"Experts Gone Wild"...! Why do REAL experts go nuts?

[tfk]

A topic that has bothered me for awhile.

What are the reasons that real experts in various fields come to close their eyes to the evidence and advocate clear irrationality?

I am specifically not talking about people wandering outside their fields.
I am specifically not talking about the young & inexperienced.
I am not talking about concepts that are on the fringes of knowledge, such as Einstein & QM.

I am talking about well understood phenomena, and bona fide credentialed & experienced experts in some field. Who none the less spout nonsense.

In the case of the 9/11 Truth Movement this would include:

John Lear, claiming that it would be impossible for low time pilots to steer into the towers.

Lear & Russ Wittenberg saying that Hanjour's terminal maneuver at the Pentagon was impossible, "top gun" quality or "would have torn the plane apart".

Albert Stubblebine analyzing the wreckage at the Pentagon, and producing his own train wreck of an analysis.

And the fact that, amongst the riff-raff at ae911, it appears that there ARE about 10 structural and 100 mechanical engineers.

All of these people really are experts, speaking within their own fields, who should know better.

Is it simply incompetence? Seduction of fame & attention? Politics?

For the general public, these folks represent a serious impediment to finding the truth. It is one thing if only quacks are claiming that AIDS is unrelated to HIV. It is something entirely different if a couple of Doctors or respected AIDS researchers say the same thing.

Anyone offer any speculation?

[T.A.M.]

the paranoia gets in the way of everything else

TAM:)

[~enigma~]

the paranoia gets in the way of everything else

TAM:)
Being an expert in a field does not preclude stupidity outside of ones chosen field of expertise. Want a perfect example? See some ramblings from Frank " Apollo20" Greening.

[rwguinn]

A topic that has bothered me for awhile.

What are the reasons that real experts in various fields come to close their eyes to the evidence and advocate clear irrationality?

I am specifically not talking about people wandering outside their fields.
I am specifically not talking about the young & inexperienced.
I am not talking about concepts that are on the fringes of knowledge, such as Einstein & QM.

I am talking about well understood phenomena, and bona fide credentialed & experienced experts in some field. Who none the less spout nonsense.

In the case of the 9/11 Truth Movement this would include:

John Lear, claiming that it would be impossible for low time pilots to steer into the towers.

Lear & Russ Wittenberg saying that Hanjour's terminal maneuver at the Pentagon was impossible, "top gun" quality or "would have torn the plane apart".

Albert Stubblebine analyzing the wreckage at the Pentagon, and producing his own train wreck of an analysis.

And the fact that, amongst the riff-raff at ae911, it appears that there ARE about 10 structural and 100 mechanical engineers.

All of these people really are experts, speaking within their own fields, who should know better.

Is it simply incompetence? Seduction of fame & attention? Politics?

For the general public, these folks represent a serious impediment to finding the truth. It is one thing if only quacks are claiming that AIDS is unrelated to HIV. It is something entirely different if a couple of Doctors or respected AIDS researchers say the same thing.

Anyone offer any speculation?

For the record--
There are a fair number of Mechanical Engineers who never get past what I call "Cook-book engineering" (with a lower-case "E")--they look at charts and nomographs to solve problems in HVAC and the like. Not disparaging--it is work that must be done, and there are those who are suited to it, just as accountants range from bookkeeper to CFO's. You reach your level of confidence and comfort, and stay there.
This is opposed to the Engineers who have to reach past what has been done before, and rely on experience and "book-learning" to find new stuff and solve problems not in any book...

[tfk]

the paranoia gets in the way of everything else

TAM:)
This might be exactly the cause.

If conditions like paranoia are evenly spread across the population, then you are guaranteed to find intersections between the sets.

This really has bugged me for awhile. "How could THESE GUYS be saying this nonsense...?"

[tfk]

Being an expert in a field does not preclude stupidity outside of ones chosen field of expertise. Want a perfect example? See some ramblings from Frank " Apollo20" Greening.
You got that right.

I've forced myself to listen to several of Steve Jones' presentations that dip into Mechanical Engineering. It's excruciating.

I was particularly amused at his new (it must be about the 6th now) formulation of the 2nd Law of Thermo: "Buildings must topple to the side."

He would not last 2 minutes in front of a competent Engineering Review Board. His is a particularly sad case for his own reputation. His work in low temp fusion was first rate, and this is what he'll be remembered for.

tk

[Grizzly Bear]

You got that right.

I've forced myself to listen to several of Steve Jones' presentations that dip into Mechanical Engineering. It's excruciating.

I was particularly amused at his new (it must be about the 6th now) formulation of the 2nd Law of Thermo: "Buildings must topple to the side."

