Why indeed.
P2 – “Why it is that people with excellent academic credentials cannot see the wood for the trees and realise that they are being played because to divide & conquer is to invite disunity (a rabble). Ultimately this will suit the 'powers to be' when the time comes to call the end to the MH370 SIO 7th Arc search effort...”
The combined sins of intellectual arrogance and believing in ones own opinion of personal superiority. You see a lot of it; a bloke who could not work out how to put an IKEA flat pack together but with a degree in ‘fine art’ totally convinced that ‘he’ despite all evidence to the contrary, is, indeed, a superior being. It is a total bollocks; I knew a colliery blacksmith, self educated, who could do the Times crossword in record time – every time. I once met a real rocket scientist who could barely tie his boot laces without written instruction. The difference between ‘intelligence’ and ‘education’ is a Gordian knot which the academics struggle to undo.
When we look at any of the ‘academic’ circles, particularly the sciences, we see whole world, in a nut shell. “The earth is round” says Master Galileo; “Bollocks” says the holy church, “and if you keep it up, we’ll chop your fool head off” (paraphrased slightly). Matters have progressed slightly beyond that impasse. These days, Master G would publish his theory and, those interested would read it. Those for would try to prove the math; those agin would try to disavow Master G of his fancy. But, either side must provide ‘proof’ to support their theory. Thus experiment, calculation and examination begin. With a bit of luck – Master G could be informed that he was wrong; the lads discovered that the Earth was not ‘round’ but an oblate spheroid. QED. Win –win for all (bar the flat earth crowd). The arguments and discussions supported by fact; but not even the holy church called Master G a fool – heretic, absolutely, but then they had an agenda.
The point I’m labouring is that there are some theories which may be discussed, sensibly, openly and with good manners, without the need to insult the protagonist.
For example:-
PH – “I couldn't think of an answer until I realized I'd answered it myself with reference to the complexity of magnetic variation in that part of the world. I just had to check and Begorrah! There's the answer.”
It is one answer; and I would not gainsay it, but I would not call it ‘the’ answer. It may be that the ‘scenario’ was partially programmed to revisit the Erebus disaster; which as a training exercise in CFIT is a classic. Maybe the ‘box’ needed a couple of waypoints to allow the sim to ‘jump’ to a near position and avoid a long flight, beyond the programmable fuel limitations. It could be an exercise in ‘Grid navigation’. Back in the day of written examinations for senior licences ‘Grid’ was a featured torment to the less mathematically gifted and a pleasure for those with a love of ‘navigation’ as an art form. Either way – Polar navigation is a complex affair – for the computer or the navigator - and to a dedicated ‘purist’ or student a thing which is now ‘nice to know’ rather than a must have. Then there is a whimsical explanation – it would be (IMO) a fine thing to be able to say that you had indeed been to the very ends of the planet – flown over both the NP and SP and even landed on the ice runways, even if only in the sim. Couple of pints, bit of imagination, a discussion on the latest ‘adventure’ in the SP, fire up the sim and, Bingo, there you are.
Without empirical evidence to support any theory, they remain exactly that; theory. Sensible theory is worth discussion. Gods the ‘discussions’ I’ve sat through and been party to on matters aeronautical; some heated, some hilarious; some down to brass tacks and (surprisingly) agreement reached. But in peer group discussion I don’t believe I’ve ever heard a man called Fool for holding a point of view and expounding a logical argument. Disagreement – by the cart load – often fiercely defended by both sides; I’ve even seen mates fall out over their differing ‘opinion’ ; but that borders on the ‘Shrinks’ department and questions the meaning of ‘true friendship’.
Aye - Old Voltaire had the right of it;
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Academic. It is an exceedingly pleasant morning; perhaps a second coffee the a stroll on the beach, see if the dogs theory of relativity (bones by the fire v sticks in the surf) proves out Puts drum away for the sake of peace and harmony. Gods help those that disturb it.
