Re: what's got into beaty?

[Michael Edmiston <edmiston@BLUFFTON.EDU>]

Here's the one from Beaty.  He is obviously really ticked with Denker.

Michael D. Edmiston, Ph.D.              Phone/voice-mail:       419-358-3270
Professor of Chemistry & Physics        FAX:                    419-358-3323
Chairman, Science Department            E-Mail                  edmiston@bluffton.edu
Bluffton College
280 West College Avenue
Bluffton, OH 45817



-----Original Message-----
From:   William Beaty [SMTP:billb@ESKIMO.COM]
Sent:   Tuesday, August 24, 1999 2:59 PM
To:     PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu
Subject:        what's got into beaty?

On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, Bob Sciamanda wrote:

> Disagreements of type 1) should be argued in the court of experiment;
> reality will decide.
>
> Disagreements of the type 2) are often concerned with individual and
> institutional cultural differences.  Differing conceptual models may
be
> equally useful (and therefore equally "true") to different
physicists.
> The differences can border on the religious.  That is why type 2)
> discussions generate so much fervor that the essence of the
conceptual
> differences becomes unintelligible to a sympathetic bystander (me).
 No
> one ever gets so worked up over type 1) differences (the more
"proper"
> realm of physics).


I agree, and I strongly agree that the "Big-endian" and "Small-endian"
religions are invariably fighting on the same side.  They both are
greatly
in favor of "cracking the egg" and getting to the important stuff
inside.

Am I a "Newtonist?"  No.  I actually enjoy trying to switch back and
forth
between "Bernoulli" and "Newton"  explanations of lift.  I originally
started out by being taught only the "Bernoulli" side, then I later
discovered K. Weltner's AJP articles and the "Newtonist" religion.  For
awhile I was virulently anti-Bernoulli. I "knew" it was wrong.  Then I
encountered some more advanced "Bernoulli" writings, and I realized
that
most "Bernoulli" explanations were not flawed at all... if we apply
them
to airplanes which were skimming close to the ground.  Therefor I
thought
to myself, why not sit down and figure out how the "Bernoulli"
explanation
can apply to a real-world 3D aircraft flying a couple of miles up!
 (i.e.
how can both explanations peacefully co-exist under the same roof?)
 It's
not hard.  However, the explanations are required to co-mingle.  If
they
do not, it's like seeing a staunch libertarian marry a rabid
republican.
Sooner or later their refusal to meet in the middle will shatter the
relationship.


Why do I continue to pursue this issue with John Denker so hotly?  I've
always claimed to be an experienced list moderator.  I should know
better
than to start acting like those most reprehensible of all Internet
life-forms, the Flamers.  What gives?  Why is Beaty acting so
strangely,
as if he had become a raging "Newtonist/flamer" all of a sudden?

Simple.  John Denker is incorrect in a way that trancends the whole
Newton/Bernoulli debate.  Also, John's errors have caused him to attack
a
rival paper which does not contain the errors that his own descriptions
do. I understand the nature of his errors quite well, and they
obviously
fall into the catagory of Bob's type A) above.  The issue can possibly
be
settled by performing experiments, but I know of none that are easy.
 It
can also be settled by simple physics arguments, and that's a problem,
because the arguments are so simple that it's very tempting to use them
to
quickly end the debate.  In a conversation among physicists, we should
NEED no experiments to analyze such a simple situation.  After some
clear-headed discussions, the answer should be obvious to all involved.
However, in a scientific debate, any unspoken incorrect conceptions can
derail all logical arguments for all time T equals zero to infinity.
 Our
misconceptions are not accessable to outside view, therefor all logical
argument is easily blocked, and the reasons for this will be forever
obscure.  Also, if John uses debating tactics which spread confusion
and derail the conversations over and over, then a "clear-headed
discussion" is effectively suppressed.

Our misconceptions are tenacious.  Our misconceptions become
*unbelievably* tenacious once we have become experts and therefor
believe
ourselves to be immune from them.  Once we think it *inconceivable*
that
we might have made such a large error, the large errors become
permanently
invisible.  We then fall into a 100% belief in our own infallibility
regarding that segment of science, and nobody can convince us that we
have
an enormous glaring flaw.  The 100% belief is a mental trap which is
tough
to avoid once one has fallen in.  A good way to fight this tendency is
to
label ourselves "permanent students"; people who are forever prone to
error.  To do this, we must stay as far away as possible from the idea
that we have become "experts" who are immune from making huge and
embarassing errors in public.

What "large embarassing errors" do I see in John's material?  I've
already
described them, but here's a compressed version of three in particular.

   Mistaking a single-ended pushing motion for a Newtonian force-pair.
   Believing that high-flying airplanes must interact with the surface
   of the Earth in order to remain aloft.

   Believing that a system can shoot a gas-stream at itself, and then
   rather than being stretched by the force-pair which arises between
the
   "launcher" and "catcher" processes, instead the system experiences a
   net-force and can propel itself without ejecting any reaction-mass.
   In other words, believing that upwash creates a lifting force.

   Redefining the meanings of terms, then basing conclusions on the
   distorted terminology, while believing that the distortion is
   unimportant.  If John conviently decides that propellors are not
   really reaction engines, then he can also convince himself that
   wings are not reaction engines.


