Jeffrey Bell is at it again

[toymaker]

"I'm amazed (okay, maybe not) that you seem to equate the Op-Ed section of SpaceDaily with formal scientific discourse"<br />Being part of news service dealing with science it is part of that discourse, as all publications dealing with science are.Of course it is not on a level of respectable scientific journal etc. but is part of overall discussion, impression, and perceiving of science.And as such should apply to the norms expected in order to play a worthy role.Saying someone is insane, or a lier doesn't prove anything or convince anyone.It is a purely emotional context deprived of informative value to the reader who expects a more "popular science" type of reading.<br />"In any event, given the unique way he initiated Beagle 2 and scrounged for funding, Pillinger was, indeed, both a "politician" and a "tv star" [sic]. And a radio star, too"<br />He wasn't, the fact that media paid attention to him doesn't change the fact that foremost he was a scientists, and his proposals, ideas must be judged by other members of scientific enviroment in rational, objective way.His performence as a media personality could be judged by media people or in context of his performence in this field, but when judging his scientific performence, competence , the media personality must be left out.<br /><br />"Unfortunately for your argument, however, I did not say that "<br />Your responce was to a forum member who declered that Bell's statements were unappropriate in his view.To him you responded that you could find someone even more unappropriate, as the consensus was that this very behaviour of Bell's(personal insults, emotional attacks) is the problem, your remark that somebody can be even more problematic didn't in any way change the fact that Bell is writing in offensive manner.<br />

 

[alexblackwell]

<i>Being part of news service dealing with science it is part of that discourse, as all publications dealing with science are</i>.<br /><br />Again, this is absurd. By your definition <i>any</i> news outlet "dealing with science," whatever that means, cannot offer criticism of a scientist. That's a strange argument to make but I am now convinced you sincerely believe that.<br /><br /><i>He wasn't, the fact that media paid attention to him doesn't change the fact that foremost he was a scientists. [sic]</i><br /><br />This is an even stranger argument, bordering on bizarre. Pillinger himself conceded that a large part of the difficulties the mission faced stemmed from the amount of time he spent on public relations, which was <i>his decision</i>, regardless of his standing as a scientist. Contrary to your assertion, that the "media paid attention to him" has everything to do with the fact that he sought publicity for Beagle 2. Indeed, such publicity was crucial for the mission. You seem to be claiming....Frankly, I don't understand what you are claiming.<br /><br /><i>Your responce was to a forum member who declered that Bell's statements were unappropriate in his view.To him you responded that you could find someone even more unappropriate... [sic]</i><br /><br />Again, you are erroneously presupposing that I (or anyone else who disagrees with you) accept your definitions of "[in]appropriate," "personal insults," "emotional attacks," etc. For the record, I don't, and I wish you would stop mischaracterizing my posts.

 

[toymaker]

"Again, this is absurd. By your definition any news outlet "dealing with science," whatever that means, cannot offer criticism of a scientist. That's a strange argument to make but I am now convinced you sincerely believe that"<br />Criticism can be of different standards.Shouting liar or insane isn't a criticism on standrads with publications dealing with science.<br /><br />"Pillinger himself conceded that a large part of the difficulties the mission faced stemmed from the amount of time he spent on public relations, which was his decision, regardless of his standing as a scientist. Contrary to your assertion, that the "media paid attention to him" has everything to do with the fact that he sought publicity for Beagle 2. Indeed, such publicity was crucial for the mission. You seem to be claiming....Frankly, I don't understand what you are claiming"<br />It is quite simple really, you don't judge a scientist by media standards(towards tv stars or celebrites) when talking about his work.<br /><br />"Again, you are erroneously presupposing that I (or anyone else who disagrees with you) accept your definitions of "[in]appropriate," "personal insults," "emotional attacks," etc. For the record, I don't, and I wish you would stop mischaracterizing my posts."<br /><br />Is calling a scientist insane liar a proper criticism then, that one shoud expect in a news service dedicated to science ?<br /><br />

 

[alexblackwell]

<i>Is calling a scientist insane liar a proper criticism then, that one shoud expect in a news service dedicated to science ?</i><br /><br />Is this another example of your (now familiar) strawman arguments? Where precisely did Bell call Pillinger an "insane liar"? I re-read the now-infamous SpaceDaily article and could not find that particular description.

