Finnish being one of the notoriously tricky languages, like Hungarian, to classify.
Now you surprise me. In comparative linguistics it is hardly any family of languages so well comparatively studied as Indo-European and Ugro-Finnnic families. What is not clear is the status of relationship in much wider superfamily of Mongolian-Altaic languages including Ugro-Finnic as a subset; some go further to claim relation to Korean, but it is probably too far fetched methodologically. Despite the genetic closeness the vocabulary part of Finish and Hingarian have very little overlap, even in the basic vocbulary, so from the synchronic point of view it is not really much advantageous to be Hungarian speaker to learn Finish apart from some feeling for the vowel harmony.
]]>Finnish, according to Wikipedia, in which case all bets are off! (Finnish being one of the notoriously tricky languages, like Hungarian, to classify.) At the very least, I can’t comment (apart from to guess that the ’d’ is silent).
]]>I’m guessing that the ö in “Reissner-Nordström” is not pronounced like it would be in German, right Urs?
I am guessing the correct spelling of the guy’s name is Gunnar Nordstrøm and that he, or at least his name, is or was Norwegian.
And I think (but someboidy should correct me if not) that the German way of pronouncing “Norström” differs from the Norwegian way of pronouncing Nordstrøm only slightly, and not in the ö/ø, but in whether the “r” is rolled or not and in whether the “st” is pronounced with a sharp “s” or as in Enlish “sh”
]]>I'm guessing that the ö in "Reissner-Nordström" is not pronounced like it would be in German, right Urs?
Bluff Called!
]]>a valid point to include on Eric’s proposed page on the Reissner–Nordström metric.
By all means, the next one who wants to mutter “Reissner-Nordström” here has to create that entry or remain silent! :-)
And by the way, that discussion of physical mechanisms relating charge and mass of a black hole can be found in any discussion of extremal black holes and supersymmetric black holes.
]]>As a last post on this topic, I will point out in response to
[Ian's] interpretation of the Reissner–Nordström metric.
that Ian expressed to me privately that he was very much an empirical physicist. In this light his insistence on considering the mass limit of the Reissner–Nordström metric as a special case sounds a little more reasonable: we have not observed massless charges particles or objects, and so while being theoretically consistent and actually a no-brainer, because we all know the energy content of the EM field curves spacetime, one might have concerns that there might be a mechanism preventing this limit from physically existing.
I don't want to reopen a discussion about physics or an interpretation of physics, but add this because I didn't have time yesterday, and it may be a valid point to include on Eric's proposed page on the Reissner–Nordström metric.
]]>This is what I should have written in comment #22:
Zoran, I think that you mean argument from authority. The phrase ‘agument by intimidation’ is not a technical term in any field (or if it is, it hasn’t reached the Internet); it’s a colloquial phrase, and none of the meanings that I’ve found fit what Ian has said. In contrast, argument from authority is one of the now-standard fallacies (at least in Anglo-American philosophy) going back to the 18th century.
However, I don’t even think that what Ian said was argument from authority. I don’t find anywhere that he wrote ‘Not all spacetime curvature should be interpreted as gravitation, because I say so and I teach general relativity for a living.’ or anything like that. Rather, he wrote ‘I don’t need to review the basic ideas of general relativity, because I teach general relativity for a living.’ and things like that. That’s not an airtight proof, of course, but it’s evidence.
If I had waited an hour before posting, then I might have written just that. Or I might even have just commented on the ‘spacetime’ thread and tried to talk to Ian about his interpretation of general relativity. Given recent developments, I don’t think that I need to say anything more now.
]]>Toby,
independently of how Zoran phrased it, I also think that a good deal of the problem is that the assertion (in paragraphrase): “This is wrong, it contradicts elementary textbook knowledge.” received as reply only: “I don’t accept this criticism, since I teach GR.” (in paragraphrase).
I can see that you are very unhappy with the tone we have been using. But when I look back at the discussion, I see that a long list of polite and non-blunt comments was pretty much ignored or not understood as what they were, and only when a blunt statement was made was the message finally taken. This is, of course, very unfortunate. I’d rather have that none of this had happened and am not feeling good about it. But the alternative that I saw approaching us did not look better.
]]>To possibly ensure that something useful comes out of this, how about creating gravitational field and Reissner–Nordstrom metric?
]]>I can definitely agree with #18 that life is too short and this argument has become a waste of time. Even scrolling past these comments in my RSS reader has become a waste of time. (-:
]]>I am calm enough now to make this comment, which I hope may clarify some things:
I did not notice anything on the ‘spacetime’ thread which suggested to me that Ian expected people to believe his claims about science because he has academic credentials. As far as I noticed, he mentioned his credentials only to respond to Urs’s claims that he did not understand general relativity. This includes comment 64 on that thread, where he seems to make it pretty clear. My interpretation is corroborated by Ian’s comment #13 on this thread.
But maybe I should not talk about any of this. After all, it does not matter if Urs think that Ian does not understand GR. And it does not matter if Ian finds Urs’s claim libelous. It does not matter if Zoran finds Ian’s argument fallacious. And it does not matter if I find Zoran’s response unreasonable. I am getting tired of looking through past comments to see if what A said about what B said about what C said is right or wrong.
I am somewhat tempted to go back to the ‘spacetime’ thread and try to talk to Ian about his interpretation of the Reissner–Nordström metric. (I think that he is proposing to draw a distinction that is physically meaningless, and I would like to either convince him of this or get him to explain its physical meaning to me. And I think that this goes to the heart of some of the other things that he said before he brought up Reissner–Nordström.) At least that is about science, not about people, and I understand science much better than I understand people. But the problem with discussing science is that there are always still people involved in the discussion (^_^).
]]>(not so related) As far as wikipedia’s meaning as a long messy proof, that meaning I would also subscribe for; my advisor told me that when you make impression that something you talk about or something you do is more difficult than it should be, that Americans say “snowing people” and he accused that I sometimes do that (I admit that something things in my talks happen to be incomprehensible and that I sometimes look at things more misteriously than a down to Earth approach would do, but I believe in the approach which I teach, without intention to snow somebody, though in process I often realize a better path too late), and of course advise: never snow people. Sbowing people does not tell them argument, the argument goes over the listener’s head and sometimes the things get messy that the speaker just has the feeling that the argument is there but even he does not see the line of the argument clearly. So this gives an impression that the argument, that the proof is there, while it is not. Similarly, external credentials give an impression that the argument is there, while it is not. I do not see these much different.
Edit: Todd, do not worry, I did not feel any bad intention in your statement at any moment, though I was afraid that your kind reaction was partly based also on misunderstanding my own discussion writing, what if present must be my fault and felt it needed an explanation.
]]>It may be that this sort of behaviour is referred to as ’proof by intimidation’ by some, but certainly when in a minority position (and let’s face it, a minority of one against several big cheeses) it seems more like a last gasp of defense in this situation.
I said all that in different terms. But we were suggesting better defense and also suggesting that such a defense is actually detrimental to the user, while not a last defense. It should not have been accompanied by the things nobody said (that somebody’s 12 years of experience is trash) and that with label “libelous” for somebody’s patient aprpoach.
]]>Golly, it takes me so long to write comments the discussion moves on. The above was started after Toby's #25.
]]>I can not understand (that something I wrote makes Toby angry and even more paralised).
]]>I widen my coat and raise my hands together with a loud sound.
I know this is a serious conversation, but the mental image I had when I read this...priceless :) Pity we didn't come across any such dogs when we were in Vienna, Zoran.
But more seriously, on the nlab people are not necessarily who they are in the physical world. Ian is not Associate Professor Ian Durham of Saint Anselm College, but Ian_Durham, enthusiastic new user. Likewise Harry Gindi is not just some undergrad :) but a reasonably knowledgable contributor. If out little community was measured by our standing in the academic world as measured by positions and so forth, then certainly myself, Toby, Todd and Eric would not rate a mention.
People in a sense are their contributions, or at least measured by them relative to the social and academic norms here. It may be that Ian (and this is pure supposition) is not familiar with the sort of communication culture that online researchers have. Pointing to one's credentials about in the face of criticism is out of form, but perhaps not an unreasonable 'safe-base' for someone frustrated and new to this game. It may be that this sort of behaviour is referred to as 'proof by intimidation' by some, but certainly when in a minority position (and let's face it, a minority of one against several big cheeses) it seems more like a last gasp of defense in this situation.
