1
2

The Corruption of Academia – and the Incompetence of Dr. Francesco Fornetti (self.rfelectronics)

DrJoeD が 投稿

Complaints were circulating about a multimedia guide in microwave engineering written by Dr. Francesco Fornetti, who works at the University of Bristol as teaching fellow. It is being sold on Amazon for about $100 now: https://www.amazon.com/Conquer-Radio-Frequency-Multimedia-Engineering/dp/095766351X I have been asked to write a critique about the textbook of the multimedia guide; send it to concerned parties, and publish it on the internet.

I regret to inform you that Mr. Fornetti has brought shame not only on himself, but also upon his university and on AWR. He has written so many, and so grave errors and wrong explanations on the first 50 pages that it was meaningless to read the rest of the book and write a complete evaluation. The essence of the critique is that Mr. Fornetti is incompetent as a scientific textbook author and as teacher of Electrical Engineering. The great number and the severity of the errors he committed prove that he has acquired his M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees in a corrupt manner, and that he does not possess the level of knowledge these degrees would demand. An undergraduate student of EE could write a better textbook than this.

The critique of his book “Conquer Radio Frequency” can be found at:

https://conquerrf.wordpress.com/#story

The review has been sent to the dean of Bristol University, and also to the head of department of electrical engineering and to other professors there on 25th October. Two professors responded right away just briefly, like acknowledging that they have received the review. However, the people who supposed to take action, the dean and the head of EE department did not respond till today. There is no sign of any action taken by the faculty management. I am curious if they will ever mend the damage done by Francesco; or rather let the incompetence continue teaching the students more incompetence.

I have also sent the review to the two corporations AWR and Wolfspeed, who financed the creation, promotion, and selling of the multimedia package. A gentleman from Wolfspeed responded very briefly that they will take the complaint seriously, however there is no sign at all of any action taken by them either. AWR on the other hand did not even respond.

Few closing remarks about the nature of this scandal. Among more than a dozen of serious errors, wrong formulas, and false explanations, Francesco has described an ideal inductor to be able to maintain a current flow out of one of its terminals, while no current enters into its other terminal. He also claimed that voltage is not a physical quantity, and that at low frequencies the power is not transmitted by electromagnetic fields. I hope you understand how mind-boggling stupidities these are. The mentioned errors are only samplings from the first 48 pages, and there are many more errors in the rest of the book, which contains about 200 pages.

If this incompetent person and his ilk can continue to teach stupidity to students and write textbooks, then we can announce that the degradation of our educational system has entered its final stage. The cancer of corruption has gobbled up science as well.

I sincerely hope that something can be done to prevent future publishing of pseudoscience in the name of real science, backed by academic positions and degrees. The competence of new generations and the good reputations of universities and academic degrees are at stake. Students and their parents pay a lot of money for higher studies and they deserve quality education provided by competent teachers. They are our future and we have to protect their interests.

Joe D.

全 15 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]NoobMadeInChina 10ポイント11ポイント  (9子コメント)

Disclaimer: I've only spent 5 minutes reading about this issue here and on the blog. I have no idea who Francesco nor Joe are, and therefore I support neither parties. I have never used MWO and never plan to, because 1) I don't need it and 2) I dislike NI (the company that now makes MWO) in general. I am an undergraduate EE and physics major and have taken more than 3 semester-long courses relating to waves, electrodynamics, electromagnetism engineering, etc. I am decently familiar with Maxwell's equations and electrostatics/dynamics in general as taught from W. Hayt ("Engineering Electromagnetics") and Griffiths ("Electrodynamics"). In my learning experience, rigorous math was used instead of an abundance of simulations/animations/etc. I did not take the time to adequately verify or deny of Joe's claims in his website; I merely glossed over it.

I am not sure what to think of this other than this being a complete and total witch hunt. Dr. Joe D, your criticisms here and on your blog post sounds as editorial-like/opinionated as Francesco's writing himself. Francesco's book appears to target more of those who just want a basic, working background knowledge of electromagnetics and RF, probably just for the sake of knowing it. This audience may include but are not limited to 1) students like me who have struggled with emag at first because the math is indeed daunting (and an intuitive/qualitative approach is better), 2) those who work with electornics not directly relating to RF but just want a working "big picture" background knowledge, and 3) those who just want to know it for the sake of learning it. Hence, Francesco probably intentionally wrote it to be over-simplified and generalized. This is obviously not on the same caliber as those who use emag every day, such as but not limited to those who actually design systems that leverage electromagnetics/RF.

