Cpl Kendall wrote:Who is like God arbour wrote:
That's not exactly what I have said.
Then what did you mean?
Who is like God arbour wrote:[...] But the question, what use the knowledge and understanding of natural sciences have in the analyses of science fiction and the in it shown abilities, still stands. Why would someone with a degree in natural sciences be better qualified to analyze sience fiction, than a littérateur or a philosopher or a jurist or any other person, who has learned text analysis and interpretation (as long as they have at least the same knowledge and understanding of science, the author or producer of that science fiction has had and has observed)?
- Yes, if an author like David Brin would write a science fiction story, observing all known laws of nature and restrict the abilities and technologies in that story to these laws, what means that he wouldn't create abilities or technologies, which are or may not be possible, it would be really usefull to have the same knowledge and understanding of the laws of nature, such an author has used to create that science fiction.
Because in such case, with such knowledge and understanding, one would be able to really understand, how the things are working. But let us be honest, such science fiction would be boring (abilities- and technology-wise, not necessary plot-wise).
Cpl Kendall wrote:That was to your try to justify the insulting of Traviss, as it was described in the OP. You have stated, that Karen Traviss was a Reservist and a member of the RFA and that in terms of military credentials she ranks somewhere between a cockroach and an Officer Cadet and that the fact, that it was only the RNXS would make her credentials even less impressive.
In case you didn't notice I passed on information while insulting her. The problem with you and your ilk is that you think looking at someones credentials logically is also an insult. Even though by your own admittance you don't understand enough to be a qualified judge.
No, I don't think, that looking at someones credentialsi s an insult. I never have said that or similar thing.
I think, that it is an insult to call her »Karen Travissty«, »particularly fucking stupid retard«, »bitch with a sorry existence«, »a fucking disgrace with childish behaviour«, »loony as a toon with a a persecution complex out her ass«, »a fucking cunt, who actually suck worse than KJA«, »someone, who has gone ballistic«, »someone, who went nuts«, »someone, who is a tyrannical maniac« (and that's only from one single SDN thread
[1]).
It's irrelevant, what she has written or what her credentials are. Such insultings are always inappropriate. They are unnecessary, have nothing to do with freedom of opinion and endanger public freedom. And they show, that not only her work is not respected, but she as a human being is not respected too.
Cpl Kendall wrote:I have argued that she has with that more experience and training than all those, who have never served in armed forces but are insulting her nevertheless.
The problem is that not all experiance is valid to the topic at hand. In fact your going to see that her experiance is in fact not even worth mentioning once the last piece of info comes through but frankly even with what I've got it's more than enough to show that.
Would you have read my whole post, before starting to answer it, you would have seen, that this is exactly, what I have had already written.
Cpl Kendall wrote:I have not argued, that this is relevant.
Quite the contrary. I have always argued, that such things proves nothing. For example, I know that many officers are only doing administrative work and are no military genius either. I assume, that this is the same in the Canadian forces. Do you think, that
Daniel Kaffee or
Bud Roberts are good at military tactics and strategy - although they could say, that they are professional soldiers? Alone the fact, that someone has served in a force, doesn't proves his qualification to describe certain aspects of military if that lies out of his own experience.
Congrats, you get a gold star.
Please consider, that english is not my mother tongue. I don't know the meaning of »gold star« and it is not explained in my dictionary. What did you wanted to say?
Cpl Kendall wrote:And that's why there is no reason to insult Traviss because you think - not even know, that she has no real military experience.
See here that's the thing. From what I've it's more than enough to damn her. You just have to have the experiance to read between the lines.
The fact, that she may have no own experience is enough to damn her? Because, up to now, you don't know, what experiences she has.
And as I have said, even if she has no experience, that's not a reason to damn her or insult her. You don't have to like her work. But you also don't have to attack her in person. State, what you don't like in her work. State, what you don't like in her behaviour. But don't insult her, don't degrade her human dignity. With comments as the above, you are doing exactly that.
Cpl Kendall wrote:Furthermore, there is a difference:
- If one would say, that he has military experience, I would accept his expertise, as soon, as my experience and knowledge is outshined. I wouldn't even try to argue military topics with that person and accept, what he says - as long as he tries to explain it to me comprehensible. I would ask questions to understand his reasoning. But that doesn't mean, that I'm already debating. It's allowed to ask questions. I would be ready to conceede, that I don't know enough to comprehend his reasoning without inappropriate efforts. But if I notice, that the explanation of that someone is fallacious, I will not accept it.
Part of your problem is that you don't know enough to peg something as fallacious. And I see no reason to dumb things down enough for you to understand it. You can afterall look it up.
