Ok, I may have also studied, chemistry, physics, and quantum mechanics as part of my Engineering Science degree as well. But it's been a while so claiming expertise based on it is a stretch.
Discussion
credentials are for losers. i know enough to be dangerous, and am always learning more to become more dangerous.
I'll not argue that point. As I said, it doesn't mean much. It was long ago and just because I studied a thing doesn't mean I understood it or retained it.
There is also the issue that studying a thing doesn't make it true. This is currently a crisis in the humanities.
Mises commented on this problem of the "soft" sciences being so pliable to political manipulation and lack of verifiability in his treatise Human Action.
that's the thing. there has been many things i read about years ago that i learned since were completely flawed from their premises. there is just such a party of circumstantial evidence against the idea that there is in fact such a thing as a plutonium explosive mechanism that i'm gonna just do this thing and consider the simple thermodynamics and kinetics to point out those points are extremely flimsy, before you even count the fact that apparently the team at Los Alamos got their bomb to work first time around, without even doing integration tests (and hardly any unit tests)