Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire IV

[GlennB]

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.

Agreed. It was certainly true in my secondary education.

 

[JayUtah]

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

Indeed, she's trying to substitute the estimated rigor or difficulty of an academic program for its applicability toward some purpose. She's been trying for months to present vocational training in accounting as some sort of credential in the sciences she "practices" in producing her conspiracy theories. These are generally the physical sciences. No one has claimed that accounting certification is irrelevant because accounting is supposedly easier than science. It just isn't science, as the term relates to the arguments she's making.

Lately she has amplified her claim to say she has a STEM degree—science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Accounting is not STEM. It is properly part of business administration. Yes, accounting uses mathematics, but it does not meaningfully advance the field of mathematics. Cooking uses mathematics too, but a mathematics program toward a STEM degree will not offer to teach you to make sfogliatelle, and no chef will be expected to work with Riemannian manifolds, no matter how much they resemble sfogliatelle. As a former STEM professor, I would properly laugh at someone who got a business-school degree in accounting and tried to claim it as a STEM degree. But now look at me trying to run a business with a STEM degree. This is why I rely on co-owners with business qualifications.

Commensurately the S in STEM is not typically something like Library Science (which I briefly studied). It is, however, the kind of science Vixen invokes in her conspiracy theories. Here in this thread we've been treated to pontificatory lectures on diesel combustion and stoichiometrics, photogrammetry, concrete spalling, building design and construction, deflagration convection, heat transfer, and similar topics. These are all properly addressed by sciences that come under the STEM ambit. Vixen can display proficiency in none of them. Moreover, she is directly contradicting those who can, and whose job it is to do so for the public good.

I need no lesson beyond stepping into the next office to understand the difficulty of qualified accounting. As I reported several times, my business requires accounting not only according to acceptable standards for American businesses, but across a myriad of funding sources, a myriad of separately applicable regulation, and into classified-project territory. I cannot hire just any accountant. My accounting team is rigorously qualified and highly valued. But they are no more scientists than I am an accountant.

I have a manufacturing division that exhibits relevant skill and knowledge beyond my ken. They have received many years of vocational training and many certifications (e.g., ISO clean room protocols) to perform these tasks, and I respect their judgment and skill. But they are no more scientists than I am one of them.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

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.

Agreed: Vixen's description is similar to my experience in a state grammar school (oh, the joys of selective education) from the late '60s to mid '70s, i.e. many years before the National Curriculum was introduced.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

Fair enough. My memory (plus my non-state-school secondary education) fails me in that respect then.

I do, however, stand firmly behind my ETA: that gaining an O Level in physics was never "an intense physics syllabus" - rather, it was a basic exam taken at the age of 16 which taught and tested basic principles and applications of physics. Though as I also pointed out, Vixen's levels of scientific illiteracy in this thread make something of a mockery of her ever having received even an O Level education in physics.

 

[phiwum]

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.

Nonetheless, philosophy is not a science.

You don't have to be a scientist to join in this discussion. However, when you claim that a photo clearly shows a lithium battery fire, it is reasonable to ask about your experience and credentials -- especially when the fire department has explicitly said the initial car is a diesel ICE[1].

[1] All of this assumes, of course, that the video you're using is a video of the initial car in the Luton fire, but this seems quite reasonable and is certainly your assumption in any case.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Absolutely. Even if Vixens description of the generally of het schooling is correct in that not everyone did physics that doesn't mean it was an intensive course.

 

[GlennB]

Fair enough. My memory (plus my non-state-school secondary education) fails me in that respect then.

I do, however, stand firmly behind my ETA: that gaining an O Level in physics was never "an intense physics syllabus" - rather, it was a basic exam taken at the age of 16 which taught and tested basic principles and applications of physics. Though as I also pointed out, Vixen's levels of scientific illiteracy in this thread make something of a mockery of her ever having received even an O Level education in physics.

Just this one?

 

[phiwum]

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.

No true press release would contradict Vixen's hypotheses without caveat.

