• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

Vixen said:
Bjorkman is a name brought up as being some kind of antidote to the Estonia reinvestigation. I can't remember the last time I mentioned him in any meaningful way. Whether he is a crank or not doesn't cancel out the topic at hand. Not sure what the panic is about.
Click to expand...
You have repeatedly relied upon him. Indeed in a previous page of this thread you refer to him as a qualified naval architect which he is not.
 
Vixen said:
I read his various stuff on this and whilst I found them far left field, even potty, it doesn't bother me that there are eggheads who enjoy 'what-if' type discussiosn. It doesn't appeal to me but I can't see anything to get upset about.
Click to expand...
It isn't "what if" type discussion, he thinks the laws of physics mean nuclear weapons are impossible.

Why are you pretending to not get this? It's pathetic.
 
Vixen said:
I read his various stuff on this and whilst I found them far left field, even potty, it doesn't bother me that there are eggheads who enjoy 'what-if' type discussiosn. It doesn't appeal to me but I can't see anything to get upset about.
Click to expand...
Well, there's your problem!
 
Vixen said:
Sorry, I find this weird. If some guy wants to pontificate on atom bombs and whatever, who cares?
Click to expand...
It's not weird at all. It's evidence that Björkmann's claimed mastery of the physical sciences is not true, and therefore that his judgment on such topics should not be trusted. Seeking and evaluating such evidence is part of the careful consideration a reasonable person does before relying upon a source as an authority.

Nor are his statements "pontifications." They are provably false claims regarding the physical sciences.

Vixen said:
Citation please of where it says he is not a qualified naval architect as he claims?
Click to expand...
That's not how the burden of proof works in laying a foundation for an expert.

Vixen said:
Citation please that he is not qualified.
Click to expand...
Adjudicating qualification is only tangentially a matter of documentary citation. He is unable to demonstrate any correct understanding of the topics he raises. He is therefore unqualified.

Vixen said:
Do you have any evidence he never went to naval college?
Click to expand...
Whether he went to naval college is largely irrelevant. He did, however, misrepresent his role in the shipping industry. He is not a naval architect. He worked in risk assessment, and was let go precisely because of his misrepresentations. He cannot demonstrate expertise in the physical sciences. This includes the science of atomic bombs. It also includes the science of ship stability and buoyancy. For those reasons he is not a reliable source.

Vixen said:
It sounds bigoted to me that you hate him because you don't believe people should be allowed to pontificate on whatever it is they pontificate on.
Click to expand...
No, this is not about personal hatred or personality. He is simply not sufficiently qualified for his opinions to be considered expert judgment.

Vixen said:
Bjorkman is a name brought up as being some kind of antidote to the Estonia reinvestigation.
Click to expand...
Björkmann has tried to pass himself off as an expert on a number of controversial topics involving engineering and physics. The MS Estonia investigation was merely the first of several such occasions.

Vixen said:
I can't remember the last time I mentioned him in any meaningful way.
Click to expand...
Two months ago, as posted.

Vixen said:
Whether he is a crank or not doesn't cancel out the topic at hand. Not sure what the panic is about.
Click to expand...
You say you carefully consider claims before repeating or (momentarily) subscribing to them. This is ongoing evidence first that you do no such thing, and second that you tend not to be honest about your dereliction.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
It isn't "what if" type discussion, he thinks the laws of physics mean nuclear weapons are impossible.

Why are you pretending to not get this? It's pathetic.
Click to expand...
AFAIAA he explains his reasoning. So the reader is free to take it or leave it. You'll find history is full of people espousing all kinds of stuff. It's nothing new, unusual or even alarming. I can read stuff without being persuaded by it. It's called developing critical faculties.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
AFAIAA he explains his reasoning. So the reader is free to take it or leave it. You'll find history is full of people espousing all kinds of stuff. It's nothing new, unusual or even alarming. I can read stuff without being persuade by it. It's called developing critical faculties.
Click to expand...
His reasoning is delusional dribble.

He's manifestly not competent. He's a delusional crank.
 
Vixen said:
AFAIAA he explains his reasoning.
Click to expand...
His reasoning is incorrect.

Vixen said:
So the reader is free to take it or leave it.
Click to expand...
The reader is not necessarily able to know whether claims proffered on the basis of expertise correctly embody that expertise. And you do more than simply take or leave it. You have cited him as an expert authority on the matter of ship stability and buoyancy, subjects on which he cannot demonstrate expertise. Your desire that others take or leave his claims upon criteria that you decide is the problem here.

Vixen said:
You'll find history is full of people espousing all kinds of stuff. It's nothing new, unusual or even alarming. I can read stuff without being persuaded by it. It's called developing critical faculties.
Click to expand...
You are not adept at critical thinking. As previously stated, you espouse any or all of the things you reproduce here, but generally only to the extent that they provide a basis for you to vilify the JAIC. When you are called upon to critically analyze them or to defend them to the standard you apply to the JAIC, you are unable or unwilling to do so.

Yes, history is replete with people spouting all kinds of nonsense and generally revealing that they don't know what they're talking about. Skeptics exist to oppose such nonsense and hold it appropriately accountable. You are not on the happy side of that exercise.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
His reasoning is delusional dribble.

He's manifestly not competent. He's a delusional crank.
Click to expand...
History is littered with people who are expert in one area but totally doolally in others. Scientists such as Bacon believed in alchemy and astrology, for example. To my mind it is the search of knowledge that drives them and the former is how Chemistry came to be born.
 
JayUtah said:
His reasoning is incorrect.


The reader is not necessarily able to know whether claims proffered on the basis of expertise correctly embody that expertise. And you do more than simply take or leave it. You have cited him as an expert authority on the matter of ship stability and buoyancy, subjects on which he cannot demonstrate expertise. Your desire that others take or leave his claims upon criteria that you decide is the problem here.


You are not adept at critical thinking. As previously stated, you espouse any or all of the things you reproduce here, but generally only to the extent that they provide a basis for you to vilify the JAIC. When you are called upon to critically analyze them or to defend them to the standard you apply to the JAIC, you are unable or unwilling to do so.

Yes, history is replete with people spouting all kinds of nonsense and generally revealing that they don't know what they're talking about. Skeptics exist to oppose such nonsense and hold it appropriately accountable. You are not on the happy side of that exercise.
Click to expand...
Please provide a citation that proves he is not a qualified naval architect as he claims.
 
Vixen said:
History is littered with people who are expert in one area but totally doolally in others. Scientists such as Bacon believed in alchemy and astrology, for example. To my mind it is the search of knowledge that drives them and the former is how Chemistry came to be born.
Click to expand...
Except that the area you are trying to claim he is an expert in is the same as the one where he is totally doolally. Physics.
 
Vixen said:
History is littered with people who are expert in one area but totally doolally in others.
Click to expand...
What is your evidence that he is qualified as a ship architect, aside from his own claims?

Vixen said:
Please provide a citation that proves he is not a qualified naval architect as he claims.
Click to expand...
Asked and answered. That is not how laying the foundation for an expert witness works.
 
Vixen said:
So it's just the old, 'I hate this guy, so everybody else should hate him, too'. Reminds me of when I saw Jurgen Klinsmann play. The guys around me were shouting 'Get the German!'. For them this was an important reason to hate the guy.
Click to expand...
You're lying about what people are saying again.
Vixen said:
Please provide a citation that proves he is not a qualified naval architect as he claims.
Click to expand...
Reversal of the burden of proof. He is claiming he is qualified. It is his burden to show it.

Although the fact that he didn't work as a naval architect is rather telling, wouldn't you say?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom