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