The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

[JayUtah]

Nobody says it could never happen. What is required is a demonstration based on the actual MS Estonia specs that this did happen. A practical proof, not a theory.

Your opinion of what is required in a forensic engineering investigation to establish a step in the failure sequence is not informed by training or experience. This is a requirement you invented solely to maintain your predetermined belief that JAIC acted inappropriately.

 

[Vixen]

Show us a source that establishes “halo effect” as a term used by scientists and that it means in that context what you say it does.

The term isn't copyrighted.

 

[JayUtah]

That is not correct. It is one of the criticisms levelled at the JAIC by experts sceptical that the cause of the accident was proven to have happened as it claimed.

Name the experts you refer to here.

 

[JayUtah]

The term isn't copyrighted.

Irrelevant. Provide the substaintion of your claim or withdraw it.

 

[Vixen]

Your
Your opinion of what is required in a forensic engineering investigation to establish a step in the failure sequence is not informed by training or experience. This is a requirement you invented solely to maintain your predetermined belief that JAIC acted inappropriately.

I haven't said it acted 'inappropriately'. Evertsson team found and filmed a massive breach in the hull and it was decided to revisit the scene. I am a local following the news. The case is interesting to me although I quite understand if it is not at all interesting to others.

 

[Vixen]

Irrelevant. Provide the substaintion of your claim or withdraw it.

If you type in 'psychology halo effect in statistics' you will find numerous examples. I am not allowed to quote what it says here although I believe one person's input on wiki is fine to quote (even though the results are gleaned from wiki entries anyway). If I recall, the guy's name was Fisher but I'll need to check that.

 

[JayUtah]

I haven't said it acted 'inappropriately'.

False. Your entire opus on this subject at this forum has been a litany of reasons why you think the JAIC got the wrong answer by acting inappropriately to investigate the wreck.

Evertsson team found and filmed a massive breach in the hull and it was decided to revisit the scene.

Evertsson lied about what he found in order to perpetuate conspiracy theories that were popular at the time. Your attack on JAIC is based largely on conspiracy theories that predated Evertsson.

I am a local following the news. The case is interesting to me although I quite understand if it is not at all interesting to others.

No, this is not a question of interest or curiosity. Your behavior here is not consistent with someone merely curious about what may have happened. It is more consistent with someone trying to prove a point, largely from supposition and speculation. You are not curious. You are arrogant and combative.

 

[JayUtah]

If you type in 'psychology halo effect in statistics' you will find numerous examples.

Present the ones you think best prove your claims.

I am not allowed to quote what it says here...

Why not?

...although I believe one person's input on wiki is fine to quote (even though the results are gleaned from wiki entries anyway). If I recall, the guy's name was Fisher but I'll need to check that.

Do that and report back with substantiation for your claims or withdraw them.

You claim to be a scientist and upon that basis to have valid judgment of the science used in the investigation of the loss of MS Estonia. Your ability to use science terms correctly and to be able to invoke an existing body of science is relevant to that claimed foundation, hence is ripe for inquiry.

 

[Vixen]

False. Your entire opus on this subject at this forum has been a litany of reasons why you think the JAIC got the wrong answer by acting inappropriately to investigate the wreck.


Evertsson lied about what he found in order to perpetuate conspiracy theories that were popular at the time. Your attack on JAIC is based largely on conspiracy theories that predated Evertsson.


No, this is not a question of interest or curiosity. Your behavior here is not consistent with someone merely curious about what may have happened. It is more consistent with someone trying to prove a point, largely from supposition and speculation. You are not curious. You are arrogant and combative.

I won't be dumbing down any time soon.

 

[Vixen]

Present the ones you think best prove your claims.


Why not?


Do that and report back with substantiation for your claims or withdraw them.

You claim to be a scientist and upon that basis to have valid judgment of the science used in the investigation of the loss of MS Estonia. Your ability to use science terms correctly and to be able to invoke an existing body of science is relevant to that claimed foundation, hence is ripe for inquiry.

Er, because we have been told we are not allowed to quote what comes up in the browser but wikipedia is fine, apparently.

 

[JayUtah]

This simply illustrates the JAIC did the calculations to fit the hypothesis that deck 4 and 5 windows broke and that is how the volume of water needed to sink the vessel got in.

That is an appropriate standard of proof in the industry.

Note even the JAIC refers to Deck 4 and 5 as the superstructure and not the hull.

Asked and answered.

For the purposes of computing flood rates or stability, there is no need to make any such distinction. Any opening through which water may enter is a breach no matter where on the ship it is located or what it may variously be called. Any part of the ship that is submerged functions in buoyancy models, regardless of what that part may be called. However, in identifying where openings in question are to orient the reader, it's quite appropriate to use terms like "hull" and "superstructure."

 

[JayUtah]

Er, because we have been told we are not allowed to quote what comes up in the browser but wikipedia is fine, apparently.

False. You are not allowed to present the results of AI without disclosing that you have used AI and providing the prompt. As long as you are willing to provide those things, you may present the product of an AI query.

