Making your credentials known to new-comers

[michel123456]

Good example of natural behaviour caused by the lack of presentation of Mods & experts.

 

@ Jiggerj. I am Michel, I am not an expert, I am not from the staff. You can check my presentation page here. You shouldn't get angry so quickly, it is a misunderstanding. We (almost) all got through this.

 

I insist:

Jiggerj is right.

He is new here, he knows nothing about the people he is talking to.

Respectable Swansont should have presented himself ("Hello, welcome, I am blahblahblah, PhD in physics, Nobel Prize 2010, have a look at the wiki article about me, etcaetera, that's an interesting question of yours, as an expert in this field I'll try to answer, then go blahblahblah and as a result I consider your question and statements as absolute nonsense")

 

If you erase all the introduction and keep only the word "nonsense", the new member gets angry. That is most natural.

When the staff don't introduce himself, the fault goes to the staff.

I consider the new member as not guilty.

Edited February 19, 2012 by michel123456

[StringJunky]

Good example of natural behaviour caused by the lack of presentation of Mods & experts.

 

@ Jiggerj. I am Michel, I am not an expert, I am not from the staff. You can check my presentation page here. You shouldn't get angry so quickly, it is a misunderstanding. We (almost) all got through this.

 

I insist:

Jiggerj is right.

He is new here, he knows nothing about the people he is talking to.

Respectable Swansont should have presented himself ("Hello, welcome, I am blahblahblah, PhD in physics, Nobel Prize 2010, have a look at the wiki article about me, etcaetera, that's an interesting question of yours, as an expert in this field I'll try to answer, then go blahblahblah and as a result I consider your question and statements as absolute nonsense")

 

If you erase all the introduction and keep only the word "nonsense", the new member gets angry. That is most natural.

When the staff don't introduce himself, the fault goes to the staff.

I consider the new member as not guilty.

 

Any curious member with half a brain can look in swansont's profile,by clicking on his username, and see that he's a physicist and has a PhD in Atomic Physics.

[Phi for All]

Respectable Swansont should have presented himself ("Hello, welcome, I am blahblahblah, PhD in physics, Nobel Prize 2010, have a look at the wiki article about me, etcaetera, that's an interesting question of yours, as an expert in this field I'll try to answer, then go blahblahblah and as a result I consider your question and statements as absolute nonsense")

Oh, come on michel, why should swansont have to do that with every newcomer? And it obviously wouldn't have worked in this case since JiggerJ doesn't "care if [swansont's] the pope". And I know it's hard for you to understand because you probably aren't in this situation, but some people, staff included, could face an either/or challenge if their employers find out how much they post here. Please respect the need for anonymity that might be compromised if too much personal information is given. You should understand, given that you had pointed out that whacko who threatened Obama was out of jail and posting here (that WAS you, iirc?).

[DrRocket]

You really need to read up on topics like:

 

How not to be a know-it-all.

The art of conversation.

Recognizing the difference between competition and discussion.

 

Really, you shouldn't be a staff member. Please retire.

 

Swansont does not know everything. No one does. But he is a for-real PhD physicist and he does know quite a bit. Quite a bit more than do you.

 

Conversation requires listening. You need to listen to people who know more than you do. There are rather a lot of such people. Swansont is one of them.

 

There is no competition, but there is some consideration for lurkers who are actually trying to learn. That means that all opinions are not of equal validity. Yours in particular lack validity. Now we are back to that listening thing.

 

Speaking of reading, try reading a physics book.

 

Any curious member with half a brain can look in swansont's profile,by clicking on his username, and see that he's a physicist and has a PhD in Atomic Physics.

 

That is relatively unimportant. What is important is the competence demonstrated in the sum total of swansont's posts and blog.

 

Believe it or not, incompetent PhD physicists do exist. Swansont is not one of them.

Edited February 19, 2012 by DrRocket

[StringJunky]

That is relatively unimportant. What is important is the competence demonstrated in the sum total of swansont's posts and blog.

 

Believe it or not, incompetent PhD physicists do exist. Swansont is not one of them.