He would not last 2 minutes in front of a competent Engineering Review Board. His is a particularly sad case for his own reputation. His work in low temp fusion was first rate, and this is what he'll be remembered for.

tk

Well speaking from the perspective of a student... I'd have to echo enigma's post. It's difficult for me to watch a licensed architect trying to compared card board boxes to the towers. Nobody needs to be an engineer to understand fundamental material properties....

[tfk]

In one sense, tho, paranoia does not explain some cases.

John Lear is a world class pilot. He's also a world class CTer.

But he DOES know piloting inside & out. He, and several other jumbo jet pilots, claims that an experienced pilot could not have hit the 208' wide WTC Towers.

The fact is that 208' is wider than all except the largest of runways at international airports. The vast majority are thinner. The ones that I landed on when I flew single engines were between 60 & 90' wide. Small strips get down to about 30' wide.

These guys KNOW that it is not difficult to bring a plane over the threshold of a full sized runway. And yet they continue to assert in public that it is "unequivocally impossible".

There really are structural engineers that have been shown, point blank, curves of steel strength vs. temperature. And who STILL assert that fire temps cannot weaken steel.

I REALLY don't understand this type of disregard for the truth & their own reputations.

tk

PS. With regard to Lear, I do get the feeling that it is his on-going hobby to see how far he can push the envelope with stunningly stupid statements, and still have people believe him. A constant "goofing on" the credulous, with no regard for any consequences.

[tfk]

Hey Griz,

Nice to meet you. Where are you studying?

Welcome to the brotherhood. I'll try to help you avoid some of the embarassment that I went thru as a Young&Stupid baby engineer. (I've advocated that "Yound&Stupid" ought to be one word for years. It'd explain a LOT in the world.)

Engineering is NOT science. The main difference is that the problems are messy with complications in that oh-so-annoying real world. In science, you can figure out tons of things from first principles. In engineering, it's all about history & experience. Most of the crucial information is PRECISELY where Mother Nature did NOT act as you might expect her to.

Here is a pop-quiz for you, hot shot.

What single characteristic of the columns & trusses of the Towers was responsible for about 90% of the strength of the towers?

This is all in fun, but it is VERY instructive. It'd be interesting for you to ask your fellow students to see if they come up with the right answer.

I'll help with the obvious: it is NOT the strength of structural steel.

tk

[Grizzly Bear]

Hey Griz,

Nice to meet you. Where are you studying?

Welcome to the brotherhood. I'll try to help you avoid some of the embarassment that I went thru as a Young&Stupid baby engineer. (I've advocated that "Yound&Stupid" ought to be one word for years. It'd explain a LOT in the world.)
Part of the reason why I don't subscribe to the claims put out by most of these sites is because I'm studying architecture, and I've been studying subjects in it for a few years now. I'm not fit to be an engineer, but it really doesn't require you to be one to understand that scaling down structures and changing their materials does not equal a comparative.


Here is a pop-quiz for you, hot shot.

What single characteristic of the columns & trusses of the Towers was responsible for about 90% of the strength of the towers?
The stuctural system the towers were built with and the type of steel used

In not using technical terminology the structural design of the towers would have accounted for most of its strength. The material strength is meaningless if the designer fails to account for all of the axial loading conditions in the design, and takes the necessary measures to compensate for it. Not that the loading conditions are the exclusive factors that need to be considered, they're one of many.

[tfk]

Part of the reason why I don't subscribe to the claims put out by most of these sites is because I'm studying architecture, and I've been studying subjects in it for a few years now. I'm not fit to be an engineer, but it really doesn't require you to be one to understand that scaling down structures and changing their materials does not equal a comparative.



In not using technical terminology the structural design of the towers would have accounted for most of its strength. The material strength is meaningless if the designer fails to account for all of the axial loading conditions in the design, and takes the necessary measures to compensate for it. Not that the loading conditions are the exclusive factors that need to be considered, they're one of many.
Griz,

Nope. "The structural design of the towers" is too broad. Something extremely specific.

This is NOT to embarrass you. As soon as I tell you what it is, you'll recognize how it must be the case.

"What characteristic of the columns & cross trusses is responsible for 90% of the strength of the buildings?"

tom

[Grizzly Bear]

Griz,

Nope. "The structural design of the towers" is too broad. Something extremely specific.

This is NOT to embarrass you. As soon as I tell you what it is, you'll recognize how it must be the case.

"What characteristic of the columns & cross trusses is responsible for 90% of the strength of the buildings?"

tom

What charactristics do you want me to talk about? Because there are several specific to the trade centers that contributed to their inherent redundancy:

The exterior columns were spaced close together, the floor systems transferred lateral bracing to the core, the core was responsible mostly for gravity loads...

Or are you referring to the structural members being built in sections?

The cross-sectional shape and area of the columns (as I understand the load capacity is partially determined by cross sectional area and the unbraced length of a column depending of the weak axis)?


