The NAS Debate: Other Opinions
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick
In the thread: NAS Debate: Voices of Reason & Dick Smith, you stated:
If you look at paragraph 8.1 of the NAS Project Management Plan (that was endorsed by the similarly incompetent Open Mike) you will see very clearly that you were:
Not only are you unaware of the facts and implications of NAS, it appears that you are not even aware of your own responsibility in this debacle.
The NAS must be the greatest example of incompetence ever seen in Australian aviation. It has been driven by a narrow minded, egotistical entrepreneur and an incompetent yet egotistical public servant with limited experience at the expense of the safety of the traveling public.
In the thread: NAS Debate: Voices of Reason & Dick Smith, you stated:
Voices of Reason edited by Woomera, you don’t seem to understand that I, nor anyone on the ARG, had responsibility for the introduction of the NAS system.
8.1. ARG The ARG is responsible for the implementation of the NAS and in project management terms is the Executive Steering Group.
The NAS must be the greatest example of incompetence ever seen in Australian aviation. It has been driven by a narrow minded, egotistical entrepreneur and an incompetent yet egotistical public servant with limited experience at the expense of the safety of the traveling public.
Last edited by q1w2e3; 27th Jun 2004 at 01:46.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Well.Voices of Reason pulls no punches with his last post on the Dick Smith-VoR debate thread, and leaves absolutely NO doubt as to whose heads are going to roll, when the hole that has been opened up in the Safety net allows 2 (or more) aircraft to come into close (or closer than close) contact with each other.
And it has all been well documented HERE, on PPRuNe, for future reference!
But can someone please explain to me what the meaning of "Kakorrhaphiophobia" is, when Voices of Reason advises Dick Smith that:-
And it has all been well documented HERE, on PPRuNe, for future reference!
But can someone please explain to me what the meaning of "Kakorrhaphiophobia" is, when Voices of Reason advises Dick Smith that:-
Kakorrhaphiophobia is your motivator, and your downfall.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems like Dick has been totally outclassed and out'fact'ed. I was looking forward to a sensible debate based on facts and figures, but Dick has been on the receiving end of a shutout.
Throughout this entire NAS business, I have tried to be somewhat open-minded. VoR has just cleaned Dick's slate.
Dick has provided nothing tangible and has tried to bluff his way through the argument by diverting attention with a personal attack on an ex-HATC. Anderson must be loving this.
Throughout this entire NAS business, I have tried to be somewhat open-minded. VoR has just cleaned Dick's slate.
Dick has provided nothing tangible and has tried to bluff his way through the argument by diverting attention with a personal attack on an ex-HATC. Anderson must be loving this.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Hongkers
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Love it.
Dick, you need help.
http://www.changethatsrightnow.com/p...=1629&SDID=238
I saved you some time and ticked all the boxes for you.
Dick, you need help.
http://www.changethatsrightnow.com/p...=1629&SDID=238
I saved you some time and ticked all the boxes for you.
A river to my people
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: No fixed abode, No 29a
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy and drive him before you,
to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him shrouded in
tears and to gather to your bosom his wives and daughters - Genghis Khan
sep
to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him shrouded in
tears and to gather to your bosom his wives and daughters - Genghis Khan
sep
Where's it at and where's Mike?
I know that Airservices has advertised some positions for the airspace directorate. But what is the current state of play with NAS? Is phase 2C still on target or interminably delayed? How much work is being done on its staged implementation behind closed doors? The posts about Open Mic also got me thinking about where is he in all this? Does he still have a major role or has he been relegated to the second eleven now that the first division captain has taken his bat and ball home? Only way to beat the Minister is to get at him through his electorate. Makes you think huh!!!
--------------------
Frank Burden
The attainment of wisdom is a life long pursuit
--------------------
Frank Burden
The attainment of wisdom is a life long pursuit
SM4 Pirate, you claim that there have been multiple trials in relation to Class E to FL145 and these conclude that there are extra facilities required and probably resectorisation with extra staff. I wonder if the people who are doing this are looking at it with an Australian “culture”. There are huge areas of Class E airspace in many countries in the world without radar coverage. Canada would be a good example.
It is obvious that you and others at Airservices must believe that it is safe for the airlines to provide their own separation in IMC in Class G (i.e. the present airspace below FL180) but such a separation standard used by air traffic controllers would not be acceptably safe. Do you understand what I’m saying? That is, the airspace works satisfactorily now without radar coverage and being Classified Class G. What you are saying is if we classify it Class E it will not work satisfactorily.
That can only mean that the separation standard which is used by the airlines at the present time when in IMC in Class G does not provide an acceptable safety level. If that is not so it must mean that the standard air traffic controllers need to apply for separation in Class E is too onerous. Do you see what I am getting at?
The United States has a vast amount of Class E airspace without VHF radio coverage. Much of this is in the terminal area, where radio for separation is even more important.
What you are in fact saying is that we cannot have a bit of extra safer Class E airspace between FL180 and FL145 without spending more money. I do not agree. I believe you should get some Canadian controllers down here and they will very quickly show you how the system can work very satisfactorily in low density airspace – which we have.
Yes, when IMC exists it is one aircraft at one location at one altitude, however as I have stated in other threads, that is what any prudent pilot would normally insist on when in IMC in Class G airspace.
I think those who are looking at this safety improvement (the Class E to FL145) have fixed in their minds that “controlled airspace” will only work where there are VHF coms. This is simply not true.
Most importantly, LAMP brought the Class E down to FL125 and the LAMP proponents at Airservices were convinced that this was OK. Can I ask what is the difference? LAMP is OK to FL125, however NAS is not OK to FL145.
I look forward to the answer.
It is obvious that you and others at Airservices must believe that it is safe for the airlines to provide their own separation in IMC in Class G (i.e. the present airspace below FL180) but such a separation standard used by air traffic controllers would not be acceptably safe. Do you understand what I’m saying? That is, the airspace works satisfactorily now without radar coverage and being Classified Class G. What you are saying is if we classify it Class E it will not work satisfactorily.
That can only mean that the separation standard which is used by the airlines at the present time when in IMC in Class G does not provide an acceptable safety level. If that is not so it must mean that the standard air traffic controllers need to apply for separation in Class E is too onerous. Do you see what I am getting at?
The United States has a vast amount of Class E airspace without VHF radio coverage. Much of this is in the terminal area, where radio for separation is even more important.
What you are in fact saying is that we cannot have a bit of extra safer Class E airspace between FL180 and FL145 without spending more money. I do not agree. I believe you should get some Canadian controllers down here and they will very quickly show you how the system can work very satisfactorily in low density airspace – which we have.
Yes, when IMC exists it is one aircraft at one location at one altitude, however as I have stated in other threads, that is what any prudent pilot would normally insist on when in IMC in Class G airspace.
I think those who are looking at this safety improvement (the Class E to FL145) have fixed in their minds that “controlled airspace” will only work where there are VHF coms. This is simply not true.
Most importantly, LAMP brought the Class E down to FL125 and the LAMP proponents at Airservices were convinced that this was OK. Can I ask what is the difference? LAMP is OK to FL125, however NAS is not OK to FL145.
I look forward to the answer.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, I work with Canadian controllers, along with Swedish, Irish, Sth African, English, Zimbabwean, New Zealand (and a mix of all of the above) controllers. They have been briefed on the airspace design, particularly the part where you have RPT jets on descent into major cities, having to descend through E airspace due to the design of the steps, with no flight following of the VFR's who could be in those areas, and they are horrified. These guys have worked all over the world. They have no personal motivation (ie. feathering their own nests) to find the design flawed, yet they do. Dick Smith continues saying, lets bring out American controllers, talk to Canadian controllers. Well I have and they think you are stark raving mad to try what you are trying. IFATCA, represents controllers from all over the world, and they find NAS dangerous. But of course DS will say that is because ATC's are looking after their jobs, and all stick together blah blah blah.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forgive me I'm Doggo'ing - But challenge accepted
I wonder if the people who are doing this are looking at it with an Australian “culture”.
There are huge areas of Class E airspace in many countries in the world without radar coverage
It is obvious that you and others at Airservices must believe that it is safe for the airlines to provide their own separation in IMC in Class G (i.e. the present airspace below FL180) but such a separation standard used by air traffic controllers would not be acceptably safe.
What you are saying is if we classify it Class E it will not work satisfactorily.
That can only mean that the separation standard which is used by the airlines at the present time when in IMC in Class G does not provide an acceptable safety level.
If that is not so it must mean that the standard air traffic controllers need to apply for separation in Class E is too onerous. Do you see what I am getting at?
The United States has a vast amount of Class E airspace without VHF radio coverage. Much of this is in the terminal area, where radio for separation is even more important.
What you are in fact saying is that we cannot have a bit of extra safer Class E airspace between FL180 and FL145 without spending more money. I do not agree. I believe you should get some Canadian controllers down here and they will very quickly show you how the system can work very satisfactorily in low density airspace – which we have.
Yes, when IMC exists it is one aircraft at one location at one altitude, however as I have stated in other threads, that is what any prudent pilot would normally insist on when in IMC in Class G airspace.
I think those who are looking at this safety improvement (the Class E to FL145) have fixed in their minds that “controlled airspace” will only work where there are VHF coms. This is simply not true.
Most importantly, LAMP brought the Class E down to FL125 and the LAMP proponents at Airservices were convinced that this was OK. Can I ask what is the difference? LAMP is OK to FL125, however NAS is not OK to FL145.
