• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
Your wishful thinking doesn't make it so.
Click to expand...

Straw man. What makes it so is your abject failure over hundreds of pages and thousands of posts to demonstrate even one iota of scientific thinking. You are scientifically illiterate. This is not an assumption or a wish or an insult. It's a conclusion supported by sufficiently dispositive evidence, all of it provided by you.

Paraphrased, "I have the equivalent of two Master's degrees in a field that uses math, therefore I can call myself a scientist," is a ridiculous claim to anyone who makes a living as a scientist. You might just as well say, "I own a chisel, therefore I am as good a sculptor as Michelangelo." The fact that you don't even know what makes up science as a pursuit makes your desperate groveling for acceptance even more comical, and your "Because I say so" arguments even more arrogant and pitiable.

You say you know math, and that this should be credited to you as "leaning toward" science. I watched you stumble through a restatement of the classic problem of roll stability. You didn't know the difference among points, lines, and vectors. I changed one parameter of the problem and asked you how that changed the outcome. You didn't know, and you couldn't even talk through it. That's because what you presented was something you saw on YouTube and hurled at us as some sort of "gotcha!" You didn't actually understand any of it, but you were so very sure that it made you right.

Then after demonstrating comical ignorance of the most basic concepts in quantitative spatial reasoning, you insinuate that you have enough brains to tell us what we must consider equivalent and different in structure fires and therefore what you allege to be suspicious about the Luton fire. I took the time to explain briefly how the dynamics of fluids don't allow you to reason that way, but you responded by accusing me of trying to cloud the issue. Of course you couldn't engage the actual argument because it was way over your head.

This thread has seen its share of arguments based on statistics. Statistical modeling is another mathematical tool used by science. It's most important for determining how strongly and reliably observations conform to a hypothesis. You didn't fare any better there either, and that's because it's an entirely different branch of statistics than the descriptive methods used in accounting and forecasting. No matter how much you claim to be good at math, you can't demonstrate any of that skill here.

What about the other tools of science? Your claimed "post-graduate" expertise in psychology evaporated and left behind merely that you once wrote a term paper in college on memory. This, you say, refuted others' observations that your beliefs about the memory of eyewitnesses were no better than lay misconception. When pressed, you couldn't name a single researcher in the field or summarize their findings. When presented with their findings and asked to reconcile them with your Vixensplaining, the best you could come up with was some hastily Googled summaries of their other work, which you then circularly dismissed as irrelevant.

Knowledge of a scientific field includes knowledge of its history, and of its notable investigators, their findings, and the posture of any opposition or criticism. But also includes the ability to find out those things when needed and the realization of the need to do so before attempting to have a discussion in the field. It requires you to be able to know how to determine who are the most defensible contributors in the field and what makes them worth paying attention to. Your research seems to consist of little more than what snippets of popular tripe your search engine dredges up for you. And sometimes you don't even read your sources. On the subject of how to voir dire purported experts, you have demonstrated not only a complete lack of skill, but a disturbing predilection for sources that are obviously unreliable.

Your problem is much larger than any of this. Claiming proficiency with the tools of science is qualitatively different than showing proficiency with the essence of science. The latter is tremendously more important.

You waffle incessantly from one incompatible hypothesis to another, grabbing bits and pieces from whichever one suits your argument du jour. You can't decide whether the true nature of the Luton fire is being covered up for political reasons because someone stands to make money, or because of national security against "terrorists." You wrongly believe the power of science is in maintaining an "open mind" at all times and being willing to consider everything all at once, no matter how preposterous or contradictory. The power of science is in being able to look at a hypothesis in light of evidence in hand and say, "Well, no, that's probably not it." Scientific thinking is parsimonious, not brainlessly indulgent.

You're trying to cast yourself in the same generalist light as all other non-scientists do who want to dabble. Different scientific pursuits have different criteria for methodology under the umbrella of the scientific method. The investigation of happenstance occurrences is limited in how much classical empiricism can be employed. Hence the thinking is based more on such concepts as consilience, toward which you have demonstrate not only indifference but outright hostility. Instead, you obsess over outlying data and demand that piles of consilience must be discarded in favor of titillating scenarios spewing from your fertile imagination for explaining the outlier.

