Chinese Engine Development

S

stibyssip

New Member
Engineer said:
Well, since you claim my argument is hypocritical, that means you are admitting your own guilt in cherry picking. I rest my case. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Whatever man. Appears I'm just not smart enough to follow your logic. I've always had trouble following non-sequitur arguments, but I guess that's just me.
Engineer said:
For the fifth or seventh time, your argument isn't relevant. The fact that it is off topic is a symptom of the problem.
Click to expand...
My argument being off topic is a symptom of the fact it's irrelevant? A bit redundant to say don't you think? And I KNOW my argument was OT to the thread, I never pretended it wasn't; what's the point of repeating this ad nauseum? If you're trying to argue that my premises don't support my conclusion, you're obviously been either in-deliberately or deliberately misunderstanding what I've been debating this whole time.
Engineer said:
Your perception of whether ad hominem is deserving does not change the fact that ad hominem is a logical fallacy. Certain member asserted the report was not credible, but he has provided no evidence to support that conclusion; neither have you.

So far, no one has evidence proving that to be the case regarding the news article on WS-10.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
is not the same as providing evidence, but one can start providing evidence by citing X report on Y figure to dispute paragraph Z of the news article.
Click to expand...
There's not only a motive and an agent with that motive, there is also a case where said agent behaves in a way that fits that motive. Because of a shortage of further evidence confirming or negating the specific claims in that article, it is not unreasonable to reserve doubts.

Blackstone said (I understand) that the article might not be credible. Given the circumstances such a position is not arbitrary and not unreasonable. Now you want me to show proof that the original article is false, while I never claimed it was. There's your fallacy! I originally interjected because I found the amount of antagonism to his claim excessive for what it was. Clearly it has started a far more unproductive and off topic debate. I've tried to stay permeable to other members' arguments, but you only seem interested in negating everything I'm saying with points that honestly don't make any sense to me. I want to address your argument, but it doesn't feel like there is any exchange here. For the purposes of moving the thread forward, let's just say you win; because that's clearly what matters most in a discussion:p.
 
S

stibyssip

New Member
superdog said:
Who tells you they don't?

Motorcycle manufacturer:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Car manufacturer:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...

Certainly encouraging news for resolving China's deficit in engine tech.

Hendrik_2000 said:
China was late comer in industrialization . Engine technology depend on material science and close tolerance to have high efficiency. Both of those technology require a long time of development.It take the west hundred of year to achieve it . The European had a head start with metallurgy and machining skill tradition of "lehrlinge"(apprenticeship). Which is still in practice until today. They have been building engine for hundred of year. Sultzer, Wartsilla, Daimler Benz, Pielstick, Steel manufacturer of Krupp, Sandvik, Thyssen, British steel, etc

Since China is under Technical embargo she has no access to those skill and technology. The political chaos is of 60's and 70's doesn't help either.
So she has to develop their own technology. So basically China can built engine with 90% of comparable state the art. The last 10% will come in time when their machining skill and material technology improve.
Not bad for beginner
Click to expand...

I realize it's no easy feat for China to have achieved what it has, but it is good for to recognize and consider what specifically is missing. I think the apprenticeship tradition here is indeed very important for understanding the technological gap between China and the West in many sectors. There is a true culture of gearheads who build engines and turbos in the West, to the level of personal obsession, to the level of art. There are guys like this in China too I'm sure, but it's not yet at the level of culture from what I can tell. This gearhead culture is what China needs to foster in its many private machine shops.
 
Last edited:
S

stibyssip

New Member
t2contra said:
Rotax grew up making engines for go-karts and lawn mowers. In China, although the top motorcycle manufacturers make their own engines too, they do not supply to the drone makers, probably because the market is not open to them - yet.

Until then, the state-owned institutes will continue to be the sole supplier and developer. Then it is rightly so for the government and the media to continue with the optimistic encouragement to them in their R&D. They do not have the experience and expertise of the likes of Rotax and Yamaha, but to diminish their achievements in public is not going to contribute to their efforts. Not only am I all for it, other governments would act similarly to their own glcs of such nature.
Click to expand...

