-
Let's stay in touch! Sign up for our occasional (but interesting) newsletter.
Discover new research on all aspects of the sinking, interesting Titanic facts, and learn more about the Titanic's passengers and crew.
Booze in the lifeboats
- Thread starter Scott Holiday
- Start date
Stefan Fordham
Member
It's often hard to pinpoint that "happy middle ground" between common sense and science, though.
monica e. hall
Member
George. Is that you, after all this time?
George L. Lorton
Member
Howdy Monica, yes it is me. I like to stop by from time to time and see that is going on in the Titanic Community.
Michael H. Standart
Member
Any study dealing with the clinical effects of alcohol on the body would be relevant and one website which would be useful as a starting point can be viewed at Institute of Alcohol Studies - Factsheets You can also go to alcoholism.about.com/od/effect/The_Effects_of_Alcohol_and_Drugs.htm and by all means check the references as well as scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Alcohol,+studies,+effects&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart
The material on this is extensive. Keep in mind before trying to continue to contrive a strawman, one I'm speaking to is it's clinical effect on the body which is very well understood and more then refutes your stand that it's an insulator.
Fact: It's not.
If you wish to explain it, you need to first determine whether or not it's real in the first place then look for the variables you're alluding to. In case you've missed it, I've already mentioned a couple of possibilities.
The material on this is extensive. Keep in mind before trying to continue to contrive a strawman, one I'm speaking to is it's clinical effect on the body which is very well understood and more then refutes your stand that it's an insulator.
Fact: It's not.
If you wish to explain it, you need to first determine whether or not it's real in the first place then look for the variables you're alluding to. In case you've missed it, I've already mentioned a couple of possibilities.
Michael H. Standart
Member
>>You would be better off trusting in science, but I'm saying that you should worship science, just find a happy middle ground between commonsense and Science that works for you.<<
George, no scientist is saying you should worship science. As I've been trying to get across and what appears to be missed, overlooked and/or ignored is that science is not a stand, it's a method of understanding the natural world and sorting out fact from fiction as well as rooting out fraud. In short, it deals with what's real and puts it all to the test.
A useful page on scientific methodology which everybody would find well worth reading is CARL SAGAN'S BALONEY DETECTION KIT
On questions of "using one's head" that's exactly what science does.
George, no scientist is saying you should worship science. As I've been trying to get across and what appears to be missed, overlooked and/or ignored is that science is not a stand, it's a method of understanding the natural world and sorting out fact from fiction as well as rooting out fraud. In short, it deals with what's real and puts it all to the test.
A useful page on scientific methodology which everybody would find well worth reading is CARL SAGAN'S BALONEY DETECTION KIT
On questions of "using one's head" that's exactly what science does.
Michael:
As far as I can tell, none of those deal directly with the circumstances Joughin faced.
And again you are misconstruing my remarks, my belief is simply that Joughin encountered special circumstances that night which allowed him to survive while so many others who faced the same thing it did, and it could possibly all come back to be linked in some way to the consumption of alcohol.
That theory doesn't really need to be accurate as to the amount that he drunk, but simply that he DID drink, whereas an accurate scientific analysis would have to be based on exact amounts, what kind, how quickly it was drunk, etc etc in order to be believable.
If the story in the first place isn't reliable or accurate, then neither can the science be that tries to solve it.
Cheers,
Adam.
As far as I can tell, none of those deal directly with the circumstances Joughin faced.
And again you are misconstruing my remarks, my belief is simply that Joughin encountered special circumstances that night which allowed him to survive while so many others who faced the same thing it did, and it could possibly all come back to be linked in some way to the consumption of alcohol.
That theory doesn't really need to be accurate as to the amount that he drunk, but simply that he DID drink, whereas an accurate scientific analysis would have to be based on exact amounts, what kind, how quickly it was drunk, etc etc in order to be believable.
If the story in the first place isn't reliable or accurate, then neither can the science be that tries to solve it.
Cheers,
Adam.
Michael H. Standart
Member
See http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f01/web1/chew.html for some specific information on how alcohol, among other things, effects the blood vessels.
>>As far as I can tell, none of those deal directly with the circumstances Joughin faced.<<
It doesn't need to. It's the physiological effects which count. Whether or not it would be an advantage or a disadvantage is immaterial to the fact that the physiological effects are the same.
>>If the story in the first place isn't reliable or accurate, then neither can the science be that tries to solve it.<<
Non sequiter. The effects of alcohol are the same regardless of whether or not the person doing the drinking is in the water, in a snowbank, or in a bar on dry land or in a sauna bath.