You will also note that many frequencies have been decommissioned in the last 12-18 months in these areas, due to TAAATS limitations more than anything; perhaps these were the resources/facilities needed to help out the lowering of E from FL200 to FL125.
Whilst this is your particular bee in your bonnet at present I’m not convinced in anyway that any significant benefit in safety would occur by lowering the base from FL180 to FL145, yet I am totally convinced that it will require substantive ATC training, potentially new consoles and definitely new VHF outlets… Far cheaper to wait for ADS-B which is coming and do it then, without the need for all the extras. ADS-B will significantly reduce the workload in the peaks, thus enabling more use of the existing staff and consoles. You simply fit more in without changing the existing structure when you have increased surveillance.
Dick, why must you look for the consipracy in every decision which is not consistent with your own, perhaps we do have valid reasons for doing what we do. Civil Air is wrapped that you think they are rattling the cage on this... You've got the wrong target there. They are noisy but none the less management almost always does the opposite of what the union wants (it is a traditional workplace afterall)... Perhaps Civil Air should get on board the NAS train, that could be the last nail in the coffin...
Bottle of Rum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Aussie' Andy
The rules are quite simple. This thread is for replies from anyone other than VoR and Dick Smith. We have already discussed in the past that you should keep your nose out of this debate and with your blatant disregard of the very simple procedure have demonstrated that you have a very consistent lack of having nfi. Delete you rubbish from that thread. Hopefully you won't be flying over to where VoR resides to 'sort him out' you keyboard warrior you.
The rules are quite simple. This thread is for replies from anyone other than VoR and Dick Smith. We have already discussed in the past that you should keep your nose out of this debate and with your blatant disregard of the very simple procedure have demonstrated that you have a very consistent lack of having nfi. Delete you rubbish from that thread. Hopefully you won't be flying over to where VoR resides to 'sort him out' you keyboard warrior you.
Prof. Airport Engineer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Australia (mostly)
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Great Debate
My attention has been drawn to a website on sceptics, which is a term that I only recently became familiar with through this debate. So I went there to learn more, and as I started to read through it, I almost fell over backwards. Here is the script for the rote replies that Dick Smith has used to cover screen after screen of PPRUNE for the last 3 weeks of the debate. Here is how Dick Smith and his sceptic experts Hall and Roberts construct their arguments and twist their answers.
I've extracted some of the most evident techniques and copied them below. The rest, plus entertaining stories on magnetic fuel treatments and more is at http://members.aol.com/JBainSI/Sceptics.htm
Very sincere congratulations, VoR, for keeping the debate on track in the face of these tactics; I don't think I could have got past first base.
My attention has been drawn to a website on sceptics, which is a term that I only recently became familiar with through this debate. So I went there to learn more, and as I started to read through it, I almost fell over backwards. Here is the script for the rote replies that Dick Smith has used to cover screen after screen of PPRUNE for the last 3 weeks of the debate. Here is how Dick Smith and his sceptic experts Hall and Roberts construct their arguments and twist their answers.
I've extracted some of the most evident techniques and copied them below. The rest, plus entertaining stories on magnetic fuel treatments and more is at http://members.aol.com/JBainSI/Sceptics.htm
Guide to sceptics
From: DOwens6683 <[email protected]>
This is a nice article on the tricks some sceptics get up to to discredit their opponents.
Ever get into an argument with a skeptic only to end up exasperated and feeling you've been bamboozled? Skeptics are often highly skilled at tying up opponents in clever verbal knots. Most skeptics are, of course, ordinary, more-or-less honest people who, like the rest of us, are just trying to make the best sense they can of a complicated and often confusing world. Others, however, are merely glib sophists who use specious reasoning to defend their prejudices or attack the ideas and beliefs of others, and even an honest skeptic can innocently fall into the mistake of employing bad reasoning.
In reading, listening to and sometimes debating skeptics over the years, I've found certain tricks, ploys and gimmicks which they tend to use over and over again. Here are some of 'em. Perhaps if you keep them in mind when arguing with a skeptic, you'll feel better when the debate is over. Shucks, you might even score a point or two.
1 RAISING THE BAR (Or IMPOSSIBLE PERFECTION):
This trick consists of demanding a new, higher and more difficult standard of evidence whenever it looks as if a skeptic's opponent is going to satisfy an old one. Often the skeptic doesn't make it clear exactly what the standards are in the first place. This can be especially effective if the skeptic can keep his opponent from noticing that he is continually changing his standard of evidence. That way, his opponent will eventually give up in exasperation or disgust. Perhaps best of all, if his opponent complains, the skeptic can tag him as a whiner or a sore loser.
Skeptic: I am willing to consider the psi hypothesis if you will only show me some sound evidence.
