The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

[JayUtah]

Her reputation as a journalist is, at best, mediocre.

That's as may be. What I see as the problem with the argument centers on deploying a categorical rebuttal as if to erase specific facts. If we note some specific problem with a claim by Rabe, it is suggested that we have to accept it anyway because Rabe is such a good journalist. The implied argument is that a good journalist would never make such a flawed claim, and therefore the claim cannot be flawed.

Similarly when we point out that the design of the ship's bow was deficient, we're told that Meyer Werft is an excellent, world-class shipbuilder. Again, the implied argument is that a conscientious shipbuilder would never produce a deficient design, therefore the design cannot be flawed.

One can make a certain amount of rhetorical hay out of this sort of disingenuity. The claimant can say, "Are you suggesting Jutta Rabe is dishonest?" or "Are you suggesting Meyer Werft is an incompetent shipbuilder?" These straw men reversals tend to cast shame on critics. The categorical argument need not work in reverse. If we conclude that some particular claim from some particular person is not credible or flawed in some way, we need not extend that to casting aspersions on that person's entire career or character. We don't even need to reach any such question. If a journalist's statement is being invoked to support some point or argument, we need reach no further than pointing out the facial flaw in the statement and thereby dismiss it as support for the claim. What other implications can be imagined or contrived are simply irrelevant to whether the journalist's claim provides effective support for the point at hand.

Similarly we can note that the design of the ship's bow was deficient by facial analysis. We can go on to point out that the visor style of bow for roll-on-roll-off ferries was discontinued in favor of the clamshell style, confirming the general engineering belief on this matter. That ends the usefulness of implication for the investigation of MS Estonia. We do not need to propose or test any farther-reaching conclusion regarding whether the shipbuilders were generally honest or competent. They can (and do) retain a reputation for good work despite some isolated error, and it has been established that there were no engineering standards at the time for the design of such assemblies.

 

[Andy_Ross]

We could certainly accept, "It was a typo and I didn't mean it," and allow that maybe Vixen really does know how steel works (apart from welding), except that this isn't the first time (or even the third time) she's used this phrase :—

Just spotted in there, saying the door was 'cast iron'.

IS that another typo?

 

[Mojo]

I didn't say it was suspicious, I said it was strange.

Why was it strange that divers not tasked with recovering bodies didn't recover a body?

 

[JayUtah]

As I said, I had been awake 20 - 23 hours as of that point.

Irrelevant. You made this same conceptual mistake over and over again. This is nothing new or momentary. Nor does your alleged fatigue explain the plethora of face-saving, contradictory excuses you provided.

Again, this is relevant because you demand that your critics engage you in good faith and take you seriously. They have no reason to do so when you persist in bad-faith arguments.

It has been a while since we discussed the Estonia and there was quite a bit as to what treatment the bow visor had had in light of the Braidwood/Rabe samples they had analysed.

Other posters seem to have no problem recalling and documenting the previous debate. We should expect more than that from a "triple-niner."

 

[Disbelief]

As I said, I had been awake 20 - 23 hours as of that point. It has been a while since we discussed the Estonia and there was quite a bit as to what treatment the bow visor had had in light of the Braidwood/Rabe samples they had analysed.

Or, you could just admit that you have no idea about various types of steel and what applications they are good for.

 

[Vixen]

Really? Prime Ministers are "investigators"? Are you proposing three countries' prime ministers plus witnesses including the police really interviewed Piht and then all conspired to deny it and keep their deadly secret forever? Is that your claim?

You've heard of classified stuff, surely?

That's as may be. What I see as the problem with the argument centers on deploying a categorical rebuttal as if to erase specific facts. If we note some specific problem with a claim by Rabe, it is suggested that we have to accept it anyway because Rabe is such a good journalist. The implied argument is that a good journalist would never make such a flawed claim, and therefore the claim cannot be flawed.

Similarly when we point out that the design of the ship's bow was deficient, we're told that Meyer Werft is an excellent, world-class shipbuilder. Again, the implied argument is that a conscientious shipbuilder would never produce a deficient design, therefore the design cannot be flawed.

