[Lobowolf]

Winstonm, on Apr 16 2009, 06:47 PM, said:

This is simply a presentation that this group claims to be fact

This is exactly the sense in which I am using the word "argument."

[Lobowolf]

Winstonm, on Apr 16 2009, 06:56 PM, said:

I have no degrees to challenge the authenticity of the writers - do you have expertise that surpasses that of the authors?

Certainly not from a scientific perspective; however, apparently there are those with scientific credentials who are not entirely convinced (see Vuroth's link earlier in this thread). They lead with the same thing that occurred to me. The starting point was, "Five guys sent in some material and said it was dust from 9-11," which they found questionable.

But let's not try to keep a straight face and pretend that this is an abstract question; it's clearly a preliminary to "something other than the crashing of the airplanes and the burning jet fuel brought down the towers."

[Lobowolf]

We all important presuppositions into our assessments of proffered evidence, including presuppositions that are not scientific. For example, when it was pointed out that the article you referenced was published in a journal of questionable evidentiary value, you introduce the idea that perhaps more reputable journals wouldn't touch it because of its subject matter, not its scientific merit. This presupposition is imported to bolster the claims made by the authors of the article.

Nothing wrong with that. The science, according to the links provided by Vuroth, and also according to one of your earlier posts, is inconclusive. And I'm certainly not going to learn enough about the science to know more than the authors about it.

I certainly know enough to know that there are scientists making contradictory claims about the Towers' demise. By logical necessity, some people who know a lot more than I do about the science of the question are flat-out incorrect or lying. It's interesting that you brought up admissible courtroom evidence. In courtrooms, scientists make claims regularly about their expert opinions and tests they've run and what they conclude must have happened. But ultimately, those questions are decided by a jury of non-scientists, who are deemed competent to adjudge their credibility and the plausibility of their claims. You can find a Ph.D.'s to tell you that X could not have happened, and another to tell you that X must have happened. And "X" either happened, or it didn't; so if 2 layman listen to them, and believe different experts, then one of the laymen is right, and one of the Ph.D.'s is wrong.

It's like the joke about the (insert ethnic minority here) found dead with 12 gunshot wounds in his back and the (insert stereotypically racist county here) coroner calls it a suicide. He's the M.D.; do we have to believe him?

It wouldn't take that long to find a physicist who'll tell you that the collapse of the towers is entirely consistent with the airplanes hitting them and the burning jet fuel, and it wouldn't take that long to find one who'll tell you that it's inconsistent. Does that make us unqualified to hold an opinion, because whichever guy we disagree with knows more about the science than we do? Of course not.

[jdonn]

Winstonm, on Apr 16 2009, 06:50 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 16 2009, 06:43 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Apr 16 2009, 06:30 PM, said:

Quote

You don't understand. By even considering this 'evidence' I would be lending credibility to ridiculousness.

But Josh, isn't this the very definition of closemindedness - that your mind is made up that the task would have been impossible so no evidence can be credible?

I said ridiculous, not impossible. Anyway if you suggest that not listening to every argument from everyone about every loony theory about everything makes me closed minded, then I hope you are wrong. If you do listen to and consider all such things then I think you live in a world where people have longer days and many more brain cells to spare than in mine.

I understand. I simply thought that this strong of presentation in an (albeit not great) peer-reviewed journal would at least get a "Hmmm. That's weird" rather than disregard or blanket ridicule.

If secondary analysis confirms the findings, would that change your view?

Would that secondary finding also be published by a "not great" journal but nothing better?

[PassedOut]

Winstonm, on Apr 16 2009, 06:50 PM, said:

If secondary analysis confirms the findings, would that change your view?

In my case, if a very well-done study by reputable experts contradicted my opinion on this, I'd have to give it another look.

However, there are a great many claims of one kind or another, and we all have to perform a triage to determine which claims are worth looking at. For any number of reasons, I don't consider it worth the time to look into any more claims that the 9/11 attack was not conducted pretty close to the way we've understood it.

[Lobowolf]

Winstonm, on Apr 16 2009, 10:14 PM, said:

It is ccurious - a couple of years ago or so the big critique was that no one was publishing their findings in scientific peer-reviewed publications; now that the peer-reviewed publications are publishing, the critique is that opinion can be found to contradictory.

