Исследование Эрика Пелявского - ЗА или ПРОТИВ

Hi Kjetil,

Thanks, look forward to seeing more. Regarding this, it appears you know Mr Pilawskii personally, and i am sure he a very interesting chap, but, there are some doubts about his research. I would love to talk to Mr Pilawskii and see his evidence. He CLAIMS a lot, but does not produce this evidence to back up his claims. The links I posted are substantial arguments against his findings. The term 'Scientific' gets bandied about a lot by Mr Pilawskii in reference to his research, see here

He says: "twenty-five years of dedicated scientific work!" Just a reminder: http://en.wikipedia....ientific_method

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterised natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false. Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context. Scientific inquiry is intended to be as objective as possible in order to minimise bias.

"Another basic expectation is the documentation, archiving and sharing of all data collected or produced and of the methodologies used so they may be available for careful scrutiny and attempts by other scientists to reproduce and verify them. This practice, known as full disclosure, also means that statistical measures of their reliability may be made."

The last paragraph I emphasise. So, some questions. Why do the Russians dispute his work? Where is the 'documentary proof' of his findings? Copies of archive documents he quotes? Photos of paint samples? And from where, wrecks? museums? Copies of laboratory reports of the analysis? This is the very essence of scientific research. 25 years of work should produce an substantial amount of the above type of documentation. I have never seen any proof of the above types of his work produced by Mr Pilawskii. Why does he when challenged, launch into personal attacks and verbose monologues instead of producing documentary evidence of his findings? What about information that has only become available after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the opening of previously closed archives? The Sovietwarplanes site is only 'Anti-Pilawskii' in as much as it has findings that contradict his work, the crucial point being the lack of proof then produced to refute the challenges made. The sites owners I'm sure would be happy to host any of the documentary proof of his findings, but he doesn't provide that, but casts aspersions on his critics. This has occurred on other sites as well. Unsurprisingly this has tended to polarize opinions and become another internet bunfight, but while there are many critiques of his findings, there are very few supporting them.

This is a Luftwaffe site, apologies for the digression, for anyone interested, please read the links and critiques of his findings, and the links contained to some of mr Pilawskii's work, and make you own mind up.

Hi Troy.

I think we both have a working understanding of what scientific means. Unfortunately, many of those that criticize Pilawskii do not and critiquing him is often done as a reflex, especially on Russian modelling websites and forums. I can of course verify that I know him personally and have disucssed colouration and such with him at length on inumerable occations.

Now, you demand that he shows documentation of his findings, I am a little confused as to what kind of documentation you seek as the link you provided (dealing with the Al'bom Nakarasok), for instance, shows lost of references and photos to actual paint samples which he compares to the al'bom colours.These pieces are in exsitance today and consistute "reality speaking for itself", as your search resultson the scioetific method say! Furthermore, more on Erik's work can be found here: http://www.amazon.co...c/dp/190322330X

Documentation onn Erik's findings can be found in his book and website, just try to read it with an unbiased mind.Also, we can turn it around and ask that the people who critisize him present their evidence. That usually results in references to the Al'bom and its degraded colour chips (which most people now reluctantly admit is virtually useless as a colour guide) or links to website which concentrate more on personal attacks than anything else.And why do Russians dispute his work - well, there may be many reasons for that, from psychological reasons to nationalitstic ones

I don't think I'll spend more time on this here. People must decide for themselves what they think of his research,and mine for that matter, but I hope they can look beyond the persons behind the current research being done here, i.e. the colouration of the He115 and the appearance of RLM83, and consider the evidence instead.

Kjetil

from psychological reasons to nationalitstic ones

Маэстро выдал новый пЁрл

http://www.redbanner.co.uk/History/Aviaarktika/Arctic_Colouration.html

это что... он вон чертежи уже ровняет!

Хм... а что по этому поводу скажет маэстро Станков?

Маэстро выдал новый пЁрл

http://www.redbanner.co.uk/History/Aviaarktika/Arctic_Colouration.html

. а что по этому поводу скажет маэстро Станков?

А маэстро уточнит, что таки да, перед тем, как лететь Финию бомбить, действительно самолет перекрасили
в такой цвет. Чтоб финны не сомневались, что советский самолет летит!
Это ему Громов рассказал.
Он беседовал с Героем, да!

Ну если он бесов по Киевскому метро гоняет, то почему нет?