Bazant Misconduct website is launched[W:111]

[ozeco41]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Uh huh.

The details - I posted a simple model to demonstrate how load redistribution is not uniformly related to %age of columns removed. Cut 25% of columns DOES NOT produce uniform 33.3% increase of load in the remaining columns. And the reality is always worse.

So Tony did an FEA based on a false premise (static condition) for the initiation "cascade" which is undeniably - by definition - BOTH dynamic and exponential. I called him on the error. He then became "less than truthful". My pet hate - engineers who deliberately prostitute their engineering knowledge resorting to dishonesty to deceive non-engineers.

 

[Kat Dorman]

Tony Sz is not the only person who can start from a false assumption THEN "argue" round in a circle to "prove" the original (and usually false) assumption.

Like those folk who insist that Bazant's findings "fell out of the maths"...

...when reality is that anyone who applies maths BEFORE they define what they are talking about is doomed to "prove" the original implied but not explicit assumed premise(s).

People are people.

Except for...

Nah.

 

[Kat Dorman]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

He then became "less than truthful".

That was kind, I'm sure. I've experienced the same. At this forum, in fact; it's the reason I signed up. I reviewed some of it earlier.

My pet hate - engineers who deliberately prostitute their engineering knowledge resorting to dishonesty to deceive non-engineers.

I hear you.

 

[ozeco41]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

That was kind, I'm sure. I've experienced the same. At this forum, in fact; it's the reason I signed up. I reviewed some of it earlier.


I hear you.

You probably think I'm referring to two specific examples - one a truther - the other a debunker.

 

[Kat Dorman]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

You probably think I'm referring to two specific examples - one a truther - the other a debunker.

I surely think I know. I pondered this a bit and I think there are issues beyond deliberate deception. I'm not sure either set out to deceive, but eventually the flow goes that way and the urge to save their position overrides all other considerations. After all is said and done, they feel a little guilty but assuage themselves through some demented penance, like going into the bathroom and cutting themselves in front of the mirror.

 

[ozeco41]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

I surely think I know. I pondered this a bit and I think there are issues beyond deliberate deception. I'm not sure either set out to deceive, but eventually the flow goes that way and the urge to save their position overrides all other considerations. After all is said and done, they feel a little guilty but assuage themselves through some demented penance, like going into the bathroom and cutting themselves in front of the mirror.

Agreed - the status of genuinely held obsessive belief is a problem - where someone genuinely believes a falsehood n the presence of overwhelming contrary fact. The error we often see made on forums - using "lie" and "liar" where the deliberation is not proven.

I accept that a person can hold obsessive and false views in areas which they can isolate from "normal living", Sort of Gould's " Non-Overlapping Magisteria". But that cannot be the excuse for any professional - active in the profession - who holds and publishes assertions which are false at the foundations of his profession. Far too close to home.

I doubt either or many others trapped by untruth start out intending to be deliberately dishonest. BUT - having been many times presented with reasoned and truthful counter argument it should be hard for them to maintain their false positions without any regard to the counter assertions.

And it MUST be false when they assert that you - I - we have "never told them".

Specifics aside yours is a good summary of the characteristics of obsessive behaviour - its consequences and the reality that there are examples from both "sides" of the current polarised dichotomy.

And another observation - will pursuing any arguments based on false foundations inevitably circle round to bite you on the arse? Whether or not the opponents detect the circling argument?

 

[Kat Dorman]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

The error we often see made on forums - using "lie" and "liar" where the deliberation is not proven.

Accusations of lying litter the landscape inappropriately. The few times I've found myself slinging the term, it's usually because of this:

And it MUST be false when they assert that you - I - we have "never told them".

It is true than when Tony brushes aside volumes of sourced, reasoned argument and says something like "nothing you've said changes the fact..." where the 'fact' was just shown false resoundingly, he could be grossly incompetent. But the timing, the manner, the delivery, all point to adopting a politician's tactic of simple denial. Which is lying in the baldest form.

And another observation - will pursuing any arguments based on false foundations inevitably circle round to bite you on the arse? Whether or not the opponents detect the circling argument?

You're asking if there are consequences for this sort of behavior? Not that I can see. Forum shame doesn't count.