Opponent: There are many thousands of documented reports of incidents that seem to involve psi.
S: That is only anecdotal evidence. You must give me laboratory evidence.
0: Researchers A-Z have conducted experiments that produced results which favor the psi hypothesis.
S: Those experiments are not acceptable because of flaws X,Y and Z.
0: Researchers B-H and T-W have conducted experiments producing positive results which did not have flaws X,Y and Z.
S: The positive results are not far enough above chance levels to be truly interesting.
0: Researchers C-F and U-V produced results well above chance levels.
S: Their results were achieved through meta-analysis, which is a highly questionable technique.
O: Meta-analysis is a well-accepted method commonly used in psychology and sociology.
S: Psychology and sociology are social sciences, and their methods can't be considered as reliable as those of hard sciences such as physics and chemistry.
Etc., etc. ad nauseum.
……………………………..
4 STUPID, CRAZY LIARS:
This trick consists of simple slander. Anyone who reports anything which displeases the skeptic will be accused of incompetence, mental illness or dishonesty, or some combination of the three without a single shred of fact to support the accusations. When Charles Honorton's Ganzfeld experiments produced impressive results in favor of the psi hypothesis, skeptics accused him of suppressing or not publishing the results of failed experiments. No definite facts supporting the charge ever emerged. Moreover, the experiments were extremely time consuming, and the number of failed, unpublished experiments necessary to make the number of successful, published experiments significant would have been quite high, so it is extremely unlikely that Honorton's results could be due to selective reporting. Yet skeptics still sometimes repeat this accusation.
……………………..
6 SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF EVIDENCE:
The skeptic insists that he doesn't have to provide evidence and arguments to support his side of the argument because he isn't asserting a claim, he is merely denying or doubting yours. His mistake consists of assuming that a negative claim (asserting that something doesn't exist) is fundamentally different from a positive claim. It isn't. Any definite claim, positive or negative, requires definite support. Merely refuting or arguing against an opponent's position is not enough to establish one's own position.. In other words, you can't win by default.
As arch-skeptic Carl Sagan himself said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If someone wants to rule out vistations by extra-terrestrial aliens, it would not be enough to point out that all the evidence presented so far is either seriously flawed or not very strong. It would be necessary to state definite reasons which would make ET visitations either impossible or highly unlikely. (He might, for example, point out that our best understanding of physics pretty much rules out any kind of effective faster-than-light drive.)
The only person exempt from providing definite support is the person who takes a strict "I don't know" position or the agnostic position. If someone takes the position that the evidence in favor of ET visitations is inadequate but goes no farther, he is exempt from further argument (provided, of course, he gives adequate reasons for rejecting the evidence). However, if he wants to go farther and insist that it is impossible or highly unlikely that ET's are visiting or have ever visited the Earth, it becomes necessary for him to provide definite reasons for his position. He is no longer entitled merely to argue against his opponent's position.
There is the question of honesty. Someone who claims to take the agnostic position but really takes the position of definite disbelief is, of course, misrepresenting his views. For example, a skeptic who insists that he merely believes the psi hypothesis is inadequately supported when in fact he believes that the human mind can only acquire information through the physical senses is simply not being honest.
………………
8 THE BIG LIE:
The skeptic knows that most people will not have the time or inclination to check every claim he makes, so he knows it's a fairly small risk to tell a whopper. He might, for example, insist that none of the laboratory evidence for psi stands up to close scrutiny, or he might insist there have been no cases of UFO's being spotted by reliable observers such as trained military personnel when in fact there are well-documented cases. The average person isn't going to scamper right down to the library to verify this, so the skeptic knows a lot of people are going to accept his statement at face value. This ploy works best when the Big Lie is repeated often and loudly in a confident tone.
9 DOUBT CASTING:
This trick consists of dwelling on minor or trivial flaws in the evidence, or presenting speculations as to how the evidence might be flawed as though mere speculation is somehow as damning as actual facts. The assumption here is that any flaw, trivial or even merely speculative, is necessarily fatal and provides sufficient grounds for throwing out the evidence. The skeptic often justifies this with the "extraordinary evidence" ploy.
In the real world, of course, the evidence for anything is seldom 100% flawless and foolproof. It is almost always possible to find some small shortcoming which can be used as an excuse for tossing out the evidence. If a definite problem can't be found, then the skeptic may simply speculate as to how the evidence *might* be flawed and use his speculations as an excuse to discard the information. For example, the skeptic might point out that the safeguards or controls during one part of a psi experiment weren't quite as tight as they might have been and then insist, without any supporting facts, that the subject(s) and/or the researcher(s) probably cheated because this is the "simplest" explanation for the results (see "Sock 'em with Occam" and "Extraordinary Claims"; "Raising the Bar" is also relevant).