 

[JayUtah]

Vixen's failure at physics extends to the foundational concepts of vectors and points, mass, energy, and force. This is why she can naively cite "perspective" as the source of uncertainty in her pidgin photogrammetric rectification. She throws around words without the slightest understanding of what they mean, and smugly posts "refutations" that look suspiciously like poorly-prompted AI.

And this matters only because she expects her statements to be given authority simply because she has said them. She variously disclaims that no understanding of the topic need arise before she pontificates, or that she mysteriously has the requisite understanding via some murky morass of educational vagaries. Whichever, the goal is not to establish fact but to establish an illusion of erudition.

Competent authority has thoroughly refuted the topic of this thread. The initial vehicle was a diesel and not any sort of battery-powered vehicle. It is an official declaration. It is based on competent and conclusory investigation. And rightly, her critics are asking her to respond to the net closing around her position with something more honest than, "I have an opinion to the contrary." From her cornered position she has blown a trusty dog whistle that historically distracts from her ongoing failure and nets her another five pages of irrelevant attention.

 

[whoanellie]

Indeed, she's trying to substitute the estimated rigor or difficulty of an academic program for its applicability toward some purpose. She's been trying for months to present vocational training in accounting as some sort of credential in the sciences she "practices" in producing her conspiracy theories. These are generally the physical sciences. No one has claimed that accounting certification is irrelevant because accounting is supposedly easier than science. It just isn't science, as the term relates to the arguments she's making.

Lately she has amplified her claim to say she has a STEM degree—science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Accounting is not STEM. It is properly part of business administration. Yes, accounting uses mathematics, but it does not meaningfully advance the field of mathematics. Cooking uses mathematics too, but a mathematics program toward a STEM degree will not offer to teach you to make sfogliatelle, and no chef will be expected to work with Riemannian manifolds, no matter how much they resemble sfogliatelle. As a former STEM professor, I would properly laugh at someone who got a business-school degree in accounting and tried to claim it as a STEM degree. But now look at me trying to run a business with a STEM degree. This is why I rely on co-owners with business qualifications.

Commensurately the S in STEM is not typically something like Library Science (which I briefly studied). It is, however, the kind of science Vixen invokes in her conspiracy theories. Here in this thread we've been treated to pontificatory lectures on diesel combustion and stoichiometrics, photogrammetry, concrete spalling, building design and construction, deflagration convection, heat transfer, and similar topics. These are all properly addressed by sciences that come under the STEM ambit. Vixen can display proficiency in none of them. Moreover, she is directly contradicting those who can, and whose job it is to do so for the public good.

I need no lesson beyond stepping into the next office to understand the difficulty of qualified accounting. As I reported several times, my business requires accounting not only according to acceptable standards for American businesses, but across a myriad of funding sources, a myriad of separately applicable regulation, and into classified-project territory. I cannot hire just any accountant. My accounting team is rigorously qualified and highly valued. But they are no more scientists than I am an accountant.

I have a manufacturing division that exhibits relevant skill and knowledge beyond my ken. They have received many years of vocational training and many certifications (e.g., ISO clean room protocols) to perform these tasks, and I respect their judgment and skill. But they are no more scientists than I am one of them.

To be fair I’ve always understood that Vixen’s claimed STEM degree was in psychology.

 

[JayUtah]

To be fair I’ve always understood that Vixen’s claimed STEM degree was in psychology.

This is still unclear, however psychology is a STEM field. She claims to be a "psychology post-grad[uate]," which elicited a discussion regarding whether this was appropriate terminology for undergraduate studies in psychology. When pressed further, she says she wrote a dissertation on memory for a class as an undergraduate.

For the record, she displays no more expertise in psychology than she does in any other of her claimed fields. Despite claiming authorship of a major work on memory, she is unable to name any of the principal researchers in the field or their theories, recognize them when named by others, or to discuss their work to any point beyond what might be hastily Googled. She hangs her "I am a scientist" claim on the Sc in BSc, not on the field in which her degree might actually have been awarded, and later on accounting as a purported science. Unless I've missed something somewhere, she does not actually state in what field she earned the BSc(Hon) she claims.

 

[Oystein]

Here's a third party opinion:


https://www.oxford-royale.com/articles/hardest-degree-subjects/

No, wrong.
This is NOT another, third or whatever party, opinion on the subject matter under discussion.