That's not the critique. The critique is of your earlier post asking if I had scientific credentials that surpasses those of the authors. Should only the scientists have opinions? Whatever position you hold, there are scientists more qualified than you on the other side.

[jdonn]

Winstonm, on Apr 16 2009, 10:14 PM, said:

I only say this: if it is bad science, attack the science with science. But do not attack the science with an opinion.

I'll stick to ridicule thanks.

[hrothgar]

I originally quoted the following in a discussion about climate change...
It seems equally appropriate here (I suspect that some of what Josh is driving at is contained within)

http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/04/06/cl...tive-fallacies/

Quote

Come to think of it, there’s a certain class of rhetoric I’m going to call the “one way hash” argument. Most modern cryptographic systems in wide use are based on a certain mathematical asymmetry: You can multiply a couple of large prime numbers much (much, much, much, much) more quickly than you can factor the product back into primes. A one-way hash is a kind of “fingerprint” for messages based on the same mathematical idea: It’s really easy to run the algorithm in one direction, but much harder and more time consuming to undo.  Certain bad arguments work the same way—skim online debates between biologists and earnest ID afficionados armed with talking points if you want a few examples: The talking point on one side is just complex enough that  it’s both intelligible—even somewhat intuitive—to the layman and sounds as though it might qualify as some kind of insight. (If it seems too obvious, perhaps paradoxically, we’ll tend to assume everyone on the other side thought of it themselves and had some good reason to reject it.) The rebuttal, by contrast, may require explaining a whole series of preliminary concepts before it’s really possible to explain why the talking point is wrong. So the setup is “snappy, intuitively appealing argument without obvious problems” vs. “rebuttal I probably don’t have time to read, let alone analyze closely.”

If we don’t sometimes defer to the expert consensus, we’ll systematically tend to go wrong in the face of one-way-hash arguments, at least outside our own necessarily limited domains of knowledge.  Indeed, in such cases, trying to evaluate the arguments on their merits will tend to lead to an erroneous conclusion more often than simply trying to gauge the credibility of the various disputants. The problem, of course, is gauging your own competence level well enough to know when to assess arguments and when to assess arguers. Thanks to the perverse phenomenon psychologists have dubbed the Dunning-Kruger effect,  those who are least competent tend to have the most wildly inflated estimates of their own knowledge and competence. They don’t know enough to know that they don’t know, as it were.

[Winstonm]

hrothgar, on Apr 17 2009, 07:19 PM, said:

I originally quoted the following in a discussion about climate change...
It seems equally appropriate here (I suspect that some of what Josh is driving at is contained within)

http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/04/06/cl...tive-fallacies/

Quote

Come to think of it, there’s a certain class of rhetoric I’m going to call the “one way hash” argument. Most modern cryptographic systems in wide use are based on a certain mathematical asymmetry: You can multiply a couple of large prime numbers much (much, much, much, much) more quickly than you can factor the product back into primes. A one-way hash is a kind of “fingerprint” for messages based on the same mathematical idea: It’s really easy to run the algorithm in one direction, but much harder and more time consuming to undo.  Certain bad arguments work the same way—skim online debates between biologists and earnest ID afficionados armed with talking points if you want a few examples: The talking point on one side is just complex enough that  it’s both intelligible—even somewhat intuitive—to the layman and sounds as though it might qualify as some kind of insight. (If it seems too obvious, perhaps paradoxically, we’ll tend to assume everyone on the other side thought of it themselves and had some good reason to reject it.) The rebuttal, by contrast, may require explaining a whole series of preliminary concepts before it’s really possible to explain why the talking point is wrong. So the setup is “snappy, intuitively appealing argument without obvious problems” vs. “rebuttal I probably don’t have time to read, let alone analyze closely.”

If we don’t sometimes defer to the expert consensus, we’ll systematically tend to go wrong in the face of one-way-hash arguments, at least outside our own necessarily limited domains of knowledge.  Indeed, in such cases, trying to evaluate the arguments on their merits will tend to lead to an erroneous conclusion more often than simply trying to gauge the credibility of the various disputants. The problem, of course, is gauging your own competence level well enough to know when to assess arguments and when to assess arguers. Thanks to the perverse phenomenon psychologists have dubbed the Dunning-Kruger effect,  those who are least competent tend to have the most wildly inflated estimates of their own knowledge and competence. They don’t know enough to know that they don’t know, as it were.

