Quote:
Originally Posted by JulianEdgar
Look, you wrote something that is pretty silly:
A moment of thought shows that anyone who does this is going to spend their life embracing an infinite amount of rubbish.
Most people let your sort of comment pass (just like they do with: "there are no stupid questions") but if people keep spouting garbage and no one challenges, then it just goes on and on.
I showed the silliness of that notion very easily with my moon/cheese example. If you can't see that, that's fine: keep voraciously chasing mirages. But for me, and most people I professionally deal with, that would be a waste of a seriously finite life.
Instead it is far better to say, "When confronted with a new idea, I ask for the evidence for that idea, and then weigh that evidence up carefully".
[Shrug] I can see lots of stuff here that has taken on a life of its own over the years (eg The Template), where there was a severe lack of evidence but it was adopted wholeheartedly* - so maybe what you say is of no surprise.
*Yes Freebeard, I know you occasionally demurred.
I just see so much rubbish circulated re car aerodynamics that one starts to wonder what intellectual rigor (propositions; evidence for those) people are actually applying. Usually, very little or none, I think.
|
Julian's comment was not directed towards me, however, he never loses an opportunity to attack me, so I thought I'd throw in my three cents:
1) ' a moment of thought' ............... typically the source of much consternation, as brain ejaculations may be followed up by thinking, perhaps up to a month later.
2) any comment concerning 'rubbish' would imply possession of critical thinking skills, required for discernment. In over a year now, I've never experienced, by observation, that these discernment skills ever existed.
3) comments about 'most people' imply firsthand knowledge of what most people think. A rather ridiculous proposition coming from the son of a scientist.
4) people have been burned at the stake for espousing 'garbage' ideas, which are currently held as universal scientific fact.
5) Rules of etiquette allow for a 'challenge' which doesn't attack or rob a person of their dignity. If your personal constitution demands that you play judge, jury, and executioner, then I suggest you take that elsewhere. You've made EcoModder.com an unhealthy environment for over a year.
6) Mr. Edgar's particular network of professionals doesn't appear to include anyone ever involved with low-drag aerodynamics, something I'd presume would be a prerequisite.
7) When Professor Alberto Morelli presented his 'evidence' for a low-drag road vehicle in 1976, it consisted of a bunch of numbers on a page, derived from a two-dimensional fluid dynamics model from 1947.
8) Morelli commented that ' it is possible to develop from theoretical considerations ideal shapes aimed at reducing drag to a minimum..........'
An 'idea' which became fact that year.
9) on a least seven occasions, I have presented the scientific origins and scientifically-derived, empirical test data, supporting the 'template.' Julian Edgar has never addressed this scientific evidence, which I can only interpret as cowardice.
19) as a pedant, Mr. Edgar cannot himself defend his assertions, relying on his select panel of experts, of whom, all communications are filtered through Julian Edgar. I've no idea what was said to them, and what they actually said in response. ( 'To know, and not tell, makes cowards of men.' Abraham Lincoln )
20) It's comical that 'experts', and the corporations they work(ed) for, who allegedly, and completely discount any merit of a 'template', use the 'template' for their lowest drag products.
21) evidence of any self-attributed 'intellectual rigor', in possession of Julian Edgar, will be lost on anyone unfortunate enough to own a copy of his book on aerodynamic modification of road cars. Some of the logic-reversals are of epic proportions.
22) and he'll never know. It's structurally impossible for people to know what they don't know.
23) and the worst thing of all is, that when mentioned in a tactful, diplomatic, and constructive manner, there's never any hiatus, time-out for introspection, just hostile pushback against the possibility of any self-ignorance or intellectual bankruptcy associated with the topic.
When a toy poodle struts into the marked territory of a wolfpack, tail up, hiking it's leg on everything, it can never end well.
Keep on thinking Julian. And keep on thinking wrong. We know you can't help it.
Today
Other popular topics in this forum...
