So this is supposed to cast doubt on his credentials as a climate scientist... how, exactly?
Someone can give all the contrary (and unliked) opinions they want on subjects they have no credential or authority in. Hell, we do it all the time on./
OTOH, the man had to have posted his hypotheses and proofs somewhere... why not attack those, instead of attacking him?
The ad hominem attack can in fact be logically correct, if the "attack on the person" casts doubt as to that person's ability to reason. For instance, if I said that scientist A recently argued that he sees little fairies and he can prove it, or that he has consistently lied and falsified data on previous papers, then I would say that this casts doubt on the credibility of scientist A. It does not prove his hypotheses wrong, but it does cast doubt on them.
Contrast this with a real ad hominem attack: imagine a nazi rejects the findings of scientist B because, and only because the scientist is Jewish. Being Jewish would seem to have no effect on a person's ability to reason, nor would it cast doubt on the person's credibility. The nazi has demonstrated a logical fallacy.
Okay, Explain to me how the paper has been published in a peer reviewed journal, and the Canadian government is "muzzling scientists" by not letting the author of said paper speak about it to major news agencies, when she is a government employee and subject to certain employment restrictions.
She is being muzzled because she is not being allowed to talk about her findings to the public via the press. Her findings are buried in a pay for access science journal that is likely written in language that most in the public will not understand.
The truth is that the damage has been done and the only approach that can possibly make a difference over the long term is, the clearing of blocked streams, the enhancement of riparian areas, the improvement and restoration of estuary land that is being gobbled up by our greed for real estate.
Her research, as far as I have heard seems to indicate a virus propagating in the salmon population. It doesn't seem unlikely that such a virus could be coming from the salmon farms that the wild salmon often have to pass on their way to spawn. Combine that with the very likely fact that salmon farms are a source of sea lice that have been shown to infect wild salmon fry as they pass by, and you have a good argument that salmon farming is a primary cause of the decline in wild stocks of salmon.
The conservative government seems to not understand an important fact about science and the pursuit of truth, simply that money and the truth are often enemies of each other. If you view the world through dollar signs, you will have a very warped worldview.
In my first semester I made the error to rely on the text book (well, at least in one course). After that, I wrote complete notes for any course. Which resulted not only in me having the complete material covered in the course without paying anything, but also having it memorized much better than by using the book, because it all went through my brain in order to get into my notes.
Did I say I didn't take notes? I often find that in a field that I have continued to study or use, going back to the textbook is more useful than going back to my notes. In fact, I sometimes find that sections of the textbook that were less useful to me when I was learning the material become more useful as a way to solidify and enhance my knowledge. If the material has been digesting in my brain for a few years, the reliable and thorough explanations in a good logical textbook make more sense than they ever did before.
I routinely find myself referencing textbooks from courses that I took years ago. If students cannot afford their books, university libraries should provide copies; students should not be at the mercy of Amazon or any other company.
Amen to that. If I didn't have many of the textbooks from old courses I took, it would almost be as if I never took the course in the first place. I have always thought that in many courses, you aren't merely taking them to fully learn the actual knowledge...you are taking them to learn that the knowledge actually exists in the first place. Later you find that you need the knowledge, or that it is interesting to you, and you go back and re-read the textbooks.
And your point is? Regardless of how the nation came to be in the state that it's in, there isn't any functioning government there at the moment.
It makes me laugh when I hear neo-cons say "government isn't the solution, it IS the problem". If you want to see what not having a functioning government looks like, go to Somalia. It even has religious extremism.
I've been thinking along these lines for years. One of the original catalysts of this was reading a book called Voltaire's Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West, by John Ralston Saul, an historian. It isn't a perfect book, but it is definitely thought provoking. It is difficult to summarize, but I'll give it a shot. He argues that our modern management class is obsessed with a somewhat myopic version of reason concerned mainly with measurement. This management class lacks a sense of imagination, of history, and of human nature, preferring to retreat to a world of graphs, tables, and equations.
The example he gave that sticks with me concerns the Mad Cow Disease crisis in the UK a while ago. Mad Cow Disease is a strange phenomenon, where protein structures called prions propagate when animals eat other animals that have the prions in their flesh. The prions eventually result in brain disintegration. They cannot be destroyed by cooking and processing. Managers in the beef industry knew that Mad Cow Disease existed, knew that it was growing, but they did not take it seriously. They likely tried to measure it in terms of number of cows infected, number of people infected by its human variant, Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, and concluded that its rarity made it a negligible risk. They could have wiped it out by quick action, but they did not. What they didn't seem able to imagine was that this disease and the fear surrounding it would eventually result in the destruction of the entire British beef industry. Almost all of the stock of British cows was destroyed. Britain was banned from exporting beef to most of the rest of the world. The financial losses were huge for the industry. Saul argues that these losses were due in very large part to the lack of imagination of MBA type managers.
