmBh as part of Dr Neubert's name as if it was some kind of postnominal.
Click to expand...

I'm sure she will. Vixen is renowned for her lucid explanations and her willingness to correct her own errors.
 
JayUtah said:
Yes, it's the fallacious form of argument from authority. There is no alphabet soup of post nominals that transforms patently illogical reasoning (i.e., affirming the consequent) into cogency. Degrees, qualifications, certifications, and memberships are a proxy for demonstrable expertise for some purposes. But they are not a potion that transforms one's syllogism into one of validating form. An Oxford don who deploys a circular argument has still deployed a circular argument. The proper follow-up is not to allow it because the claimant is highly credentialed. It's to wonder why someone would do it who is presumed to know better. The argument is illogical because it's illogical.
Click to expand...

I understand your point, but it's a little funny to have the two highlighted bits in the same paragraph.
 
phiwum said:
I understand your point, but it's a little funny to have the two highlighted bits in the same paragraph.
Click to expand...

I hadn't noticed that, but I can see why that looks funny. What I mean is that a syllogistic argument is inherently logical or illogical; it has nothing to do with the eminence or qualification of the person making it.
 
Agatha said:
Braidwood was not awarded an OBE. Nor did he ever claim he had been awarded one, and his family have not made such a claim either as can be seen from the acount of his funeral where they do note his Queen's Commendation for Brave Conduct.

The idea that he had an OBE appears to be wholly invented - why anybody would invent such a thing is baffling. It's so easy to check - which I did by checking all the honours lists from The London Gazette in every possible year.
Click to expand...

Whoops, I was reading the page for Michael G Fellows, co-author of the report with Brian Braidwood. In his report he states as one of his achievements, Member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (MBE).
 
Vixen said:
Whoops, I was reading the page for Michael G Fellows, co-author of the report with Brian Braidwood. In his report he states as one of his achievements, Member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (MBE).
Click to expand...

So for as much attention as you demand we pay to honorifics as opposed to actual arguments and evidence, you don't even know which post nominals apply to which persons, or even which groups of letters represent actual honors. Your defense amounts to, "How dare you question these eminent people I know nothing about!"
 
Vixen said:
GmbH designates a registered Germany company. Not dissimilar to 'Limited' in the UK.
Click to expand...

Yes, we know what it means. I routinely do business with German companies. The point is that you didn't know what it means. You applied it to a person's name as if it were a post nominal honorific.

Just give up, Vixen Ltd. You don't know what you're talking about and you aren't competent to discuss the evidence you're presenting from other people.
 
JayUtah said:
Yes, it's the fallacious form of argument from authority. There is no alphabet soup of post nominals that transforms patently illogical reasoning (i.e., affirming the consequent) into cogency. Degrees, qualifications, certifications, and memberships are a proxy for demonstrable expertise for some purposes. But they are not a potion that transforms one's syllogism into one of validating form. An Oxford don who deploys a circular argument has still deployed a circular argument. The proper follow-up is not to allow it because the claimant is highly credentialed. It's to wonder why someone would do it who is presumed to know better. The argument is illogical because it's illogical.

No tapestry of royal decorations on one's breast makes what should by nature be an evidentiary argument into a convincing matter of expert judgment. No one is questioning Braidwood's bravery. It's just not relevant to the argument. The King himself could tell us that something is a perfect example of some category, but if all the other specimens of that category we can find are wholly dissimilar, then the King's proclamation has no evidentiary significance and remains unconvincing.

Vixen's respect for expertise is unsurprisingly fickle. She has no respect for the expertise of those who supported the JAIC investigation, and not much more for those carrying on the legitimate work today. She has no respect for the expertise of any of her critics here. She calls me "master engineer" (a term I've never self-applied), but she's using it here derisively. But she says we must somehow respect Margus Kurm and his cadre because Kurm was a prominent practitioner of an almost entirely irrelevant field. We must somehow respect a "German group of experts" hired by the shipyard.