If I'm still not reading into your question correctly then feel free to tell me.. I don't think I'll be incredibly surprised... I don't always remember specific characteristics off the top of my head

[tfk]

Sounds to me more like you and others just want to call people like John crazy or stupid because they disagree with what you want to believe so you have to make them out to be crazy or stupid.
That may well be "what it sounds like" to you.

You'd be wrong about that.

Lear is an incredibly experienced pilot. The somewhat wastrel son of an incredibly talented father. Who got to learn to fly by virtue of his father's affluence and interest in flying. I'd LOVE to have been born into that sort of environment.

I learned to fly as an adult. I got my private license & have a little over 400 hours. Lear's probably got something like 15,000 hours. Maybe more.

He holds world records in several classes. He probably has more "type ratings" than just about anyone alive.

And yet, I KNOW, not guess, not believe, I KNOW that what he is saying is unmitigated ********. I am struggling to find out some reason why he spouts this nonsense.

He is NOT stupid. While I am not qualified to judge whether or not he is crazy, I don't think that is the case either. So that throws out "what it sounds like to you".

Let me ask you. Do you believe that it is "virtually impossible" that even a low-time pilot with a multi-engine commercial rating could manage, with a straight in approach & unlimited visibility, to steer an airplane with sufficient accuracy to get it SOMEWHERE over the widest runway at LAX?

Remember that, when landing, 90% of the time, the pilots manage to put it down within about 20 feet either side of the centerline.

[Grizzly Bear]

Becasue they disagree with your beliefs.
Architects and engineers for 911 truth certainly have not demonstrated that their authority in their fields means anything. If it were simply a matter of beliefs that might be one thing, however I'm not impressed by their handling of fundamental architecture principals which are learned before even entering the profession

[WildCat]

Here is a pop-quiz for you, hot shot.

What single characteristic of the columns & trusses of the Towers was responsible for about 90% of the strength of the towers?
Without peeking ahead, I'm going to guess shape.

[tfk]

Should I give the answer or let others play?

tk

[ULTIMA1]

however I'm not impressed by their handling of fundamental architecture principals which are learned before even entering the profession

Then you must feel the same about NIST.

Thier original computer model stated that neither plane impact of fire caused the collapse.

Als they failed to recover steel from building 7 for testing.

[T.A.M.]

here is what I will say about Lear:

1. I do not know what exactly he is claiming to be incorrect about the official story, and why, but if it is in the field of aviation, then please show me what he is saying, and his reasoning.

2. If his comments are outside his field of expertise, then I give them no more credibility then if Alex Jones is making the comments.

TAM:)

[tfk]

John's wackiness goes far, FAR beyond 9/11. He SAYS that he believes that there is intelligent life on virtually all the planets, that there are alien factories on the moon that the Apollo astronauts visited, Roswell UFOs & alien tech, etc.

I do not believe that he is no a "no-planer".

Like many truthers, he refuses to state what he does believe, but he is constantly states what he knows to NOT be true.

Here is a sampling on 911: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N2RrQWsGes
Go to YouTube & search "john lear aliens", and you'll get a sampling of the other stuff.

My point is, I don't think he's crazy. He is a superb pilot. And yet he is saying (in an automotive analogy), "someone who had a license but only a year's worth of experience could not possibly drive this cadillac at 90 mph across a football sized surface of smooth asphalt, and manage to hit that barn at the far end".

It's ludicrous. And yet, he's an EXPERT pilot.

Go figure...

[tfk]

TAM,

Lear, Wittenberg, Albert Stubblebine & Robert Bowman. All bona fide EXPERTS in the field on which they are commenting.

All spouting absolute nonsense.

This is the CORE of my question. And my reason for starting this thread.

It is a fascinating exercise in psychology.

[ULTIMA1]

2. If his comments are outside his field of expertise, then I give them no more credibility then if Alex Jones is making the comments.

Well its too bad that the things he talks about 9/11 are in his field of expertise.

I guess thats why people have to call him names because they cannot debate his expertise.

[~enigma~]

TAM,

Lear, Wittenberg, Albert Stubblebine & Robert Bowman. All bona fide EXPERTS in the field on which they are commenting.

All spouting absolute nonsense.

This is the CORE of my question. And my reason for starting this thread.

It is a fascinating exercise in psychology.
This might help you somewhat.

http://skeptically.org/logicalthreads/id15.html

But as I said above, being smart does not preclude stupidity outside of ones chosen field. For that matter being smart does not preclude stupid beliefs in ones own field at times.

For an example of that last statement just read anything written by most theologians.

[T.A.M.]

TAM,

Lear, Wittenberg, Albert Stubblebine & Robert Bowman. All bona fide EXPERTS in the field on which they are commenting.

