Disputation with Gordon Ross

[pomeroo]

I invited Gordon Ross to participate in a disputation about his recently posted response to the new paper by Bazant and Greening. He accepted in a polite reply that appears below. Dr. Greening has opted not to examine Ross, so we have to organize a team of two or three qualified disputants. Ryan Mackey is an obvious choice for the rationalist side, but there are several other regulars here with impressive science backgrounds. It is suggested that volunteers be familiar with the exchanges between Ross and Greening that have appeared on the physorg forum.

The Doc has created the platform we require, so let's get started. We are attempting to arrange in-depth confrontations between fantasists and debunkers that are free from the distractions of public debates. Isn't the prospect of assembling such an accessible body of knowledge appealing? Think how useful it will be to dispose of a recycled canard by simply citing the results of, say, Mackey vs. Wood, or Roberts vs. Ryan, or Gumboot vs. Balsamo. Yes, many of these charlatans will refuse to engage us, but that is an accomplishment in its own right.

Who wants in?


Hi Ronald,

Thanks for your e-mail. I'm not sure what you mean by "a series of disputations, in the manner of the Scholastics". I haven't got a clue what the Scholastics are. Some more detail would be good but other than that I can't really see a problem.

One thing you should be aware of is with regard to time deadlines. My situation is such that I cannot guarantee to be on hand to fulfill tight deadlines and my computer access can be limited or curtailed for periods of a few days at a time. This can happen without much notice and makes it difficult, at times, to continue a prolonged dialogue.

With my limited time in mind I would be happy to participate in any attempt to advance our understanding with new ideas and physical evidence, beyond the old tired arguments that currently circulate.

Gordon.




Ronald Wieck wrote:

Dear Mr. Ross,​

I occasionally host a public access show, 'Hardfire,' that airs in New York City and its suburbs. Over the past year, we have featured debates pitting prominent conspiracy theorists such as Jim Fetzer and the Loose Change boys against Mark Roberts, a rationalist with an encyclopedic knowledge of 9/11-related issues.​

Debates can be excellent entertainment, but they provide theater at the expense of a serious exchange of views. I am proposing something different: a series of disputations, in the manner of the Scholastics, for the purpose of resolving what is capable of resolution or, at minimum, delineating the current status of the controversy.​

These disputations will be structured to permit the methodical development of complex arguments and to disallow the distractions that attend public debates.​

I propose to initiate the series with your response to the new Greening-Bazant paper. Dr. Greening, NASA engineer R.Mackey, and possibly one other regular poster on the JREF will offer critiques of your response. You, in turn, are invited to challenge them. ​

I trust that you'll agree that the prospect of advancing our understanding of the collapse of the Twin Towers makes this project a worthy one. ​

Best Regards,​

Ronald Wieck​

 

[Architect]

Ron

I can categorically confirm that the term "disputations" is not used in the UK, and "Scholastics" is a series of patronising US children's books which were briefly imported in the mid 70s before being consigned to the school dustbins.

That aside, I'm concerned that our Dundonian's idea of "tired old theories" might be what the rest of us call science and established fact. But there you go.

You can count me in on any discussions regarding general design and constructional matters, but for structures you'll want someone like Newton's Bit who can crunch numbers.

You'll observe that my normal defence of all things Scottish does not extend to our home-grown Truthers.

 

[pomeroo]

Ron

I can categorically confirm that the term "disputations" is not used in the UK, and "Scholastics" is a series of patronising US children's books which were briefly imported in the mid 70s before being consigned to the school dustbins.

That aside, I'm concerned that our Dundonian's idea of "tired old theories" might be what the rest of us call science and established fact. But there you go.

You can count me in on any discussions regarding general design and constructional matters, but for structures you'll want someone like Newton's Bit who can crunch numbers.

You'll observe that my normal defence of all things Scottish does not extend to our home-grown Truthers.

Architect, your contributions to the debate are outstandingly valuable. I agree with you that Newton's Bit would make a superb addition to the team.

How are the Scholastics referred to in the UK? Schoolmen, perhaps? Mortimer Adler revived the practice of holding disputations, engaging in several at the Aspen Institute.

 

[Architect]

Do you mean academics?

 

[pomeroo]

Do you mean academics?

Well, they were academics, of course, but I'm referring to the medieval theologians lecturing at the great universities in Paris, Louvain, Bologna, Oxford, etc. Public disputations were a common practice.

 

[Architect]

I think in the UK we'd jsut call them debates, to be honest. It's not a term in widespread use in the UK and wouldn't be generally understood - interestingly I always found it amusing that what many Brits considered to be "Americanisms" were infact relict English terms.