Ordinarily these might be incredibly minor things in a large textbook.
After all, the pre-college textbooks out there are filled with
stunningly
huge amounts of incorrect ideas.  Why would such minor points act to
"get
Beaty going"  (especially when the minor points are such tiny blemishes
when compared to the rest of John Denker's brilliant "How It Flys"
pilot
education manual?  The manual after all is not about the lifting
force.)

Why?

Simple.  John Denker's error has led him to attack another excellent
paper
which, contrary to his beliefs, does not have the flaws he sees in it.
Mr. Denker is wrong, and Anderson/Eberhardt are not.  In addition, I
see
that the Anderson/Eberhardt paper contains a clear explanation of
flight,
an explanation which really has never been widely circulated before.
 It
deserves to find a place in all textbooks which mention wings even
peripherally.

Therefor I see things as being an issue of fair-play and ethics.  I
think
like this: what if I were to start going around attacking others for a
glaring flaw which really only existed in *MYSELF*?  I would be
committing
an injustice.  I certainly would hope that somebody would sit me down
and
set me straight, or at least do something to stop me from hurting
innocent
bystanders.  Shock me.  Make me take an unbiased look at my own
behavior
for a moment.

But... but...  "right" and "wrong" are just matters of opinion,
correct?
How can I set myself up as the JUDGE of John Denker?  Well, PI = 3.0,
and
also 2 + 2 = 5.  We're talking type A) errors here.  The types of
Newtonian errors in Denker's critique, if they were in an introductory
college textbook, would make that textbook the laughingstock of the
physics education community.  Strong words?  I do not say them lightly,
and I do not intend them as insults.  I intend them to be an accurate
description which prhaps will shock John and make him stop and look at
his
own actions.  I read my words over and over again first, yet I send
this
message anyway, because no matter how much I squirm and reconsider, I
cannot escape the conclusion that the words are true.  John Denker's
physics errors are shocking when displayed by a physicist.  They are
not
"innocent mistakes" which could be made by any of us.  When they cause
him
to attack Anderson/Eberhardt's paper, he commits a gross injustice.
Therefor I spend unbelievable amounts of time trying to show John what
I'm
talking about.  I'm on John's side, you see.    :)

John seems to start to comprehend, but then he will very suddenly
change
the subject.  (I don't think he knows he has this subject-changing
habit.
It makes me so frustrated that I can't see straight, and for awhile I
totally lose all respect for him, and see him as a slippery character
who
intentionally avoids listening to any argument which might threaten to
change his worldview, while accusing me of various sorts of
transgressions
which I know are untrue, while also attacking an innocent paper which
clearly explains airplanes.  It makes me deeply regret playing any part
in
bringing such a person to PHYS-L.  But then I think, "This isn't a
description of the author of the famous "HOW IT FLYS" website, or the
person who so astutely explains physics concepts on this forum.)

What does Beaty want?  I want John Denker to see the nature of his
errors,
to publicly admit that he is wrong, and to apologize to Drs. Anderson
and
Eberhardt for wasting so much of their time.  I realize that this would
be
a hard thing for anyone to do, but it must be done.  I want him to
contact
Cesar Levy and retract his misguided request that the
Anderson/Eberhardt
links be removed from that NASA website.  I'd like to see him publicly
change his stance on the newsgroups, and try to heal any damage he has
done there to Anderson and Eberhardt's reputations.  Because John
Denker
is wrong and Anderson/ Eberhardt are right, then these actions are the
only right and proper path to follow.  If John Denker thinks that it is
INCONCEIVABLE that he could be wrong in this debate, then he has aqu
ired
an irrational belief, a dangerous "100% belief" which cannot be altered
under any circumstances.  Yet it must be altered.  Last, I would hope
that
John Denker would refuse to indulge in any debating tactics on PHYS-L
which "win" the battle while damaging the science, but this is a side
issue and Dan M. should be the one to discuss it.  I suspect that it is
far to subtle an issue to have the phys-L rules address it, but I might
be wrong.   Can we ban "confusion-sowing" on phys-L???

If the above things do not happen, then my continuing respect for John
Denker will evaporate.  I doubt that this is important to him.
 However,
perhaps the respect which the PHYS-L community has for Mr.  Denker will
also be impaired.  This would be a very sad thing.  Mr. Denker appears
to
be a brilliant physicist, and has much to offer this forum.

And finally, where Bill Beaty is concerned, I see a great difference
between "righteous" and "self-righteous."  I look and look at my own
actions in this matter, trying to see if there is any trace of
self-centered motivations or a "self-righteous" tendency which makes me
want to hurt John in order to make myself feel superior.  I can see
none.
(Can anyone else see any?)  Instead I feel profound disgust about the
entire issue, as well as clear anger at John's actions, and I see that
it
is proper that John not be prevented from experiencing the consequences
of
injustices he has committed.  I have no great personal need to rub
John's
nose in his errors, but I do see a great need for him to *SEE* them
clearly, to take responsibility for them, and to attempt to make
amends.


((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) )
)))))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty                                  SCIENCE HOBBYIST
website
billb@eskimo.com                                  http://www.amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits          science projects, tesla, weird
science
Seattle, WA   206-781-3320          freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L
webhead-L