You aren't proficient with the tools of science. You're inimical to the philosophy and essence of science. As with everything else you discuss, you treat science as if it's just something you naturally know and can therefore lecture everyone else about, just like you "know" that electric vehicles are heavier that comparable ICE cars. Now we all labor under misconceptions that are either inconsequential enough to have little effect or which are debatable enough to leave us alone. But you revel in them. You want your misconception and ignorance to be treated with respect equal to or greater than other people's hard-earned knowledge and experience. You want the world to celebrate your mediocrity. It's always all about you, not about science.
 
Vixen said:
JayUtah said:
You are still not a scientist.
Click to expand...
Your wishful thinking doesn't make it so.
Click to expand...


Apart from the fact that you owe everyone else in the thread new irony meters, kindly explain how it is that you are neither a Chartered Scientist (CSci) nor a Registered Scientist (RSci). And along those lines, let me rephrase my earlier observation as a question: How is it that the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, et al. are not members of the Science Council?

ETA: Jay's response was 20 times better than mine, but I'd still like answers to my questions.
 
Last edited:
SpitfireIX said:
I would also point out that, as an example, only three credits in business calculus and three credits in business statistics are required for Purdue University's BS in Accounting. However, all science majors are required to take at least eight credits in calculus (and probably considerably more); three credits in statistics for math, science, and/or statistics majors; and three credits in computer programming.
Click to expand...

Basic integral and differential calculus are generally applicable, just like a sharp knife is useful in many otherwise unrelated pursuits. But just because both slicing potatoes for chips and carving finials for a cathedral require sharp knives doesn't make proficiency in the former comparable to proficiency in the latter.

My science relies heavily on linear algebra, which doesn't appear to have any application in accounting. But merely knowing linear algebra doesn't equate to knowing how to formulate a hypothesis and to know whether linear algebra provides a mathematical framework that transforms data into evidence we can use to reason about the hypothesis. You still have learn and practice how to carve the finial.

Similarly, advanced calculus gives us the differential equations we need to model natural phenomena such as the transfer of heat and the movement of fluids: knowledge that becomes extremely useful in finding out what happened in a structure fire. It is provably far superior to Vixensplaining or "Wot I reckon is..." When others who have experience in the complexity of such reasoning dismiss simplistic declarations, it is not mere "snobbery."

All our statistical distributions are defined by basic calculus. Yes, you can use the results of those definitions without knowing calculus, just as you can benefit from a wireless router without having the slightest understanding of how the people who invented it got there. A lot of statistical modeling needs only standard models. We dump a bucket full of data in the hopper at the top, turn the crank, and the answer comes out the bottom. But if you know how the models work (i.e., you know the calculus), you can devise your own models for your own nonstandard circumstances.

But this is reasonably moot. As proficient as Vixen wants to say she is mathematics, she has been unable to apply any of it successfully to any of her claims. Whatever math she may legitimately know doesn't matter in any of her arguments. All her attempts to actually use math to prove her point have resulted in dismal, comical failure. So it doesn't matter whether the claim to be proficient in math should equate to some recognition as a scientist. Vixen doesn't seem to be any good at math either way.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Jenny of Communications reiterated it was just a diesel car. She specifically stated it was not various types of lithium battery car which cranks and conspiracy theorists had been falsely claiming. Poor Jenny failed to realise that an inexhaustive list was like catnip to cranks who now insist Jenny, on behalf of the fire service, is deliberately deceiving us.

When the report comes out and this imagined deceit is revealed, what reputational damage would that do to the fire service? Trust would be destroyed. It isn't even remotely plausible and you already want Jenny's head on a plate for the lesser offence of failing to spot one possible vehicle configuration in her list of "it was a diesel car FFS". How many sackings would be demanded if your daft story came true?
Click to expand...

Jenny has now transitioned into...Jeremy. I always take the view it is more cock up than conspiracy, as Jeremy wouldn't be the first to over-précis something.

When the report comes out I hope people here have a strong cup of tea in front of them should it turn out to be a hybrid.
 
Mojo said:
That's not an "archive".

Anyway, if you've completely forgotten where you saw it, or even enough details to enable you to carry out a competent Google search, why should we believe that you are recalling anything about it accurately?

Incidentally, I've just done a Google news search. The results:
Click to expand...

There is a drop down arrow for 'archives'.
 
SpitfireIX said:
Apart from the fact that you owe everyone else in the thread new irony meters, kindly explain how it is that you are neither a Chartered Scientist (CSci) nor a Registered Scientist (RSci). And along those lines, let me rephrase my earlier observation as a question: How is it that the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, et al. are not members of the Science Council?