All spouting absolute nonsense.

This is the CORE of my question. And my reason for starting this thread.

It is a fascinating exercise in psychology.

This might help you somewhat.

http://skeptically.org/logicalthreads/id15.html

But as I said above, being smart does not preclude stupidity outside of ones chosen field. For that matter being smart does not preclude stupid beliefs in ones own field at times.

For an example of that last statement just read anything written by most theologians.

Yes, and that was my point also.

For Lear, for instance. I will listen with great interest as to his reasoning why Hani Hanjour could not have hit the Pentagon. As a pilot, he would be well informed as to how hard or easy such a manouver it would be.

As for his opinions on the WTCs collapsing, or the `lack of debris`at the Pentagon site, well like I said...Alex Jones comments are as relevant.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

TAM,

Lear, Wittenberg, Albert Stubblebine & Robert Bowman. All bona fide EXPERTS in the field on which they are commenting.

All spouting absolute nonsense.

This is the CORE of my question. And my reason for starting this thread.

It is a fascinating exercise in psychology.

I agree, if they are spouting nonsense about specific issues of aviation. That is what I was hoping you could provide, what Lear says that is nonsense, in his field of aviation, as it relates to 911.

TAM:)

[tfk]

I've gotta run, so I'll give the answer to the "strength of the towers" question.

WildCat, you're right on the money.

It is the GEOMETRY of the elements that provides its strength.

The geometry keeps the loads on the long, thin columns in (almost) pure compression or tension. Stress conditions that are safe for long slender beams. It also minimizes that stress condition that results in failure for long slender beams: bending.

The important lesson here is to distinguish the strength of any COMPONENT from the strength of the ASSEMBLY.

This is exactly analogous to those "build it yourself" bookcases. You get a 1" thick (particle board) sides, the 1" thick top & bottom, the 3/4" thick shelves and the 1/32" thick cardboard backing.

What gives the assembly its overall strength? The 1/32" cardboard. Because it keeps all the other members aligned, and prevents a toppling failure of the bookcase folding into a parallelogram. Without that piece, the bookcase won't support its own weight.

Similarly the massive core columns (bolted together with 1" diameter bolts to the ones above & below) could not be stacked & bolted 4 high without toppling over. They couldn't hold up their own weight, much less the weight of the building.

The lesson is "Lose the Geometry, Lose the Building."

Now think about the positive feedback loop of "tipping building ---> increased bending stresses ---> more yield ---> more tipping ---> increased bending stresses ---> more yield ---> more tipping " etc.

tk

[dtugg]

There are experts here like beachnut who refute Lear's claim that Hanjour couldn't have hit the Pentagon. Frankly, I would listen to beachnut rather than some wacko who believes there are secret alien bases on the moon.

[T.A.M.]

There are experts here like beachnut who refute Lear's claim that Hanjour couldn't have hit the Pentagon. Frankly, I would listen to beachnut rather than some wacko who believes there are secret alien bases on the moon.

ok, as I said, I am not aware of what Lear has said, or not said, wrt 911.

If he has said that Hanjour could not have made the manouver, than as an expert in aviation, he should be able to explain to me in simple terms I can understand why this is so.

Has he

TAM:)

[Grizzly Bear]

Then you must feel the same about NIST.

Thier original computer model stated that neither plane impact of fire caused the collapse.
You're right, they concluded that it was the combination of both that initiated it. However you want to spin it, but that's a discussion for another topic... we can always use the general discussion topic to deal with this in detail. You can also refresh my memory as to where in the NIST report this material is in via the other thread.

My case in point is that the AE911truth does not offer viable alternatives, and I believe that they are aware that their own models (for example Gage's cardboard boxes) don't cut it.

[~enigma~]

For Lear, for instance. I will listen with great interest as to his reasoning why Hani Hanjour could not have hit the Pentagon. As a pilot, he would be well informed as to how hard or easy such a manouver it would be.
And when 100 other experts in the same field contradict Lear, it is foolish to continue believing Lear (unless of course one simply believes to find acceptance in the group which is what I have been told by some of the admins at LCF which isn't foolish more than an indication of some serious mental problems).

[ULTIMA1]

That is what I was hoping you could provide, what Lear says that is nonsense, in his field of aviation, as it relates to 911.


What Lear states is from his extensive expertise in aviation.

[tfk]

You don't debate "his expertise". That's called an "appeal to authority".

You debate his assertions, his arguments.

Like I did with my analogy of the width of the towers to the biggest of landing strips.

The ONLY thing different about a pilot landing a plane on a runway & the hijackers flying into the building is:

1. The hijackers job was easier, because they didn't need to control their altitude like a landing pilot does.

2. The hijackers were flying faster. This makes virtually no difference on a straight in approach.

If what Lear says were true, NOBODY would be able to land an airplane.

tk

PS. 99% of all other expert pilots in the world disagrees with Lear's nonsense.

