Jedi Master Spock, post your education credentials

[Jedi Master Spock]

This thread is rapidly devolving into a flame-fest - which, I believe, proves my point about how discussion of educational credentials is ultimately counterproductive. Terms like "cretinous," "dipshit," and "idiotic" (Mr. Oragahn, Who is like God arbour, Cock_Knocker) are not polite, nor conducive to subsequence polite discussion.

[Jedi Master Spock]

More dodging, more trying to do anything but give your credentials-especially since you've made the claim that your board seems more educated than him without giving any real proof. That claim is especially doubtful given that at least one of your members said that google was better than a formal education.

I haven't actually claimed that the entire board is "more educated" than Wong. You might want to read a little more carefully:

I've polled this board and found that, as with most internet communities, a large percentage of this board's denizens appear to be as well or better educated.

...

So far as M. Wong's education and licensure is concerned, I have every statistical reason to consider him to be of inferior intelligence and education to a rather significant fraction of this board's population - and not just myself.

Do you not understand the concept of burden of proof?

It falls on the one advancing less probable claims.

24% of the population of the US has a bachelor's degree or higher education. Fully 8% have graduate or professional degrees - that's 1 in 12.5 on average. About 15% are under 13 (and thus not allowed to register on discussion forums without parental permission).

The breakdown on the world wide web is similar. A similar or greater percentage (actually, almost twice the percentage, which I personally found remarkable) of respondents on a poll here have answered that they, too, have bachelor's degree or higher education.

Around 10-20% of first and second world populations (depending on choice of country and IQ test) have an IQ score higher than the average working engineer (who has a bachelor's or master's degree and a license.)

A bachelor's degree is nothing special. Nor is an engineering license.

Besides, I didn't ask if you thought that academic credentials are essential for the vs. debate, I asked you to provide them. Quit dodging.

I hold not only that academic credentials are not essential, but that the discussion of academic credentials is a red herring.

Lame excuse.

No, seriously. What's the reason for me to post my credentials?

Seriously, I've never seen anyone face an argument by over four people at once over dozens of pages and not concede, or at least leave.

IMO, that's because you've spent most of your argumentative time on or with communities which use social rather than logical argument - and expect simple peer pressure to prevail.

The same invalid argument from four different voices is not one whit more valid, although it is more convincing to those not aware it is ultimately drawn from the same source.

I have read carefully. The people participating in that thread basically amounted to:

1: You
2: The pro-Wars debaters, busy pummeling you over the dozens of pages.
3: Drooling idiots like HuskerJay and SSFPhoenix who respond with long debunked claims like 1.5 c and no lasers.
4: A group of inflammatory trolls.
5: The occasional person who contributed one post such as "I like trek better its more realistic", etc...

ST.com is both practically unmoderated and biased towards Trek by its very name. It's not a good place to say "See, these people agree with me, therefore I win!"

While I disagree with your classification of everybody except me who disagreed with you in more than one post as a either a "drooling idiot" or "troll," you might admit that the whole lot of you didn't seem to convince a single soul outside of your pre-existing community, and I got some good reviews from natives.

ST.com being practically unmoderated is the only reason most of you weren't banned after a dozen posts, given the posted rules against flaming. As far as the staff activity goes, it - like SW.com - is a fairly neutral board, even if the audience is not.

You really want to see if you're winning or losing, come over to SB.com and debate Trek vs. Wars there. I have come over and debated you at your site, and it would only be fair for you to do the same.

SB.com would not be quite as much of a waste of my time as SDN, but I still don't see adequate reason to register there. I have neither the time nor inclination to post on many other boards. Simply keeping everything about this site running is quite enough of an investment.

Mr. Oragahn and l33telboi, of course, feel it is worth their time, and seem to be "winning" well enough as it is measured. (I'm not surprised. My attempted insistence on lightspeed turbolasers collapsed under those arguments as well.)

Or are you afraid of the big bad Alyeska (Who is no longer a mod)?

Alyeska is registered here if he wants to talk to me or debate me.

If I had banned Alyeska from posting here, you might be able to build the case that I was afraid of Alyeska - nor has he been a moderator on SB.com for some time now.

I might do so for the technical discussions (Diesel fusion, travel time to Endor, etc...). Note that I didn't adress them in this debate, because I feel that it's not in the mood of the topic.

I look forward to that.

[Mike DiCenso]

Some feel that JMS is BigHairyMountainMan at SDN by claiming a similarity of writing styles. It's likely that this'll turn into a brain bug for them and it'll be taken as fact, like many took Saxton's tachyonic matter conversion idea to heart. For me, as I look back to what I remember about BHMM and the pages JMS has up, as well as the posts he's made, I don't feel that they are the same person. There are some similarities, but I can also point to writings that I have done that have traits of what was written by BHMM and JMS.