I also have first hand with these issues. A friend worked for a food manufacturer that hired as plant manager an MBA graduate whose only previous experience was in a machinery assembly plant. Predictably, food safety practices and quality control went out the window, as these things were seen as negative items on a balance sheet. Lab testing and random bacterial swabbing budgets were reduced, until predictably there was a food recall that cost the company prestige, customers and a lot of money. He managed the plant primarily from his upstairs office, and he spent most of his time staring at graphs. He would seldom come down to the plant floor, and he had little comprehension of the processes and details of the plant he was managing. In the end, he left in disgrace, after transforming a plant that had formerly been extremely profitable and efficient into a money losing albatross.
When I think about how much more the US could do if we didn't squander our money on bullshit
The obsession with lowering taxes will imply that a larger percentage of national resources are funnelled into consumption. When a nation spends more on consumer goods, it will, in my opinion lead to a reduction in projects that are national in scale and for the public good. I think we have already seen this in the reductions both in NASA's budget, and in the general research budget. Most research is now carried out by private corporations, with the main aim of short term profit. The ironic thing is that the reduction in general research will probably harm the broad economy, reducing the potential profits of these same corporations.
But can you with any precision show that even 1 of these was due to the increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere. I mean even a single ONE?
Science is all about probabilities. Bertrand Russell thought that science was inductive, meaning it can only ever give probabilities. So your implicit cry for "proof" of association rings hollow. What is important is the trend. Any single data point in an experiment has error, that is it has only a certain probability of being near the "true" value. However, we can combine multiple measurements, multiple points to see a trend or a pattern. The individual error in single measurements or events becomes less important when we have multiple measurements. In this case, it is the trend of increasing extremity in weather events that is the important thing to look at, especially since the theory of global warming predicts such changes.
FTA: "One researcher told of receiving threats of sexual assault and violence against her children after her photograph appeared in a newspaper article promoting a community tree-planting day as a local action to mitigate climate change."
Death threats for planting trees? WTF?
At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst.
Meanwhile, floods and fires continue. I have always thought that the first major impact on society will be on food supplies, with a concomitant increase in food prices. This will at first bring civil unrest in poorer countries, as food takes up an increasingly large proportion of their livelihood. Eventually these high food prices will have a severe economic impact on wealthy nations as well.
I was just re-reading Plato's Gorgias, one of my favorite dialogues, and I am amazed at how it parallels what we are talking about on this thread. I think authors of these "studies" are referring to rhetoric, rather than reason itself. Here are some quotes:
Gorgias. What is there greater than the word which persuades the judges in the courts, or the senators in the council, or the citizens in the assembly, or at any other political meeting?-if you have the power of uttering this word, you will have the physician your slave, and the trainer your slave, and the money-maker of whom you talk will be found to gather treasures, not for himself, but for you who are able to speak and to persuade the multitude.
Socrates. Now I think, Gorgias, that you have very accurately explained what you conceive to be the art of rhetoric; and you mean to say, if I am not mistaken, that rhetoric is the artificer of persuasion, having this and no other business, and that this is her crown and end. Do you know any other effect of rhetoric over and above that of producing persuasion?
Gorgias. No: the definition seems to me very fair, Socrates; for persuasion is the chief end of rhetoric.
And then this:
Socrates. Will you ask me, what sort of an art is cookery?
Polus. What sort of an art is cookery?
Socrates. Not an art at all, Polus.
Polus. What then?
Socrates. I should say an experience.
Polus. In what? I wish that you would explain to me.
Socrates. An experience in producing a sort of delight and gratification, Polus.
Polus. Then are cookery and rhetoric the same?
Socrates. No, they are only different parts of the same profession.
Polus. Of what profession?
Socrates. I am afraid that the truth may seem discourteous; and I hesitate to answer, lest Gorgias should imagine that I am making fun of his own profession. For whether or no this is that art of rhetoric which Gorgias practises I really cannot tell:-from what he was just now saying, nothing appeared of what he thought of his art, but the rhetoric which I mean is a part of a not very creditable whole.
Gor. A part of what, Socrates? Say what you mean, and never mind me.
