I just needed some therapy

[ka9q]

From my experience, there seems to be a disproportionate amount of engineers that buy into woo of one sort or another. I'm sure it's a very very tiny minority, but a vocal one.

I think you're right, and as an engineer (electrical) I find this extremely distressing. We're not scientists but our entire profession rests on scientific discoveries. I can't understand how any engineer would reject the scientific method.

[Chief]

I have been guilty of circular reasoning but I can't get away from it.

If an engineer disputes what we know to be true then they aren't very good or are being dishonest. I actually believe that to be true.

How someone who claims to be an engineer or scientist and disputes the missions to the moon or the collapse of the WTC, or any number of other conspiracy subjects is beyond me.

Unfortunately because they claim to be professionals, i.e John Lear, Architects and Engineers for 9/11, Dr Judy Woods etc, it gives the conspiracy theorists, what they perceive to be, a professional endorsement.

My opinion of Richard Gage as an architect is pretty low but my only knowledge of architecture is from my daughter who is doing her masters in architecture this year.
From what I have gleaned, architecture is more an artistic discipline than scientific one. She was only exposed to the most rudimentary structural science. The majority of it being building codes and legal requirements as far as I could tell. The idea, I guess as a layman in that field, is they design the buildings and it's up to the structural engineers to turn that design into a safe reality. So from that point of view how much would Richard Gage know about the physics of the WTC collapse anyway?

I like to think of engineers as practical scientists. I'm not suggesting scientists are not practical, although I'm sure we have all known one or two. Our love of science is manifested in the practical application of our craft. One of my greatest joys is when something doesn't add up and I get to find out why, I don't cry conspiracy every time it happens because we all know that sometimes things to go the way we expect. These days I give that task to my staff especially the trainees but I do like to get away from the computer and stick my nose in sometimes.

[BazBear]

I have been guilty of circular reasoning but I can't get away from it. <snipped for brevity>

I don't see any circular reasoning on your part.

[Chief]

I guess it is bordering on circular reasoning then.

Automatically dismissing them as dishonest or poor engineers based on nothing more than their reported opinion without discussing it with them is sort of judging them.

They don't agree with the reported facts therefore they are wrong. Of course this is if they exist in the first place as in the 2400 engineers and architects who signed Gages petition.

A bit like we do agree with the evidence as presented(set aside our own evaluation of the evidence) therefore we are shills, sheep or blind according to the CT's.

When debating/arguing I have to be very careful to avoid anything that can't be proven otherwise I could be accused of believing rather than knowing.

That's why I stick to the physics. I have no idea whether, for example the big bad US government, Freemasons, Zionists etc. orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. I doubt it very much but I have nothing to argue with. I can't really disprove it for certain. With the physics I can show numbers and demonstrate the reality of the events.

[Dalhousie]

From my experience, there seems to be a disproportionate amount of engineers that buy into woo of one sort or another. I'm sure it's a very very tiny minority, but a vocal one.

They may have graduated as an engineer, but many I believe do not work in and engineering job requiring systems analysis to solve problems and/or optimize that system.

Or they get involved in woo outside their field of competence, for example young earthers.

[BazBear]

I guess it is bordering on circular reasoning then.

Automatically dismissing them as dishonest or poor engineers based on nothing more than their reported opinion without discussing it with them is sort of judging them.

They don't agree with the reported facts therefore they are wrong. Of course this is if they exist in the first place as in the 2400 engineers and architects who signed Gages petition.

A bit like we do agree with the evidence as presented(set aside our own evaluation of the evidence) therefore we are shills, sheep or blind according to the CT's.

When debating/arguing I have to be very careful to avoid anything that can't be proven otherwise I could be accused of believing rather than knowing.

That's why I stick to the physics. I have no idea whether, for example the big bad US government, Freemasons, Zionists etc. orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. I doubt it very much but I have nothing to argue with. I can't really disprove it for certain. With the physics I can show numbers and demonstrate the reality of the events.

Okay, if you've committed a fallacy, it would be the genetic fallacy I'd think.