Except for a few over at Pilots for 911 truth...

More grist for this thread's mill.

[ULTIMA1]

You're right, they concluded that it was the combination of both that initiated it. .

No thats not right. The original computer model stated that neither the plane impact or fire caused the collapse.

Its so fun and easy to prove you guys wrong with facts.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/June2004BaselineStructuralAnalysisPrint.pdf
The tower maintained its stability with the removal of columns in the
exterior walls and core columns representative of aircraft impact and
also after losing columns in the south wall due to fire effects with some
reserve capacity left, indicating that additional weakening or loss of
other structural members is needed to collapse the tower.

[T.A.M.]

And when 100 other experts in the same field contradict Lear, it is foolish to continue believing Lear (unless of course one simply believes to find acceptance in the group which is what I have been told by some of the admins at LCF which isn't foolish more than an indication of some serious mental problems).

Absolutely. If one expert states X as true, but 100 other equally qualified experts provide proof that X is false, then one has to go with the 100...it makes sense. One person can be wrong, or purposely obtuse for so many reasons.

TAM:)

[ULTIMA1]

Absolutely. If one expert states X as true, but 100 other equally qualified experts provide proof that X is false, then one has to go with the 100...it makes sense.


But its just too bad there are at least 100 that agree with Lear.

[tfk]

What Lear states is from his extensive expertise in aviation.
Wrong.

What Lear states is in direct contradiction to his extensive experience in aviation. It is in direct contradiction to EVERY pilot's experience in aviation. Like mine.

tk

[Sparky]

This is exactly analogous to those "build it yourself" bookcases. You get a 1" thick (particle board) sides, the 1" thick top & bottom, the 3/4" thick shelves and the 1/32" thick cardboard backing.

What gives the assembly its overall strength? The 1/32" cardboard. Because it keeps all the other members aligned, and prevents a toppling failure of the bookcase folding into a parallelogram. Without that piece, the bookcase won't support its own weight.

tk

Same concept as "shear walls" in home construction.

[T.A.M.]

Sounds to me that what Lear states if from his extensive experience in paranoia at the expense of rational thought.

TAM:)

[dtugg]

But its just too bad there are at least 100 that agree with Lear.

I doubt this. There aren't too many pilots at pilotsfortwoof. And even if its true, so what? That's still a very small percentage of the pilots in the world.

[Grizzly Bear]

The important lesson here is to distinguish the strength of any COMPONENT from the strength of the ASSEMBLY.

This is exactly analogous to those "build it yourself" bookcases. You get a 1" thick (particle board) sides, the 1" thick top & bottom, the 3/4" thick shelves and the 1/32" thick cardboard backing.
<snip>
Now think about the positive feedback loop of "tipping building ---> increased bending stresses ---> more yield ---> more tipping ---> increased bending stresses ---> more yield ---> more tipping " etc.

tk
I thought the answer was one of the things I was thinking about ;)
I initially thought you were referring to the overall design of the buildings, hence my initial answer. Looks like I was roughly on the money with my follow-up

[tfk]

Examples of "Experts gone wild".

The pilots at pilots for 911 truth.
Mechanical & mechanical engineers at ae911t (NOT the architects, who to the 98th percentile cannot do their own stress calcs.)

The "cosmic crowd":
Gary Zukav - The Dancing Wo Li Masters
The physicists who contributed to "what the (*&)# do we know".
All those physicists who wrote cosmic books in the 80s, using QM as proof of "interconnectedness of all things", etc.


I don't include medical doctors because medicine is an art, not a science. Although there are enough of them jumping on things as outlandish as "mercury / autisim link in vaccines", AIDS not caused by HIV, etc.

These ARE experts. They ARE talking in their own field of expertise. They are all talking nonsense.

Thusfar, TAM's suggestion (with large enough members of independent sets "expert" and "paranoid", there is guaranteed to be overlap) holds the best answer for most cases.

Of course, it means that many degrees of paranoia are benign enough to let the person function reasonably well in society.

I do NOT think that Lear, Stubblebine, Bowman & Wittenberg are crazy. I do think that they are pathologically egotistical & iconoclastic. That they view themselves as Quixotic mavericks, and have an almost complete disregard for all other experts in their own fields.

I think that some of them became famous experts because of their iconoclastic tendencies, branching out into new areas, and got lucky. A "random walk" that ended up on the mother lode by luck, not genius. But they're still tied to their iconoclastic roots. As soon as the majority sees the value in what they've found, they've got to head for the hinterlands.