Vixen claims Braidwood dived on the MS Estonia wreck, had an order of chivalry conferred upon him, and other things about him because she doesn't read her sources. I think this is also why she has such difficulty understanding why we see problems in newspaper reports. Serious researchers consider "sources" to lay foundations of fact and reasoning. Conspiracy theorists generally consider them to be black boxes whose mere citation ends an argument. Rather than things to be read, digested, understood, and reconciled with other sources, they're singular bludgeons used to bash one's critics over the head.

And that's why Vixen hammers selective on credentials and honors and the otherwise titular stature of her claimants. She can't actually address the content of her sources. Once we open the black box and peer inside, she's all at at sea (pun intended). The logical validity or factual veridity of the claims can't be a part of any argument she's able to make. It's back to, "You can't dispute these eminent people! You're just some bloke on the internet." She desperately needs to close that black box up again.
Click to expand...

I mentioned their qualifications and awards because you seemed to be saying that they were fraudsters and so dishonourable they would fake results of metallurgy tests for money.

I know a navy pension isn't a king's ransom, but starting at circa £42K per annum for an officer doesn't indicate to me that such an individual would be so desperate for money to even consider write a fraudulent report for a few bob or even a pretty penny. Even if they were destitute I am sceptical they would even think about indulge in fraud and deception.

Yet that is what you are claiming.
 
Vixen said:
I mentioned their qualifications and awards because you seemed to be saying that they were fraudsters and so dishonourable they would fake results of metallurgy tests for money.
Click to expand...

I made no such claims. Would you care to address my actual arguments? I have pointed out why the claims made by Braidwood et al. are not persuasive. You're clearly not competent to discuss them, so you're falling back to straw men.
 
JayUtah said:
Yes, we know what it means. I routinely do business with German companies. The point is that you didn't know what it means. You applied it to a person's name as if it were a post nominal honorific.

Just give up, Vixen Ltd. You don't know what you're talking about and you aren't competent to discuss the evidence you're presenting from other people.
Click to expand...

Don't be ridiculous. I was in the wine shipping trade for twelve years, dealing with wine companies all over Europe including Germany so I am quite familiar with the term GmbH for our German suppliers.
 
Vixen said:
Don't be ridiculous. I was in the wine shipping trade for twelve years, dealing with wine companies all over Europe including Germany so I am quite familiar with the term GmbH for our German suppliers.
Click to expand...

That doesn't explain why you used it incorrectly in this case.
 
Agatha said:
I know what it means. I cannot understand why you previously referred to Dr Neubert as "Dr Neubert GmBh" (not even correctly GmbH).
Click to expand...


I wonder if Vixen Pty will accept the appended investigation report when it's published, and when it confirms that the ship sank because its poorly-designed and poorly-maintained bow visor broke away while the ship was improperly ploughing at high speed through extremely choppy waters. Somehow I suspect that Vixen Inc. will reject the official position, choosing instead to plough on regardless with the conspiracy theories.
 
Vixen said:
That is the name of their registered company, if you click on the link.
Click to expand...

No. The name of their company is the whole long thing that starts with Institut für Materialprüfung... Dr. Neubert is the principal and therefore it is appropriate to list him as part of the company name.

Vixen said:
Er, so instead of writing GmbH I mistyped it.
Click to expand...

No, you used it incorrectly. Here's your post :—

Vixen said:
Those are the findings of the Clausthal-Zellerfeld metallurgists.

Dr Dölling and Dr Neubert GmBh
'Institut für Materialprüfung und Werkstofftechnik Dr. Dölling + Dr. Neubert GmbH wurde am 19.08.2005 unter der Handelsregisternummer HRB 4127 beim Amtsgericht Braunschweig registriert.

https://www.dngmbh.de/en/

Are you seriously calling Dr Dölling and Dr Neubert frauds, together with Braidwood and Fellowes?
Click to expand...

You extracted the names of two people and wrongly applied an abbreviation to one of them because you naïvely thought it was a postnominal. The fact that you misscapitalized it when you retyped it is just more evidence you didn't know what "GmbH" actually meant.

'Life is too short to stuff a mushroom' ~ Shirley Conran
Click to expand...

No, you don't get to dismiss as petty every time you demonstrate you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to engineering and those of us who practice it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom