Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire IV

[phiwum]

This is my point exactly. People who claim that one designation (science versus art) is superior to the other remind me of my exes aunt. He did a joint sciences (or was it double) in Physics and Philosophy at London Uni (Bedford College) - not bad for someone labelled an 'E' grade dunce and left his sink school at 16 to work in the steel works - and then a couple of Masters and a PhD from Warwick Uni plus a PGSCE in teaching. His aunt would tell his mother (her sister) that 'BSc (Hons) is not as good as a BA', when her son, Wyn, who supposedly had the best 11-plus result in the county of Glamorgan never left the Valleys or the steelworks. It is just stupid Hyacinth Bucket-style one-up-manship. It is pointless.

Seems to me that when we are discussing questions best settled by physical science, a background in physical science is more useful than a background in philosophy (as I have), or in psychology or accounting (as you have). That's what people have been arguing and that's why you've been tempted to make silly claims that you are in fact a scientist.

(By the way, I have a BS and MS in philosophy. Guess that's a science too.)

 

[Vixen]

Also a lie.

You first stated you were a scientist outright, and when pushed equivocated by saying you had 5 years of science education.

When you were pushed for further details you eventually admitted this was basic schooling that everyone does.

So no, you did not give a straight answer at any point, and you kept attempting to hide behind misleading language to avoid admitting you did not have any actual experience in the sciences.

No, not everybody did it. I was perfectly factual. A poster then falsely claimed that I said I had 20 odd years of Physics education which was blatantly untrue, although he did retract it when I challenged him. This is factual: At my school after the first year, we were put in streams, of which there were four. One stream did one science but had art, music, domestic science or woodwork and one language. Two streams had double science (i.e., physics, chemistry and/or biology combined as one subject). One stream was 100% 'academic', which had no woodwork, domestic science, music or art but had separate discreet classes with separate teachers for each of Biology, Physics and Chemistry, plus two foreign languages of German (as from the first year) plus French or Latin. I was in this academic stream and thus did follow an intense physics syllabus.

That is the straight answer for your clarification. There was no misrepresentation. Full stop. I did not ask for anybody's approval or disapproval.

 

[Vixen]

That makes as little sense as my guess, but I have no desire to continue this silly conversation.

For clarity it was an explanation as to why I did not agree there had been numerous new press releases.

 

[Vixen]

Seems to me that when we are discussing questions best settled by physical science, a background in physical science is more useful than a background in philosophy (as I have), or in psychology or accounting (as you have). That's what people have been arguing and that's why you've been tempted to make silly claims that you are in fact a scientist.

(By the way, I have a BS and MS in philosophy. Guess that's a science too.)

Philosophy counts as giving rise to scientific thought, which is the connection.

AFAIAC this is a current news item and current affairs so I see nothing wrong in discussing it as such. There are professional forums for people who want to only talk shop with fellow professionals, away from us plebs.

 

[Wudang]

). One stream was 100% 'academic', which had no woodwork, domestic science, music or art but had separate discreet classes with separate teachers for each of Biology, Physics and Chemistry, plus two foreign languages of German (as from the first year) plus French or Latin. I was in this academic stream and thus did follow an intense physics syllabus.

That is the straight answer for your clarification. There was no misrepresentation. Full stop. I did not ask for anybody's approval or disapproval.

So your science education consists of 3 A levels, biology, chemistry, and physics? Or was that GCSE/O level?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

No, not everybody did it. I was perfectly factual. A poster then falsely claimed that I said I had 20 odd years of Physics education which was blatantly untrue, although he did retract it when I challenged him. This is factual: At my school after the first year, we were put in streams, of which there were four. One stream did one science but had art, music, domestic science or woodwork and one language. Two streams had double science (i.e., physics, chemistry and/or biology combined as one subject). One stream was 100% 'academic', which had no woodwork, domestic science, music or art but had separate discreet classes with separate teachers for each of Biology, Physics and Chemistry, plus two foreign languages of German (as from the first year) plus French or Latin. I was in this academic stream and thus did follow an intense physics syllabus.

That is the straight answer for your clarification. There was no misrepresentation. Full stop. I did not ask for anybody's approval or disapproval.

There was a massive misrepresentation. You called yourself a scientist! You lied.

Who said you claimed 20 years of science? You're lying again, noone did.

You said 5 years, we asked and asked for details and eventually you admitted it was normal schooling and not specialist science education.

I accept it is entirely possible not everyone did it, but that doesn't mean that you didn't misrepresentation yourself. You just can't stop lying can you?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Philosophy counts as giving rise to scientific thought, which is the connection.

AFAIAC this is a current news item and current affairs so I see nothing wrong in discussing it as such. There are professional forums for people who want to only talk shop with fellow professionals, away from us plebs.

Except that isn't what you're doing. You're advocating for a specific conspiracy theory based on your own utter ignorance.

 

[JayUtah]

For clarity it was an explanation as to why I did not agree there had been numerous new press releases.