 

[Mark F]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

You're asking if there are consequences for this sort of behavior? Not that I can see. Forum shame doesn't count.

It requires the subject to have some sense of dignity.

 

[ozeco41]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

You're asking if there are consequences for this sort of behavior? Not that I can see. Forum shame doesn't count.

My poor expression.

I was thinking of the logic circling consequences - not the behavioural ones. "Shame" not much of an issue for some - and where "they" are genuinely unaware of their falsehoods "they" don't qualify for shame....


..and I'd better leave it there - my "clarifications" having the opposite effect.... :3oops:

 

[SanderO]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Debate seems to raise the notion that one side is correct, telling the truth and the other side would be incorrect and lying... because they are asserting false statements as true.

And of course we see all manner people trying to prove or demand a proof or disprove X, Y or Z...

After 15 years it's amazing that with so little hard evidence and real time data... people are not accepting that what is put forth are educated and less than educated guesses based on usually mostly assumptions and a few measurements of motion. And that motion is the net result of tens of thousands or more of interactions, processes and so forth. The column 79 discussion is a case in point... Even Torrero seems to accept (and it may be true) that a single connection failure in a tall building at a girder to a column to lead to a total building collapse... almost sort of implying that any tall building can totally collapse from a single beam falling off or having its connection to the column it was framed into fail. And that may be the "hypothesis" of NIST... but if 79 did fail... there were more than likely multiple other failures as well all coming about at almost the same time.

Even if NIST was wrong... why call it a lie? Why not call it sloppy work, or not rigorous or isolated and not developed adequately.. insufficient?

It's understandable to a degree that someone with little to no technical background can be taken in and parrot arguments incapable of evaluating the science and engineering issues. You can't change their thinking because it is informed by ignorance and they need some education to inform their thinking and that is not going to come in an internet debate/discussion.

 

[ozeco41]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Debate seems to raise the notion that one side is correct, telling the truth and the other side would be incorrect........

Sander - my experience is that there are two groups of people in this world:
1) Those who agree with me; AND
2) Those who are wrong.

..which may account for the sign that some of my staff once posted on my office door:

THE RULES
Rule #1 - The boss is always right; and

Rule #2 - When the boss is wrong refer to Rule #1.

 

[SanderO]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Sander - my experience is that there are two groups of people in this world:
1) Those who agree with me; AND
2) Those who are wrong.

..which may account for the sign that some of my staff once posted on my office door:

THE RULES
Rule #1 - The boss is always right; and

Rule #2 - When the boss is wrong refer to Rule #1.

hahahahaha that is really true ain't it...

 

[mike2810]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Sander - my experience is that there are two groups of people in this world:
1) Those who agree with me; AND
2) Those who are wrong.

..which may account for the sign that some of my staff once posted on my office door:

THE RULES
Rule #1 - The boss is always right; and

Rule #2 - When the boss is wrong refer to Rule #1.

Good rules to live by. Believe we had something similar for the incident commanders on wildfires.

One of my employees made a rubber stamp for me. The stamp said.

"Disapproved, rewrite, resubmit for final disapproval."

Maybe it can be used by AE911T and applied to Bazant's paper. :lamo
Might also work for TonyZ and Jeff Pragers work.:doh

 

[Kat Dorman]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

The column 79 discussion is a case in point... Even Torrero seems to accept (and it may be true) that a single connection failure in a tall building at a girder to a column to lead to a total building collapse... almost sort of implying that any tall building can totally collapse from a single beam falling off or having its connection to the column it was framed into fail.

What you just said will draw fire in some crowds. The idea is that the peculiar architecture and preconditions in addition to the failure you mentioned is an isolated case, or that remediations have eliminated vulnerabilities, or so what? I'm with you. The conclusion is quite concerning.

Even if NIST was wrong... why call it a lie? Why not call it sloppy work, or not rigorous or isolated and not developed adequately.. insufficient?

Exactly. This thread, the website it references... misconduct?

 

[Kat Dorman]

Re: Bazant Misconduct website is launched

Like, I could see NB@ISF positively blowing a gasket at the statement.
(referring to "one column goes, they all go!")