Official Story for 9/11...lies?

[Makalakumu]

There is a lot more stuff on that site is rather fascinating and other stuff that is off the wall. I really respect Dr. Fetzer, but I must say I have my disagreements.

Reason and Science not matters of belief? Nothing is science is ever proven. It only is supported with varying degrees of evidence. With that being the case acceptance of a theory REQUIRES belief.

 

[rmcrobertson]

I'm sorry, but that is fundamentally inaccurate. You might check Sagan--the very book you cited--and Michael Schirmer, "Why People Believe Weird Things."

Scientific theories are testable, and verifiable, or they ain't theories. Beliefs are neither...and miracles sure aren't repeatable; they are by definition one-offs.

The only level on which science depends on faith is the level on which all of our suppositions rest on the "belief," that the universe is actually there and that we ourselves actually exist.

As Schermer points out, it's a fundamental error to collapse scientific theory and belief together.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Kyosa,

What is Fetzer's degree in? What is his field of expertise?


Robert, check Shermer's book "How We Believe". That's a good one, too. I heard he's coming out with another one.

James Randi has some good books out on the paranormal as well. I've enjoyed everything of his I've ever read.

Checked out the site. Its pretty much run of the mill conspiracy stuff.

It strikes me that the process of creating a conspiracy goes like this:

1. An event happens, often tragic, and usually notable.
2. The CT (conspiracy theorist) decides that it is probably part of a conspiracy...this before he has any rational reason to believe so.
3. The CT then constructs "evidence" to support his theory. He does this by looking for hits (pictures of the Pentagon that show no debris), and ignoring misses (pictures with debris). In other words, he will refer to anything that can support his theory, and disregards or minimizes all that which counters it. Even when the weight of evidence is well against him, he will not back down from his original stance. He will, in argument, sometimes change the subject if he is losing ground.
4. He pads his theory with fluff...stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Case in point: One of the hijackers taking martial arts lessons. It is intended as distraction.
5. He will create ficticious material...people, places, names, events, objects, research, references, that will support his stance. OR he will refer to material that other people have created, without checking his sources.
6. And, most of all, he will make inappropriate or invalid connections between events and people and then force an illusion of the validity of such connections.

I could list more...but I'm tired. Maybe Robert can add to this.

Steve

 

[Makalakumu]

Dr. Fetzer is a philosopher of science, so he has had the training in logic and all of that. Does this make him credible?

I have Shermer, Randi, and Sagan on my bookshelf right now. I have read them and incorporated them into my own studies. Currently, I am working on my Master's degree in Physics. Interesting stuff.

As to Robert's comment...much of what Shermer says, I agree with. The part about belief, no way. The more I tread into theoretical physics, the more these theories require belief. Take string theory for instance. No one has seen these strings. People can't even agree on their dimensions. They are a mathmatical construction that is very much like a fudge factor to join the equations for gravity with those of electromagnetism and the strong and weak force. Beleif in science certainly exists.

John

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by upnorthkyosa
Dr. Fetzer is a philosopher of science, so he has had the training in logic and all of that. Does this make him credible?

I have Shermer, Randi, and Sagan on my bookshelf right now. I have read them and incorporated them into my own studies. Currently, I am working on my Master's degree in Physics. Interesting stuff.

As to Robert's comment...much of what Shermer says, I agree with. The part about belief, no way. The more I tread into theoretical physics, the more these theories require belief. Take string theory for instance. No one has seen these strings. People can't even agree on their dimensions. They are a mathmatical construction that is very much like a fudge factor to join the equations for gravity with those of electromagnetism and the strong and weak force. Beleif in science certainly exists.

John

Yes, this is very True, the Fudge Factor, and items that only Mathematics can describe.

Newtonian Physics fails and breaks down in certain conditions, Hence, Einsteinian Physics was finally described.

Now, the law of conservation of Mass breaks down at the Nuclear level and Some Mass is converted into energy. Yet for most people's needs the law of conversation of mass works just fine for them. It is / are the person / people that need to describe a phenomenon that search for such a way to represent the data they have seen or the expected patterns thet have seen and would predict at the next order of magnitude.

Sorry for being off Topic :-offtopic

:asian:

 

[Makalakumu]

I think a good way to wrap this discussion up is to discuss how best to judge conspiracy theories. Are any of them right or all they all just bogus? I would say the JFK assassination conspiracy has merit. Could we compare that to the 9/11 conspiracy?

John

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Dr. Fetzer is a philosopher of science, so he has had the training in logic and all of that. Does this make him credible?

Not necessarily. Even if a proper frame of authority is acquired, he has to stand on his own merits and research. If he isn't using science and logic, then his degree and his position mean little.

Pons and Fleischmann are case examples: Both were noted researchers who came up with "cold fusion". On review their work was found to be deeply flawed. They essentially disappeared from academia.

There are other examples as well.



Steve

 

[Makalakumu]

It will take a while to wade through alot of the material on that website. I have it book marked because of the interesting stuff that pops up. I like the essays and social commentaries and I like how he doesn't endorse any of the weird conspiracy theories, he just asks people if it is possible. He was on Coast to Coast the other night talking about the Paul Wellstone plane crash. I would say that is some of his most controversial material.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Yep, and string theory is always described as an interesting theory for which there is as yet no conclusive evidence and some troubling math. It is also described--as such ideas always are--as a metaphor for reality.