ETA: Jay's response was 20 times better than mine, but I'd still like answers to my questions.
Click to expand...

Not mutually exclusive. One person can belong to more than one professional body. Each body has its own professional charter.
 
Vixen said:
Jenny has now transitioned into...Jeremy. I always take the view it is more cock up than conspiracy, as Jeremy wouldn't be the first to over-précis something.

When the report comes out I hope people here have a strong cup of tea in front of them should it turn out to be a hybrid.
Click to expand...


It won't turn out to be a hybrid (of any variety).

All sentient beings with even a cursory reading of the official statements can see and understand that the car was a straightforward diesel.

I hope you have a large slice of humble pie in front of you when the report comes out, and that you eat it in front of the audience in this thread.
 
JayUtah said:
Straw man. What makes it so is your abject failure over hundreds of pages and thousands of posts to demonstrate even one iota of scientific thinking. You are scientifically illiterate. This is not an assumption or a wish or an insult. It's a conclusion supported by sufficiently dispositive evidence, all of it provided by you.

<snip for brevity>

You aren't proficient with the tools of science. You're inimical to the philosophy and essence of science. As with everything else you discuss, you treat science as if it's just something you naturally know and can therefore lecture everyone else about, just like you "know" that electric vehicles are heavier that comparable ICE cars. Now we all labor under misconceptions that are either inconsequential enough to have little effect or which are debatable enough to leave us alone. But you revel in them. You want your misconception and ignorance to be treated with respect equal to or greater than other people's hard-earned knowledge and experience. You want the world to celebrate your mediocrity. It's always all about you, not about science.
Click to expand...

My best subject at school was languages. After the first year, having come top in most subjects, in the second year I was placed in the top academic stream, which meant giving up Music and Art, both of which I was good at and enjoyed, but happy to drop the Domestic Science with its fire-breathing ogre of a teacher. This ‘academic’ stream pulled together all of the pupils who’d performed well in their particular first-year form (there were four first-year forms). The first year was pulled together from the 20% of pupils in the region who had passed the 11+ exam. So, I was in the top 25% of the top 20% from the second year on. Instead of doing two sciences or double science, we did Chemistry, Physics and Biology as three separate subjects, plus an extra language, German, in my case, added to the foreign language from the first year, which was French. Others did Latin.

For the next four years, twice a year, I usually came top in English and French and ranked 3rd in German, thanks to strong competition from kids in the class with German or Swiss parents. Chemistry, usually about 6th. Likewise, History and Geography. Physics and Maths, in the top half at least 15th, but nothing outstanding. Biology, I found difficult in terms of swotting time but ranked 3rd mostly, and was surprised to get a ‘Credit’ at O-Level, which was lucky, as it was mandatory to have Biology O-Level to get into Psychology, (back then, Distinctions were handed out far less freely than today.) I took up Economics as from the fifth form.

Back in the day, it was commonplace for teachers to have favourites. I was the teacher’s pet of two English teachers, one of them well-known in the theatre and I was also the pet of the Chemistry teacher and the Economics one. The English teachers liked me because I shared their passion for literature. I was the nerdy kid laughing hard in all of the right places. The Chemistry teacher told my parents I always knew the answer to his questions. He was old school, gown and mortarboard, and strict. He would rip in half, in front of the class, any test paper or homework that he thought was not up to standard. He was the only teacher who enquired after me when I was away for a prolonged period. He put us through the Chemistry O-Level one year early as the syllabus was about to change.

The places for Psychology – fast forward – were oversubscribed 20 to one so an entry selection test was applied. My tutor mentioned to me in passing some time later, that my score in this test was the highest they had ever had. During this course, I designed and completed fifteen laboratory reports, plus questionnaires, and applied statistical analyses to them. In addition, wrote up a 30,000-word dissertation. The statistics module was a chore, as were most of the professional accountancy exams. Thanks to the heavy statistics and laboratory emphasis of the degree, it was easy to gain exemptions into chartered accountancy, together with the NVQ4 I also had, also heavily technical. As my son succinctly puts it, ‘Just because I am good at it, doesn’t mean I like it!’

Footnote: Of the guys in my class that came top in Physics, one became a leading paediatrician surgeon at Alder Hey Children’s Hospital, one of the most renowned in England, and another an eminent Physicist and Astrophysicist professor at Rutgers, with about 39 letters after his name. This guy showed his talent in inventiveness and understanding of Physics at the age of fourteen, when he brought into class his own homemade and self-designed periscope…for looking up girls’ skirts.