Socrates. In my opinion then, Gorgias, the whole of which rhetoric is a part is not an art at all, but the habit of a bold and ready wit, which knows how to manage mankind: this habit I sum up under the word "flattery"; and it appears to me to have many other parts, one of which is cookery, which may seem to be an art, but, as I maintain, is only an experience or routine and not an art:-another part is rhetoric, and the art of attiring and sophistry are two others: thus there are four branches, and four different things answering to them. And Polus may ask, if he likes, for he has not as yet been informed, what part of flattery is rhetoric: he did not see that I had not yet answered him when he proceeded to ask a further question: Whether I do not think rhetoric a fine thing? But I shall not tell him whether rhetoric is a fine thing or not, until I have first answered, "What is rhetoric?" For that would not be right, Polus; but I shall be happy to answer, if you will ask me, What part of flattery is rhetoric?
Polus. I will ask and do you answer? What part of flattery is rhetoric?
Socrates. Will you understand my answer? Rhetoric, according to my view, is the ghost or counterfeit of a part of politics.
Polus. And noble or ignoble?
Socrates. Ignoble, I should say, if I am compelled to answer, for I call what is bad ignoble: though I doubt whether you understand what I was saying before.
I think that the millions of victims of state-sponsored murder would disagree.
He was speaking about a democratic state that acts for the Public Interest. He was not talking about, nor endorsing the tyrannies you seem to be referring to. Quite the opposite in fact. Here is some more from The Social Contract:
However, when the social tie begins to slacken and the state to weaken, when particular interests begin to make themselves felt and sectional societies begin to exert an influence over the greater society, the common interest becomes corrupted and meets opposition; voting is no longer unanimous; the general will is no longer the will of all; contradictions and disputes arise; and even the best opinion is not allowed to prevail unchallenged.
In the end, when the state, on the brink of ruin, can maintain itself only in an empty and illusory form, when the social bond is broken in every heart, when the meanest interest impudently flaunts the sacred name of the public good, then the general will is silenced: everyone, animated by secret motives, ceases to speak as a citizen any more than as if the state had never existed; and the people enacts in the guise of laws iniquitous decrees which have private interests as their only end.
I think it is quite easy to see much of the above in contemporary American society.
Here is a quote from Rousseau that is germane to this discussion:
Nothing is more dangerous in public affairs than the influence of private interests, and the abuse of the law by the government is a lesser evil than that corruption of the legislator which inevitably results from the pursuit of private interests. When this happens, the state is corrupted in its very substance and no reform is
possible
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, "The Social Contract" (1762), book 3, chapter 4
In a world where we are encouraged only to follow our own self-interest, where the state and anything associated with the Public Interest is under attack, it is no surprise that the Truth becomes a casualty. Our habit of looking inwards seems to be carried over to our intellectual lives. In this world where we are all individual islands, it often seems that everyone is right and no one is wrong. We seem to denigrate the idea of Truth, and with it we denigrate the institutions whose purpose is to explore for Truth. Academics, intellectuals, and people who rigorously use logic and reason to seek the Truth are put at the same level as charlatans and those who do not care about logic but have other agendas. Surely the idea that "nerds" are becoming "anti-intellectuals" can be tied to this broader trend.
I'm sorry, but that's BS. It was a nasty piece of ethnic cleansing for sure (though it was made largely worse by the bombings), but refugees were going mostly to Albania, and a few to Macedonia, neither country being a NATO member at the time.
What is missing from your analysis is an appreciation for the dynamics of this region. Historically, wider wars have a tendency to start there. It is a hub where large powers meet. Serbia has ties with Russia. Turkey also borders the region, and has interests in, for example Macedonia. And Turkey is a member of NATO. Greece also has interests in Macedonia. With a rogue Serbian leader throwing his military weight around the region, there was always a risk of a wider conflagration. Balkan stability is definitely within the interests of NATO.
More than two months and NATO can't topple Gaddafi.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Gaddafi is dead meat. His military is slowly being put through a meat grinder, and he has a determined locally based opposition movement against him. They will eventually increase in strength, as they are trained and equipped. If you expect this change to happen overnight, you clearly have no concept of the strengths and limitations of military force.
Solar IS practical. Put large scale solar thermal plants in the deserts. Connect these plants to the population centres with high voltage DC transmission lines, which have much less loss over long distance than AC lines. Solar thermal can even work at night, due to stored heat.
Reading these comments, I fear America has lost her way. Instead of a "CAN DO" attitude, we see a series of baffling nonsensical posts on which promising technology is impractical or impossible. The moon shot would have likely been impossible today, given the attitudes of the current population. Shame.
