Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire IV

[Vixen]

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.

<fx faints with shock!>

 

[JayUtah]

I have never embellished my qualifications.

You obfuscated and equivocated every single attempt to determine your qualifications, which in turn are relevant only when you rely on your own authority to assert facts, judgments, and conclusions.

 

[Vixen]

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.

That is correct, it looks like a lithium battery fire to me. But I'll wait to see how it is explained in the report.

 

[JayUtah]

That is correct, it looks like a lithium battery fire to me.

Irrelevant. The car that started the Luton fire was diesel-powered.

But I'll wait to see how it is explained in the report.

Straw man. The final report of the official investigation is not obliged to address your ignorant belief.

 

[zooterkin]

That is correct, it looks like a lithium battery fire to me. But I'll wait to see how it is explained in the report.

Were you lied to when the response to your FOI request said the car was a diesel?

 

[Vixen]

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.

Psychology. For the record, this came about because a poster was informing me of the dangers of believing eye witness testimony, in a debate. I pointed out that he was lecturing a post grad in psychology who did a dissertation in memory . That led to his claiming that the postgrad degree in question was not actually psychology. As that issue was irrelevant as to what we were discussing it wasn't apposite to describe the detail of what the post grad stuff was (professional accountancy). In hindsight perhaps I could have worded it better for all the consequent grief I've had about it.

 

[Mojo]

That is correct, it looks like a lithium battery fire to me. But I'll wait to see how it is explained in the report.

I don't think the report is likely to bother with explaining the unqualified opinions of random accountants.

 

[Vixen]

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 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.

You demanded to know what physics I had studied and I gave you a straight truthful answer. That you enjoy degrading my credentials is not anything I have any control over.

 

[phiwum]

That is correct, it looks like a lithium battery fire to me. But I'll wait to see how it is explained in the report.

We already know that the initial vehicle has been confirmed to be a diesel, neither hybrid nor EV. Do you think that will change in the final report?

I think it won't. I wonder if at that time, you will concede that you were wrong when you judged it to be a lithium battery fire.

I promise that if the final report says, "Whoops! Turns out it was a hybrid! Our bad," I will be surprised but I won't doubt it. I will wonder how such an error could be made, but I will also figure that the fire brigade is competent and trustworthy.

I won't ask you to make a similar promise because I think you've rebuffed the request before.

 

[GlennB]

Psychology. For the record, this came about because a poster was informing me of the dangers of believing eye witness testimony, in a debate. I pointed out that he was lecturing a post grad in psychology who did a dissertation in memory . That led to his claiming that the postgrad degree in question was not actually psychology. As that issue was irrelevant as to what we were discussing it wasn't apposite to describe the detail of what the post grad stuff was (professional accountancy). In hindsight perhaps I could have worded it better for all the consequent grief I've had about it.

Surreal.

 

[Foster Zygote]

You demanded to know what physics I had studied and I gave you a straight truthful answer. That you enjoy degrading my credentials is not anything I have any control over.

What credentials? Seriously.

Credentials are what Jay has. You're just an armchair detective who thought you'd skimmed enough Google hits to pretend you know what you're talking about.

 

[Vixen]

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?

I spelt out it was between the ages of eleven to sixteen.

I have made no mention of any further physics education so it is completely untrue that I made any misrepresentations whatsoever.

 

[Mojo]

Psychology. For the record, this came about because a poster was informing me of the dangers of believing eye witness testimony, in a debate. I pointed out that he was lecturing a post grad in psychology who did a dissertation in memory . That led to his claiming that the postgrad degree in question was not actually psychology.

And it turned out that he was correct, and you were not actually a post grad in psychology.

 

[JayUtah]

Psychology.

Just so it's clear: you are stating you earned a BSc(Hon) in the field of psychology. Correct? If so, then I agree that is a STEM degree. I understood you previously to have been referring to your accounting certification as STEM. My assumption, and therefore my error.

For the record, this came about because a poster was informing me of the dangers of believing eye witness testimony, in a debate. I pointed out that he was lecturing a post grad in psychology who did a dissertation in memory.

I quizzed you myself on the memory factors for eyewitness testimony. You were unable to name the practitioners in the field. You did not recognize the names of the practitioners I named. You were unable to describe their theories. Although you disagreed with their theories once I taught them to you, you remained unfamiliar with the objections and criticisms from opponents in the field—your personal objection was based simply on pooh-poohing without addressing the substance.

Since you cannot demonstrate proficiency in the field, your claim to academic achievement in it seems to ring as hollow as all your other claims to expertise.

That led to his claiming that the postgrad degree in question was not actually psychology.

Because your postgraduate education was in accounting.

In hindsight perhaps I could have worded it better for all the consequent grief I've had about it.

Yes. You claim you have always clearly stated any claims to academic qualifications. The evidence shows this is not true.

 

[JayUtah]

You demanded to know what physics I had studied and I gave you a straight truthful answer.

No, you didn't. It took several days of questioning for you to admit that your "five years" of physics education happened when you were a child.

That you enjoy degrading my credentials is not anything I have any control over.

You have no credential in physics. You have control over whether you claim expertise in fields in which you have pursued no adjudicated study.

 

[Vixen]

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.

I only mentioned it because I was directly asked.

 

[JayUtah]

We already know that the initial vehicle has been confirmed to be a diesel, neither hybrid nor EV. Do you think that will change in the final report?

She has moved the goalposts. She now wonders whether the "controversy" over what some think they see in this video will be addressed in the final report. This is now being postured as the new litmus test for whether she will accept the report.

There is no longer any rational question over the power source of the initial vehicle. The best explanation for Vixen's belief that she sees evidence of a lithium ion battery fire in a video is that she is inexperienced and unfamiliar. There is no reason for an official report to address such matters.

 

[JayUtah]

I only mentioned it because I was directly asked.

It was directly asked because you insinuated expertise. The direct question arose to dispel the fog of your insinuations.

 

[Vixen]

What credentials? Seriously.

Credentials are what Jay has. You're just an armchair detective who thought you'd skimmed enough Google hits to pretend you know what you're talking about.

Not being funny but we are all equal on a chat forum. I am not sure hero-worship is a great sign of maturity but anyway it's not something in my value system.

 

[JayUtah]

I have made no mention of any further physics education so it is completely untrue that I made any misrepresentations whatsoever.

Straw man. The question arose from the insinuation that you were competent to endorse physics computations made in your argument. You were asked directly for the source of that competence. You accurately reported that you had studied for "five years," but the context of the discussion was study that would have led to competence. The discussion proceeded for days discussing physics education and qualification at the college level. Only when strenuously pressed did you admit you had studied only at the high school level, the same as everyone else. Every time you report this incident, you leave out the context.