It's not about diminishing their achievments, it's about finding out where the deficit is. I feel it's more engaging to be critical than it is to be a cheerleader.
 
broadsword

broadsword

Brigadier
stibyssip said:
It's not about diminishing their achievments, it's about finding out where the deficit is. I feel it's more engaging to be critical than it is to be a cheerleader.
Click to expand...

It is not their governement's duty to make it engaging to you. Ever heard of Skunk Works and Area 51?
You can make it engaging yourself by indulging in speculation as the people here have been doing, though not in a wild way, regarding Chinese defense technology.

If you want your child to improve, do you want to use positive reinforcement, or castigation for every mistake he makes? Which do you choose? But my guess is you do not have a child yet. I reckon for the Chinese defense industry, they choose to encourage improvements and to castigate for serious lapses in safety.

If the Chinese government and the media sound optimistic, it is also because there have been improvements, like those we have seen in other scientific achievements. If you want to know more about the improvements, just lurk this forum.

So go ahead and make it engaging for yourself and everyone.
 
Engineer

Engineer

Major
stibyssip said:
Whatever man. Appears I'm just not smart enough to follow your logic. I've always had trouble following non-sequitur arguments, but I guess that's just me.
Click to expand...
At this point, I don't think you are smart enough to follow any logic at all, judging by the number of fallacies you have employed so far: ad hominem, appealing to motive, cherry picking, red herring, and as we see below, circular reasoning.

stibyssip said:
My argument being off topic is a symptom of the fact it's irrelevant? A bit redundant to say don't you think? And I KNOW my argument was OT to the thread, I never pretended it wasn't; what's the point of repeating this ad nauseum? If you're trying to argue that my premises don't support my conclusion, you're obviously been either in-deliberately or deliberately misunderstanding what I've been debating this whole time.
Click to expand...
Your arguments are irrelevant because they do not support the claim that the article in question is inaccurate, a position which you are vigorously defending.

stibyssip said:
There's not only a motive and an agent with that motive, there is also a case where said agent behaves in a way that fits that motive. Because of a shortage of further evidence confirming or negating the specific claims in that article, it is not unreasonable to reserve doubts.
Click to expand...
Nope. The shortage of evidence confirming or negating the specific claims in the article means one can't make a claim on accuracy one way or another. Your appeal to motive doesn't work either, as I explained in post #4110, you can't eliminate the motive of doing the opposite. You bringing in behavior to "prove" a motive completes your
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, as you originally brought in motive to "prove" that said behavior exists.

stibyssip said:
Blackstone said (I understand) that the article might not be credible. Given the circumstances such a position is not arbitrary and not unreasonable. Now you want me to show proof that the original article is false, while I never claimed it was. There's your fallacy! I originally interjected because I found the amount of antagonism to his claim excessive for what it was. Clearly it has started a far more unproductive and off topic debate. I've tried to stay permeable to other members' arguments, but you only seem interested in negating everything I'm saying with points that honestly don't make any sense to me. I want to address your argument, but it doesn't feel like there is any exchange here. For the purposes of moving the thread forward, let's just say you win; because that's clearly what matters most in a discussion:p.
Click to expand...
Certain poster is being unreasonable because he appealed to ad hominem, and for making snarky remarks with the sole purpose to provoke others. That has been explained to you multiple times. Instead of leaving that as what it is, you decide to justify his behavior. It is preposterous to assert you are not making a claim while you are so vigorously defending his.
 
S

stibyssip

New Member
Engineer said:
At this point, I don't think you are smart enough to follow any logic at all, judging by the number of fallacies you have employed so far.......
Click to expand...

Strange that I feel the same way about every response from you... It's really a very simple thing: If McDonalds makes an ad telling me their burgers have no health risks, do I not have a right to express doubt that the claim is perhaps not credible? You can look up all the different formal fallacies in the dictionary to pin new labels on me, but you will always come up short because productive arguments don't rely on about labels; they rely on a willingness to consider the views of one's opponents.