Richard,

That is quite a useful post (to me). It helps me grasp the reason for the arguments of Josh, PassedOut, and Lobowolf. It also makes me aware that I have no expertise in these matters - at the same time I have not seen critiques that open themselves to peer-reviewed rebuttals either. From what I have seen the rebuttals are inferior to and much less well-documented than the charges.

I like to think of myself as openminded - if sufficient evidence is presented to me, I am willing to change my mind - and I have not reached a conclusion about the collapses on 9-11 other than I do not rule out sabotage, nor have I ruled more natural causes.

[jdonn]

Winstonm, on Apr 17 2009, 07:36 PM, said:

Richard,

That is quite a useful post (to me).  It helps me grap the reason for the arguments of Josh, PassedOut, and Lobowolf.  It also makes me aware that I have no expertise in these matters - at the same time I have not seen critiques that open themselves to peer-reviewed rebuttals either.  From what I have seen the rebuttals are inferior to and much less well-documented that the charges.

In all seriousness, I think you might take that as a sign that experts don't view the charges as worth being taken seriously. Rather than using it as a point to suggest the charges may be correct...

[PassedOut]

One of the good things about the internet is that one becomes aware of how many different viewpoints people have that vary from the mainstream. While this can't help but broaden one's thinking, it's literally impossible to examine each claim or idea in sufficient detail to refute it or confirm it.

Speaking for myself, I don't believe that one can get large numbers of people to conspire in a horrific deed (especially one with little or no benefit to the perpetrators) without someone involved blowing the whistle on it.

Six years ago a man began to post on websites in my community to warn us that the government was systematically poisoning us. He asked us to look up at the sky to observe the poisonous chemicals, clearly visible, being sprayed from the jets flying overhead. In my innocence, I responded that he had nothing to worry about, that I had been watching the contrails from jets for fifty years.

To my surprise, he began to provide links to all sorts of websites "documenting" that "chemtrails" were a serious threat to the population. (You can find such sites by doing a google search using chemtrails in the sky.) He demanded that I refute them.

I asked him where Bush (and Clinton before him) found all the pilots willing to drop poison on their own friends and relatives. To him, I was hopelessly naive.

After a bit, his posts started to accuse me of being Bush's paid accomplice. He had the notion that Bush was paying people all over the country to post messages in a propaganda effort to cover up what was going on.

My posts were not anonymous and his were, so when his posts began to get vaguely threatening I entered his (very distinctive) user name in a google search and found that he used the same name posting in quite a few sites about chemtrails and other such things. I found that he lived in a small town about 20 miles from me. He had posted a picture of himself that I recognized from local meetings.

I did not blow his anonymity, but I posted a couple of details that let him know I had identified him. That confirmed for him that I was indeed a Bush agent with fearsome intelligence capabilities and he posted just one final warning to everyone in our community.

After that experience (and I recognize that Winston is a good person, nothing like this guy at all), I try -- not always successfully -- to avoid getting pulled into discussions of this sort.

[blackshoe]

The internet also brings to the fore that the number of whackos in the world is much larger than one might think.

It's one thing to have whacky ideas. It's quite another to threaten people.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Apr 17 2009, 07:11 PM, said:

The only criticism I made was that your argument was invalid - my interpretation of what you implied was that the authors must be goofballs or simply wrong or in some way cheating in their findings because it was impossible for you to grasp how a building could have been sabotaged and brought down.

this seems to be a sticking point with you in most of your posts, and i'm not quite sure why... most people will hear or read about a potential conspiracy (or nefarious deed) and, even if they lend credence to the concept, will immediately ask themselves "how in the world would such a thing be accomplished? what would be needed to pull this off?"... when people do that here though, you say it's the wrong thing to ask... why? to me, and if i understand what others have written, to them, that's exactly the correct line of thought...

take a faked moon landing, or a cia led jfk assassination... can those things be true? certainly... can evidence be found (or manufactured) to make the possibility true? of course... but then a person naturally starts asking "if they faked the moon landing, how did they do it? how many were involved? how was it kept secret?"... concerning the events of 9/11, my mind works that same way, especially since i absolutely *know* that the mainstream media would be all over any credible story that could even potentially harm the bush administration

[luke warm]

and i think that's were you and i, and possibly you and most people, differ... our minds immediately jump to the things you place little or no importance on, regardless of specific knowledge about certain things

fwiw i refuse to admit that i am wrong to ask how such a thing could be accomplished... specific knowledge of certain aspects have no bearing on who would have conspired to do this, why the nyt wouldn't gladly dig into it (if bush was involved), and how it could remain a secret - just as if the moon landing had been faked, we'd know because someone would have confessed

[kenberg]

On some things I do not have an open mind. My guess is that most of us find it necessary to close our minds on some topics.