This is an example of the sad truth that "every crazy sees themselves as a genius". And the sadder truth that "for every crazy that turned out to be an Einstein, 10,000 crazies turned out to be crazies." And why you should play the percentages in this game.

tk

PS. I see that Ultima1 is the requisite "Troofer Cock-o-the-walk" here. I'd suggest simply letting him rant on. It's not nearly as annoying as the screaming 2 year old that you can NOT ignore...

[tfk]

I thought the answer was one of the things I was thinking about ;)
I initially thought you were referring to the overall design of the buildings, hence my initial answer. Looks like I was roughly on the money with my follow-up
Seeing that I'm feeling generous today, you'll get full credit.

If you're inclined, ask some of your classmates if they can figure it out. Let me know the general percentages.

Grade 'em HARD. You'll be doing them a favor, even if it doesn't feel that way to you at the moment. :)


tk

[tfk]

Griz,


... I'm not fit to be an engineer ...


Why is that? Are you burdened with a personality?? :D



but it really doesn't require you to be one to understand that scaling down structures and changing their materials does not equal a comparative.


Actually, to understand it correctly, it does. One of the MOST fascinating of engineering subjects is (well, used to be, in the 1970s) called "dimensional analysis". Look it up. It speaks exactly to the complex requirements when one is scaling experiments. It came directly out of aerodynamics.

tk

[Grizzly Bear]

Griz,



Why is that? Are you burdened with a personality?? :D

Let's just say that the math is not my biggest specialty :D
I like the design aspect much more personally than anything else.



Actually, to understand it correctly, it does. One of the MOST fascinating of engineering subjects is (well, used to be, in the 1970s) called "dimensional analysis". Look it up. It speaks exactly to the complex requirements when one is scaling experiments. It came directly out of aerodynamics.
tk
I'm talking scaling in the context of understanding what you're scaling down.

Gage for example takes the card board boxes without compensating for how the strength scales with the size. If you reduce the length of each of the sides of a cube by half, you reduce the area down to 25% of the original, and to 1/8 of the original volume.

The same happens with scaling structural members. I actually taked about this in another thread a while back: LINK (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3983414&postcount=76)

Yes, you can run scale models, if you understand how to do it correctly, but arbitrarily taking one thing down to another without that understanding is... not a good idea :D

[Brainster]

I do NOT think that Lear, Stubblebine, Bowman & Wittenberg are crazy.

I don't know about Wittenberg, but Lear (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/03/space-cadet.html), Stubblebine (http://www.amazon.com/Men-Who-Stare-Goats/dp/product-description/0743270606) and Bowman (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/07/robert-bowman-on-hannity-colmes.html) are all complete wackos.

[dudalb]

There is an old joke...which I feel has a great deal of truth in it....that some experts are totally idiots which you get them out of their field of expertise.

[T.A.M.]

I don't include medical doctors because medicine is an art, not a science. Although there are enough of them jumping on things as outlandish as "mercury / autisim link in vaccines", AIDS not caused by HIV, etc.


Achem. Well I consider my profession a mix of art and science, thank you very much.;)

As for the anti-vax guys, if they are MDs, they deserve to have their licenses at least "reviewed".


Thusfar, TAM's suggestion (with large enough members of independent sets "expert" and "paranoid", there is guaranteed to be overlap) holds the best answer for most cases.

Of course, it means that many degrees of paranoia are benign enough to let the person function reasonably well in society.

Paranoia is, or can be somewhat nebulous, or at least of varying degrees, as you have said.

Most everyone will have some paranoid thoughts over one subject or another, at some point in their lives...this is not unusual, and of no real significance.

Then you get those who suffer from functionally impairing paranoia, plus or minus delusions and hallucinations. These are the truly ill. The schizophrenics, the bipolars. These people need intensive medical help, medication and psychotherapy.

As well there are those who suffer from paranoia as part of an overall personality disorder. These are the hardest to deal with, believe it or not. People with personality disorders do not realize they have a problem (unlike the bipolar patient, who knows something is wrong). In the eyes of the person with a personality disorder, it is the word that is wrong, not he/she. These people do not tend to respond to meds, and respond poorly to hospitalization. The only thing that seems to help at all, is intensive and prolonged psychotherapy.

Unfortunately, I think most of the paranoids in the truth movement, fit into the latter category.


I do NOT think that Lear, Stubblebine, Bowman & Wittenberg are crazy. I do think that they are pathologically egotistical & iconoclastic. That they view themselves as Quixotic mavericks, and have an almost complete disregard for all other experts in their own fields.

I think that some of them became famous experts because of their iconoclastic tendencies, branching out into new areas, and got lucky. A "random walk" that ended up on the mother lode by luck, not genius. But they're still tied to their iconoclastic roots. As soon as the majority sees the value in what they've found, they've got to head for the hinterlands.