BHMM and JMS the same person? Not very likely given their very different opinions on various subjects, as well as their "writing styles" simply don't have as much in common as the SDNers would like to believe it does. Even if they were the same person, how does this effect the validity of his arguements, the evidence he has presented, or the quality of the calculations he has done?
-Mike

[Praeothmin]

You say it's an idiotic thought process, yet you will say that because generic klingons 243-541 have been bested by a bajoran and a human, they supposedly have equal skill to one specific character and then say a generic jedi would be able to beat Worf (despite the fact we've seen him win an interstellar championship- winning 'Champion Standing'). That's like saying any randomly choosen person from the US military would have the skill of Bruce Lee because both are human and both have had self-defense/martial arts/weapons training.

That's crazy.

That's pretty much the kind of response I was plaaning on before I noticed yours.

I just love the way Mr. Poe generalizes everything in order to make his point, no matter how absurd it is...
I guess I shouldn't be surprised, it's the SDN way... ;)

[Roondar]

Let me sum up this thread:

"Provide proof of your education. Without it your arguments need not be taken seriously by <random board>"

"Err, no"

"Stop evading!"

"I'm not evading - I said no"

"That is evading!"

etc...

Man, I'm not sure wether to laugh or cry... Nevertheless, I'll say again: an appeal to authority never works. Presence or absence of a formal education has no bearing on the correctness of an argument.

Especially not in something as silly as a Science Fiction debate. And until there is a formal education that teaches "Warp field manipulation" or "Turbolaser technology", kindly take your elitist crap about educational credentials and leave.

And before people try to play that card, I do in fact have a bachelors degree. And no, I do not care if you think my statement meaningless and require proof.

[GStone]

You say it's an idiotic thought process, yet you will say that because generic klingons 243-541 have been bested by a bajoran and a human, they supposedly have equal skill to one specific character and then say a generic jedi would be able to beat Worf (despite the fact we've seen him win an interstellar championship- winning 'Champion Standing'). That's like saying any randomly choosen person from the US military would have the skill of Bruce Lee because both are human and both have had self-defense/martial arts/weapons training.

That's crazy.

That's pretty much the kind of response I was plaaning on before I noticed yours.

I just love the way Mr. Poe generalizes everything in order to make his point, no matter how absurd it is...
I guess I shouldn't be surprised, it's the SDN way... ;)

I used the Force.

Edit:

Especially not in something as silly as a Science Fiction debate. And until there is a formal education that teaches "Warp field manipulation" or "Turbolaser technology", kindly take your elitist crap about educational credentials and leave.

I did like this quote I saw:

"Uhm. IT'S NOT REAL. THE PHYSICS OF IT ARE MADE UP. IT DOESN'T MATTER. ACADEMIC QUALIFICATIONS WILL NOT HELP YOU TO PROVE A POINT THAT IS POINTLESS - AND BASED WHOLLY IN FICTION."

[the bolding is not mine]

[Cpl Kendall]

Let me sum up this thread:

"Provide proof of your education. Without it your arguments need not be taken seriously by <random board>"

"Err, no"

"Stop evading!"

"I'm not evading - I said no"

"That is evading!"

etc...

Man, I'm not sure wether to laugh or cry... Nevertheless, I'll say again: an appeal to authority never works. Presence or absence of a formal education has no bearing on the correctness of an argument.

Especially not in something as silly as a Science Fiction debate. And until there is a formal education that teaches "Warp field manipulation" or "Turbolaser technology", kindly take your elitist crap about educational credentials and leave.

And before people try to play that card, I do in fact have a bachelors degree. And no, I do not care if you think my statement meaningless and require proof.

Your post broken down:

OMG! None of this is real, therefore we can't use science for our analysis! Why I'm on a forum dedicated to that, I don't know. But wait, I have an education too! So I'm relevant but I just said it doesn't matter, so why am I mentioning it?

[Roondar]

Let me sum up this thread:

"Provide proof of your education. Without it your arguments need not be taken seriously by <random board>"

"Err, no"

"Stop evading!"

"I'm not evading - I said no"

"That is evading!"

etc...

Man, I'm not sure wether to laugh or cry... Nevertheless, I'll say again: an appeal to authority never works. Presence or absence of a formal education has no bearing on the correctness of an argument.

Especially not in something as silly as a Science Fiction debate. And until there is a formal education that teaches "Warp field manipulation" or "Turbolaser technology", kindly take your elitist crap about educational credentials and leave.

And before people try to play that card, I do in fact have a bachelors degree. And no, I do not care if you think my statement meaningless and require proof.

Your post broken down:

OMG! None of this is real, therefore we can't use science for our analysis! Why I'm on a forum dedicated to that, I don't know. But wait, I have an education too! So I'm relevant but I just said it doesn't matter, so why am I mentioning it?

Nice try...

And thanks! You helped me prove my point. I mentioned my education precisely hoping for a reaction like this :)

[Cpl Kendall]

Nice try...

And thanks! You helped me prove my point. I mentioned my education precisely hoping for a reaction like this :)

So you're an attention whore, nice.

[Who is like God arbour]

[...]

Nevertheless, I'll say again: an appeal to authority never works. Presence or absence of a formal education has no bearing on the correctness of an argument.