 

I agree, but that's all newcomers have got to go on initially regarding credentials. It's easy to know when you are in a similar level of knowledge as swansont like yourself. The fact that he has a PhD matters initially until comes such a time a person can judge him on his posts. One should (as an amateur and new poster) imo make the assumption that he has not been made a staff member for nothing. As an amateur myself, I have assumed faith on his expertise and other SFN staff and as far I'm concerned, after nearly three years of double-checking a fair few of their posts I'm interested in, they are more than adequate for me...they are my experts.

 

For what it's worth, I give equal creedence to your contributions as well DR.

 

Edit: I propose that that Dr Rocket be made a designated Expert. If he's not an expert in maths and physics within the confines of SFN then I'm Jesus...I make no apologies.

Edited February 20, 2012 by StringJunky

[DrRocket]

I agree, but that's all newcomers have got to go on initially regarding credentials. It's easy to know when you are in a similar level of knowledge as swansont like yourself. The fact that he has a PhD matters initially until comes such a time a person can judge him on his posts. One should (as an amateur and new poster) imo make the assumption that he has not been made a staff member for nothing. As an amateur myself, I have assumed faith on his expertise and other SFN staff and as far I'm concerned, after nearly three years of double-checking a fair few of their posts I'm interested in, they are more than adequate for me...they are my experts.

 

For what it's worth, I give equal creedence to your contributions as well DR.

 

You take too much on faith.

 

I have yet to see a science forum in which staff and "experts" are not a mix that runs the full gamut from knowledgeable to nearly clueless.

 

Check everyone. Check even more diligently when the source or the subject is new to you. I have seen millions of dollars lost, and failed missions, because people believed "experts".

Edited February 19, 2012 by DrRocket

[Ophiolite]

This is not a question and answer site. It's a chat forum.

Phi for all has already corrected you on this point, but I'm willing to lay along and just chat.

 

I enjoy science. I enjoy two things about it: I love the light it has shed upon how the universe works and upon showing us where the shadows of ignorance remain; and I love the technique it employs to cast that light. Both gifts are truly wonderful.

 

You also, apparently, love - or at least like - science. For you have taken the time to come onto a science forum to discuss aspects of science. I am therefore perplexed that in so doing you condemn and attack the two things about science that I love. You question, even deny the findings of science, without a single justifcation other than your own ingorance. Then, to compound matters, you refuse to do anything to correct that ignorance and become rude and offensive towards those who are seeking to assist you.

 

Perhaps you might find the chat more rewarding if you dismounted from that high horse you are on and tried opening your mind. Alternatively you can launch into a tirade about my anti-social behaviour. Or you could just ignore me. Isn't freedom of choice a wonderful thing?

[michel123456]

Oh, come on michel, why should swansont have to do that with every newcomer?

 

because a newcomer's reaction is so often the same. How many times must that happen before the bell rings in your head?

 

 

 

And it obviously wouldn't have worked in this case since JiggerJ doesn't "care if [swansont's] the pope". And I know it's hard for you to understand because you probably aren't in this situation, but some people, staff included, could face an either/or challenge if their employers find out how much they post here. Please respect the need for anonymity that might be compromised if too much personal information is given.

 

Anonymity? http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/about

and

http://www.aug.edu/srsp/Swanson.pdf

 

There is no anonymity on the Internet.

 

You should understand, given that you had pointed out that whacko who threatened Obama was out of jail and posting here (that WAS you, iirc?).

 

Yes that was me.

I spend some time investigating who is who, to me it is very important.

 

In real life it is very very (VERY) important. I am convinced all those who believe that only argumentation counts are very young people who have no idea about what's going on.

[Ophiolite]

I am convinced all those who believe that only argumentation counts are very young people who have no idea about what's going on.

 

So, just for the sake of argument and in relation to this next point of yours, who am I?

 

There is no anonymity on the Internet.

[DrRocket]

So, just for the sake of argument and in relation to this next point of yours, who am I?

 

 

 

Don't you know ?

[swansont]

I insist:

Jiggerj is right.

 

Right about what, exactly? That I was nasty, uppity, throwing a tantrum or immature? By saying 'Addressing "How is this even possible" requires that you expend some effort learning physics' in response to some posts prefaced/buttressed by "my background in science is zilch"?

