Quote:
Originally Posted by Swift
If CERN were a member of BAUT I would have clicked on the little red triangle. As it is, I find that all rather insulting and offered without any evidence.
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...d_weasel_words
Weasel words are words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources. Weasel words give the force of authority to a statement without letting the reader decide if the source of the opinion is reliable. If a statement can't stand on its own without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view; either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed. If a statement can stand without weasel words, they may be undermining its neutrality and the statement may be better off standing without them.
For example, "Montreal is the nicest city in the world," is a biased or normative statement. Application of a weasel word can give the illusion of neutral point of view: "Some people say Montreal is the nicest city in the world."
Although this is an improvement, since it no longer states the opinion as fact, it remains uninformative:
* Who says that? You?
* When did they say it? Now?
* How many people think that?
* How many is some?
* How many is most?
* What kind of people think that? Where are they?
* What kind of bias might they have?
* Why is this of any significance?
Weasel words don't really give a neutral point of view; they just spread hearsay, or couch personal opinion in vague, indirect syntax. It is better to put a name and a face on an opinion than to assign an opinion to an anonymous source.
I wasn't trying to insult anybody, I was merely making an objective assessment of the writing that comes from CERN and its boosters. E.g., G&M's abstract: "there is no risk of any significance whatsoever from such black holes." It's stated as if it were an objective fact. But they don't say there is "no risk" as if it were absolute zero. Instead they qualify "no risk" with "any significance whatsoever". But who decides the significance? CERN, apparently. They could have provided a quantitative estimate of
pcatastrophe, (because it was done for RHIC), and then let the reader judge for themselves just how significant the risk is. But they chose not to.
And as for the court cases, it's no secret that CERN has attacked the credentials of those bringing suit against them instead of arguing against what they have to say in court. Excuse me while I dig up a link.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Swift
No, I'm not going to answer your questions, I'm done with your little games.
|
That is insulting. I've taken a lot of time and tried to understand the primary literature on this subject to the best of my ability to provide thoughtful, free content for this site. And instead of responding to my arguments themselves--which I take utterly seriously--you instead can only call my reasoned arguments "little games." If that's the best you can do, I must be on to something. Thanks for the pat on the back.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Swift
I've participated in this thread because there are some people out there who are concerned about this issue because of the nonsense in the press (like the 2012 nonsense) I've tried to do my part in easing their fears. But I have no interest in a continued debate with you.
|
Those people who happen to disagree with you have taken a hard look at the physics and have applied ordinary standards of risk analysis to the LHC. They are not in the same camp as those who are worried about the Mayan calender running out. But yes, if you would like to put me on your ignore list, that's OK with me.