 

[toymaker]

The term liar and insane were used toward Zubrin in this article :<br />http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-04z.html<br />"There's another approach to dealing with the planetary protection problem that is most identified with Mars Society head Bob Zubrin: the Big Lie"<br /><br />"He is a man with a Holy Mission that can't be stopped by minor quibbles like the possible extinction of the human race"<br /><br />"In Zubrin's more insane rantings" <br /><br />I gave those examples earlier, you must have missed them.<br /><br /><br />

 

[alexblackwell]

<i>The term liar and insane were used toward Zubrin...</i><br /><br />Okay, thanks for clarifying that.<br /><br />That said, no, I have no problem with Bell's criticism, especially since Bell did not use the term "insane liar," as you claimed. In any event, Zubrin was not, in my opinion, engaging in proper scientific discourse in discussing planetary protection in the first place, so your "immunity criteria" (my term) do not apply. In fact, Zubrin was engaging in mere hand waving in his zealous-like claims in <i>The Planetary Report</i>, and Bell's criticism, while admittedly sharp, paralleled other criticism of Zubrin in this particular instance, one of which included a rebuttal from NASA's Planetary Protection Officer, John Rummel, which basically asserted that Zubrin didn't know what he was talking about.

 

[toymaker]

"That said, no, I have no problem with Bell's criticism, especially since Bell did not use the term "insane liar""<br />Indeed Bell does say that Zubrin is insane "insane rantings" and that he lies"the Big Lie"<br /><br />"In any event, Zubrin was not, in my opinion, engaging in proper scientific discourse in discussing planetary protection in the first place"<br />Did Zubrin use any insults, called anyone insane etc ? <br />Furthermore the fact that one doesn't stand up to some standards doesn't give the right to abandon them when replying towards him.

 

[kdavis007]

I see him as an Girly man!!!

 

[alexblackwell]

<i>...the fact that one doesn't stand up to some standards doesn't give the right to abandon them when replying towards him.</i><br /><br />I agree, and just to be clear, I'm not defending what Bell writes, especially since I disagree with a great deal of it. What I am defending is Bell's right to write without fear of censorship. That's all.

 

[najab]

><i>What I am defending is Bell's right to write without fear of censorship. That's all.</i><p>I don't think anyone could argue with that. My issue with Jeff Bell's articles is that he sometimes seems to feel the need to 'invent' facts to support his arguments. Two cases come to mind: in the article he wrote on the topic of Shuttle Derived Vehicles he claimed that the VAB is kept half empty because the SRB segments are too dangerous to be around. The truth is that the VAB is a very big building and NASA doesn't need all the space to process the Shuttles.<p>In another article, he claimed that NASA's StarDust mission was in mortal jeopardy because of the failure of Genesis' entry system. The fact is that Genesis and StarDust use completely different descent systems and there's virtually no commonality between them. Even if there was, and even if the G-sensor was installed incorrectly in StarDust, it would be a simple software fix to bypass the sensor and use the event timer to deploy the parachute.</p></p>

 

[backspace]

I'll agree on the manipulation of facts. He is also one of the people guilty of using the 100 billion dollar figure for MTM. <br /><br />Regardless, I used to admire him in only that despite espousing an unpopular opinion, he had the courage to do so; this implied somewhat that he supported alternate methods than the ones being explored. However, this article is pretty much an admission that he has no useful suggestions whatsoever, and that he exists solely to write op-ed pieces that NEVER offer solutions to the problems he describes. In my book, that makes his very existence useless.

