Quote:
Originally Posted by JulianEdgar
Many of your posts here on car aerodynamics are wrong, misleading or deceptive. Either it's deliberate or you're just confused about the subject.
|
I accept the fact that this truly is your experience.
The issue for me is that, when these comments are made, they appear to come from a position of ignorance.
I've never seen you defend any of these assertions numerically, which is a scientific requirement to prove your premise.
My experience is that you do not comprehend:
* separation
* the 'template'
* lift
* drag
* road testing
* thermodynamics
* wind tunnels
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dropping names and titles is not indicative of comprehension of the materials.
Your sources DO appear to have a command of the material, however, it doesn't necessarily translate into YOUR narrative.
We've discussed the 'perspicacity' issue. Donald Rumsfeld famously addressed the situation with his ' known-knowns', 'known-unknowns', and ' unknown - unknowns'. Often, my experience of your posts reflects the latter of the three examples. And as Carl Sagan and others have commented, some , although possessing the potential for critical thinking, will never develop the ability for critical thinking. Which if true, would always leave us at an irreversible impasse. You may never understand me, even when science is with me. Your rigid belief system will always throw up a boundary to counterfactual evidence. Conformation bias. No cure.
If this is the environment in which you 'communicate' with your network of 'experts', then we have to take everything you say with a grain of salt. You're liable to get it 'wrong.'