Especially not in something as silly as a Science Fiction debate. And until there is a formal education that teaches "Warp field manipulation" or "Turbolaser technology", kindly take your elitist crap about educational credentials and leave.

[...]

Your post broken down:

OMG! None of this is real, therefore we can't use science for our analysis! Why I'm on a forum dedicated to that, I don't know. [...]

Why do you think, that this forum - or SDN or any other forum - is dedicated to use science for the analysis of "Warp fiel physics" or "turbolaser technology"?

• You have no evidence, that turbolasers are DET-weapons and phasers CR-weapons or that the main weapon of the Death Star is operating on the same principles as the turbolaser because you don't know, how each of them are operating and what exactly they are doing to their targets.
  

  • • • [...]
        
        Curtis Saxton, who holds a PhD in astrophysics, states:

        • Pinning down the nature of beam weapons in SW is a very very tricky proposition. If you take this option I recommend that you confine your discussion to statements of effects and capabilities. Trying to answer the question of "what is a turbolaser" will inevitably lead to a wild goose chase. Frankly, it's easier to make sense of hyperspace.

        [...]
        
        The exact nature of Star Wars beam weapons remains open to debate. None of the theories presented above explain all the effects of TL bolts. Only one thing is certain: turbolasers, blasters, and lightsabres are not lasers as we know them today.
        
        [...]

• You don't know, on which principles the hyperdrive or the warpdrive is based and therefore which is the better technology.
• You don't know, how a hypermatter-generator is exactly working because you don't even know, what exactly hypermatter is and what is done with it in that generator.
• You don't even know exactly, how the warp core is working, because, if it would work as it is said canonwise - through the annihilation of deuterium and anti-deuterium, it wouldn't be able to produce enough energy to accelerate the ship to the velocities, it has reached, relativistic effects ignored (And if it would work like the Alcubierre drive by creating a warp bubble of flat space, it would need far more energy than the annihilation of deuterium and anti-deuterium of the mass, a ship like the Enterprise could carry.)
• You don't know, how Star Trek shields are operating or how Star Wars shields, from which is said, that they are a volumetric fields, that extend out from the surface of the shield projector and diffuse applied energy back into the environment, although with that, they wouldn't be shields anymore, because a shield has per definition a clear outline, are exactly working.
• You don't even know, if Star Wars ships are equipped with neutrino radiators, let allone how they could convert excess energy into neutrinos.
  
  • • • • etc. etc. etc.

All you can do, is observe the effects and compare the different effect with each other and real life effects:

• How much damage does a phaser, how much damage does a turbo-laser and how much energy would be needed to achieve the same damage with real life weapons.
• How fast can ships get with their drive and how much energy would be needed to accelerate an object to such velocities in real life, ignoring relativistic effects.
• What protection gives a shield. To estimate that, you can't look, at how much weapon fire a shield can block, because you don't know, how that weapon fire strains the shield. It could be, that Star Trek shields are able to block Star Wars fire with ease or that Star Wars fire is not affected by Star Trek shields at all and vice versa or that Star Wars fire and Star Trek shields or Star Wars shields and Star Trek fire interact the same way as Star Trek shields and Star Trek weapons or Star Wars shields and Star Wars weapons. You can only take events, in which you really know the to the shields applied energy and even than, you don't know, if the shields woudn't be able to handle other sorts of energy better.
  
  • • • • etc. etc. etc.

Please explain me, where you would use science to analyse such things and why a degree would be usefull for that task!

[Cpl Kendall]

WILGA, I suggest you bugger yourself. How anyone could mistake what I said for a serious post is beyond me. Sarcasm, look it up.

[Who is like God arbour]

Maybe because the tenor of your post is, regardless how you have formulated it, the same tenor, many SDN members, inclusive Opecoiler, who has started that thread, but also Mr. Wrong and others, are striking.

And it may be, that I have problems to recognise english sarcasm, but it seems, that Roondar also hasn't recognised that your post was meant sarcastically.

And to be honest, I'm still not able to recognise the sarcasm in its tenor. The way, you have phrased it, may be parodic, but that doesn't change, what you have wanted to say with it - or rather, what I think, what you have wanted to say.

But regardless of that, I find my qestions and objections are still justified. Maybe, if you or Opecoiler or somebody else would have answered these questions, I wouldn't ask them again. 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]

So here you say that education or experiance doesn't matter because it's Sci-FI but when your talking about Traviss, some how it does matter because she was in the military.

Do you have a position or are you just spouting off whatever will help your argument?

[Who is like God arbour]

So here you say that education or experiance doesn't matter because it's Sci-FI ...

That's not exactly what I have said.

... but when your talking about Traviss, some how it does matter because she was in the military.

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.

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.

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.

And that's why there is no reason to insult Traviss because you think - not even know, that she has no real military experience.

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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
  
  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.

And don't think, that I haven't noticed, that you still haven't responded to my questions and objections.

[Cpl Kendall]

That's not exactly what I have said.

Then what did you mean?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[*]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?

[*]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?

[*]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?

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.

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.