So, do I have a sufficient grounding in science to be able to grasp and discuss the concepts involved in the Luton Airport Fire and/or that of the Estonia shipwreck? <Shrug> Make of it what you will.
 
catsmate said:
:rolleyes:
Do you ever bother to actually read the links you cite?
The first sentence is:
Click to expand...


Vixen's legendary (and frequently self-aggrandised) commitment to accuracy, attention to detail, and research chops, shines brightly once again :D
 
catsmate said:
:rolleyes:
Do you ever bother to actually read the links you cite?
The first sentence is:
Click to expand...

LOL I see you are not a resident of Finland. So, if you wait for the snow to fall on the ground, how do you get your car to the garage without breaking the law? (OK, so police will generally trun a blind eye at the beginning and end to allow for this as long as you are not driving summer tyres on a dangerously icy road.)
 
Vixen said:
My best subject at school was languages. After the first year, having come top in most subjects, in the second year I was placed in the top academic stream, which meant giving up Music and Art, both of which I was good at and enjoyed, but happy to drop the Domestic Science with its fire-breathing ogre of a teacher. This ‘academic’ stream pulled together all of the pupils who’d performed well in their particular first-year form (there were four first-year forms). The first year was pulled together from the 20% of pupils in the region who had passed the 11+ exam. So, I was in the top 25% of the top 20% from the second year on. Instead of doing two sciences or double science, we did Chemistry, Physics and Biology as three separate subjects, plus an extra language, German, in my case, added to the foreign language from the first year, which was French. Others did Latin.

For the next four years, twice a year, I usually came top in English and French and ranked 3rd in German, thanks to strong competition from kids in the class with German or Swiss parents. Chemistry, usually about 6th. Likewise, History and Geography. Physics and Maths, in the top half at least 15th, but nothing outstanding. Biology, I found difficult in terms of swotting time but ranked 3rd mostly, and was surprised to get a ‘Credit’ at O-Level, which was lucky, as it was mandatory to have Biology O-Level to get into Psychology, (back then, Distinctions were handed out far less freely than today.) I took up Economics as from the fifth form.

Back in the day, it was commonplace for teachers to have favourites. I was the teacher’s pet of two English teachers, one of them well-known in the theatre and I was also the pet of the Chemistry teacher and the Economics one. The English teachers liked me because I shared their passion for literature. I was the nerdy kid laughing hard in all of the right places. The Chemistry teacher told my parents I always knew the answer to his questions. He was old school, gown and mortarboard, and strict. He would rip in half, in front of the class, any test paper or homework that he thought was not up to standard. He was the only teacher who enquired after me when I was away for a prolonged period. He put us through the Chemistry O-Level one year early as the syllabus was about to change.

The places for Psychology – fast forward – were oversubscribed 20 to one so an entry selection test was applied. My tutor mentioned to me in passing some time later, that my score in this test was the highest they had ever had. During this course, I designed and completed fifteen laboratory reports, plus questionnaires, and applied statistical analyses to them. In addition, wrote up a 30,000-word dissertation. The statistics module was a chore, as were most of the professional accountancy exams. Thanks to the heavy statistics and laboratory emphasis of the degree, it was easy to gain exemptions into chartered accountancy, together with the NVQ4 I also had, also heavily technical. As my son succinctly puts it, ‘Just because I am good at it, doesn’t mean I like it!’

Footnote: Of the guys in my class that came top in Physics, one became a leading paediatrician surgeon at Alder Hey Children’s Hospital, one of the most renowned in England, and another an eminent Physicist and Astrophysicist professor at Rutgers, with about 39 letters after his name. This guy showed his talent in inventiveness and understanding of Physics at the age of fourteen, when he brought into class his own homemade and self-designed periscope…for looking up girls’ skirts.

So, do I have a sufficient grounding in science to be able to grasp and discuss the concepts involved in the Luton Airport Fire and/or that of the Estonia shipwreck? <Shrug> Make of it what you will.
Click to expand...


Oh heck. Please stop. It's so embarrassing. And you've already - through the words you've written in this and other threads - amply demonstrated your extreme levels of scientific illiteracy, irrespective of the kind of guff like this that you write about your schooldays. Pitiful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom