So, is nuclear fuel pouring out of a pipe red and on fire like that? Too bad there is not a version of the video that overlays high energy radiation!

i am not sure if the image will post here, and i mean no disrespect, she said, cautiously. *ahem.* have a nice day. be seeing you.

We’re running out of time– the world’s ending in less than seven hours as I type this.

Do you believe that there are containment breaches at reactors 1, 2 and/or 3?

If yes, why so hung up on this one report?

If no, please explain your dissident view (dissident compared to TEPCO, IAEA, uh… pretty much everyone at this point); that is, provide whatever information do you have that contradicts the conclusion of containment loss at all three. Don’t Bogart data, if you have some.

Perhaps we all (by all, I mean you Joff) could benfit from a primer on critical reasoning.

And just our luck– there’s a good one:

http://www.ou.edu/ouphil/faculty/chris/crmscreen.pdf

Here’s a bit (pp. 379-80) that applies to your ‘I don’t believe that eye-witness report’ tic:

“1. Distort the personâ??s position or argument or evidence so that we donâ??t have to take it seriously (e.g., the strawman and either/or fallacies).

2. Shift the focus away from the personâ??s position or argument or evidence so that we donâ??t have to think about it (e.g., the ad hominem, red herring fallacy).

3. Overestimate the quality of the arguments or evidence supporting oneâ??s own position (e.g., appeal to a suspect authority, appeal to ignorance).”

I think you’ve actually hit the trifecta at this point–a strawman, red-herring and appeal to ignorance all rolled into one.

Your next comment here will be an apology.

Sorry I upset you Greg, even if I don’t really understand why you feel this is a very serious insult. Perhaps you are reading something into “random” that I didn’t intend. I don’t think I upset Ana, unless she says differently.

Stephanie: you have cherry-picked a phrase from an exchange with Hank that was not entirely respectful on either side.

I don’t think the Panda’s Thumb article deserves the label of pseudo-skeptical, and it certainly made me consider how I view and select nuggets of information during debate. I do seriously recommend it to everyone, because we can all be uncritical of things which fit our preconceptions.

“My intention was not really to pick on this one clearly non-credible item – except that I found it amazingly difficult to extract any sort of movement from what appeared to be unquestioning belief.”

Is there some way other than making it crystal clear to convey to you that there is no unquestioning belief about these statements?

“I am not attempting to determine what happened, but to ensure that the presentation of that vital information is accompanied by enough of a questioning attitude to ensure that the information itself is useful.”

Your arrogance is astounding. You are attempting to tell Ana and I what to say, what to not say, and when we do say something, how to say it, so that it conforms with your view of the world, and you are couching this in terms of pseudo-skeptical rhetoric. No one reading this blog was born yesterday.

“I was simply trying to highlight a random instance of “tortuca thinking”. ”

Do you know what the word random means? Anyway, I’ll take this as very serious and uncalled for insult. Your next comment here will be an apology.

I’m just trying to assess gullibility levels here. You’re welcome to take time to reflect.

Bullshit on all the “I just wanna help…” crap.

I am not attempting to determine what happened, but to ensure that the presentation of that vital information is accompanied by enough of a questioning attitude to ensure that the information itself is useful. Brief reflection on the story about the “eye witness” says it is not credible. Notice that “credible” is not the same as “true” – it is a far, far lower standard I am talking about.

My intention was not really to pick on this one clearly non-credible item – except that I found it amazingly difficult to extract any sort of movement from what appeared to be unquestioning belief. I was simply trying to highlight a random instance of “tortuca thinking”. Recommended reading, to be considered when listening to both those you disagree with and those you agree with.

It’s done that way under the assumption that if these things happened for obvious reasons, or failed in obvious ways, they would have been prevented before they happened. Disasters, in responsible industrial management, are viewed as an opportunity to test assumptions, not reinforce them. That’s particularly important in an industry like nuclear power, where there are limited numbers (currently at least, but he infrastructure is aging) of opportunities to study failure points.

And that’s all above and beyond the way that Joffan’s track record of talking about what’s obvious and what’s impossible demonstrates that preconceptions are a great way to get things wrong.