Toot toot.
P2 – “Why it is that people with excellent academic credentials cannot see the wood for the trees and realise that they are being played because to divide & conquer is to invite disunity (a rabble). Ultimately this will suit the 'powers to be' when the time comes to call the end to the MH370 SIO 7th Arc search effort...”
The combined sins of intellectual arrogance and believing in ones own opinion of personal superiority. You see a lot of it; a bloke who could not work out how to put an IKEA flat pack together but with a degree in ‘fine art’ totally convinced that ‘he’ despite all evidence to the contrary, is, indeed, a superior being. It is a total bollocks; I knew a colliery blacksmith, self educated, who could do the Times crossword in record time – every time. I once met a real rocket scientist who could barely tie his boot laces without written instruction. The difference between ‘intelligence’ and ‘education’ is a Gordian knot which the academics struggle to undo.
When we look at any of the ‘academic’ circles, particularly the sciences, we see whole world, in a nut shell. “The earth is round” says Master Galileo; “Bollocks” says the holy church, “and if you keep it up, we’ll chop your fool head off” (paraphrased slightly). Matters have progressed slightly beyond that impasse. These days, Master G would publish his theory and, those interested would read it. Those for would try to prove the math; those agin would try to disavow Master G of his fancy. But, either side must provide ‘proof’ to support their theory. Thus experiment, calculation and examination begin. With a bit of luck – Master G could be informed that he was wrong; the lads discovered that the Earth was not ‘round’ but an oblate spheroid. QED. Win –win for all (bar the flat earth crowd). The arguments and discussions supported by fact; but not even the holy church called Master G a fool – heretic, absolutely, but then they had an agenda.
The point I’m labouring is that there are some theories which may be discussed, sensibly, openly and with good manners, without the need to insult the protagonist.
For example:-
PH – “I couldn't think of an answer until I realized I'd answered it myself with reference to the complexity of magnetic variation in that part of the world. I just had to check and Begorrah! There's the answer.”
It is one answer; and I would not gainsay it, but I would not call it ‘the’ answer. It may be that the ‘scenario’ was partially programmed to revisit the Erebus disaster; which as a training exercise in CFIT is a classic. Maybe the ‘box’ needed a couple of waypoints to allow the sim to ‘jump’ to a near position and avoid a long flight, beyond the programmable fuel limitations. It could be an exercise in ‘Grid navigation’. Back in the day of written examinations for senior licences ‘Grid’ was a featured torment to the less mathematically gifted and a pleasure for those with a love of ‘navigation’ as an art form. Either way – Polar navigation is a complex affair – for the computer or the navigator - and to a dedicated ‘purist’ or student a thing which is now ‘nice to know’ rather than a must have. Then there is a whimsical explanation – it would be (IMO) a fine thing to be able to say that you had indeed been to the very ends of the planet – flown over both the NP and SP and even landed on the ice runways, even if only in the sim. Couple of pints, bit of imagination, a discussion on the latest ‘adventure’ in the SP, fire up the sim and, Bingo, there you are.
Without empirical evidence to support any theory, they remain exactly that; theory. Sensible theory is worth discussion. Gods the ‘discussions’ I’ve sat through and been party to on matters aeronautical; some heated, some hilarious; some down to brass tacks and (surprisingly) agreement reached. But in peer group discussion I don’t believe I’ve ever heard a man called Fool for holding a point of view and expounding a logical argument. Disagreement – by the cart load – often fiercely defended by both sides; I’ve even seen mates fall out over their differing ‘opinion’ ; but that borders on the ‘Shrinks’ department and questions the meaning of ‘true friendship’.
Aye - Old Voltaire had the right of it;
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Academic. It is an exceedingly pleasant morning; perhaps a second coffee the a stroll on the beach, see if the dogs theory of relativity (bones by the fire v sticks in the surf) proves out Puts drum away for the sake of peace and harmony. Gods help those that disturb it.
Toot toot.