Analogue Boy
Bar 6
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2005
- Messages
- 13,547
I think the wider point is that if you fail to disprove with the points some people make, your best course of action is to question their qualifications and therefore their experience.
misterwibble said:Have any of you people actually dealt with academics in any professional capacity? One thing I've learnt is that nearly all professors think they're an expert in everything, let alone their specialist field. And they get really touchy when you point out that they're talking bollocks.
jimv1 said:I think the wider point is that if you fail to disprove with the points some people make, your best course of action is to question their qualifications and therefore their experience.
coldelephant said:Were any of these academics physics experts or engineering experts?
I will accept physics experts because engineering involves physics and physics is involved with the WTC.
techybloke666 said:I agree up to a point Jerry.
But What a PHd gives you is the long haul at how to look at things , How to study, how to dissect, investigate and come to hopefully an accurate appraisal of the thing being studied.
learned people have the ability to think outside their fields on many occasions.
Just becouse a Professor is qualified in Applied Statistics does not mean he could have no input to say Criminology for instance.
misterwibble said:Have any of you people actually dealt with academics in any professional capacity? One thing I've learnt is that nearly all professors think they're an expert in everything, let alone their specialist field.
Well, their ability to evaluate a situation is still very limited. And a PhD does not suddenly imbue you with all of those qualities you mention - that really depends on what your PhD is.
techybloke666 said:don't you think there are exceptions to this Jerry ?
techybloke666 said:so you would say that a person with a PHd in Applied Statistics wouldnt be expert enough for you to be allowed to coment on Crime then ?
techybloke666 said:so you would say that a person with a PHd in Applied Statistics wouldnt be expert enough for you to be allowed to coment on Crime then ?
They could only make an informed opinion on aspects of crime if it fell within the remit of Applied Statistics
techybloke666 said:Oh I see
So David Cantors PHd in Applied Statistics has no impact on him being expert in the field of Criminology ?
techybloke666 said:NO i'm saying it does and Jerry is mistaken to so easily ignore Learned people. their opinions shouldnt be ruled out solely due to their type of qualifications.
Just like Cantor brilliant criminologist but has his PHd in Applied Statistics.
Thinsg are not always so clear cut
techybloke666 said:So David Cantors PHd in Applied Statistics has no impact on him being expert in the field of Criminology ?
techybloke666 said:some of these accedemics may well be very good in other fields too, and until that was varified on way or the other one can't just decount them.
techybloke666 said:some of these accedemics may well be very good in other fields too, and until that was varified on way or the other one can't just decount them.
I'd argue that he's an exception rather than the rule.
techybloke666 said:now theres a surprise
Perhaps we need to know their exact skills matrixes to allow a fair trial.
we should'nt send them to prison on hearsay ??????
Well, how many people with a PhD in Applied Statistics are also experts in criminology? Not many, I suspect.
No, but we also shouldn't just simply take their opinions at face value just becasuse they have (possibly unrelated) academic qualifications. If they can show they have expertise in the specfic areas needed in order to counter anything in the 9/11 Commission, etc. then they need to make that clear. If not, it's really just a bunch of people with dregrees, PhDs, etc. voicing their opinions (and possibly not professional opinions at that).
monster_magnet said:Now, as far as i am aware if the Academics for Truth or whatever they call themselves had ANY evidence that ran contrary to the 911Commissions evidence evaluations they'd be shouting it from the rooftops.
Jerry_B said:jimv1 said:I think the wider point is that if you fail to disprove with the points some people make, your best course of action is to question their qualifications and therefore their experience.
I disagree. Unless they have specific knowledge about the subject at hand and the disciplines involved and needed in order to make an informed assessement, their statements can be taken as any more than opinions. One could also argue that these opinions aren't anything to do with professional opinions either.
If alot of highly-qualified professionals who deal with exactly the sort of factors that were involved with 9/11 all came forward and had issues with things, that would be a different matter.
coldelephant said:monster_magnet said:They claim to have amassed a wealth of evidence to support their theories, they would like this evidence to be examined.