]]>I find what you have written completely unreasonable. When I start to write down why, I get very angry. I cannot continue. I am sorry.
]]>I do not understand (the statement 28).
And it certainly is not a technical term!
A technical meaning is one which is not given by the common speach. My parents for example would not guess any of the quoted meaning of the phrase “proof by intimidation”, though they do know word proof and work intimidation.
]]>Sorry, Zoran, I’m not capable of responding to your comments in an appropriate manner.
]]>24 > And by the way, where did Ian say that he teaches GR to prove that he is right? It was pretty obvious to me, when I first read it on the ‘spacetime’ thread, why he wrote that.
Look I don’t know when he mentioned it FIRST. I saw it first on his nlab page I think, which is nice and useful page which was making me feel all positive about him (much of which I retain). When saying “proof by intimidation” I was refering only to the Ian’s outburst in entry 64 under spacetime, which I invite you to read.
]]>OK, I found it on wikipedia and it means (among other meanings) exactly the way I understand it:
The term is also used when the author IS AN AUTHORITY IN HIS FIELD presenting his proof to people who respect A PRIORI HIS INSISTENCE that the proof is valid or when the author claims that his statement is true because it is trivial OR BECAUSE HE SIMPLY SAYS SO.
.
And if it was reasonable for you to feel insulted by what I wrote
That would be completely unreasonable. What does make you feel that you insulted me, or that anybody in nlab insulted me in this calendar year ? I did object the terminology in my thoroughness which i somehow exercised a bit more than usually this couple of days. It does not differ from what you call “technical” here.
]]>By the way, I used ‘call bullshit’ in a technical sense. To quote the Urban Dictionary: ‘State that some given information is incorrect’. If it was reasonable for you to accuse Ian of ‘intimidation’ without explaining what you meant, then it was reasonable for me to accuse you of ‘bullshit’ in the same way. And if it was reasonable for you to feel insulted by what I wrote, then it was reasonable for Ian to feel insulted by what you wrote.
Seriously, what did you expect???
]]>Then maybe you’d better check Google, Zoran. The phrase is easy to find, and it does not mean what you said. And it certainly is not a technical term!
I don’t know how you ever expected Ian to understand what you meant by the phrase. Frankly, it looks like you and Urs have both been deliberately trying to insult Ian. I don’t agree with his interpretation of the Reissner–Nordström metric, but at least he has been trying to talk to people (as have others, notably Eric).
And by the way, where did Ian say that he teaches GR to prove that he is right? It was pretty obvious to me, when I first read it on the ‘spacetime’ thread, why he wrote that. And if it wasn’t obvious to you, well, he has explained why in this very thread.
]]>The “proof by intimidation” phrase I hear with a consistent meaning used by mathematicians and physicists from all over word (most vivid are my memories of one of our Indian collaborators who uses this expression often). It is so wide spread that your question surprises me.(are you joking or you really never heard of that experssion in math community ? is it only my impression on wide spreadness ?).
Of course this answer is also a proof by intimidation, so you do not need to accept it. I am not a theoretician of science to be able to document the historical and other origin of that standard phrase; and if it is easy to find it on google (I did not check) than you can do as good as I do. But of course if Ian was addressing my first usage of “proof by intimidation” with “intimidation” from ZŠ, then even if Toby Bartels does not authorize the badge of being “technical” it is my right to explain the notation which at least my acquaintances and I use. And making consistent usage and having it analysed when the misunderstanding occurs is not a “bullshit”. :)
Bonus points if it also does not apply to anything that Urs wrote.
Did Urs also write something of the sort “I was invited at many conferences” and read such and such books and gave such and such lectures at such and such spaces as a background why he is right ?
You know when some not really big dog, but pretty aggressive one starts approaching me barking on the street and I see that it is getting tough, then I widen my coat and raise my hands together with a loud sound. If I had a good argument, say a fence between me and dog, a good stick, or presence of the owner of the dog, to make my discussion with the dog comfortable, I would not raise a coat and all that empty simulation. Or if I knew that the dog does not accept the proof by intimidation, I would also not raise it. I would rather run immediately, then to loose time and irritate the dog with the “proof”.
]]>