This is an example of the sad truth that "every crazy sees themselves as a genius". And the sadder truth that "for every crazy that turned out to be an Einstein, 10,000 crazies turned out to be crazies." And why you should play the percentages in this game.

dead on.

TAM:)

[PhantomWolf]

For the record--
There are a fair number of Mechanical Engineers who never get past what I call "Cook-book engineering" (with a lower-case "E")--they look at charts and nomographs to solve problems in HVAC and the like. Not disparaging--it is work that must be done, and there are those who are suited to it, just as accountants range from bookkeeper to CFO's. You reach your level of confidence and comfort, and stay there.
This is opposed to the Engineers who have to reach past what has been done before, and rely on experience and "book-learning" to find new stuff and solve problems not in any book...

Reminds me of a story that friend who is an engineer was telling me about how a Mechanical Engineer specializing in HVAC couldn't understand why the Structrual Engineer on the project has having a fit over the ME's decision to drill a hole through one of the main building support columns so that he could run power cables through it to his system.

[GooseGrl172]

Reminds me of a story that friend who is an engineer was telling me about how a Mechanical Engineer specializing in HVAC couldn't understand why the Structrual Engineer on the project has having a fit over the ME's decision to drill a hole through one of the main building support columns so that he could run power cables through it to his system.

LoL.

I'm late here, but I have wondered the same my self;how experts speaking on subjects within their field of expertise can spew such nonsense), and it's incredibly frustrating/sickening/disappointing at times! I started flying when I was 14, haven't flown anything larger than a Cessna, and found nothing outlandish (other than their motives) about the fact that the hijackers did what they did (I was 17 at the time). My two favorite explanations for this behavior are money, and/or that they really are just nuts.

[AJM8125]

LoL.

I'm late here, but I have wondered the same my self;how experts speaking on subjects within their field of expertise can spew such nonsense), and it's incredibly frustrating/sickening/disappointing at times! I started flying when I was 14, haven't flown anything larger than a Cessna, and found nothing outlandish (other than their motives) about the fact that the hijackers did what they did (I was 17 at the time). My two favorite explanations for this behavior are money, and/or that they really are just nuts.

That's the TM in a nutshell. Those with any common sense have moved on. What's left are either profiteers or loons (or a combination of the two).

[PhantomWolf]

Delete for misreading... never mind....

[Travis]

Structural geometry also applies to WTC7 since the forces acting on column 79 changed dramatically once several floors had dropped around it. Try explaining this to Truthers though. They seem to think columns are impervious to everything except high explosives and thermite.

[tfk]

TAM,


Achem. Well I consider my profession a mix of art and science, thank you very much.


No disrespect intended. I agree wholeheartedly that it is a mix. I feel the mix is a lot less science than the usual opinions of both the public & doctors. My personal estimate just recently shifted the numbers, due to the last decades dramatic advances, from 98% art / 2% science to 95% art / 5% science.

But that does not contain a value judgment of either component.

I feel that Medicine is an art that is much more important to humanity (& to me) than the science of what might happen in a black hole, the center of the sun, or the origins of the universe, etc.

This is a conversation that I've had with lots of docs over the years. Most get a little peeved at me early in the conversation. They all suffer from what us hard science types call "physics envy". Later on, most begrudgingly agree to one extent or another at the end. Some won't talk to me at all after the discussion. Ah well...

The specific reason that medicine is an art is that the systems that you are studying are so complex and non-consistent. A Boeing 767 is trivially simple (& consistent, one to the next) compared to any organism. The wonder of it all is that you guys do as great a job as you do, given all the complications.

I'd like to offer an anecdotal suggestion that there is a fundamental difference between medicine and "real" science. Which, by the way, excludes any field of study that is so insecure that they must put the word "science" into their title (Political Science, Behavioral Science, etc.)

I was reading a book awhile back called "Betrayers of the Truth, Fraud in the Halls of Science". IIRC, the author was William Broad. A history of fraud in science. It really cheesed me off. I disagree wholeheartedly with his conclusions.

But it had a very useful compendium at the back. It was a list of a couple hundred cases of fraud.

One thing stuck out like a sore thumb. From about 1920 to the writing of the book (~1980s), almost every case of fraud happened in medicine or a closely related field.

I'd be surprised if that trend doesn't continue to today. In hard science, we've got the Cold Fusion. And I am stumped to recall another case. You simply can't get away with fraud in real hard science. As soon as someone goes to replicate your data, you're busted.

Not so in medicine. This observation is NOT to disparage medical researchers. Again, it is the complexity of the systems that you guys are studying that allows one to get conflicting results so often.

Whaddaya think??

tom

[rwguinn]

Reminds me of a story that friend who is an engineer was telling me about how a Mechanical Engineer specializing in HVAC couldn't understand why the Structrual Engineer on the project has having a fit over the ME's decision to drill a hole through one of the main building support columns so that he could run power cables through it to his system.