 

I think it's very likely that saying that I have a PhD in physics would make everything that follows sound condescending. I am also of the opinion that stating one's ignorance coupled with a declaration that, in effect, one doesn't want to be taught or contradicted — on a frikkin' science forum — is asshattery of the first order.

 

One of the first things you have to get used to in science is that many of the thoughts you have will be wrong. This isn't literature or poetry, where multiple interpretations are valid and worthy of discussion. If you can't be OK with that, you will have difficulty.

[michel123456]

Right about what, exactly? That I was nasty, uppity, throwing a tantrum or immature? By saying 'Addressing "How is this even possible" requires that you expend some effort learning physics' in response to some posts prefaced/buttressed by "my background in science is zilch"?

 

I think it's very likely that saying that I have a PhD in physics would make everything that follows sound condescending. I am also of the opinion that stating one's ignorance coupled with a declaration that, in effect, one doesn't want to be taught or contradicted — on a frikkin' science forum — is asshattery of the first order.

 

One of the first things you have to get used to in science is that many of the thoughts you have will be wrong. This isn't literature or poetry, where multiple interpretations are valid and worthy of discussion. If you can't be OK with that, you will have difficulty.

 

Compare page 1 and page 2 of this thread.

 

So, just for the sake of argument and in relation to this next point of yours, who am I?

 

That's a challenge.

Working on it.

I don't have you IP, looking for a clue.

You are not a Mod, not an expert, only a beacon.

You have a Degree in Geology from the University of Glasgow.

You are fat and ugly (source here post #8)

Your son is 6% Chinese, 13% Indonesian, 25% English, 25% Scottish, 31% Malay.

Your daughter looks Chinese, even to some Chinese, but she's no more than 1/16th, the rest being Malay, Scottish, English and Indonesian.

Still searching...

[hypervalent_iodine]

Topic split from here.

 

So far as I can tell, the big bang and the age of the universe has nothing to do with swansont's credentials or how and when he chooses to share them.

[Phi for All]

That's a challenge.

Working on it.

I don't have you IP, looking for a clue.

You are not a Mod, not an expert, only a beacon.

You have a Degree in Geology from the University of Glasgow.

You are fat and ugly (source here post #8)

Your son is 6% Chinese, 13% Indonesian, 25% English, 25% Scottish, 31% Malay.

Your daughter looks Chinese, even to some Chinese, but she's no more than 1/16th, the rest being Malay, Scottish, English and Indonesian.

Still searching...

Oh, that's just wonderful, michel. You have absolutely convinced me that the last thing in the world I want is someone like you collating my personal info to use against me.

[swansont]

Compare page 1 and page 2 of this thread.

 

(nb, "of that thread", now that post have been moved)

 

I can't explain moderate to advanced physics to someone who doesn't understand any physics at all, and furthermore, someone who admits that they know nothing, doesn't want to be taught ("Young man, I am not in school." "You give the impression that you are here to teach. … I don't want people doing this to me.") and yet has the audacity to say that they are here to chat and expect to not be challenged when they spout nonsense.

 

I'd say the tone was set when Jiggerj showed up here instead of the local pub. And you shouldn't expect to lay that in my lap and have me be silent about it. This is not much different than showing up in a foreign country and getting mad because they don't speak your native language, and further, getting mad at the person who suggests you purchase a phrasebook.

[Ophiolite]

Working on it.

I don't have you IP, looking for a clue.

You are not a Mod, not an expert, only a beacon.

You have a Degree in Geology from the University of Glasgow.

You are fat and ugly (source here post #8)

Your son is 6% Chinese, 13% Indonesian, 25% English, 25% Scottish, 31% Malay.

Your daughter looks Chinese, even to some Chinese, but she's no more than 1/16th, the rest being Malay, Scottish, English and Indonesian.

Still searching...

So you still don't actually know who I am. You could try to get a listing of the graduates of Glasgow Geology department over the last, say forty years. How are yo going to sift that?