One can make a certain amount of rhetorical hay out of this sort of disingenuity. The claimant can say, "Are you suggesting Jutta Rabe is dishonest?" or "Are you suggesting Meyer Werft is an incompetent shipbuilder?" The categorical argument need not work in reverse. If we conclude that some particular claim from some particular person is not credible or flawed in some way, we need not extend that to casting aspersions on that person's entire career. We don't even need to reach any such conclusion. If a journalist's claim is being invoked to support some point or argument, we need reach no further than pointing out the facial flaw. What other implications can be imagined or contrived are simply irrelevant to whether the journalist's claim provides effective support for the point at hand.

Similarly we can note that the design of the ship's bow was deficient by facial analysis. We can go on to point out that the visor style of bow for roll-on-roll-off ferries was discontinued in favor of the clamshell style, confirming the general engineering belief on this matter. That ends the usefulness of implication for the investigation of MS Estonia. We do not need to propose or test any farther-reaching conclusion regarding whether the shipbuilders were generally honest or competent.

No, that is not the argument about Rabe's credentials. She actually visited the site of the wreck. Being with Der Speigel and a broadcasters, she became privy to a lot a of stuff, as Germany didn't sign the Estonia Treaty. Why would that be, do you think, it being a Baltic nation (yet the UK is not but did). This isn't about the common mistake people make, that it's to do with liking or disliking someone. It's about seeing the bigger picture. Now, you and others believe we must not go there and wait for an authority figure to tell us the craic. (Which you believe is yourself.)

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I didn't say it was suspicious, I said it was strange.

Like I said: you implied it was suspicious by comparison with other crew bodies which were recovered. But you avoided mentioning those were recovered earlier and at the sea surface. They were not recovered by divers. You tried to mislead readers by suggesting that body was treated differently which was not true.

 

[Vixen]

Or, you could just admit that you have no idea about various types of steel and what applications they are good for.

I have never said you weren't an expert.

 

[Vixen]

Like I said: you implied it was suspicious by comparison with other crew bodies which were recovered. But you avoided mentioning those were recovered earlier and at the sea surface. They were not recovered by divers. You tried to mislead readers by suggesting that body was treated differently which was not true.

Wut? We were specifically talking about Andresson.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Actually I was going from memory not knowledge.

Well, there's your problem.

 

[Disbelief]

I have never said you weren't an expert.

Here is the thing, I am not an expert. I have working knowledge of a variety of steels, and specifically there uses in the automotive world. I am pointing out that you refuse to admit that you have no idea what you're talking about and try to fool people on this forum that you do.

 

[JayUtah]

No, that is not the argument about Rabe's credentials.

Irrelevant. Your appreciation of Rabe's reputation as a journalist flip-flops depending on whether that reputation helps or hurts your desire to use her as an authoritative source. When you think you can present Rabe as a reliable journalist, you rely on that characterization to lend credibility to her claims. When it appears Rabe cannot be considered a reliable journalist, you disavow that such a characterization should be a factor in determining the credibility of her claims. This indicates that you have simply predetermined to believe her, and are shopping around as needed for a pretext to do so.

This isn't about the common mistake people make, that it's to do with liking or disliking someone.

Straw man. As with your reliance on Anders Björkmann, the question is whether the source is reliable, not whether the source is liked or disliked.

It's about seeing the bigger picture. Now, you and others believe we must not go there and wait for an authority figure to tell us the craic. (Which you believe is yourself.)

I have no idea what you're trying to claim here.

But I am a properly credentialled, licensed expert whose training and experience includes the investigation of transportation accidents and other cases involving forensic engineering. You are dabbling squarely within a field I have practiced professionally for decades. I am perfectly capable of determining whether your treatment of the evidence and investigation has a proper grounding.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

You've heard of classified stuff, surely?

Is that a "yes"?

You're taking a third hand account, published on another continent, saying the Estonian authorities thought the confusion over Piht had been resolved and he had been interviewed by investigators in Finland, and you're claiming that not only did that interview happen, but it was actually with 3 countries' Prime Ministers plus their translators plus police plus security service personnel. And it seems people as far away as Estonia knew about this.

But since that moment not a single person who supposedly met Piht after the sinking has said they really did. None.

Note that we're not talking about Piht carrying the can for anything. He was literally just a passenger on that voyage. No charges were laid against him in absentia. There's no theory I'm aware of which uses him as a part of any kind of plot. Literally the only interesting thing about that particular victim of the sinking is that there were false rumours he hadn't drowned.