I had one where I had to make the HVAC guy Isolate (mount on springs) his "Cast Iron A/C Duct" (as I called it) from my structure to keep it out of the primary load path...

[T.A.M.]

TAM,



No disrespect intended. I agree wholeheartedly that it is a mix. I feel the mix is a lot less science than the usual opinions of both the public & doctors. My personal estimate just recently shifted the numbers, due to the last decades dramatic advances, from 98% art / 2% science to 95% art / 5% science.

But that does not contain a value judgment of either component.

I feel that Medicine is an art that is much more important to humanity (& to me) than the science of what might happen in a black hole, the center of the sun, or the origins of the universe, etc.

This is a conversation that I've had with lots of docs over the years. Most get a little peeved at me early in the conversation. They all suffer from what us hard science types call "physics envy". Later on, most begrudgingly agree to one extent or another at the end. Some won't talk to me at all after the discussion. Ah well...

The specific reason that medicine is an art is that the systems that you are studying are so complex and non-consistent. A Boeing 767 is trivially simple (& consistent, one to the next) compared to any organism. The wonder of it all is that you guys do as great a job as you do, given all the complications.

I'd like to offer an anecdotal suggestion that there is a fundamental difference between medicine and "real" science. Which, by the way, excludes any field of study that is so insecure that they must put the word "science" into their title (Political Science, Behavioral Science, etc.)

I was reading a book awhile back called "Betrayers of the Truth, Fraud in the Halls of Science". IIRC, the author was William Broad. A history of fraud in science. It really cheesed me off. I disagree wholeheartedly with his conclusions.

But it had a very useful compendium at the back. It was a list of a couple hundred cases of fraud.

One thing stuck out like a sore thumb. From about 1920 to the writing of the book (~1980s), almost every case of fraud happened in medicine or a closely related field.

I'd be surprised if that trend doesn't continue to today. In hard science, we've got the Cold Fusion. And I am stumped to recall another case. You simply can't get away with fraud in real hard science. As soon as someone goes to replicate your data, you're busted.

Not so in medicine. This observation is NOT to disparage medical researchers. Again, it is the complexity of the systems that you guys are studying that allows one to get conflicting results so often.

Whaddaya think??

tom

What do I think?

Well I think that it is entirely based on the definition you use for "science". I think that if your definition involves fields which try to understand how the physical world works, then medicine fits in, in this regard.

Part of the physical world is the human body. Medicine, at least at its basics, does attempt to understand how the human body works, and to help it work properly, where possible. We also attempt to understand various diseases, viruses, bacterium, etc, and their affect on us, within the world...so in that regard, medicine fits into the word "science".

However, like engineering has an application side, medicine has its clinical side, which is less science, and more logic, reasoning, deduction, a little gut instinct, and pattern recognition.

I would agree, it is far from a pure science such as physics or chemistry.

TAM:)

[tfk]

A friend of mine was a young engineer on a project to eliminate vibration in some tug boats on the Hudson River in NYC in the 60s. The company got the contract for a couple million dollars to deliver one system to one boat. They did a (literal) boat load of vibration measurements, designed an old school mechanical spring mass dampener system. To allow for uncertainties, they put adjustments on each variable, so that the system could be tuned on site.

After the system had been installed about 3 months, they got a call from the company saying that they loved the system, & wanted to put it onto a couple more of their boats. They sent my friend down to check out how the system was holding up. He found out that they had adjusted every control to essentially eliminate (i.e., disable) the anti-vibration system entirely.

The chief engineer on the boat asked my friend if their company could replicate what they had right there for the other boats.

Straight-faced Sid said, "Oh, I think we can do that."

[gumboot]

I think there's several possible reasons for people who have the appearance of experts to spout nonsense.

One is simply that some people are crazy. Scary as it seems, mentally ill people are sometimes very intelligent and competent. They may function perfectly in every day life as a pilot or an engineer or whatever, yet honestly believe there are blue grape-people living on the moon who whisper to them at night.

Another is ignorance, and I suspect this is the reason most of the time. Every "expert" argument I have heard against AA77 hitting the Pentagon (I mean real experts, not PfT idiots) relied on a false representation of the aircraft's flight path. Claiming an aircraft could not hit the towers could be as simple as being unaware of just how big they were. An expert may be oblivious to the fact that the hijacker pilots were trained qualified pilots.

Ignorance and stereotyping of the incident, particular on matters outside their immediate expertise, can lead to erroneous expert claims.

When you come across an expert who is making surprising claims about 9/11, it is vitally important that you ask them to explain - in detail - what they think happened. I suspect that most of the time they are simply misinformed about the facts of that day, and are basing their assessment on faulty information.