As to the absurd claim that: my defense of someone's ability to doubt = a claim that the article being doubted is absolutely false... If that's your definition of logic then boy am I glad I'm not "smart" enough to follow.

t2contra said:
It is not their governement's duty to make it engaging to you. Ever heard of Skunk Works and Area 51?
You can make it engaging yourself by indulging in speculation as the people here have been doing, though not in a wild way, regarding Chinese defense technology.
Click to expand...

I don't expect the Chinese government to make it engaging for me. I'm simply saying I find it more interesting to consider different angles both optimistic and pessimistic, than to always sing the praises of the state every time, and to look for excuses in the face of weaknesses instead of facing them. You may perceive me as being overly pessimistic in my stance, but whether or not you recognize it I celebrate the success of Chinese industry.
t2contra said:
If you want your child to improve, do you want to use positive reinforcement, or castigation for every mistake he makes? Which do you choose? But my guess is you do not have a child yet. I reckon for the Chinese defense industry, they choose to encourage improvements and to castigate for serious lapses in safety.
Click to expand...
I see no need to take a moral or prescriptive stance on what they should or should not do. Positive reinforcement, or bias, can be useful, but then again so can criticism. It's all circumstantial. For us military watchers however, it's good to be cognisant of the cycle of positive and negative biases that plague Chinese military reporting in the West AND in China. That's why I think whenever reports seem solely positive or solely negative we should be willing to admit doubt until more information is available. That is also why I take such issue with the stance that Blackstone can't even express doubt in a situation where, without introducing further info about the specific claims in the article, some doubt ought to be admissible.
 
broadsword

broadsword

Brigadier
stibyssip said:
I don't expect the Chinese government to make it engaging for me. I'm simply saying I find it more interesting to consider different angles both optimistic and pessimistic, than to always sing the praises of the state every time, and to look for excuses in the face of weaknesses instead of facing them. You may perceive me as being overly pessimistic in my stance, but whether or not you recognize it I celebrate the success of Chinese industry.
Click to expand...

Why do you have to sing their praises? No one here sings their praises about their engines blindly. We take whatever information we have and judge from there objectively. If it is smokey, we say it is smokey. If the fighter that crashed did not use the WS-10, we heave a sigh of relief.

It is good to know you celebrate the success of the Chinese industry. But I suggest you follow the blogs of Tphuang, Bltizo, huitong and of course the postings here. Just don't jump to conclusions so fast since you have been oriented to the Western style of governance and lifestyle. Ask questions. The Chinese do things a little differently, like a Tiger Mom rather than the more laissez-faire style of the West.
 
Engineer

Engineer

Major
stibyssip said:
Strange that I feel the same way about every response from you... It's really a very simple thing: If McDonalds makes an ad telling me their burgers have no health risks, do I not have a right to express doubt that the claim is perhaps not credible?
Click to expand...
The issue isn't whether you have a right. The issue is which part of the ad constitutes as inaccuracy. An entity being biased is not the same as a statement being inaccurate. What part of the article on WS-10 is inaccurate? You cannot answer.

stibyssip said:
You can look up all the different formal fallacies in the dictionary to pin new labels on me, but you will always come up short because productive arguments don't rely on about labels; they rely on a willingness to consider the views of one's opponents.
Click to expand...
Quite the opposite, productive arguments do not employ fallacies. The argument that the article is not credible because of Chinese media's bias is relying on labels, which is why it is an ad hominem fallacy.

stibyssip said:
As to the absurd claim that: my defense of someone's ability to doubt = a claim that the article being doubted is absolutely false... If that's your definition of logic then boy am I glad I'm not "smart" enough to follow.
Click to expand...
Strawman argument. I never mentioned the word "ability". You are defending someone's claim that the article is not credible, so you are defending a claim that the article is not credible. Now, let see some evidence to support that specific claim regarding that specific article.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top