Also, in the benefit of the doubt, I feel that part of your criticism against Francesco may just be due to bad teaching technique(s). This is not to imply Francesco is not good at teaching, but rather I stress "Not all professors are great teachers and not all great teachers are professors".

As for the use of MWO, I haven't seen evidence that Fransesco is intentionally supporting MWO because that does seem to be like a conflict of interest. On the other hand, if he uses MWO as personal preference, then its not conflict of interest, although I agree Francesco should appeal more towards the open-source side because not everyone can or would want to use MWO.

Joe, in the interest of transparency, I encourage you to reveal who you really are and your credentials before criticizing others publicly.

[–]passive_farting 6ポイント7ポイント  (7子コメント)

This was posted on microwaves101 a while back. What started out as a review turned bad. Long story short, Joe is pissed the uni or IEEE have not done anything.

The book is crap. But the Uni should be given fair time to respond without pressure. To be fair to Joe in the original review the IEEE didn't say a thing or help and shut it down saying the thread went too far.

[–]NoobMadeInChina 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Thanks for the background, I was not aware of all that and I am really out of the loop on this. For what my 5 minutes is worth, I do agree that that book would not be suitable to my needs as its too rudimentary...

[–]passive_farting 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

That's the problem, it's rudimentary but full of errors.

[–]NoobMadeInChina 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Very well. For someone that had no idea about this fiasco, I was probably just a little taken aback by Joe's writing style initially...

[–]DrJoeD[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Thanks for showing this fellow his place. I really hate to waste time on debunking obviously malicious comments with hidden agendas.

Regarding your comment, that "the Uni should be given fair time to respond without pressure", it is a wishful thinking. If you would know the extent of corruption within academia, you would know what I am talking about. The management at the Uni and AWR who could take action did not respond, which is already a bad sign. If they would have responded, I would not pursue further publicity before seeing what actions they have taken. But without response and without sufficient pressure they would do nothing at all, like in so many other cases. Such cases are just routinely swept under the rag. They do whatever they want because they think we can do nothing about it, and that they can get away with anything.

Do you want to see another case of outrageous corruption within academia? It is the opposite of Francesco, a case when a deserving student did not get his degree, because perhaps he touched some tabu subjects, and was not corruptible. Here is his story: https://justice4maxcasu.wordpress.com/my-case/

Do you want some more? Read the stories and archives at https://bulliedacademics.blogspot.nl/

Are you still not pissed enough? Then let me know, because the rabbit hole goes much much deeper, so much so that we can not even see its bottom. I hope that after some reading exercise you get some idea why I am pissed, and why I am not mincing words.

[–]bu_J 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ignoring your initial rambles.

I've scanned through that Max Casu case. We're only presented with one side of things of course, but his first complaint is that he produced four manuscripts, only one of which was actually published (after a three year delay). And then he complains that UoL didn't do enough to look into the reason for the delay?

The rest of his grievances are similar nonentities. Sounds like someone needs a bit of perspective on their abilities and the university's responsibilities towards them, and I don't believe you're using this as a case of corruption within academia.

[–]bu_J 5ポイント6ポイント  (6子コメント)

tbh Joe D, it seems more that you have some personal beef with this author. Curious to know what that is.

Yeah there are some errors in the text, like there are in any book (particularly 1st editions). But pseudoscience? Come on.

[–]DrJoeD[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

bu_J the presented critique and this thread in not about idle chatting and subjective opinions, which can distort the truth and make the guilty appear to be a hero, while repainting the victims and defenders to appear as aggressors. It is strictly about scientific facts, and I have proven all those errors to be real and severe. Now show me which one of those errors and wrong explanations is not pseudoscience?

“Yeah there are some errors in the text…” glad you have recognized it; the whole story is exactly and exclusively about these pesky errors that you are trying to whitewash, and about the incompetence of the person who is selling junk to unsuspecting victims for $100. “…like there are in any book (particularly 1st editions)” Absolutely not! I have never seen any textbook written by an academic claiming to have a Ph.D., which would contain so many and so severe conceptual errors. It does not matter which edition. If I am missing something, then show me which book is as bad as this one?

But even if there would exist another junk like this, do you really want to say that a precedence would make any future incompetent junk to suddenly become acceptable? Simply mind boggling logic (or rather lack of it). I have explained in the critique, that any errors in a scientific textbook are acceptable only as long as they are typing errors, or editing errors, but not any conceptual errors that we have found in this book. Those who think otherwise, deserve to be taught that the earth is still flat, and that storks bring the babies.