10 THE SNEER:
This gimmick is an inversion of "Stupid, Crazy Liars." In "Stupid, Crazy Liars," the skeptic attacks the character of those advocationg certain ideas or presenting information in the hope of discrediting the information. In "THE SNEER," the skeptic attempts to attach a stigma to some idea or claim and implies that anyone advocating that position must have something terribly wrong with him. "Anyone who believes we've been visited by extraterresrial aliens must be a lunatic, a fool, or a con man. If you believe this, you must a maniac, a simpleton or a fraud." The object here is to scare others away from a certain position without having to discuss facts.* * *
To be fair, some of these tricks or tactics (such as "The Big Lie," "Doubtcasting" and "The Sneer") are often used by believers as well as skeptics. Scientific Creationists and Holocaust Revisionists, for example, are particularly prone to use "Doubtcasting." Others ploys, however, such as "Sock 'em with Occam" and "Extraordinary Claims," are generally used by skeptics and seldom by others. Unfortunately, effective debating tactics often involve bad logic, e.g. attacking an opponent's character, appeals to emotion, mockery and facetiousness, loaded definitions, etc. And certainly skeptics are not the only ones who are ever guilty of using manipulative and deceptive debating tactics. Even so, skeptics are just as likely as anyone else to twist their language, logic and facts to win an argument, and keeping these tricks in mind when dealing with skeptics may very well keep you from being bamboozled.
From: DOwens6683 <[email protected]>
This is a nice article on the tricks some sceptics get up to to discredit their opponents.
Ever get into an argument with a skeptic only to end up exasperated and feeling you've been bamboozled? Skeptics are often highly skilled at tying up opponents in clever verbal knots. Most skeptics are, of course, ordinary, more-or-less honest people who, like the rest of us, are just trying to make the best sense they can of a complicated and often confusing world. Others, however, are merely glib sophists who use specious reasoning to defend their prejudices or attack the ideas and beliefs of others, and even an honest skeptic can innocently fall into the mistake of employing bad reasoning.
In reading, listening to and sometimes debating skeptics over the years, I've found certain tricks, ploys and gimmicks which they tend to use over and over again. Here are some of 'em. Perhaps if you keep them in mind when arguing with a skeptic, you'll feel better when the debate is over. Shucks, you might even score a point or two.
1 RAISING THE BAR (Or IMPOSSIBLE PERFECTION):
This trick consists of demanding a new, higher and more difficult standard of evidence whenever it looks as if a skeptic's opponent is going to satisfy an old one. Often the skeptic doesn't make it clear exactly what the standards are in the first place. This can be especially effective if the skeptic can keep his opponent from noticing that he is continually changing his standard of evidence. That way, his opponent will eventually give up in exasperation or disgust. Perhaps best of all, if his opponent complains, the skeptic can tag him as a whiner or a sore loser.
Skeptic: I am willing to consider the psi hypothesis if you will only show me some sound evidence.
Opponent: There are many thousands of documented reports of incidents that seem to involve psi.
S: That is only anecdotal evidence. You must give me laboratory evidence.
0: Researchers A-Z have conducted experiments that produced results which favor the psi hypothesis.
S: Those experiments are not acceptable because of flaws X,Y and Z.
0: Researchers B-H and T-W have conducted experiments producing positive results which did not have flaws X,Y and Z.
S: The positive results are not far enough above chance levels to be truly interesting.
0: Researchers C-F and U-V produced results well above chance levels.
S: Their results were achieved through meta-analysis, which is a highly questionable technique.
O: Meta-analysis is a well-accepted method commonly used in psychology and sociology.
S: Psychology and sociology are social sciences, and their methods can't be considered as reliable as those of hard sciences such as physics and chemistry.
Etc., etc. ad nauseum.
……………………………..
4 STUPID, CRAZY LIARS:
This trick consists of simple slander. Anyone who reports anything which displeases the skeptic will be accused of incompetence, mental illness or dishonesty, or some combination of the three without a single shred of fact to support the accusations. When Charles Honorton's Ganzfeld experiments produced impressive results in favor of the psi hypothesis, skeptics accused him of suppressing or not publishing the results of failed experiments. No definite facts supporting the charge ever emerged. Moreover, the experiments were extremely time consuming, and the number of failed, unpublished experiments necessary to make the number of successful, published experiments significant would have been quite high, so it is extremely unlikely that Honorton's results could be due to selective reporting. Yet skeptics still sometimes repeat this accusation.
……………………..
6 SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF EVIDENCE:
The skeptic insists that he doesn't have to provide evidence and arguments to support his side of the argument because he isn't asserting a claim, he is merely denying or doubting yours. His mistake consists of assuming that a negative claim (asserting that something doesn't exist) is fundamentally different from a positive claim. It isn't. Any definite claim, positive or negative, requires definite support. Merely refuting or arguing against an opponent's position is not enough to establish one's own position.. In other words, you can't win by default.