The rest is just my speculation - it seems like he wasn't paying much attention, was letting the autopilot do its thing, then when he suddenly had to resume manual control, his first impulse was fear of crashing into the ground, so he yanked back the stick and went into a terrible stall from which they never recovered.
Recovering from a stall in a jet at altitude isn't as simple as cessna pilots might think, at least as far as I understand. Beginner pilots are told to push the stick forward to reduce angle of attack. But in a jet at altitude, pushing the stick forward can send you into an overspeed situation, which can also lead to a stall. So then the question is, if you don't know whether you are above or below, what do you do? Recovering from a stall when you are already well into it, especially if you don't have airspeed data would be very difficult, in my opinion. The real question for me is, how did the airplane get into a stalling situation in the first place.
As for the pilots, I'm not prepared to blame this crash entirely on them. Clearly losing airspeed data should never have happened. I am also unsure about what was actually functioning as far as instrumentation. I will wait for the final report from the agency.
The airplane’s angle of attack increased progressively beyond 10 degrees and the plane started to climb. The PF made nose-down control inputs and alternately left and right roll inputs. The vertical speed, which had reached 7,000 ft/min, dropped to 700 ft/min and the roll varied between 12 degrees right and 10 degrees left. The speed displayed on the left side increased sharply to 215 kt (Mach 0.68). The airplane was then at an altitude of about 37,500 ft and the recorded angle of attack was around 4 degrees.
From 2 h 10 min 50, the PNF tried several times to call the Captain back.
At 2 h 10 min 51, the stall warning was triggered again. The thrust levers were positioned in the TO/GA detent and the PF maintained nose-up inputs. The recorded angle of attack, of around 6 degrees at the triggering of the stall warning, continued to increase. The trimmable horizontal stabilizer (THS) passed from 3 to 13 degrees nose-up in about 1 minute and remained in the latter position until the end of the flight.
I have been reading the report and there are some strange interesting passages. Here is a partial summary, focussing largely on pilot control inputs
Copilot is PF. Captain is PNF.
2 h 08 min 07: "...turbulence increased slightly and the crew decided to reduce the speed to about Mach 0.8"
2 h 10 min 05: "...the PF made a left nose-up input. The stall warning sounded twice in a row...Autopilot and auto-thrust remained disengaged for the rest of the flight."
2 h 10 min 16: "...The airplane’s angle of attack increased progressively beyond 10 degrees and the plane started to climb. The PF made nose-down control inputs and alternately left and right roll inputs... The airplane was then at an altitude of about 37,500 ft"
At 2 h 10 min 51: "...The thrust levers were positioned in the TO/GA detent and the PF maintained nose-up inputs...The trimmable horizontal stabilizer (THS) passed from 3 to 13 degrees nose-up in about 1 minute and remained in the latter position until the end of the flight...The PF continued to make nose-up inputs."
2 h 11 min 40: "...The airplane’s pitch attitude did not exceed 15 degrees and the engines’ N1’s were close to 100%..."
At 2 h 12 min 02: "...At that moment, the thrust levers were in the IDLE detent and the engines’ N1’s were at 55%. Around fifteen seconds later, the PF made pitch-down inputs..."
This much seems clear: the airplane was cleared for flight level 350 (35000 ft), and was likely at that altitude when the trouble started, assuming the altimeter was functioning. Stall warnings went off, and the airplane climbed to 38000 ft. It then descended rapidly, it seems with a monstrously high angle of attack. It also seems from the report that the nose of the plane was mostly pitched up through this, though I am not absolutely sure on this. This would imply a very bad stall...essentially the airplane was falling from the sky. One can speculate that the pilots were doing their best to recover from the stall with imperfect data on their airspeed.
To me the important period was between 2 h 08 min 07 and 2 h 10 min16. There was a decision to reduce speed, which would entail a reduction in thrust. Two minutes later, there was a stall warning, implying that the airplane's airspeed was out of the very narrow range required at that altitude (plus/minus 10 knots according to the Nova documentary, though I'm not sure it's so narrow). The question is, what caused those initial stall warnings? How did the airplane's speed get out of the proper range? Did the pilots forget to increase thrust after the autopilot reduced it? During those two minutes, was the airplane catastrophically slowing down?
Slashdot Mirror
So this is supposed to cast doubt on his credentials as a climate scientist... how, exactly?
Someone can give all the contrary (and unliked) opinions they want on subjects they have no credential or authority in. Hell, we do it all the time on ./
OTOH, the man had to have posted his hypotheses and proofs somewhere... why not attack those, instead of attacking him?