Scholastic would be used to refer solely to being scholarly, for example "he had a rather scholastic bent" but would be considerd unusual. Academia usually uses different terms to describe itself.

Not that any of this is relevant to your OP, so apologies for the derail!

Well, they were academics, of course, but I'm referring to the medieval theologians lecturing at the great universities in Paris, Louvain, Bologna, Oxford, etc. Public disputations were a common practice

Is Oxford actually medieaval? You live and learn. I had always thought it was about the same age as St. Andrews, which is 15th century and hence pushing the term a little. But my university, Strathclyde, was only founded in the 18th century, so what would I know????

 

[ConspiRaider]

Ron -

People have told me I'm handsome and have a nice disputation and I'm a wiseass besides. Am I overqualified? If so I'll take back the "handsome".

Lemme know.

 

[Apollo20]

Pomeroo:

Let's be clear on what I said about your proposal to have a "disputation" with GR because it is certainly inaccurate to say that "Dr. Greening opted not to examine Ross."

Here is what I actually said:

"I think the proper way to "debate" my paper with Bazant is by writing to the editors of the Journal of Engineering Mechanics or by submitting a counter argument to an appropriate peer-reviewed journal. I believe Ross has already gone the letter-to-the-editor route. It remains to be seen if the editors listen to Ross, or, I should add, accept my paper with Bazant!"

 

[AZCat]

Pomeroo:

Let's be clear on what I said about your proposal to have a "disputation" with GR because it is certainly inaccurate to say that "Dr. Greening opted not to examine Ross."

Here is what I actually said:

"I think the proper way to "debate" my paper with Bazant is by writing to the editors of the Journal of Engineering Mechanics or by submitting a counter argument to an appropriate peer-reviewed journal. I believe Ross has already gone the letter-to-the-editor route. It remains to be seen if the editors listen to Ross, or, I should add, accept my paper with Bazant!"

Dr. Greening - when do you think you'll find out if the Journal accepted your paper for publication?

 

[Apollo20]

AZCat:

I really have no idea! Based on past experience, journals can take anywhere from weeks to months to review a paper. The reviewers can send it back for all sorts of revisions too....

I also know of cases were Professors "sat" on a paper they had been asked to review so they could get their own material submitted and published first in order to "scoop" the competition.

Ah yes, it's a dog-eat-dog world ..... even in academia!

 

[AZCat]

AZCat:

I really have no idea! Based on past experience, journals can take anywhere from weeks to months to review a paper. The reviewers can send it back for all sorts of revisions too....

I also know of cases were Professors "sat" on a paper they had been asked to review so they could get their own material submitted and published first in order to "scoop" the competition.

Ah yes, it's a dog-eat-dog world ..... even in academia!

Wow - I didn't realize the process could take so long. It sounds a lot like the building permit process, what with the revisions and pointless delays. I guess bureaucracy is the same everywhere - sluggish and parochial.

Please let us know when (or what) you hear.

 

[pomeroo]

Pomeroo:

Let's be clear on what I said about your proposal to have a "disputation" with GR because it is certainly inaccurate to say that "Dr. Greening opted not to examine Ross."

Here is what I actually said:

"I think the proper way to "debate" my paper with Bazant is by writing to the editors of the Journal of Engineering Mechanics or by submitting a counter argument to an appropriate peer-reviewed journal. I believe Ross has already gone the letter-to-the-editor route. It remains to be seen if the editors listen to Ross, or, I should add, accept my paper with Bazant!"

Frank, I would naturally be delighted if you accepted my invitation to examine Ross in the first of what I assume will be a series of related disputations. Possibly I haven't made clear the difference between a debate and a disputation. In a debate, one side will often introduce evidence that it hopes the other side hasn't seen. Forensic skill plays a large role in determining the outcome. In a disputation, the ability to craft logical, well-structured arguments is paramount. An issue isn't resolved until it has been worn to rags.

 

[pomeroo]

Ron -

People have told me I'm handsome and have a nice disputation and I'm a wiseass besides. Am I overqualified? If so I'll take back the "handsome".

Lemme know.

Well, there's no disputatin' that you're a wiseass, but that's one of the things we love about you.

 

[pomeroo]

Pomeroo:

Let's be clear on what I said about your proposal to have a "disputation" with GR because it is certainly inaccurate to say that "Dr. Greening opted not to examine Ross."

Here is what I actually said:

"I think the proper way to "debate" my paper with Bazant is by writing to the editors of the Journal of Engineering Mechanics or by submitting a counter argument to an appropriate peer-reviewed journal. I believe Ross has already gone the letter-to-the-editor route. It remains to be seen if the editors listen to Ross, or, I should add, accept my paper with Bazant!"