All the revealed facts have nothing to do with any personal beef, and I can not entertain you with juicy background stories that you would expect to see in movies.

[–]ziggy_karmadust 3ポイント4ポイント  (4子コメント)

If you're point is really avoiding idle chatting and subjective opinions and strictly sticking to the scientific facts, avoid the derogatory subjective commentary like "If this incompetent person and his ilk can continue to teach stupidity to students". Stick to concrete examples and let them speak for themselves. Don't use subjective descriptors.

Your diction in this post (and comments) comes off with a lot of anger and emotion. Plus, taking more than 2 weeks to respond to a complaint is hardly a scandal. I understand being peeved if you bought some book that is riddled with errors and not what you were looking for, but I'm not sure I understand the malice. TIFWIW, but I think you could much more effectively convey your point by toning it down and being more matter-of-fact. I think your point is valid, but the post comes off much more as a rant than a critique and that's hurting your credibility.

[–]DrJoeD[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (3子コメント)

The commentary "If this incompetent person and his ilk can continue to teach stupidity to students" is not subjective. It is a fact proven by Francesco himself that he is incompetent. It is a fact that the criticized errors are stupidities for those who know the subject. If a mathematician teaches kids that $1+$2=$12 then he is teaching stupidity to the future generations, and that should induce outrage in all observers who are not totally brain dead. If an observer who decided to oppose such an abomination expresses his outrage to other people, that is completely normal, what more necessary.

You don’t beg a thief or a cheater to “ dear sir, if I may propose a suggestion, and if I don’t hurt you highly valued feelings, uhmm… could I please be allowed to express my desire that you uhmm… you consider returning that wallet of mine that you have just ahem… found by accident in my pocket…” Hahaha… Are you serious? You grab the bastard and punch him a few times until he begs you to take back your walet and that you don’t call the police. If the majority of men would grow some balls and protect their interests (and that of their progeny) without worrying about coming out harsh, the criminals would think twice before attacking the innocent. There would be less crime and less corruption.

The proof of the facts about the errors are meticulously explained in the critique. I have also mentioned examples of such nonsense claims of the author in the post, and if the reader wants more examples then he should read the critique; it is all there. The harsh tone of the post is deliberate to shake people up from the widespread bystander effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect and make them realize the nature of the scandal and the bad consequences for everyone if no action is taken to stop such corruption. Who do you think you are anyway to tell me what and how I should write?

“Taking more than 2 weeks to respond to a complaint is hardly a scandal.” You are not getting it, do you? The real scandal is not the lack of response and action for two weeks (though that is also a sign of corrupt behavior), but the fact that such a junk pseudoscientific textbook has been published and sold for 3 years to unsuspecting victims. The scandal is that a totally incompetent person got a Ph.D. at the same university where he is teaching. The scandal is that an incompetent person could get a teaching position at a university. The scandal is that no one of the corporations who supported the creation and publication of the book recognized these rough errors. These have nothing to do with any time limit of 2 weeks. Should I continue spoon feeding you the real nature of the scandal?

If I tone down my outrage and just list up the errors, most of the people would just skip over it as not important. The matter-of-fact is there in the review, the purpose of the post is to highlight the implications of those matter-of-fact points, to raise awareness about the nature of the scandal. The shills know the importance of feelings and emotions very well, that is the reason that not one of them is attacking the facts and errors, but only the style of my post and me personally. For those not familiar with these creatures here is a short introduction into their methodologies:

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation http://www.globalresearch.ca/twenty-five-rules-of-disinformation/24889

If you want to become a more experienced shill buster then here is some more shillology to study: https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/4g6jhl/lets_discuss_paid_propagandists_shills/?st=iva0nxr2&sh=20d6ff91

The display of outrage is hurting my credibility? Hahaha, now come on. You can do better than this! The word credibility is defined as “the quality of being trusted and believed in”. Politicians and religious leaders need credibility, because they want people to believe them without the need to prove that it is true what they say. Science is not a religion (or at least real science is not), it is very easy to verify and prove whether a claim or teaching is true and correct or not. I have provided the proof written in a style that even people with limited knowledge of electrical engineering can understand.

If someone is interested to find out whether my claims are true or not, he just need to read the review and compare it with the relevant chapters of decent textbooks. If he is not expert of the subject but still interested to know the truth, just ask an electrical engineer or a professor (who knows his subject, not one like Francesco) whether the analysis is correct or not. If it is not then he must be able to point out exactly what is incorrect, and how that should be written in a correct manner. It is as simple as that, there is no need for blind belief here, and no need for any “credibility”. If someone is too lazy to read the critique and/or not able to understand it, he would look wiser if he would remain silent.