The ad hominem attack can in fact be logically correct, if the "attack on the person" casts doubt as to that person's ability to reason. For instance, if I said that scientist A recently argued that he sees little fairies and he can prove it, or that he has consistently lied and falsified data on previous papers, then I would say that this casts doubt on the credibility of scientist A. It does not prove his hypotheses wrong, but it does cast doubt on them.
Contrast this with a real ad hominem attack: imagine a nazi rejects the findings of scientist B because, and only because the scientist is Jewish. Being Jewish would seem to have no effect on a person's ability to reason, nor would it cast doubt on the person's credibility. The nazi has demonstrated a logical fallacy.
Okay, Explain to me how the paper has been published in a peer reviewed journal, and the Canadian government is "muzzling scientists" by not letting the author of said paper speak about it to major news agencies, when she is a government employee and subject to certain employment restrictions.
She is being muzzled because she is not being allowed to talk about her findings to the public via the press. Her findings are buried in a pay for access science journal that is likely written in language that most in the public will not understand.
The truth is that the damage has been done and the only approach that can possibly make a difference over the long term is, the clearing of blocked streams, the enhancement of riparian areas, the improvement and restoration of estuary land that is being gobbled up by our greed for real estate.
Her research, as far as I have heard seems to indicate a virus propagating in the salmon population. It doesn't seem unlikely that such a virus could be coming from the salmon farms that the wild salmon often have to pass on their way to spawn. Combine that with the very likely fact that salmon farms are a source of sea lice that have been shown to infect wild salmon fry as they pass by, and you have a good argument that salmon farming is a primary cause of the decline in wild stocks of salmon.
The conservative government seems to not understand an important fact about science and the pursuit of truth, simply that money and the truth are often enemies of each other. If you view the world through dollar signs, you will have a very warped worldview.
Didn't you take notes in those courses?
In my first semester I made the error to rely on the text book (well, at least in one course). After that, I wrote complete notes for any course. Which resulted not only in me having the complete material covered in the course without paying anything, but also having it memorized much better than by using the book, because it all went through my brain in order to get into my notes.
Did I say I didn't take notes? I often find that in a field that I have continued to study or use, going back to the textbook is more useful than going back to my notes. In fact, I sometimes find that sections of the textbook that were less useful to me when I was learning the material become more useful as a way to solidify and enhance my knowledge. If the material has been digesting in my brain for a few years, the reliable and thorough explanations in a good logical textbook make more sense than they ever did before.
I routinely find myself referencing textbooks from courses that I took years ago. If students cannot afford their books, university libraries should provide copies; students should not be at the mercy of Amazon or any other company.
Amen to that. If I didn't have many of the textbooks from old courses I took, it would almost be as if I never took the course in the first place. I have always thought that in many courses, you aren't merely taking them to fully learn the actual knowledge...you are taking them to learn that the knowledge actually exists in the first place. Later you find that you need the knowledge, or that it is interesting to you, and you go back and re-read the textbooks.
And your point is? Regardless of how the nation came to be in the state that it's in, there isn't any functioning government there at the moment.
It makes me laugh when I hear neo-cons say "government isn't the solution, it IS the problem". If you want to see what not having a functioning government looks like, go to Somalia. It even has religious extremism.
"Since it is generally impossible to measure what is important, bureaucrats instead turn their energies toward making important what is measurable."
--- J.M.W. Slack, Egg and Ego
Nice. I hadn't heard that one before. Here is a quote from Einstein:
“Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."
I've been thinking along these lines for years. One of the original catalysts of this was reading a book called Voltaire's Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West, by John Ralston Saul, an historian. It isn't a perfect book, but it is definitely thought provoking. It is difficult to summarize, but I'll give it a shot. He argues that our modern management class is obsessed with a somewhat myopic version of reason concerned mainly with measurement. This management class lacks a sense of imagination, of history, and of human nature, preferring to retreat to a world of graphs, tables, and equations.
The example he gave that sticks with me concerns the Mad Cow Disease crisis in the UK a while ago. Mad Cow Disease is a strange phenomenon, where protein structures called prions propagate when animals eat other animals that have the prions in their flesh. The prions eventually result in brain disintegration. They cannot be destroyed by cooking and processing. Managers in the beef industry knew that Mad Cow Disease existed, knew that it was growing, but they did not take it seriously. They likely tried to measure it in terms of number of cows infected, number of people infected by its human variant, Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, and concluded that its rarity made it a negligible risk. They could have wiped it out by quick action, but they did not. What they didn't seem able to imagine was that this disease and the fear surrounding it would eventually result in the destruction of the entire British beef industry. Almost all of the stock of British cows was destroyed. Britain was banned from exporting beef to most of the rest of the world. The financial losses were huge for the industry. Saul argues that these losses were due in very large part to the lack of imagination of MBA type managers.