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"...he exists solely to write op-ed pieces that NEVER offer solutions to the problems he describes."</font><br /><br />Nope -- can't really say that. In his article from July of 2003 where he blasts the OSP program, he suggests using capsules instead of winged craft. Specifically he suggests refurbishing the old Apollo capsules -- which I think is pretty dumb -- but a suggestion nonetheless.<br /><br />He'd probably really like Gemini-X3. Mind you he'd still find something about it to rail about for a few paragraphs as being idiotic and wasteful, but the overall concept might be able to get a C-minus rating from him. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[thalion]

I like Bell's pieces, even though I disagree with him from time to time. Criticism is every bit as useful as advocacy; it's too easy to get caught in the traps of groupthink when everyone is gung-ho about a single topic. Of course, I'm also increasingly skeptical about the prospects of the manned space program, but I don't totally subscribe to his interpretation of the situation. In any event, I like hearing from the other corner from time to time. Not to mention that the incidents he refers to being instigated by his opponents disgusts me.

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"I think Jeff Bell finally explains himself in the following acticle. An interesting read. Enjoy."</font><br /><br />Hey, offsprey5, you might want to go back through the last, oh, maybe 30 or 40 posts and check out the discussion about this article...originally posted here.<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I agree, and just to be clear, I'm not defending what Bell writes, especially since I disagree with a great deal of it. What I am defending is Bell's right to write without fear of censorship. That's all.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Absolutely!<br /><br />Of course, there's a flip side to that, and that's that everybody should be free to express their *opinion* of his work. (That's not to suggest that SpaceDaily.com is obliged to print their opinions, of course. That would infringe upon *their own* freedom of speech, really, by forcing them to print particular views. It should be up to them.) It also means that readers are free to stop reading SpaceDaily if they are sufficiently offended. Either many people here are *not* sufficiently offended (as they are apparently still reading it), or they approve of his views, in which case maybe he has something to say.<br /><br />My personal opinion is that he is too negative, and relies too heavily upon the ad hominem. That turns me off immediately. Alex commented earlier in this thread that if ad hominems should disqualify people's opinions, 90% of the posters here would be disqualified. Well, that's why we moderators try to delete all the ad hominems we see. Ad hominems are generally bad for discussion -- they invite fighting, not vigorous debate, and shift the topic into personal areas rather than the actual subject. Believe it or not, the thing that annoys me the most about Bell is his negative characterization of NASA-fans. It offends me sufficiently that I have a hard time concentrating on his message. As an English major, I find myself tempted to give him a word of advice about how ad hominems obscure his message. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <br /><br />Of course, quality is entirely up to him. That's also part of freedom of speech. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[alexblackwell]

<i>Of course, there's a flip side to that, and that's that everybody should be free to express their *opinion* of his work. (That's not to suggest that SpaceDaily.com is obliged to print their opinions, of course. That would infringe upon *their own* freedom of speech, really, by forcing them to print particular views. It should be up to them.) It also means that readers are free to stop reading SpaceDaily if they are sufficiently offended. Either many people here are *not* sufficiently offended (as they are apparently still reading it), or they approve of his views, in which case maybe he has something to say.</i><br /><br />All true, Calli, and I don't think anyone would disagree with that. The point I was trying to get across in this thread, unsuccessfully it appears, is that some of the complaints against Jeff Bell and SpaceDaily were, in a word, ludicrous. I'm referring specifically to those sentiments that SpaceDaily should only publish "positive, space-boosting" pieces, whatever that means. Also, I'll be the first one to acknowledge that Bell can curmudgeonly or that he wields a sharp pen (or keyboard) but I don't find his Op-Eds anymore offensive than posts I routinely encounter online (<i>e.g</i>., here). But then again, maybe that's just me. My skin may be thicker than others', though, admittedly, it's also true that Jeff hasn't directed any Op-Ed darts at <i>me</i> -- yet.