As arch-skeptic Carl Sagan himself said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If someone wants to rule out vistations by extra-terrestrial aliens, it would not be enough to point out that all the evidence presented so far is either seriously flawed or not very strong. It would be necessary to state definite reasons which would make ET visitations either impossible or highly unlikely. (He might, for example, point out that our best understanding of physics pretty much rules out any kind of effective faster-than-light drive.)
The only person exempt from providing definite support is the person who takes a strict "I don't know" position or the agnostic position. If someone takes the position that the evidence in favor of ET visitations is inadequate but goes no farther, he is exempt from further argument (provided, of course, he gives adequate reasons for rejecting the evidence). However, if he wants to go farther and insist that it is impossible or highly unlikely that ET's are visiting or have ever visited the Earth, it becomes necessary for him to provide definite reasons for his position. He is no longer entitled merely to argue against his opponent's position.
There is the question of honesty. Someone who claims to take the agnostic position but really takes the position of definite disbelief is, of course, misrepresenting his views. For example, a skeptic who insists that he merely believes the psi hypothesis is inadequately supported when in fact he believes that the human mind can only acquire information through the physical senses is simply not being honest.
………………
8 THE BIG LIE:
The skeptic knows that most people will not have the time or inclination to check every claim he makes, so he knows it's a fairly small risk to tell a whopper. He might, for example, insist that none of the laboratory evidence for psi stands up to close scrutiny, or he might insist there have been no cases of UFO's being spotted by reliable observers such as trained military personnel when in fact there are well-documented cases. The average person isn't going to scamper right down to the library to verify this, so the skeptic knows a lot of people are going to accept his statement at face value. This ploy works best when the Big Lie is repeated often and loudly in a confident tone.
9 DOUBT CASTING:
This trick consists of dwelling on minor or trivial flaws in the evidence, or presenting speculations as to how the evidence might be flawed as though mere speculation is somehow as damning as actual facts. The assumption here is that any flaw, trivial or even merely speculative, is necessarily fatal and provides sufficient grounds for throwing out the evidence. The skeptic often justifies this with the "extraordinary evidence" ploy.
In the real world, of course, the evidence for anything is seldom 100% flawless and foolproof. It is almost always possible to find some small shortcoming which can be used as an excuse for tossing out the evidence. If a definite problem can't be found, then the skeptic may simply speculate as to how the evidence *might* be flawed and use his speculations as an excuse to discard the information. For example, the skeptic might point out that the safeguards or controls during one part of a psi experiment weren't quite as tight as they might have been and then insist, without any supporting facts, that the subject(s) and/or the researcher(s) probably cheated because this is the "simplest" explanation for the results (see "Sock 'em with Occam" and "Extraordinary Claims"; "Raising the Bar" is also relevant).
10 THE SNEER:
This gimmick is an inversion of "Stupid, Crazy Liars." In "Stupid, Crazy Liars," the skeptic attacks the character of those advocationg certain ideas or presenting information in the hope of discrediting the information. In "THE SNEER," the skeptic attempts to attach a stigma to some idea or claim and implies that anyone advocating that position must have something terribly wrong with him. "Anyone who believes we've been visited by extraterresrial aliens must be a lunatic, a fool, or a con man. If you believe this, you must a maniac, a simpleton or a fraud." The object here is to scare others away from a certain position without having to discuss facts.* * *
To be fair, some of these tricks or tactics (such as "The Big Lie," "Doubtcasting" and "The Sneer") are often used by believers as well as skeptics. Scientific Creationists and Holocaust Revisionists, for example, are particularly prone to use "Doubtcasting." Others ploys, however, such as "Sock 'em with Occam" and "Extraordinary Claims," are generally used by skeptics and seldom by others. Unfortunately, effective debating tactics often involve bad logic, e.g. attacking an opponent's character, appeals to emotion, mockery and facetiousness, loaded definitions, etc. And certainly skeptics are not the only ones who are ever guilty of using manipulative and deceptive debating tactics. Even so, skeptics are just as likely as anyone else to twist their language, logic and facts to win an argument, and keeping these tricks in mind when dealing with skeptics may very well keep you from being bamboozled.
It’s all quite simple, although somewhat off the original topic, but I’m sure VoR will agree.
The elements of reason are senses, concepts and logic.
To "follow reason” means to base knowledge on observation, then form concepts according to the actual relationships among concretes and use those concepts according to the rules of logic.
Since each of these three elements is based on reality (or fact) any conclusions reached by a process of reason are objective.
One of the alternatives to reason is skepticism.
The skeptic denies the possibility of any knowledge, claims that man’s means of cognition are inadequate and follows his feelings or beliefs which he says, are the only basis of action in an unknowable world.