I also have first hand with these issues. A friend worked for a food manufacturer that hired as plant manager an MBA graduate whose only previous experience was in a machinery assembly plant. Predictably, food safety practices and quality control went out the window, as these things were seen as negative items on a balance sheet. Lab testing and random bacterial swabbing budgets were reduced, until predictably there was a food recall that cost the company prestige, customers and a lot of money. He managed the plant primarily from his upstairs office, and he spent most of his time staring at graphs. He would seldom come down to the plant floor, and he had little comprehension of the processes and details of the plant he was managing. In the end, he left in disgrace, after transforming a plant that had formerly been extremely profitable and efficient into a money losing albatross.
When I think about how much more the US could do if we didn't squander our money on bullshit
The obsession with lowering taxes will imply that a larger percentage of national resources are funnelled into consumption. When a nation spends more on consumer goods, it will, in my opinion lead to a reduction in projects that are national in scale and for the public good. I think we have already seen this in the reductions both in NASA's budget, and in the general research budget. Most research is now carried out by private corporations, with the main aim of short term profit. The ironic thing is that the reduction in general research will probably harm the broad economy, reducing the potential profits of these same corporations.
But can you with any precision show that even 1 of these was due to the increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere. I mean even a single ONE?
Science is all about probabilities. Bertrand Russell thought that science was inductive, meaning it can only ever give probabilities. So your implicit cry for "proof" of association rings hollow. What is important is the trend. Any single data point in an experiment has error, that is it has only a certain probability of being near the "true" value. However, we can combine multiple measurements, multiple points to see a trend or a pattern. The individual error in single measurements or events becomes less important when we have multiple measurements. In this case, it is the trend of increasing extremity in weather events that is the important thing to look at, especially since the theory of global warming predicts such changes.
Troll.
Everyone has a right to their own opinions. They do not however have the right to their own facts.
FTA: "One researcher told of receiving threats of sexual assault and violence against her children after her photograph appeared in a newspaper article promoting a community tree-planting day as a local action to mitigate climate change."
Death threats for planting trees? WTF?
At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst.
(Aristotle)
Meanwhile, floods and fires continue. I have always thought that the first major impact on society will be on food supplies, with a concomitant increase in food prices. This will at first bring civil unrest in poorer countries, as food takes up an increasingly large proportion of their livelihood. Eventually these high food prices will have a severe economic impact on wealthy nations as well.
I was just re-reading Plato's Gorgias, one of my favorite dialogues, and I am amazed at how it parallels what we are talking about on this thread. I think authors of these "studies" are referring to rhetoric, rather than reason itself. Here are some quotes:
Gorgias. What is there greater than the word which persuades the judges in the courts, or the senators in the council, or the citizens in the assembly, or at any other political meeting?-if you have the power of uttering this word, you will have the physician your slave, and the trainer your slave, and the money-maker of whom you talk will be found to gather treasures, not for himself, but for you who are able to speak and to persuade the multitude.
Socrates. Now I think, Gorgias, that you have very accurately explained what you conceive to be the art of rhetoric; and you mean to say, if I am not mistaken, that rhetoric is the artificer of persuasion, having this and no other business, and that this is her crown and end. Do you know any other effect of rhetoric over and above that of producing persuasion?
Gorgias. No: the definition seems to me very fair, Socrates; for persuasion is the chief end of rhetoric.
And then this:
Socrates. Will you ask me, what sort of an art is cookery?
Polus. What sort of an art is cookery?
Socrates. Not an art at all, Polus.
Polus. What then?
Socrates. I should say an experience.
Polus. In what? I wish that you would explain to me.
Socrates. An experience in producing a sort of delight and gratification, Polus.
Polus. Then are cookery and rhetoric the same?
Socrates. No, they are only different parts of the same profession.
Polus. Of what profession?
Socrates. I am afraid that the truth may seem discourteous; and I hesitate to answer, lest Gorgias should imagine that I am making fun of his own profession. For whether or no this is that art of rhetoric which Gorgias practises I really cannot tell:-from what he was just now saying, nothing appeared of what he thought of his art, but the rhetoric which I mean is a part of a not very creditable whole.
Gor. A part of what, Socrates? Say what you mean, and never mind me.
