JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
Altered History: Doug Horne parts 1-5 on You Tube
Dillon Rankine:
--- Quote from: Martin Weidmann on January 31, 2018, 09:35:15 PM ---Where did I ever say that I bothered with anybody's claims?
I just wondered what gave you the expertise to make a judgement call about Horne.
It now seems - if I understand you correctly - that instead of having any expertise yourself, you merely accept the opinions of others.
--- End quote ---
You don?t understand me correctly. How suggesting textbooks on relative matters like terminal ballistics and forensic pathology is ?merely accepting the opinions of others? is hard for me to comprehend. By definition, I?m using the knowledge I?ve gained from such books (both related to JFK and not) to reach my conclusions. If one we?re to agree with Horne would they not be merely accepting the opinion of another?
You?ve honestly left me rather dumbstruck here. I suggest based on my readings of forensics by experts that Doug Horne?s assertions don?t jibe with reality (which they don?t) and your response is make some odd authority argument about expertise, when Horne himself has no expertise (or even knowledge) in the areas upon which he pontificates.
Latent in your reply is that you somehow possess some expertise that permits you to make some sort of determination about who we should listen to, what?s true, and how to discriminate between those who form their own opinions and those who absord those of others.
--- Quote ---That?s all I wanted to know
--- End quote ---
If making half-baked assessments of those who (presumably) disagree with you so as to dismiss them under some out-group label, then that?s all I need to know.
Martin Weidmann:
--- Quote from: Dillon Rankine on February 02, 2018, 05:00:16 AM ---You don?t understand me correctly. How suggesting textbooks on relative matters like terminal ballistics and forensic pathology is ?merely accepting the opinions of others? is hard for me to comprehend. By definition, I?m using the knowledge I?ve gained from such books (both related to JFK and not) to reach my conclusions. If one we?re to agree with Horne would they not be merely accepting the opinion of another?
You?ve honestly left me rather dumbstruck here. I suggest based on my readings of forensics by experts that Doug Horne?s assertions don?t jibe with reality (which they don?t) and your response is make some odd authority argument about expertise, when Horne himself has no expertise (or even knowledge) in the areas upon which he pontificates.
Latent in your reply is that you somehow possess some expertise that permits you to make some sort of determination about who we should listen to, what?s true, and how to discriminate between those who form their own opinions and those who absord those of others.
If making half-baked assessments of those who (presumably) disagree with you so as to dismiss them under some out-group label, then that?s all I need to know.
--- End quote ---
I?m using the knowledge I?ve gained from such books (both related to JFK and not) to reach my conclusions.
Great... the only problem IMO with that is that if expertise can be so easily gained by reading a few textbooks, why do we need an expensive educational system? Just pick up some books from a library, read them and.... bingo, one has sufficient expertise to reach conclusions about the arguments of others.... right?
Or isn't that what you are actually saying?
If one we?re to agree with Horne would they not be merely accepting the opinion of another?
True, but I never said I agreed with Horne.
I suggest based on my readings of forensics by experts that Doug Horne?s assertions don?t jibe with reality (which they don?t) and your response is make some odd authority argument about expertise, when Horne himself has no expertise (or even knowledge) in the areas upon which he pontificates.
Two comments;
1. You did a bit more than just "suggest"
2. I merely asked what your expertise was to make that determination. That's a question, not an argument.
Latent in your reply is that you somehow possess some expertise that permits you to make some sort of determination about who we should listen to, what?s true, and how to discriminate between those who form their own opinions and those who absord those of others.
I really don't get all the drama. Since when does asking a simple question provoke this kind of reply? Where do you get this stuff?
If making half-baked assessments of those who (presumably) disagree with you so as to dismiss them under some out-group label, then that?s all I need to know.
Oh boy... more OTT drama. Where and when did I make a half-baked assessment about anything?
Dillon Rankine:
--- Quote from: Martin Weidmann on February 02, 2018, 10:05:53 AM ---I?m using the knowledge I?ve gained from such books (both related to JFK and not) to reach my conclusions.
Great... the only problem IMO with that is that if expertise can be so easily gained by reading a few textbooks, why do we need an expensive educational system? Just pick up some books from a library, read them and.... bingo, one has sufficient expertise to reach conclusions about the arguments of others.... right?
Or isn't that what you are actually saying?
--- End quote ---
Huh? What?s with the whacky leaps statements? I say that reading books by educated persons in these fields has led me to conclude that Horne?s understanding of said fields is near abominable, and you start making noise about the education system? If one wishes to practice a science one needs more than a textbook: lectures for elucidation, lab experience etc?but a large portion of such couresss involves outside reading (mainly of academic papers).
I never said I had expertise. Just that I know more than average Joe about these matters and Horne knows less.
--- Quote ---If one we?re to agree with Horne would they not be merely accepting the opinion of another?
True, but I never said I agreed with Horne.
--- End quote ---
Apologises for the erroneous assessment if it is so. The context of your reply (my criticism of Horne and my use of sources) prompted my interpretation of it as a defence.
--- Quote ---I suggest based on my readings of forensics by experts that Doug Horne?s assertions don?t jibe with reality (which they don?t) and your response is make some odd authority argument about expertise, when Horne himself has no expertise (or even knowledge) in the areas upon which he pontificates.
Two comments;
1. You did a bit more than just "suggest"
2. I merely asked what your expertise was to make that determination. That's a question, not an argument.
--- End quote ---
No, when I gave you the justification for my assessment you asserted that only accept the opinions of others.
--- Quote ---Latent in your reply is that you somehow possess some expertise that permits you to make some sort of determination about who we should listen to, what?s true, and how to discriminate between those who form their own opinions and those who absord those of others.
I really don't get all the drama. Since when does asking a simple question provoke this kind of reply? Where do you get this stuff?
--- End quote ---
The essence of it is this: you didn?t ask why I made the claim I did, you asked what expertise I had as though you wouldn?t accept anything less than expert status for a claim; which perceived to be said in defence of someone (Horne) who is illiterate on even basic forensic pathology.
--- Quote ---If making half-baked assessments of those who (presumably) disagree with you so as to dismiss them under some out-group label, then that?s all I need to know.
Oh boy... more OTT drama. Where and when did I make a half-baked assessment about anything?
--- End quote ---
The assessment referenced is that I ?merely accept the opinions of others? as if research into a field cannot yield anything useful to the non-expert and as if formulating one?s own ideas is innately superior to agreeing with others.
Paul McBrearty:
It doesn't take a genius or an expert to figure out that Horne hasn't got a clue what he is talking about. His assertions are completely outlandish conspiracy nonsense.
Martin Weidmann:
--- Quote from: Dillon Rankine on February 03, 2018, 09:21:23 PM ---
Huh? What?s with the whacky leaps statements? I say that reading books by educated persons in these fields has led me to conclude that Horne?s understanding of said fields is near abominable, and you start making noise about the education system? If one wishes to practice a science one needs more than a textbook: lectures for elucidation, lab experience etc?but a large portion of such couresss involves outside reading (mainly of academic papers).
I never said I had expertise. Just that I know more than average Joe about these matters and Horne knows less.
--- End quote ---
I say that reading books by educated persons in these fields has led me to conclude that Horne?s understanding of said fields is near abominable
There is a nuance in this statement which I did not find in your first post. It seems we are getting somewhere!
I never said I had expertise.
True, you didn't say that, but you clearly implied it simply by making the determination.
Just that I know more than average Joe about these matters and Horne knows less.
And there you go again...the nuance is gone as quickly as it came.
--- Quote ---
Apologises for the erroneous assessment if it is so. The context of your reply (my criticism of Horne and my use of sources) prompted my interpretation of it as a defence.
--- End quote ---
My question was a straight forward one. It did not defend Horne nor did it attack you, so I don't understand how you could interpret to be anything more than just a question
--- Quote ---
No, when I gave you the justification for my assessment you asserted that only accept the opinions of others.
--- End quote ---
Did you perhaps obtain your "superior" knowledge in any other way than by reading some textbooks? If not, when you read a textbook witten by somebody you consider to be an expert, and you accept what he has written, aren't you accepting the opinion of another?
--- Quote ---The essence of it is this: you didn?t ask why I made the claim I did, you asked what expertise I had as though you wouldn?t accept anything less than expert status for a claim; which perceived to be said in defence of someone (Horne) who is illiterate on even basic forensic pathology.
--- End quote ---
Why you made the claim was pretty obvious from what you wrote in your post. What interested me was what level of expertise you had to make such an assessment. What I basically was doing was trying to find out if the opinion you expressed was an informed one or not. If you had added "IMO" to your post, I probably wouldn't have asked my question to begin with. But you didn't....
--- Quote ---The assessment referenced is that I ?merely accept the opinions of others? as if research into a field cannot yield anything useful to the non-expert and as if formulating one?s own ideas is innately superior to agreeing with others.
--- End quote ---
I never said that research could not yield results for a non-expert. Every expert in any field at some point in time started by doing basic research, but it takes far more than basic research to become an expert (hence my comment about the educational system).
There is a massive difference between an assessment by a qualified expert and the opinion of a person who has read a few textbooks, don't you agree?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version