And I'm hardly misconstruing anything you're saying when you specifically claimed that it insulated the man. Whetever else it could have done, this isn't one of them.
>>As far as I can tell, none of those deal directly with the circumstances Joughin faced.<<
It doesn't need to. It's the physiological effects which count. Whether or not it would be an advantage or a disadvantage is immaterial to the fact that the physiological effects are the same.
>>If the story in the first place isn't reliable or accurate, then neither can the science be that tries to solve it.<<
Non sequiter. The effects of alcohol are the same regardless of whether or not the person doing the drinking is in the water, in a snowbank, or in a bar on dry land or in a sauna bath.
And I'm hardly misconstruing anything you're saying when you specifically claimed that it insulated the man. Whetever else it could have done, this isn't one of them.
Michael:
What you're showing me is the "tried and tested" science you've referred to in previous posts, despite the fact that none of them specifically relate to Joughin. Now science is far from being my strongest subject, but I do know that part of the reason things are scientifically tested is to try and get an accurate answer from the known information - again, if the known information is contradicting, then the science cannot be accurate.
The only way to solve it convincingly would be if Joughin's exact circumstances were understood and then a customised test was carried out with that in mind.
I'm not sure how much more plainly I can say it. Evidently, once again we are going around in circles and won't be reaching an agreement any time soon, so I shall leave my part of the discussion at that.
Cheers,
Adam.
What you're showing me is the "tried and tested" science you've referred to in previous posts, despite the fact that none of them specifically relate to Joughin. Now science is far from being my strongest subject, but I do know that part of the reason things are scientifically tested is to try and get an accurate answer from the known information - again, if the known information is contradicting, then the science cannot be accurate.
The only way to solve it convincingly would be if Joughin's exact circumstances were understood and then a customised test was carried out with that in mind.
I'm not sure how much more plainly I can say it. Evidently, once again we are going around in circles and won't be reaching an agreement any time soon, so I shall leave my part of the discussion at that.
Cheers,
Adam.
Michael H. Standart
Member
>>What you're showing me is the "tried and tested" science you've referred to in previous posts, despite the fact that none of them specifically relate to Joughin.<<
A) You're mischaracterizing it...again.
b) It's entirely relevent since the effect of alcohol on the body is the same regardless of the temperature one finds themselves in or whether or not you're on dry land or in the water. Ethenol doesn't care where you are.
The position you took, that "the most i've claimed is that it's plausible that it provided some kind of "insulation" to Joughin which allowed him to survive when many hundreds of others in the same predicament did not." is falsified.
Alcohol doesn't insulate anything.
Time to look for an alternative explaination which is consistant with the facts.
A) You're mischaracterizing it...again.
b) It's entirely relevent since the effect of alcohol on the body is the same regardless of the temperature one finds themselves in or whether or not you're on dry land or in the water. Ethenol doesn't care where you are.
The position you took, that "the most i've claimed is that it's plausible that it provided some kind of "insulation" to Joughin which allowed him to survive when many hundreds of others in the same predicament did not." is falsified.
Alcohol doesn't insulate anything.
Time to look for an alternative explaination which is consistant with the facts.
I really think this has run its course. You are both going round in circles. It does not seem that either of you are going to give way, and no particular reason that you should but unless something new can be brought to the debate my advice would be to let it go.
Stefan Fordham
Member
I agree with him. You guys certainly aren't going to come to a conclusion, and it's best to stop it before it becomes too late.
George L. Lorton
Member
Michael, I said,
(>>You would be better off trusting in science, but I'm saying that you should worship science, just find a happy middle ground between commonsense and Science that works for you.<<)
To which you replied,
>George, no scientist is saying you should worship science. <
I never said a scientist said that. Actually I think too many lay Folks think Science is the answer for everything. I do believe and agree with you about the merits of Scientific study, I just like folks to use common sense too.
(>>You would be better off trusting in science, but I'm saying that you should worship science, just find a happy middle ground between commonsense and Science that works for you.<<)
To which you replied,
>George, no scientist is saying you should worship science. <
I never said a scientist said that. Actually I think too many lay Folks think Science is the answer for everything. I do believe and agree with you about the merits of Scientific study, I just like folks to use common sense too.
Mark Baber
RIP
Moderator's note: A message recently posted to this thread has been removed for contributing nothing of substance to this discussion. MAB