A determined investigator with skill could doubtless track me down in short order. I don't expect you to have such a sucess.

 

And of course that is based on the premise that I have not buried misdirection in my online persona from day 1 to avoid just such an eventuallity. Perhap I graduated from St, Andrews, not Glasow. Or the degree may have been in Geography, not geology. Or maybe I got tossed out at the end of my third year for fornicating with the Professor's wife. Who knows? So far, you don't.

[iNow]

Embedded in the OP is the complimentary suggestion that the posts of those without specific credentials or particular degrees are LESS worthy of consideration or seriousness, and that is bunk on its face. I've told you this before, and I will tell you again. It is the content of the post that reigns supreme, not the credentials of the person making it. You could be a 6 year old child, a 35 year old philosopher, or a 74 year old with 3 PhDs and years of postdoc experience... Online, NONE of that is relevant. What IS relevant is the merit of your position and the content of your post. That's all there is to it. All the hand waving and repetition in the world will do nothing to change the validity of my point.

[michel123456]

So you still don't actually know who I am. (...)(...) So far, you don't.

 

You are correct.

 

Oh, that's just wonderful, michel. You have absolutely convinced me that the last thing in the world I want is someone like you collating my personal info to use against me.

 

Oops.

Sorry.

I was not so serious about it.

But you must know that what I did against Ophiolite in about 15 min can be done by anybody against everybody.

 

I'll stop here.

[ydoaPs]

And here I thought appeal to authority was a logical fallacy.

[zapatos]

And here I thought appeal to authority was a logical fallacy.

I saw no appeal to authority in this thread, although I do believe there is one appeal to ridicule.

Edited February 20, 2012 by zapatos

[Appolinaria]

And here I thought appeal to authority was a logical fallacy.

 

I'm going to slap you.

[iNow]

Unless you're a black belt in some martial art, your slap won't mean anything to new comers.

[DrRocket]

Unless you're a black belt in some martial art, your slap won't mean anything to new comers.

 

This guy can slap you so quickly that you even know what happened.

 

http://en.wikipedia....Takayuki_Mikami

 

And this guy was even faster.

 

http://en.wikipedia....etaka_Nishiyama

 

And Mikami taught this guy, who damn near broke my arm after I punched through his block in an exercise.

 

 

Any one of them could give you a slap that you would definitely notice.

Edited February 20, 2012 by DrRocket

[zapatos]

Embedded in the OP is the complimentary suggestion that the posts of those without specific credentials or particular degrees are LESS worthy of consideration or seriousness, and that is bunk on its face. I've told you this before, and I will tell you again. It is the content of the post that reigns supreme, not the credentials of the person making it. You could be a 6 year old child, a 35 year old philosopher, or a 74 year old with 3 PhDs and years of postdoc experience... Online, NONE of that is relevant. What IS relevant is the merit of your position and the content of your post. That's all there is to it. All the hand waving and repetition in the world will do nothing to change the validity of my point.

Your point is valid and I believe you are correct. When making a pursuasive argument, merit and content reign supreme.

 

There are however different types of situations to consider. For example, I was looking at the thread "Why does light bend during acceleration?" and it contained the following:

 

First from Elfmotat:

 

The EP is actually one of the axioms of GR, so if it weren't true then GR wouldn't be either.

 

Followed by this from DrRocket:

 

It is absolutely untrue that "The EP is actually one of the axioms of GR, so if it weren't true then GR wouldn't be either."

 

I don't know who to believe. I know that their credentials won't guarantee who is correct and who is not, but if I determined that one of them had a PhD in physics and the other was an avid reader of science fiction, I would have some useful information.

 

Similarly if I am on a jury and the prosecution brings in an expert witness on 'cause of death', one who has relevant PhD's and years of experience up the wazoo, while the defense brings in an expert on cosmology, I think their credentials are important.

 

Unless you're a black belt in some martial art, your slap won't mean anything to new comers.

Har! Very clever. +1

[ewmon]

There is no anonymity on the Internet.

 

I spend some time investigating who is who, to me it is very important.

what I did against Ophiolite in about 15 min can be done by anybody against everybody.

Which is why I remain anonymous.