Feelings or beliefs are products of ideas only. They are not tools of cognition nor are they a guide to action.
AS
The elements of reason are senses, concepts and logic.
To "follow reason” means to base knowledge on observation, then form concepts according to the actual relationships among concretes and use those concepts according to the rules of logic.
Since each of these three elements is based on reality (or fact) any conclusions reached by a process of reason are objective.
One of the alternatives to reason is skepticism.
The skeptic denies the possibility of any knowledge, claims that man’s means of cognition are inadequate and follows his feelings or beliefs which he says, are the only basis of action in an unknowable world.
Feelings or beliefs are products of ideas only. They are not tools of cognition nor are they a guide to action.
AS
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OVER RUN
Thankyou for the article. I had previously on pprune advised Dick that if you took the approach of the DR (septic )Roberts report and its attack on the Broome DAS, science and airspace reform would not advance.
This report which is proudly posted on Dick's web site adds nothing to knowledge, is only geared to attack, analyses no data, attempts no counter analysis, and is hopelessly flawed in that it states the BME DAS did not consider air-ground incidents. The Dr Septic states this quoting a clause that was refering to another report and not the DAS. The DAS infact included considerable analysis to a/c-a/c incidents on the ground and a/c-Ground vehicles, also apron crowding problems.
[B]Dick I refer you to table 9 of the DAS that shows your Dr Septic is plain wrong.
You should remove this report or insure it is corrected! I know you will not, for as the Patron of the skeptics, it is par for the course. (ref OVER RUN post on septics tactics)
Thankyou for the article. I had previously on pprune advised Dick that if you took the approach of the DR (septic )Roberts report and its attack on the Broome DAS, science and airspace reform would not advance.
This report which is proudly posted on Dick's web site adds nothing to knowledge, is only geared to attack, analyses no data, attempts no counter analysis, and is hopelessly flawed in that it states the BME DAS did not consider air-ground incidents. The Dr Septic states this quoting a clause that was refering to another report and not the DAS. The DAS infact included considerable analysis to a/c-a/c incidents on the ground and a/c-Ground vehicles, also apron crowding problems.
[B]Dick I refer you to table 9 of the DAS that shows your Dr Septic is plain wrong.
You should remove this report or insure it is corrected! I know you will not, for as the Patron of the skeptics, it is par for the course. (ref OVER RUN post on septics tactics)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AUS
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Anti NAS er's
Congratulations, well done, especially you, Mike Capelhorn, for your "obviously" superior points of view.
Hey Mike, ever flown an airplane of any sort yourself?? ( the Jumpseat /back seat doesn't count, nor do model airplanes.. sorry) Ever stuck your head into a set of binoculars/ or kept your eyes stuck on a radar screen for 8 hours? WHAT? YOU HAVEN'T?
What makes you think the fact that you "own" an airport gives you any qualification to make ANY serious comments on NAS pal?
Do you even have any idea what MBZ even means?
Clearly, you have NFI.
I knew a helluva lot about flying as well, especially after I stuck my head into an encyclopedia and numerous books and publications, gee I knew a lot... until I went out and actually DID it.
For you, Walley is truly a well chosen name.
As for the rest of you anti NASers who actually have serious points of view, I bet 90% of you are either ATC or high capacity RPT jockeys, who've been running like that for some time. Have ANY of you ever sat down with either a low capacity RPT, CHTR, AWK or PVT jockey and asked their opinion? Or do you just presume to know it?
Just to throw in a curveball, WHO SAYS whether an airport is an MBZ or CTAF will make a huge difference to who makes radio calls when? Quote all the figures you like, show me ZERO incursions without radio, then I'd be happy. I've heard newbie pilots (pre PPL) trying their hardest who "thought" they were on MBZ were in fact transmitting on flightwatch... with the volume turned down to zero, and couldn't hear otherwise.
Congratulations, well done, especially you, Mike Capelhorn, for your "obviously" superior points of view.
Hey Mike, ever flown an airplane of any sort yourself?? ( the Jumpseat /back seat doesn't count, nor do model airplanes.. sorry) Ever stuck your head into a set of binoculars/ or kept your eyes stuck on a radar screen for 8 hours? WHAT? YOU HAVEN'T?
What makes you think the fact that you "own" an airport gives you any qualification to make ANY serious comments on NAS pal?
Do you even have any idea what MBZ even means?
Clearly, you have NFI.
I knew a helluva lot about flying as well, especially after I stuck my head into an encyclopedia and numerous books and publications, gee I knew a lot... until I went out and actually DID it.
For you, Walley is truly a well chosen name.
As for the rest of you anti NASers who actually have serious points of view, I bet 90% of you are either ATC or high capacity RPT jockeys, who've been running like that for some time. Have ANY of you ever sat down with either a low capacity RPT, CHTR, AWK or PVT jockey and asked their opinion? Or do you just presume to know it?