By the way, I didn’t buy the book. Apparently you are criticizing me without even reading the review. The story of how I got motivated to write the critique and how I have got the book has been described in the review.

[–]ziggy_karmadust 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

The display of outrage is hurting my credibility? Hahaha, now come on. You can do better than this! The word credibility is defined as “the quality of being trusted and believed in”. Politicians and religious leaders need credibility, because they want people to believe them without the need to prove that it is true what they say. Science is not a religion (or at least real science is not), it is very easy to verify and prove whether a claim or teaching is true and correct or not. I have provided the proof written in a style that even people with limited knowledge of electrical engineering can understand.

Yes, it's easy to verify and prove whether something is correct or not in science, but if you are trying to convince people to go out of their way to do so, you won't have much success if you sound like an unhinged conspiracy theorist (posting a link to r/conspiracy isn't helping you out either). If people think you are crazy, they are going to stop reading and move on, because that's how people decide what is worth reading and what isn't when there's an ocean of information on the internet. So yeah, it actually is important to have credibility, even in science. Go ahead and pat yourself on the back for logically dismantling that idea, but unfortunately, the only people who have read this far down the thread are the ones who are simply entertained by what a nutcase you are. Like I said, take it for what it's worth, or just go ahead and keep ranting silently to yourself.

[–]DrJoeD[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Is this the best you can do? :-)) Disappointing; like Japanese would say, there is no honor in defeating your non-arguments. They are like colorful balloons filled with hot air that pose to be big and mighty, but all they need is just a tiny needle prick, and puff they are gone :-))

I knew that disinfo agents will attack my post, but I was expecting more worthy opponents; not cheap labor who can’t do anything better than just regurgitate standard lessons from shillology like tape recorders. If you want to be a good shill, you have to be tactful and creative my friend. But all the shill posts on this page are so transparent about their agenda that even beginner shill busters can easily spot them. I will create an online archive copy of this thread to be used later as school example in shill busting (you know, just in case this page would be deleted later :-)

Only shills and your disinfo psychologists would like people to think that those who spread politically incorrect truth are all crazy, or crackpots wearing tinfoil hats. The disinfo propagandists would like all people to get lost in the ocean of disinformation spread by the shills, and waste their time on useless social media chatter on Facebook. But you know, not all people are sheep to follow shill lead and obey your expectations. There are also intelligent people who do care about important social matters, like about the degradation of the educational system, more than about watching TV and Facebook. My message is meant for these intelligent people, and not for those having an IQ about room temperature who would dismiss facts, just because they don’t like the tone of the introduction.

The unfortunate state of our societies is the direct result of people handing over their power of thinking to corrupt “authorities”, who serve the financial vampires, the corporate interests and the global mafia. If people ever want to regain real freedom, then the first thing they have to do is to take back their power of thinking and decision making from fake authorities, and start thinking for themselves. They have to research the facts about important matters (like 9/11), evaluate them based on common sense and real science, and arrive to their own conclusions. Then shills will not be able to dissuade them from learning the truth, and they will be able to do something about things they don’t like.

A shill must have the last word in a debate, no matter how stupid that last comment is. This is a rule of shillology. Therefore it is a waste of time to go on debunking their nonsense ad infinitum. It would never end, because they are paid to argue (mainly about non-issues, using straw man arguments), while I have to use my free time, which is an asymmetrical battle. But, if I would have not responded to their attacks at all, then that would have created the false impression that their accusations and smear campaign could stand up to scrutiny. Therefore, to keep a healthy balance I have responded to a few negative comments as an introduction, but I will generally ignore future shill comments on this thread. It is time to move on and spread the truth elsewhere.

[–]ziggy_karmadust 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I advise you to get a psych evaluation. You don't need to respond, I think we can all fill in the blanks with 30 variations of the word shill, allusions to me being a part of some massive academic conspiracy, passive aggressive smiley faces, and ramblings about how far inferior my intelligence is compared to yours, but in all seriousness, paranoid schizophrenia is a really serious and tragic illness. I hope you get the help you need.

[–]mattskee 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I looked at a few section of your review, it seems like you have some valid criticisms. Thanks for the warning about this book.

But you are also not coming across well in your presentation of your criticism. Your anger comes across clearly. And your post is very long while only mentioning one of your factual criticisms of the book.

A calm and concise post which focuses on the facts might get your point across better.