It has never been forbidden to post the ordinary results of a web search. In any case, the invitation for your critics to simply "type in" a set of words does not satisfy your burden of proof. You can either provide evidence that the term "halo effect" means a certain thing in science that you claim, or you cannot. You have a long history of claiming words and phrases are used in a particular way when such usage has no basis whatsoever in any fact you can produce. Given your evident predilection to just invent such things, this is not an inappropriate request.

 

[Darat]

Copilot - "What is the "halo effect" in science, followed by a "can you summarise all that in one paragraph":

The halo effect is a psychological bias where our overall impression of someone or something—often based on a single positive trait like attractiveness, reputation, or confidence—spills over and shapes how we judge unrelated qualities, making them seem better than they really are. First described by Edward Thorndike in 1920, it shows up in many fields: teachers may assume a well-behaved student is also intelligent, consumers may believe all products from a brand they like are high quality, and researchers or doctors may unconsciously let first impressions skew their evaluations. In science and decision-making, the halo effect matters because it can distort data collection, peer review, and clinical judgment, reminding us to separate specific evidence from general impressions.

 

[Vixen]

False. You are not allowed to present the results of AI without disclosing that you have used AI and providing the prompt. As long as you are willing to provide those things, you may present the product of an AI query.

It has never been forbidden to post the ordinary results of a web search. In any case, the invitation for your critics to simply "type in" a set of words does not satisfy your burden of proof. You can either provide evidence that the term "halo effect" means a certain thing in science that you claim, or you cannot. You have a long history of claiming words and phrases are used in a particular way when such usage has no basis whatsoever in any fact you can produce. Given your evident predilection to just invent such things, this is not an inappropriate request.

That is not correct. The previous quotes were clearly marked 'AI overview' as the source.

 

[GlennB]

I won't be dumbing down any time soon.

That's not even possible. You've reached peak dumb.

 

[JayUtah]

That is not correct. The previous quotes were clearly marked 'AI overview' as the source.

Did you provide the prompt? Did you identify which AI you used? If you did neither of those, you broke the forum rules.

I see @Darat has provided his own AI summary. Do you consider those results relevant to your claim?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I won't be dumbing down any time soon.

I will not lower my standards...

That's not even possible. You've reached peak dumb.

...I cannot lower my standards.

 

[Vixen]

Copilot - "What is the "halo effect" in science, followed by a "can you summarise all that in one paragraph":

My reference was to do with guarding against the halo effect in statistical analysis in the design of a scientific experiment (in my case psychology) using Popper's paradigm of ensuring you don't fit your results to prove your hypothesis. So if I was to hypothesize, say, water boils at 60ºC because that is my hunch, failing to carry out a proper experiment in design and set up but instead inserting missing figures to support my hypothesis is what I was referring to. The JAIC decided the car deck capacity of 2,000 tonnes of water would not have been enough to sink it, so it theorised from calculations how much more tonnes would be need to have done so. It then introduced the intuitive idea that the remaining volume of water must have seeped in via decks 4 and five, and the only way it could do this is via the windows. It assumes the windows smashed - as indeed they might have done - but it doesn't actually illustrate this by providing a model simulation based on the MS Estonia's own window specifications. Remember, MS Jan Heweliusz sank in hurricane force winds of 44 m/s and capsized owing to the sheer force of a gust of wind on its port side. The vessel in extremely bad condition took just over one hour to capsize and floated upside down for over five hours. So how come the windows on this vessel didn't smash but the MS Estonia's did (it is hypothesized). This is what I was referring to about the JAIC not guarding against the halo effect of supporting its own hypothesis by calculating backwards instead of a proper simulation. The scientific method as espoused by Karl Popper recommends one begins with the null hypothesis. That is, the null hypothesis here, is that the windows did not break and the excess water did not ingress via the windows of Decks 4 and 5. You then set out to reject the null hypothesis by setting up a simulation using the same type of reinforced glass as used in the MS Estonia and under the same conditions as recreated in a laboratory, obviously, making everything proportional to fit. You then get your results completely objectively and analyse them later. Not decide that X tonnes of extra water was needed therefore your hypothesis is proven even though you didn't follow the scientific method.

 

[Vixen]

Did you provide the prompt? Did you identify which AI you used? If you did neither of those, you broke the forum rules.

I see @Darat has provided his own AI summary. Do you consider those results relevant to your claim?

I very clearly showed it as a short quote and cited the source (for example asking what article of SOLAS dealt with the bridge distance from the bow issue and it gave me 22. I was horribly beaten up about it.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Er, because we have been told we are not allowed to quote what comes up in the browser but wikipedia is fine, apparently.

We are also allowed to quote research papers.

Nicolau, Juan & Mellinas, Juan & Martin-Fuentes, Eva. (2020). The halo effect: A longitudinal approach. Annals of Tourism Research. 83. 102938. 10.1016/j.annals.2020.102938.

The halo effect is a cognitive bias whereby people form an opinion about a characteristic of an attribute of a product based on their predisposition (positive or negative) toward another attribute.

Chris Westbury and Daniel King. A Constant Error, Revisited: A New Explanation of the Halo Effect. Cognitive Science 48 (2024).

Judgments of character traits tend to be overcorrelated, a bias known as the halo effect.