 

[Vixen]

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?

JayUtah made that claim. You are welcome to weigh up what makes something a science or a scientist but it is improper to call me a liar when it is 100% truthful that I did five years of Physics, which was what the poster demanded to know. Years,1,2,3,4 and 5. There is zero misrepresentation.

 

[JayUtah]

JayUtah made that claim.

False. I made a different incorrect claim, which I then corrected at your suggestion. Consider that you have now yourself made an equivalent error.

...it is improper to call me a liar when it is 100% truthful that I did five years of Physics, which was what the poster demanded to know.

It is improper to consider pre-college education in any field as a qualification in the field. The context of the question was your claim to have sufficient expertise to judge whether the claims made by proffered experts had merit. You insisted that you did, based upon "five years" of education in physics. You concealed for several days that your education was only the routine course at the high school level. That overall pattern suggests an intent to mislead, if not outright to deceive.

 

[Vixen]

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.

I have made no such demands. As I have said to you before, I am fully ware of my strengths and weaknesses. I have asked for neither your approval nor your opprobrium. You asked a direct question about my physics background and I gave you a straight answer. I wasn't asking whether you approved or not. You do not define my worth.

 

[zooterkin]

I have made no such demands. As I have said to you before, I am fully ware of my strengths and weaknesses. I have asked for neither your approval nor your opprobrium. You asked a direct question about my physics background and I gave you a straight answer. I wasn't asking whether you approved or not. You do not define my worth.

Can we get back to the diesel car where the fire started, and why you are in denial about it, despite having been told, yourself, directly, by a competent authority?

 

[Oystein]

I have made no such demands. As I have said to you before, I am fully ware of my strengths and weaknesses. I have asked for neither your approval nor your opprobrium. You asked a direct question about my physics background and I gave you a straight answer. I wasn't asking whether you approved or not. You do not define my worth.

Is it true,Vixen, or not true, that
1. you claimed 5 years of education in physics
2. you meant by this 5 years while still in high school
3. you did not at first, and for days, make it explicit that those 5 years of physics were at the high school (pre-college) level
AND
4. your interlocutors were actually talking about college/university level education?

 

[GlennB]

JayUtah made that claim. You are welcome to weigh up what makes something a science or a scientist but it is improper to call me a liar when it is 100% truthful that I did five years of Physics, which was what the poster demanded to know. Years,1,2,3,4 and 5. There is zero misrepresentation.

I did 5 years of French, in a similar school environment to yours. I was crap at French, just as you're crap at Physics, and wouldn't ever claim French as some sort of credential.

 

[JayUtah]

I have made no such demands.

Which demands are you referring to?

As I have said to you before, I am fully ware of my strengths and weaknesses.

Clearly false.

I have asked for neither your approval nor your opprobrium.

You have expected your ignorant dabbling in scientific and technical topics to be taken as if they were authoritative statements. I have identified such tacit expectations numerous times in your arguments.

You asked a direct question about my physics background and I gave you a straight answer.

No. You insinuated expertise in physics. I inquired about the source of that expertise, and you gave me the run-around.

I wasn't asking whether you approved or not. You do not define my worth.

This is not about some touchy-feely concept of personal worth. You are quite simply claiming to be something you are not, and you do this habitually. No one is obliged to stand idly by while you do that and cast aspersions on your betters.

 

[Vixen]

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.

Wrong again. The very reason the Labour government of the day abolished the tripartite system, or to put it in Anthony Crosland's words: "If it's the last thing I do, I'm going to destroy every ******* Grammar School in England. And Wales", is precisely because of a perceived 'elite meritocracy' (his words) as pupils WERE getting selective education with most of the pupils being put forward for the standard 5-O-levels ticket to a decent job/course were coming from the grammar school band which was seen as unfair towards the other 80% who didn't even get to study various subjects. The CSE was brought in to bridge that gap and then it was amalgamated into GCSE and a broad curriculum. Again, to claim this is untrue and a lie, is most improper.

I have never embellished my qualifications. I was asked a direct question and I replied. It is hardly my fault of the poster didn't like the answer.