So, just to check: was that a "yes" that they're literally all in on Piht's disappeareance and are hushing it up?

 

[Mojo]

Oh here we go. <YAWN>

The thing is, we have plenty of evidence that your memory isn't very good. Here, for example, you forgot that the topic of conversation was Catsmate's conclusion about Rabe's credibility, and therefore imagined that the comment about "the drivel she spouted about the Y2k issues a quarter century ago" was about something you had said.

 

[GlennB]

You've heard of classified stuff, surely?

No, that is not the argument about Rabe's credentials. She actually visited the site of the wreck. Being with Der Speigel and a broadcasters, she became privy to a lot a of stuff, as Germany didn't sign the Estonia Treaty. Why would that be, do you think, it being a Baltic nation (yet the UK is not but did). This isn't about the common mistake people make, that it's to do with liking or disliking someone. It's about seeing the bigger picture. Now, you and others believe we must not go there and wait for an authority figure to tell us the
craic. (Which you believe is yourself.)

**giggle**

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Wut? We were specifically talking about Andresson.

Are you actually reading stuff, or just skimming for the gist?

You wrote Andresson's body was not recovered "for some reason" and in literally your next sentence you remark that other crew bodies were recovered. Do you remember that? You wrote it today.

 

[Myriad]

Similarly when we point out that the design of the ship's bow was deficient, we're told that Meyer Werft is an excellent, world-class shipbuilder. Again, the implied argument is that a conscientious shipbuilder would never produce a deficient design, therefore the design cannot be flawed.

We're still talking about a vessel that was not designed for, and should not have been deployed in, those waters. And given that it was deployed in those waters anyhow, should not have launched in bad weather. And given that it launched in bad weather anyhow, should have been in good repair and perfect trim. And given that it was actually in poor repair and poor trim, should not have cruised at full speed. And given that it was actually cruising at full speed, should not have maintained a course directly into the oncoming waves. And given that it maintained a course directly into oncoming waves, the crew should have been vigilant for any sign of trouble. And given that the crew was not at all vigilant for any sign of trouble...

This sinking is about as mysterious as "this office chair was designed by a respected office furniture manufacturer to bear my weight so why did it collapse under me when I stood up on top of the back rest to reach a ceiling light fixture?"

 

[lobosrul5]

Well chartered accountants are classed as STEM so we are not all a bunch of Lotus-1-2-3 spreadsheet nerds any more. We are highly analytical and able to deal with complex data, is the theory in order to pass the tough exams. Contrary to the view that psychology is 'just a social science' you won't get in without a strong science background, especially in biology. So whilst we might know nothing about welding - NOTHING! - it doesn't mean we can't understand how ships float and sink.

Lol what decade is it?!

 

[JayUtah]

We're still talking about a vessel that was not designed for, and should not have been deployed in, those waters. And given that it was deployed in those waters anyhow, should not have launched in bad weather. And given that it launched in bad weather anyhow, should have been in good repair and perfect trim. And given that it was actually in poor repair and poor trim, should not have cruised at full speed. And given that it was actually cruising at full speed, should not have maintained a course directly into the oncoming waves. And given that it maintained a course directly into oncoming waves, the crew should have been vigilant for any sign of trouble. And given that the crew was not at all vigilant for any sign of trouble...

Indeed, the deficiency in the design is merely one slice of Swiss cheese in the failure model for this accident. The design was not deficient in the sense that it was negligent. With hindsight, designs can be improved to provide operational margins for such things as unexpected wave loading, inattentive maintenance, and operator complacency. Those improvements rise above simply adding more metal indiscriminately. The clamshell design, for example, is inherently fail-safe under excessive wave loads whereas the visor design inherently is not. With foresight, some of these can be anticipated. But the ultimate design will be a trade-off based on expected factors.

In the industry, we accumulate hindsight into actionable design standards. If possible, we codify those standards into legally-enforceable requirements. This accumulation was simply incomplete at the time MS Estonia was designed. That situation is exacerbated by improper repurposing of the vessel, poor maintenance, and optimistic operation. In a perfect world, a design margin would still exist to accommodate those. But here there were just too many holes in the cheese.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Nobles of Whitby?

Tyke copyists!

Good copyists, but copyists all the same.

ETA At least cured herring has some relevance to the Baltic...