Socrates. In my opinion then, Gorgias, the whole of which rhetoric is a part is not an art at all, but the habit of a bold and ready wit, which knows how to manage mankind: this habit I sum up under the word "flattery"; and it appears to me to have many other parts, one of which is cookery, which may seem to be an art, but, as I maintain, is only an experience or routine and not an art:-another part is rhetoric, and the art of attiring and sophistry are two others: thus there are four branches, and four different things answering to them. And Polus may ask, if he likes, for he has not as yet been informed, what part of flattery is rhetoric: he did not see that I had not yet answered him when he proceeded to ask a further question: Whether I do not think rhetoric a fine thing? But I shall not tell him whether rhetoric is a fine thing or not, until I have first answered, "What is rhetoric?" For that would not be right, Polus; but I shall be happy to answer, if you will ask me, What part of flattery is rhetoric?
Polus. I will ask and do you answer? What part of flattery is rhetoric?
Socrates. Will you understand my answer? Rhetoric, according to my view, is the ghost or counterfeit of a part of politics.
Polus. And noble or ignoble?
Socrates. Ignoble, I should say, if I am compelled to answer, for I call what is bad ignoble: though I doubt whether you understand what I was saying before.
Why do you post in one line slogans? It would seem more useful to make actual arguments.
I think that the millions of victims of state-sponsored murder would disagree.
He was speaking about a democratic state that acts for the Public Interest. He was not talking about, nor endorsing the tyrannies you seem to be referring to. Quite the opposite in fact. Here is some more from The Social Contract:
However, when the social tie begins to slacken and the state to weaken, when particular interests begin to make themselves felt and sectional societies begin to exert an influence over the greater society, the common interest becomes corrupted and meets opposition; voting is no longer unanimous; the general will is no longer the will of all; contradictions and disputes arise; and even the best opinion is not allowed to prevail unchallenged.
In the end, when the state, on the brink of ruin, can maintain itself only in an empty and illusory form, when the social bond is broken in every heart, when the meanest interest impudently flaunts the sacred name of the public good, then the general will is silenced: everyone, animated by secret motives, ceases to speak as a citizen any more than as if the state had never existed; and the people enacts in the guise of laws iniquitous decrees which have private interests as their only end.
I think it is quite easy to see much of the above in contemporary American society.
Here is a quote from Rousseau that is germane to this discussion:
Nothing is more dangerous in public affairs than the influence of private interests, and the abuse of the law by the government is a lesser evil than that corruption of the legislator which inevitably results from the pursuit of private interests. When this happens, the state is corrupted in its very substance and no reform is possible
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, "The Social Contract" (1762), book 3, chapter 4
In a world where we are encouraged only to follow our own self-interest, where the state and anything associated with the Public Interest is under attack, it is no surprise that the Truth becomes a casualty. Our habit of looking inwards seems to be carried over to our intellectual lives. In this world where we are all individual islands, it often seems that everyone is right and no one is wrong. We seem to denigrate the idea of Truth, and with it we denigrate the institutions whose purpose is to explore for Truth. Academics, intellectuals, and people who rigorously use logic and reason to seek the Truth are put at the same level as charlatans and those who do not care about logic but have other agendas. Surely the idea that "nerds" are becoming "anti-intellectuals" can be tied to this broader trend.
I'm sorry, but that's BS. It was a nasty piece of ethnic cleansing for sure (though it was made largely worse by the bombings), but refugees were going mostly to Albania, and a few to Macedonia, neither country being a NATO member at the time.
What is missing from your analysis is an appreciation for the dynamics of this region. Historically, wider wars have a tendency to start there. It is a hub where large powers meet. Serbia has ties with Russia. Turkey also borders the region, and has interests in, for example Macedonia. And Turkey is a member of NATO. Greece also has interests in Macedonia. With a rogue Serbian leader throwing his military weight around the region, there was always a risk of a wider conflagration. Balkan stability is definitely within the interests of NATO.
More than two months and NATO can't topple Gaddafi.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Gaddafi is dead meat. His military is slowly being put through a meat grinder, and he has a determined locally based opposition movement against him. They will eventually increase in strength, as they are trained and equipped. If you expect this change to happen overnight, you clearly have no concept of the strengths and limitations of military force.
An 85-mile 500-kilovolt $500 million transmission line to bring solar power to Los Angeles has also been brought to a halt by conservationists.
Firstly, I'd like to see a source to your claims. Secondly, I'd like to see who funds these misguided conservationists.
My comment about America's lost "CAN DO" attitude still applies.
Solar IS practical. Put large scale solar thermal plants in the deserts. Connect these plants to the population centres with high voltage DC transmission lines, which have much less loss over long distance than AC lines. Solar thermal can even work at night, due to stored heat.