That's quite different from, say, angelology. Or has somebody run into a preacher who says, "Well, we have this untestable hypothesis that we call God, but he could be just a fig newton of our imagination. We need better evidence, and more work, beefore we go running around claiming that this God guy actually exists?"

 

[Shizen Shigoku]

Could have posted this here as well: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18578

More fun conspiracy theory stuff - check out the 'Loose Change' documentary:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2023320890224991194&q=loose+change

(video is 1 hour long)

 

[sgtmac_46]

Could have posted this here as well: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18578

More fun conspiracy theory stuff - check out the 'Loose Change' documentary:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2023320890224991194&q=loose+change

(video is 1 hour long)

A yes, the classic world of conspiracy theory....where the nuttier your delusions, and more time and energy you invest in your own fantasy world, the more credibility you are given. I guess everyone has to have a hobby. If reality just isn't interesting enough, we can always choose to substitute a more interesting fantasy version. :erg:

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Yep, I'm cynical as all hell about this stuff.

Why? For exactly the same reasons that the stuff about subliminal ads is crap. The problem isn't what's hidden; it's what's right out in the open.

See Marcuse on, "repressive desublimation." The Age of Secrecy is over; this is what Guy Debord called, "the society of the spectacle."

These grand conspiracy theories are ways for us to avoid simply considering economic reality and our own complicity. Further, they help increase that sense of, "Ah, screw it. What can ya do?" that's so common today.

And best of all, the conspiracies suggest solutions that would allow us to go on living in precisely the same greedy, irresponsible, unsustainable ways we presently are living. Uncover the conspiracy, throw these bastards out, put good guys in there, leave the system exactly the way it is, that's the ticket.

All these Big Secrets have been out pretty much in the open for anybody who cared to look for thirty years at least. Hell, my old man worked at Fort Detrick in the 60s--I knew damn well what they did by the time I was eleven.

Not much of a conspiracy, I'd say.

Bump

 

[Blotan Hunka]

I'm sorry, but that is fundamentally inaccurate. You might check Sagan--the very book you cited--and Michael Schirmer, "Why People Believe Weird Things."

Scientific theories are testable, and verifiable, or they ain't theories. Beliefs are neither...and miracles sure aren't repeatable; they are by definition one-offs.

The only level on which science depends on faith is the level on which all of our suppositions rest on the "belief," that the universe is actually there and that we ourselves actually exist.

As Schermer points out, it's a fundamental error to collapse scientific theory and belief together.

Bump

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Yeah, it never fails to amaze me. On one hand, these guys are such geniuses that NOONE BUT AN ENLIGHTENED FEW EVER SUSPECT THE TRUTH, and on the other, they continually screw up.

Here's an ugly little joke I recently read:

"How do you know the CIA wasn't involved in the JFK assassination?"

"He's dead, isn't he?"

But my favorite fantasy is the idea that the 9/11 hijackers were some sort of criminal masterminds, and/or ninjas. They were a bunch of mean little creeps with a little knowledge and a fair amount of willingness.

Personally, I think the reason people jack up these bizarre theories lies in the fact that they don't want to face reality. It's hard to accept the fact that we live in an extraordinarily-complex, technologically-sophisticated but oddly delicate world--and in such a world, the fact is, anybody who's willing and has three brain cells to rub together can do a considerable amount of damage.

I also think that this particular set of conspiracy fantasies has some quite ugly roots in anti-Semitism and what Edward Said identified as Orientalism. You know--at home, it's the Insidious Trilateral Commission and the International Monetary Fund, and abroad it's whatever version of the Insidious Dr. Fu Manchu we believe in at the moment.

On the other hand, at least it's entertaining. In the same vein as the last poster, I truly enjoyed the website explanations that argued that because the Us Air Force had been working on pilotless drones, the planes that flew into the Trade Center must have been remote controlled. Among their backup evidence was the repeated mention that this plane or that plane WAS ONLY 27% FILLED!!!

Fact is, the people from the future did it. See the movie, "Millenium."

Big Bump...

 

[michaeledward]

I miss Robert.

This is from the forum rules

No senseless "Bumping": Please do not bump your request/help searching or other threads several times a day. Bumping can refer to posting useless information, making corrections or updates in a new post, posting one-liners or any other action to deliberately keep a thread hot or to bring it to the top of its forum. Moderators will use their discretion, depending on the nature of the post, as to whether to take action or not. Remember there are people who don't browse this board every hour. So do not bump a thread within 24h or too much even after 24 hours.

 

[Cryozombie]

This is from the forum rules

haha, you beat me to it.

Oh hell, was that a bump?

 

[michaeledward]

Oh hell, was that a bump?

'sok ... I've already taken myself to the woodshed on that one.

Fifty pushups for me.

Oops! I did it again.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Ooops. I just thought this thread was apropos (like that 25 cent word?) to another discussion of the exact same topic going on. This robertson guy had a lot of good points on this conspiracy crap a lot of people are swallowing.