Re: [Para-Discuss] faster than light?

From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Sun Jun 08 2003 - 12:09:45 MDT

  • Next message: -randy: "Crank Criteria"

    On Sun, 8 Jun 2003, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:

    > He (Flandern) is neither. It really is not that hard to tell the difference.

    Not without an investment of time to look at the arguments in detail.
    That is the part of the point I was trying to make -- for good "reputation
    analysis" one generally needs to be familiar with the work of the
    people to make a qualified judgement.

    I can set your work and Anders' and Robin's and numerous others side
    by side on a table and say "now this is great (brilliant) work".
    But not having read Flandern, I'm unable to make a qualified evalutation.

    > If you look over the archived debate, it is clear that Flandern is
    > misrepresenting modern physics, that people have tried to explain this to
    > him, and that they have failed because Flandern doesn't understand the
    > math.

    That is the part that doesn't make sense to me. If one has a PhD from Yale
    in Astronomy one *should* be able to "understand the math". They do *not*
    (at least normally) hand out Astronomy PhD's to people who don't understand
    the math. So is he simply being irrational?

    Robert



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jun 08 2003 - 12:19:55 MDT