You don't know my own military experiences. I have served in the German forces. I have had common basic training in a paratrooper company. My special basic training was in an airborne sapper company. After that, I have made my skydive license. After that, I was again positioned in a paratrooper company. (No, I want prove it. We can talk about my experiences and about what I have learned. But I won't give further personal informations.)
I don't claim, that I have more experiences that you have. But I think to know enough, to regocnise the one or other fallacy. Besides that, I have enough common sense.
And if you want to debate, you have to explain sometimes your thoughts. You can't claim something and expect that all are believing you without any explanations, only because ypu say, that you have corresponding experience. If you expect that, you shouldn't debate at all.
Cpl Kendall wrote:[*]If one would say, that he has studied mathematics, I would accept his expertise, as soon, as my experience and knowledge is outshined, what would happen relativ soon because I hate mathe (it's not that I don't understand it, it's that - although my approach was always correct, my solutions were always wrong. I have always made silly fidget-errors). I would accept his solutions for calculations, from which I know, that I can't comprehend them or only with an effort, that's inappropriate. I would not question his calculations and have to trust, that he is honest. But I still would be able to check the premises of that calculation.
So why do you argue against Dr. Saxtons findings even though he is more qualified than you?
I have never doubted his caloulations. If he says, that it would need so and so much energy to destroy a planet, I believe him. If he says, that it would need so and so much energy to slag the entire surface of an planet within one hour, I believe him. I don't check his calculations.
But - as I have said - I check his premises.
I can ask, how he thinks to prove, that the Death Star main weapon is a DET weapon and not a CR weapon and that it delivers that energy and not only create a funky chain reaction.
I can ask, from where he takes the information, that a Star Destroyer is able to slag the entire surface of an planet within one hour.
His calculations may be correct. But - for me, that would only be interessting, if the premisses of these calculations are confirmed. And up to now, I don't see, that these premises are confirmed.
Cpl Kendall wrote:[*]If one would say, that he has studied engineering, I would accept his expertise in his field. But I would still expect, that he tries to explain its reason to me comprehensible. I would ask questions to understand his reasoning. But that doesn't mean, that I'm already debating. It's allowed to ask questions. I would be ready to conceede, that I don't know enough to comprehend his reasoning without inappropriate efforts. But if I notice, that the explanation of that someone is fallacious, I will not accept it.
So why do argue against Mike Wong when he is more qualified than you?
I have never argued against him in an area, in which he is more qualified than I am. And yes, there are some areas - even in the versus debate, where is knowledge is relevant. But, as I have shown - and you have again not confuted, in most areas, his knowledge is irrelevant. He is not able to explain Star Wars technology or Star Trek technology. He knows not more about subspace physic or hyperspace physic, than I know.
Cpl Kendall wrote:[*]And if one could say, that he has experience with subspace physics, knows, how phasers, turpolasers shields etc. are operating, I would accept his expertise. But I would still expect, that he tries to explain its reason to me comprehensible. I would ask questions to understand his reasoning. But that doesn't mean, that I'm already debating. It's allowed to ask questions. I would be ready to concede, that I don't know enough to comprehend his reasoning without inappropriate efforts. But if I notice, that the explanation of that someone is fallacious, I will not accept it.
So why do argue against those that attempt these things that are more qualified than you?
Would you have read my whole post, before starting to answer it, you would have seen, that I have had already answered that question. There is no one, who knows more about Star Wars technology or Star Trek technology than I know - as long as we have read the same books and have seen the same movies.
There is no one, who can claim to have experience with it or has studied it or can comprehend it.
Cpl Kendall wrote:But the latter will never happen because there is no one, who could claim that and there are no reasons, that could be explained comprehensible.[/list]
Ahh back to the it's Sci-Fi so it's not possible excuse again.
Would you have read my whole post, before starting to answer it, you would have seen, that's not only an excuse. You could have refuted my argument. But you have done nothing. Why is it an excuse? Why would someone with a degree in natural sciences are better qualified to explain science fiction, that is invented from soneone, who has not or only little thought about science, while inventing it?
Cpl Kendall wrote:And don't think, that I haven't noticed, that you still haven't responded to my questions and objections.
Why would I give you yet another soapbox? Everyone knows what your going to say anyways. And half the time the people on this board who agree with you won't even touch it.
Because you could refute my argument. You could prove, that it's only an excuse. You could prove, that someone with a degree in natural sciences is better qualified to explain the laws of subspace and hyperspace than someone, who has read the same books and has seen the same movies and knows as much about these things.