Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Berger Bullets Announces Launch of a New Ammo Company
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Eric Stecker" data-source="post: 983942" data-attributes="member: 8908"><p>To Everyone except Michael,</p><p></p><p>Peer review is a critical part of the scientific process as Bryan has relayed. However, what Michael is doing is disguised as peer review but is actually something else. There is a lot of "data" flying around and Michael is particularly good at clouding the issue by blending specific fact with what I regard as baffling logic. To sum up, what we have here is not a peer but rather a simple critic.</p><p></p><p>The analogy that is closest in my opinion is that of the movie critic. The stereotype of the movie critic is that they don't have the actual talent to produce good films but they've learned enough that is related to film making that they deliberately pursue the path of advancing themselves by the tearing down of the artists who can actually make the movies. This somehow makes them believe that they are noteworthy. How many critics can you think of as opposed to those who are involved in making movies? Are those you might think of noteworthy? Not in my book.</p><p></p><p>To be successful as a critic means that you need something that can be criticized. If the work you review is without flaw or fault then what value does the critic have or what customer does the critic believe he can service. What motivations does this stir in the critic who seeks validation?</p><p></p><p>In this case you have Michael who is an educated mathematician. This is a noble accomplishment. In the field of mathematics. However, he lacks training and experience in fluid dynamics which is critical to ballistics. When it comes to being a ballistician he is unable to create the work he seems compelled to criticize.</p><p></p><p>He admits that he works in this field when he is paid first (or rather when he convinces someone that they need to know the ballistic equivalent of how fast ketchup comes out of a bottle). Is this due to the fact that any work he would produce on his own initiative would be met with disinterest? One wonders.</p><p></p><p>As compared to someone like Bryan who was conducting independent BC studies well before he and I met with no promise of payment from anyone. Bryan pursued this effort purely out of his passion for the work and his genuine understanding of the subject matter. </p><p></p><p>Michael makes broad, generalized comments about how various areas need to be thoroughly evaluated seemingly ignoring that ballistics is a mature science with natural laws of physics that are well known and documented. I do not need to waste my time finding all the evidence that what Michael calls unclear is in fact thoroughly reviewed. Militaries throughout history have needed an advanced understanding of ballistics since the rifle was first invented. I doubt Michael suggesting that areas of this field need to be thoroughly review is an original idea although the way he puts it makes it seem a revelation. </p><p></p><p>As with the movie critic he can say literally anything he wants with no worries about being accurate or factual. As with the critic he can stand firm on the position that as the self-appointed watchdog of the industry it is expected that those he criticizes will take issue with what he says. It is not relevant to him whether or not what he says is blatant misinformation he created by twisting facts. What Bryan and I are doing is normal in his mind. To him we are supposed to be mad that he has supposedly uncovered some plot we have to ******** the shooting community.</p><p></p><p>He has designed no bullets that are currently being used by any manufacture that I am aware of. I have never seen one of his studies distributed as notable or relevant and in my position I see such things when they are. Not to mention the fact that much of the information used in the work is generated by others. He takes the work of others and extrapolates his findings. This suggests to me that he believes he is strong in mathematics but not in live fire testing or he would do his own work. </p><p></p><p>One of his behaviors that is even more agitating is much like the stereotypical movie critic his comments are made with a smug disdain. Seemingly unconcerned about the fact that his misinformation may cause damage to the reputation of the person or brand he is criticizing. </p><p></p><p>The greatest shame in this is that Michael is a smart guy. If he could use his powers for good instead of evil then the shooting community would certainly benefit. Unfortunately, he is too immersed in his own agenda to consider that he has value in the community as a genuine contributor rather than serving as a simple critic. </p><p></p><p>Instead he will continue to criticize those who create when he does not. He will continue baffling and confusing those who don't know better to no good end. He will secure his place as a non-factor in the history of advancing the science of ballistics and the rifle shooting experience when as time passes his various claims are regularly found to be inconsistent with truth.</p><p></p><p>Regards,</p><p>Eric</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Eric Stecker, post: 983942, member: 8908"] To Everyone except Michael, Peer review is a critical part of the scientific process as Bryan has relayed. However, what Michael is doing is disguised as peer review but is actually something else. There is a lot of "data" flying around and Michael is particularly good at clouding the issue by blending specific fact with what I regard as baffling logic. To sum up, what we have here is not a peer but rather a simple critic. The analogy that is closest in my opinion is that of the movie critic. The stereotype of the movie critic is that they don't have the actual talent to produce good films but they've learned enough that is related to film making that they deliberately pursue the path of advancing themselves by the tearing down of the artists who can actually make the movies. This somehow makes them believe that they are noteworthy. How many critics can you think of as opposed to those who are involved in making movies? Are those you might think of noteworthy? Not in my book. To be successful as a critic means that you need something that can be criticized. If the work you review is without flaw or fault then what value does the critic have or what customer does the critic believe he can service. What motivations does this stir in the critic who seeks validation? In this case you have Michael who is an educated mathematician. This is a noble accomplishment. In the field of mathematics. However, he lacks training and experience in fluid dynamics which is critical to ballistics. When it comes to being a ballistician he is unable to create the work he seems compelled to criticize. He admits that he works in this field when he is paid first (or rather when he convinces someone that they need to know the ballistic equivalent of how fast ketchup comes out of a bottle). Is this due to the fact that any work he would produce on his own initiative would be met with disinterest? One wonders. As compared to someone like Bryan who was conducting independent BC studies well before he and I met with no promise of payment from anyone. Bryan pursued this effort purely out of his passion for the work and his genuine understanding of the subject matter. Michael makes broad, generalized comments about how various areas need to be thoroughly evaluated seemingly ignoring that ballistics is a mature science with natural laws of physics that are well known and documented. I do not need to waste my time finding all the evidence that what Michael calls unclear is in fact thoroughly reviewed. Militaries throughout history have needed an advanced understanding of ballistics since the rifle was first invented. I doubt Michael suggesting that areas of this field need to be thoroughly review is an original idea although the way he puts it makes it seem a revelation. As with the movie critic he can say literally anything he wants with no worries about being accurate or factual. As with the critic he can stand firm on the position that as the self-appointed watchdog of the industry it is expected that those he criticizes will take issue with what he says. It is not relevant to him whether or not what he says is blatant misinformation he created by twisting facts. What Bryan and I are doing is normal in his mind. To him we are supposed to be mad that he has supposedly uncovered some plot we have to ******** the shooting community. He has designed no bullets that are currently being used by any manufacture that I am aware of. I have never seen one of his studies distributed as notable or relevant and in my position I see such things when they are. Not to mention the fact that much of the information used in the work is generated by others. He takes the work of others and extrapolates his findings. This suggests to me that he believes he is strong in mathematics but not in live fire testing or he would do his own work. One of his behaviors that is even more agitating is much like the stereotypical movie critic his comments are made with a smug disdain. Seemingly unconcerned about the fact that his misinformation may cause damage to the reputation of the person or brand he is criticizing. The greatest shame in this is that Michael is a smart guy. If he could use his powers for good instead of evil then the shooting community would certainly benefit. Unfortunately, he is too immersed in his own agenda to consider that he has value in the community as a genuine contributor rather than serving as a simple critic. Instead he will continue to criticize those who create when he does not. He will continue baffling and confusing those who don't know better to no good end. He will secure his place as a non-factor in the history of advancing the science of ballistics and the rifle shooting experience when as time passes his various claims are regularly found to be inconsistent with truth. Regards, Eric [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Berger Bullets Announces Launch of a New Ammo Company
Top