Just to throw in a curveball, WHO SAYS whether an airport is an MBZ or CTAF will make a huge difference to who makes radio calls when? Quote all the figures you like, show me ZERO incursions without radio, then I'd be happy. I've heard newbie pilots (pre PPL) trying their hardest who "thought" they were on MBZ were in fact transmitting on flightwatch... with the volume turned down to zero, and couldn't hear otherwise.
Gagged,
So what's the difference between Mike with his lack of qualifications (you reckon) and Dick Smith?
Re your newbies, have they ever heard of a Beep Back unit? If not, who trained them to operate in MBZs?
So what's the difference between Mike with his lack of qualifications (you reckon) and Dick Smith?
Re your newbies, have they ever heard of a Beep Back unit? If not, who trained them to operate in MBZs?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GaggedAgain,
Yes I do have friends who have worked in GA.
In fact two of my best friends, who now work with Qantas, both got to where they are the hard way, ie. thru the GA hoops.
One had nearly 3000 hours in GA before getting into Qantas, the other nearly 10000 hours. I have discussed extensively with both NAS. Guess what, they hate it. They can't see how it helps GA, and they both believe that it is far less safe to fly now, than pre Nov. 27.
GaggedAgain, stop the vitriol, stop the name calling. It is quite apparent that you don't understand.
Go home and grow up.
And stay off the red cordial.
DP
Yes I do have friends who have worked in GA.
In fact two of my best friends, who now work with Qantas, both got to where they are the hard way, ie. thru the GA hoops.
One had nearly 3000 hours in GA before getting into Qantas, the other nearly 10000 hours. I have discussed extensively with both NAS. Guess what, they hate it. They can't see how it helps GA, and they both believe that it is far less safe to fly now, than pre Nov. 27.
GaggedAgain, stop the vitriol, stop the name calling. It is quite apparent that you don't understand.
Go home and grow up.
And stay off the red cordial.
DP
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gaggedagain/Max/whatever
Do you think the personal attacks get you anywhere? Except to show your arguments as bankrupt and devoid of merit- just like Dick's.
I think you will find that Mr Capelhorn had the courage of his convictions and went out and commissioned actual experts (as opposed to imagined ones) to write a report, the Broome DAS. He has since quoted that document as his basis for reasoning, and placed it in the public arena for scrutiny. The glaring difference between his style, and Dick's, is obvious. No 'I believes', 'I am told by experts' or 'stop it or I'll do whatever I have to to ruin you'.
But the real gem in your post is
Who else would be in a better position to offer opinion on airspace? Who else would have greater concern for safety in their daily professional lives? Since these groups would be the main users of airspace, whose opinion should carry more weight (and by 'main users' I mean quantity-wise)?
Don't you think that RPT pilots were low capacity RPT, CHTR, AWK or PVT , or were they just born with ATPLs? It could be argued that a lot of RPT pilots are just those guys with more experience . You will also find that the loudest anti-NAS voices in ATC are either PPL or CPL holders. I know one thing for sure- before I became an ATC, as a low-time pilot, I really knew f-all about how the whole system worked. Only later did I realise how little I actually knew. Yet you think I was somehow in a position to design airspace? Entitled to input, certainly, but surely only commensurate with my experience, and the amount I used airspace.
Do us all a favour- rage agianst the real enemy, the charging regime. It keeps getting worse and worse; Rome burns, the emporer fiddles. Why?
There won't be any GA left, soon.
I think you will find that Mr Capelhorn had the courage of his convictions and went out and commissioned actual experts (as opposed to imagined ones) to write a report, the Broome DAS. He has since quoted that document as his basis for reasoning, and placed it in the public arena for scrutiny. The glaring difference between his style, and Dick's, is obvious. No 'I believes', 'I am told by experts' or 'stop it or I'll do whatever I have to to ruin you'.
But the real gem in your post is
As for the rest of you anti NASers who actually have serious points of view, I bet 90% of you are either ATC or high capacity RPT jockeys
Don't you think that RPT pilots were low capacity RPT, CHTR, AWK or PVT , or were they just born with ATPLs? It could be argued that a lot of RPT pilots are just those guys with more experience . You will also find that the loudest anti-NAS voices in ATC are either PPL or CPL holders. I know one thing for sure- before I became an ATC, as a low-time pilot, I really knew f-all about how the whole system worked. Only later did I realise how little I actually knew. Yet you think I was somehow in a position to design airspace? Entitled to input, certainly, but surely only commensurate with my experience, and the amount I used airspace.
Do us all a favour- rage agianst the real enemy, the charging regime. It keeps getting worse and worse; Rome burns, the emporer fiddles. Why?
There won't be any GA left, soon.