Reading these comments, I fear America has lost her way. Instead of a "CAN DO" attitude, we see a series of baffling nonsensical posts on which promising technology is impractical or impossible. The moon shot would have likely been impossible today, given the attitudes of the current population. Shame.
The rest is just my speculation - it seems like he wasn't paying much attention, was letting the autopilot do its thing, then when he suddenly had to resume manual control, his first impulse was fear of crashing into the ground, so he yanked back the stick and went into a terrible stall from which they never recovered.
Recovering from a stall in a jet at altitude isn't as simple as cessna pilots might think, at least as far as I understand. Beginner pilots are told to push the stick forward to reduce angle of attack. But in a jet at altitude, pushing the stick forward can send you into an overspeed situation, which can also lead to a stall. So then the question is, if you don't know whether you are above or below, what do you do? Recovering from a stall when you are already well into it, especially if you don't have airspeed data would be very difficult, in my opinion. The real question for me is, how did the airplane get into a stalling situation in the first place.
As for the pilots, I'm not prepared to blame this crash entirely on them. Clearly losing airspeed data should never have happened. I am also unsure about what was actually functioning as far as instrumentation. I will wait for the final report from the agency.
To quote TFA,
The airplane’s angle of attack increased progressively beyond 10 degrees and the plane started to climb. The PF made nose-down control inputs and alternately left and right roll inputs. The vertical speed, which had reached 7,000 ft/min, dropped to 700 ft/min and the roll varied between 12 degrees right and 10 degrees left. The speed displayed on the left side increased sharply to 215 kt (Mach 0.68). The airplane was then at an altitude of about 37,500 ft and the recorded angle of attack was around 4 degrees.
From 2 h 10 min 50, the PNF tried several times to call the Captain back.
At 2 h 10 min 51, the stall warning was triggered again. The thrust levers were positioned in the TO/GA detent and the PF maintained nose-up inputs. The recorded angle of attack, of around 6 degrees at the triggering of the stall warning, continued to increase. The trimmable horizontal stabilizer (THS) passed from 3 to 13 degrees nose-up in about 1 minute and remained in the latter position until the end of the flight.
I have been reading the report and there are some strange interesting passages. Here is a partial summary, focussing largely on pilot control inputs
Copilot is PF. Captain is PNF.
2 h 08 min 07: "...turbulence increased slightly and the crew decided to reduce the speed to about Mach 0.8"
2 h 10 min 05: "...the PF made a left nose-up input. The stall warning sounded twice in a row...Autopilot and auto-thrust remained disengaged for the rest of the flight."
2 h 10 min 16: "...The airplane’s angle of attack increased progressively beyond 10 degrees and the plane started to climb. The PF made nose-down control inputs and alternately left and right roll inputs... The airplane was then at an altitude of about 37,500 ft"
At 2 h 10 min 51: "...The thrust levers were positioned in the TO/GA detent and the PF maintained nose-up inputs...The trimmable horizontal stabilizer (THS) passed from 3 to 13 degrees nose-up in about 1 minute and remained in the latter position until the end of the flight...The PF continued to make nose-up inputs."
2 h 11 min 40: "...The airplane’s pitch attitude did not exceed 15 degrees and the engines’ N1’s were close to 100%..."
At 2 h 12 min 02: "...At that moment, the thrust levers were in the IDLE detent and the engines’ N1’s were at 55%. Around fifteen seconds later, the PF made pitch-down inputs..."
This much seems clear: the airplane was cleared for flight level 350 (35000 ft), and was likely at that altitude when the trouble started, assuming the altimeter was functioning. Stall warnings went off, and the airplane climbed to 38000 ft. It then descended rapidly, it seems with a monstrously high angle of attack. It also seems from the report that the nose of the plane was mostly pitched up through this, though I am not absolutely sure on this. This would imply a very bad stall...essentially the airplane was falling from the sky. One can speculate that the pilots were doing their best to recover from the stall with imperfect data on their airspeed.
To me the important period was between 2 h 08 min 07 and 2 h 10 min16. There was a decision to reduce speed, which would entail a reduction in thrust. Two minutes later, there was a stall warning, implying that the airplane's airspeed was out of the very narrow range required at that altitude (plus/minus 10 knots according to the Nova documentary, though I'm not sure it's so narrow). The question is, what caused those initial stall warnings? How did the airplane's speed get out of the proper range? Did the pilots forget to increase thrust after the autopilot reduced it? During those two minutes, was the airplane catastrophically slowing down?