If you can directly identify any of these fallacies while arguing on the internet your stance on the subject instantly becomes correct and the opposing view wrong.
> If you can directly identify any of these fallacies while arguing on the internet your stance on the subject instantly becomes correct and the opposing view wrong.
Elsewhere, this line of reasoning is called the "fallacy fallacy". But the linked site describes the fallacy fallacy as "an argument that is based on false claims, but is logically coherent", which sounds more like a false premise to me.
Yeah, that's my problem with these kinds of lists. They've turned from useful tools to help improve thinking/arguments to point cards where you win if can identify one.
perhaps we can add "name-dropping logical fallacies" itself as a logical fallacy
X: We shouldn't listen to health experts! They got it wrong at the beginning of the pandemic when they told us not to buy or wear masks, and therefore they are wrong now too!
Y: Wait, that doesn't make sense.
X: Strawman!
Y: Oh sorry sir/madam; you are correct. Please carry on.
I would start with Dr Scheme (now called Racket/PLT Scheme). That is what CS301 at UT Austin started with https://plt-scheme.org/ back when I was an undergrad in 2000
The equipment has never really been outdated. It's been updated as the telescope has operated, since the antenna itself hasn't needed updating. Computers and software included.
Until this collapse, the management was actually hoping to save all the instrumentation located in the suspended focal point of the dish - it was all useful, and much if it was quite up to date and not easily replaced.
It's unlikely in the present political climate it will be replaced, regardless.
It's not going to be replaced. Congress never funded these radio telescope projects in the 1960s and 1970s for the "science". For the first couple of years the primary purpose of Aricebo was locating and intercepting Soviet radio transmissions bouncing off the atmosphere.
A huge percentage of radio astronomy equipment is just military leftovers. It's not gonna get funded for science purposes alone.
Is there still a use case for a new dish built into the same natural bowl? Why not build somewhere else? If there had never been an Arecibo at that location would someone actually pick it today to site a new scope? Not trying to diss all that has been accomplished with Arecibo just wonder if there are not better places to direct funding, assuming it can be found.
Both you and OP are missing the point. This will not be replaced - not because there is no scientific value in doing so - but because there is no political motivation for doing so.
Most if not all of these radio telescopes (including Aricebo) were built in the 60s and 70s with military funding. Science was never the driving motivation for building them -- intercepting Soviet radio communications was.
Even though there are places that probably meet those criteria better than PR, the US Government wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole for political reasons
