W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
If someone wants to pontificate on the sinking of MS Estonia, making hilarious mistake after hilarious mistake while citing authorities who (for example) delight in telling us the laws of physics preclude the reality of nuclear weapons, why should any of us care?
I doubt whether I'm the only one who is reading this thread for the same reasons I read The Onion.
That isn't so obvious to me. I continue to suspect a Simonton gap.
Less than 7 hours ago, you mentioned him so you could claim your reliance upon his authority was an example of "being objective and applying reason." I totally agree with you that your absurd claim was not meaningful.
It amuses me that @Vixen's arguments have relied upon the authority of a man whose knowledge of physics is, as @Vixen herself says above, with considerable understatement, "even potty". @Vixen's reliance upon that man's authority, and her continuing defense of his alleged authority, is just another example of the pottiness Björkmann himself delights in displaying.
Critical faculties would have helped you to assess whether that reasoning should be taken or left.
I suppose some basic knowledge of physics would help as well, so you have a bit of an excuse there.
On the other hand, it's hard to accept such complete ignorance of the relevant history as a legitimate excuse.
You pretend you aren't persuaded by that obvious crackpot's reasoning, but you have tried to persuade us of his reasoning. Even here, in the threads I'm quoting, you have been arguing that he should be accepted as an authority on the physics of a naval disaster despite his disastrous incompetence in the science of physics and his spectacular ignorance of its history.
As is the history of this thread and its predecessors.
Roger Bacon (died circa 1292) believed in alchemy and astrology, and was a scientist in the sense that he formulated a 13th-century precursor of what became known, centuries later, as the scientific method. Francis Bacon (died 1621), sometimes credited as the father of empiricism, was a scientist in a more modern sense. Francis Bacon was familiar with the alchemical writing of his time, but it would be a stretch to say Francis Bacon believed in alchemy, and even more of a stretch to say Francis Bacon believed in astrology.
So far as I have been able to determine, Roger Bacon and Francis Bacon never denied the possibility of nuclear weapons, and what those two gentleman had to do with the MS Estonia is not altogether clear to me. I look forward to @Vixen's explanation of their relevance.