But your "agreement" or "opinion" is irrelevant. There were multiple press releases—literally, as a matter of observable fact. You tried to parse the wording in one to cobble up an argument for that being the only one.

That ridiculous exercise is what you were being held accountable for when you got all preachy and hypocritical.

 

[JayUtah]

AFAIAC this is a current news item and current affairs so I see nothing wrong in discussing it as such. There are professional forums for people who want to only talk shop with fellow professionals, away from us plebs.

Oh, knock it off. You're the one pretending you can read battery types in flames, that you know what it takes to ignite diesel fuel, how to interpret photographs to show slope, and what the technical differences are between building designs and fire suppression systems. You're in the Conspiracy Theory section spinning a conspiracy that you're supporting by insinuating that you know all the technical details that tell you why the mainstream sources are lying.

 

[JayUtah]

I was perfectly factual.

No.

Originally you dodged the question for days and then finally admitted all your training in physics was at the equivalent of high school. You tried to let stand the insinuation that you were some kind of physics guru.

A poster then falsely claimed that I said I had 20 odd years of Physics education which was blatantly untrue, although he did retract it when I challenged him.

Actually I said 12, so you now just committed the same error I did. The original answer you gave was 5 years. When you challenged my recollection of 12 years, I was the one who went back to the original discussion, found the original figure, corrected the record, and apologized. That's what ethical people do when they discover they've made an error.

I get no such courtesy from you.

You blatantly lied when you accused me of "sneering" at Vorderman's engineering credentials. This was brought immediately to your attention. You delayed for a day, and then after repeated haranguing finally pretended you had really said something else. You will not do the right thing even when pressed.

You still have not come clean about that, and you shamefully tried to negotiate a rhetorical concession as a condition for finally doing the right thing. That's the antithesis of principled ethics.

There was no misrepresentation. Full stop. I did not ask for anybody's approval or disapproval.

You desperately want to be accepted as some sort of scientist. You initially misrepresented yourself by saying flat-out, "I am a scientist," in the context of a discussion involving physical science (as Phiwum notes). We had to beat it out of you that you were trying the same silly equivocation that you just got done telling SteveAitch is inappropriate.

You are not a scientist. You have no training in the sciences beyond perhaps high school. You can demonstrate no proficiency in science. But you desperately want people to think you are and can.

 

[JayUtah]

People who claim that one designation (science versus art) is superior to the other...

No one has done that.

However, degrees are not equivalent in what they teach you, even if they seem equally hard. The physical science you purport to practice in furthering your various conspiracy theories requires a demonstration of proficiency, which you cannot provide. We have tested your scientific understanding thoroughly, and you are not competent. When you try to tell us we have to respect your purported expertise because you have academic qualifications, the relevance (not some perception of its difficulty) matters. You have tried so many various comical ways to show the equivalence of your accounting certificates to that which an expert in the physical sciences receives. Your desperation is evident, but unavailing. In the end we come back to the original observation: you are not scientist in the sense connected to your claims because you cannot demonstrate any suitable proficiency when tested.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Even if they were equally difficult degrees I wouldn't go to a law graduate for understanding of chemistry just like I wouldn't go to a chemist for an understanding of the law.

It's this sort of false equivocation that makes your claims so farcical Vixen.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Even if they were equally difficult degrees I wouldn't go to a law graduate for understanding of chemistry just like I wouldn't go to a chemist for an understanding of the law.

It's this sort of false equivocation that makes your claims so farcical Vixen.

Well, that and the fact that she's gotten so many simple things so egregiously wrong.

 

[LondonJohn]

Well, that and the fact that she's gotten so many simple things so egregiously wrong.

Indeed. Drawing things back to the core matter under discussion in this thread, the issue is (as JayUtah pointed out a few posts back) that Vixen has tried to position, pontificate and lecture in this thread as some sort of credible authority on the "science" behind her conspiracy theory - when in fact literally every part of her core "scientific" supporting evidence has been laughably erroneous and borne of abject ignorance of even basic scientific principles.

Any of Vixen's flailing and embarrassing "anecdotes" to try to demonstrate her science credibility are therefore actually moot: we already have ample written evidence in front of our eyes (plenty of which sits within this thread) that Vixen doesn't have a clue about even high-school-level physics and chemistry.

 

[LondonJohn]

No, not everybody did it. I was perfectly factual. A poster then falsely claimed that I said I had 20 odd years of Physics education which was blatantly untrue, although he did retract it when I challenged him. This is factual: At my school after the first year, we were put in streams, of which there were four. One stream did one science but had art, music, domestic science or woodwork and one language. Two streams had double science (i.e., physics, chemistry and/or biology combined as one subject). One stream was 100% 'academic', which had no woodwork, domestic science, music or art but had separate discreet classes with separate teachers for each of Biology, Physics and Chemistry, plus two foreign languages of German (as from the first year) plus French or Latin. I was in this academic stream and thus did follow an intense physics syllabus.

That is the straight answer for your clarification. There was no misrepresentation. Full stop. I did not ask for anybody's approval or disapproval.

Well that's a flat-out lie, Vixen. Schools in England and Wales have to teach students according to the National Curriculum. You may have been in the top stream (though I suspect that's a lie too, right?), but you'd have essentially taken the same core subjects as everyone else up to O level/GCSE level at 16 years of age - which is the age group you're referring to here.

Why do you feel you have to lie and embellish your own academic history so much, Vixen? It's pitiful.


ETA: Oh, and an O Level (exams sat at 16 years of age) in physics is, most definitely, not "an intense physics syllabus". I should know. I have one. And I have a Physics A Level. And a BEng. And an MEng. I know what level of physics is taught for O Level. I also know that your demonstrated ignorance in physics shows that you don't even possess an O Level understanding of physics. Pathetic.

 

[LondonJohn]

This is my point exactly. People who claim that one designation (science versus art) is superior to the other remind me of my exes aunt. He did a joint sciences (or was it double) in Physics and Philosophy at London Uni (Bedford College) - not bad for someone labelled an 'E' grade dunce and left his sink school at 16 to work in the steel works - and then a couple of Masters and a PhD from Warwick Uni plus a PGSCE in teaching. His aunt would tell his mother (her sister) that 'BSc (Hons) is not as good as a BA', when her son, Wyn, who supposedly had the best 11-plus result in the county of Glamorgan never left the Valleys or the steelworks. It is just stupid Hyacinth Bucket-style one-up-manship. It is pointless.

Fascinating anecdote, Vixen. Now tell us how it relates to your extreme & embarrassing levels of scientific illiteracy in this thread.

 

[SteveAitch]

Fascinating anecdote, Vixen. Now tell us how it relates to your extreme & embarrassing levels of scientific illiteracy in this thread.

As it is based on a misreading/interpretation of the post she is replying too, that may be a forlorn hope.

 

[JayUtah]

Vixen has tried to position, pontificate and lecture in this thread as some sort of credible authority on the "science" behind her conspiracy theory - when in fact literally every part of her core "scientific" supporting evidence has been laughably erroneous and borne of abject ignorance of even basic scientific principles.

Agreed. I wrote earlier about the larger phenomenon: almost all Vixen's arguments are predicated on two unstated premises: (1) "Because I say so," i.e., begging the question, and (2) "I am competent to determine this." It's not just limited to physical sciences, although that's where her ignorance shines the brightest. Not stating or acknowledging these premises is what lets her say later, "I never claimed to be a ______." Nevertheless almost all her claims are made upon her own authority, hence the (non-)existence of that authority and its purported source becomes salient.

Any of Vixen's flailing and embarrassing "anecdotes" to try to demonstrate her science credibility are therefore actually moot: we already have ample written evidence in front of our eyes (plenty of which sits within this thread) that Vixen doesn't have a clue about even high-school-level physics and chemistry.

That's true; they would be moot but for her efforts to posture them as an alternative to demonstrated proficiency. If the answer to the proper question, "How do you know that?" is a murky, evasive claim to have appropriate academic credentials (i.e., "...therefore your observation that I don't know what I'm talking about can't be true..."), then that's the answer we must address. "Someone asked me how I knew that, and I gave them a factual answer," is what opens the door to this kind of (albeit annoying and distractionary) inquiry.

 

[zooterkin]

I have a BSc in Computer Science. Well that's what they called it.

A modular degree that covered programming, operational research, economics and a couple of other things that escape me at the moment. Not that it matters, most of it was outdated a couple of years after I got the degree. It may have been a BSc and have 'Science' in its name, but it wasn't a science degree. Maybe technology. At a stretch.

Deep down, what one person/group calls something is irrelevant if everybody else uses a different definition. One which makes actual sense.

Indeed; I've got one of those, too. I'm currently working towards a BA in Photography, during which I've probably covered more actual science of various sorts (physics, chemistry, basic psychology, among others) than during my BSc.

 

[zooterkin]

Well that's a flat-out lie, Vixen. Schools in England and Wales have to teach students according to the National Curriculum. You may have been in the top stream (though I suspect that's a lie too, right?), but you'd have essentially taken the same core subjects as everyone else up to O level/GCSE level at 16 years of age - which is the age group you're referring to here.

Why do you feel you have to lie and embellish your own academic history so much, Vixen? It's pitiful.


ETA: Oh, and an O Level (exams sat at 16 years of age) in physics is, most definitely, not "an intense physics syllabus". I should know. I have one. And I have a Physics A Level. And a BEng. And an MEng. I know what level of physics is taught for O Level. I also know that your demonstrated ignorance in physics shows that you don't even possess an O Level understanding of physics. Pathetic.

I suspect you're wrong on this. For a start, the National Curriculum didn't come in until 1988. What Vixen describes sounds reasonable from my experience in the '60s and '70s.