Frank, I have no reason in the world to quarrel with you, but how can it be "inaccurate" to say that you opted not to examine Ross? I wrote you a lengthy e-mail explaining why I thought a series of formal disputations would offer an excellent opportunity to compare what the two sides are claiming and assess the relative merits of their positions. I was keenly disappointed when you showed no interest. If you want to participate, then I'm delighted to hear it.

 

[R.Mackey]

Here is what I actually said:

"I think the proper way to "debate" my paper with Bazant is by writing to the editors of the Journal of Engineering Mechanics or by submitting a counter argument to an appropriate peer-reviewed journal. I believe Ross has already gone the letter-to-the-editor route. It remains to be seen if the editors listen to Ross, or, I should add, accept my paper with Bazant!"

Yes, the peer-review process can take several weeks, and many months more for actual publication, depending on the journal. The process grinds slowly, but it does also grind small...

Peer-review is, of course, not an iron-clad guarantee of correctness. Once in a while something will escape the reviewers. However, the mere fact that a paper is submitted for independent review, let alone survives, says a great deal about the completeness of its ideas and the confidence of authors in its conclusions. In contrast, those who refuse to submit their work to peer-review, including Gordon Ross, well...

It should be evident that the "disputation" is not a peer-review process, more of a formalized but amateur debate. It should allow us to better understand the papers presented. If, however, this is going to interfere with the ordinary publication process in the eyes of the authors, then we should probably rethink it. Arguing papers while they are under review, or even preprints, is unusual.

 

[pomeroo]

Yes, the peer-review process can take several weeks, and many months more for actual publication, depending on the journal. The process grinds slowly, but it does also grind small...

Peer-review is, of course, not an iron-clad guarantee of correctness. Once in a while something will escape the reviewers. However, the mere fact that a paper is submitted for independent review, let alone survives, says a great deal about the completeness of its ideas and the confidence of authors in its conclusions. In contrast, those who refuse to submit their work to peer-review, including Gordon Ross, well...

It should be evident that the "disputation" is not a peer-review process, more of a formalized but amateur debate. It should allow us to better understand the papers presented. If, however, this is going to interfere with the ordinary publication process in the eyes of the authors, then we should probably rethink it. Arguing papers while they are under review, or even preprints, is unusual.

Not to nitpick, but Ross would be defending his response to the paper.

 

[R.Mackey]

Yes, I understand this. The point is that Drs. Bazant, Greening, etc. are under no obligation to respond to Ross. Their point of contact is the journal editor. Responding to Ross directly cannot strengthen, and can only weaken (though it probably won't) their case for publication.

Our interest is different. But it may be difficult to argue against Gordon Ross's whitepaper without dragging the original, submitted paper into the discussion. It's a fine ethical line.

 

[WildCat]

It sounds a lot like the building permit process, what with the revisions and pointless delays. I guess bureaucracy is the same everywhere - sluggish and parochial.

You should see the process for getting a porch permit here in Chicago - everyone is afraid to sign off on the plans because they're in major CYA mode after this disaster (which actually killed 13 people btw). After that, the city changed the building code so that porches have to withstand a ridiculous 100 lbs/sq. ft. live load, by comparison the building proper only requires 30 lbs/sq. ft. Of course, the porch that collapsed wasn't even built to the old building code but since the building inspectors here are all a bunch of hacks who get their jobs because of political connections and don't know a damned thing about proper porch construction we ended up with the current CYA solution.

And btw, I lived a few blocks away from there and went by the next day, it was immediately obvious to me even in the collapsed state (and the city had already hauled most of it away) what had gone wrong... but I have been building and repairing these for 25 years and actually know a thing or 2 about them.

Ahhh, beauracracy...

 

[Newtons Bit]

WildCat: There's good reason for that 100psf. It's actually not that hard to design for and it's a good idea to do anyways. The International Building Code (which most of the nation uses, except some places which refuse to get rid of the old UBC), which currently references ASCE7, requires 100psf. Most of the nation now uses this.

Morons will over-use balconies, they have to be designed for the "drunken idiot" load. I actually have labeled a load on one of my calcs as the "drunken idiot" load too. It frequently controls design =\

 

[AZCat]

WildCat: There's good reason for that 100psf. It's actually not that hard to design for and it's a good idea to do anyways. The International Building Code (which most of the nation uses, except some places which refuse to get rid of the old UBC), which currently references ASCE7, requires 100psf. Most of the nation now uses this.

Morons will over-use balconies, they have to be designed for the "drunken idiot" load. I actually have labeled a load on one of my calcs as the "drunken idiot" load too. It frequently controls design =\

I have the "drunken idiot" factor, but in my case it refers to me, not the future inhabitants of my buildings!