His videos on the hyperloop are pretty comprehensive and succinct about their reasoning. Why not watch them instead of mindlessly repeating the same strawman argument that every other Elon Musk fanboy/fangirl left on his videos?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDwe2M-LDZQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNFesa01llk
Right? Surely Thunderf00t is qualified to make some of the criticism he made?
I would agree that there are likely a few areas in which his criticism exceeded his understanding, though I have yet to read a criticism of his criticism that doesn't mis-represent his claims.
I still don't see the specific relevance of mdorazio's comment to computerex's.
Doesn't mean he's wrong, just means he doesn't have special standing.
To me, Computerex seems to simply be saying "Thunderf00t has sufficient general knowledge of science to make his debunking videos worthy of watching".
You mention 'special standing', which suggests an 'all or nothing' approach to categorizing people's status and knowledge, rather than a more reality-accommodating recognition that expertise and knowledge are a matters of degree.
Mdorazio did not state what you say they did, they instead asked a leading question in which words were placed in another person's mouth. Further, Mdorazio would be incorrect to state that "from the perspective of mechanical engineering and fluid dynamics, he is in fact an average Joe on the street." because the average Joe on the street, relatively speaking, is not as equipped as Thunderf00t to understand issues of mechanical engineering and fluid dynamics. I'm not saying that Thunderf00t is or is not properly equipped to make each criticism, just pointing out the problem with 'all or nothing' style thinking here.
You would be right to question whether Thunderf00t has sufficiently advanced and detailed knowledge to make each and every one of the criticisms that he makes, but this would depend on the specific criticism and the specifics of Thunderf00ts knowledge.
As it happens, not even having a PhD in fluid mechanics would guarantee that the critic has the relevant knowledge, nor is thinking through the problem correctly.
Even if those engineers clearly have a financial incentive to make biased claims?
If you are really concerned with this why are you posting on a forum literally owned by a SV Billionaire?
Buts let's pretend you are rational. How does a master in chemistry grant you knowledge of mechanical, structural, and fluid engineering. If you say they're both Math/STEM fields, then why aren't chemistry professors, and comsologist certified electricians? It's related by the same logic.
Only if you fall prey to logical fallacies. Noting that not all engineers are motivated to be maximally honest doesn't require that you completely mistrust literally everyone. False dilemma.
> If you are really concerned with this
What is it, exactly, that you think I'm concerned about? And how concerned do you think I am?
I can't help you with your chemistry/STEM straw man.
How is this a strawman? Because it is literally the crux of your argument that a masters of chemistry is an expert on structural engineering and fluid dynamics?
Now take startups that just want VC money with no intention of producing a product, a team of engineers that likes their salaries and you'll get a fake consensus very easily.
Phil Mason, PhD in chemistry, and work in nutrition, physics, and nuclear physics, with 34 published papers to his credit, now he's one sassy frood.
I guess you don't know how much dedication and effort it takes to earn a good PhD. A PhD in STEM teaches you how to be a good scientist, how to think about problems and how to conduct research. These skills are very useful in pretty much every discipline imaginable.
Not to mention the fact that a PhD in chemistry warrants a very heavy mathematical/physics background. If you honestly think that Thunderf00t has the same credibility as some average Joe on the street about Hyperloop/physics/engineering, you must have a very religious background.
However, I would absolutely agree with you that Thunderf00t is adequately qualified to make most of the criticism that he has made in a variety of his debunking videos. Thunderf00t is doing our culture a valuable service by debunking that ridiculous re-breather apparatus, 'solar freakin roadways', and the allegedly endless water bottle. Its sad that people are so ignorant of basic science that they are taken in by this snake oil.
But strawman/direct attacks aside.
In my experience when one engineer is disagreeing with a team of engineers, they're wrong or the team a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem they're working to solve.