Growing up, the claim was that Roosevelt knew of the impending attack on Pearl harbor but let it take place in order to bring the US into the war. The logic ran something like this:

Roosevelt wanted to bring the US into the war on the side of Britain and its allies. True, I think.

There was great resistance in the US to this. Also true, I believe. Some opposed getting involved in European problems, some admired Hitler, some just didn't give a *****.

Roosevelt was not always a straight-shooter. I am willing to believe this.

Therefore Roosevelt knew in advance of the attack and let it happen. (No one, as far as I know, claimed that Roosevelt faked the attack.)

You can still sometimes hear this view expressed by those who are my age or older.


I can't prove that the claim is false. How would I rate the chances of it being true? Remote is a severe understatement. Do I have an open mind on this? Not really. Have I carefully reviewed the evidence? Not at all.

Pretty much the same, as near as I can see.

The issues of how and why one would do such a thing are certainly part of my assessment. I realize that G Gordon once misunderstood a conversation and thought he was being told to knock of Jack Anderson, but still, how would this work? Some guy comes in and says "Hey, I got this really good idea. Let's hijack some planes, knock down the Twin Towers, and blame it on the Muslims." Everyone congratulates him for thinking outside the box and the rest is history. Really?


My mind is closed on this one. Also on alien abductions.

[Al_U_Card]

kenberg, on Apr 18 2009, 03:24 PM, said:

How would I rate the chances of it being true? Remote is a severe understatement. Do I have an open mind on this? Not really. Have I carefully reviewed the evidence? Not at all.

Would it shatter your world view to know that politicians and statesmen sacrifice others to further their grandiose schemes?

Review the evidence, the sources are there. He knew and took measures to ensure that the attack took place as a "surprise" to ensure immediate response by the American people for supporting the war effort.

It makes little difference in the grander scheme of things but a big difference to those who were sacrificed as well as the sacrifice of your opinion of the perpetrator.

[kenberg]

Al_U_Card, on Apr 18 2009, 04:33 PM, said:

Would it shatter your world view to know that politicians and statesmen sacrifice others to further their grandiose schemes?

Review the evidence, the sources are there. He knew and took measures to ensure that the attack took place as a "surprise" to ensure immediate response by the American people for supporting the war effort.

It makes little difference in the grander scheme of things but a big difference to those who were sacrificed as well as the sacrifice of your opinion of the perpetrator.

No, it would not shatter my world view. So maybe Roosevelt knew about the impending attack on Pearl Harbor. Could be true, in sme logical sense of "could be". I cannot prove it false.

I will not be reviewing the evidence for Roosevelt and Pearl Harbor, for the CIA and the Twin Towers, or for many other things too numerous to mention. Perhaps at my death I will meet St. Peter at the Pearly Gates and realize I have made a drastic error in my religious beliefs. Perhaps so. I cannot prove otherwise.

On some issues I have a closed mind. In defense of this stance, at least I do not claim otherwise.

[brianshark]

Did they really need the buildings to collapse in order to get the public behind their retaliation? Surely a few planes flying into a couple of buildings causing a few thousand casualties would have been enough on it's own, not to mention the chance that the buildings would collapse anyway makes planting explosives a ridiculously unnecessary risk.

[vuroth]

Winstonm, on Apr 16 2009, 07:45 PM, said:

vuroth, on Apr 16 2009, 03:00 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Apr 15 2009, 06:22 PM, said:

I am surprised there was not a single - "well, that's interesting", or "that's worth looking into".  Instead, it's been "let's ridicule the finding regardless if it is important or not".

It seems to me "Don't confuse me with facts when my mind is made up."

An interesting rebuttal, linked off of JREF

http://www.911myths.com/html/traces_of_the...at_the_wtc.html

Another: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/stevene.jo...ethermateclaims

I looked at these and find that unlike the published article, these have no authorship claims, are not in a peer-reviewed publication, show no proof of the claims made, and both are criticisms of earlier work from Dr. Jones and are not a critique of this particular article showing findings of specific gray/red particles.

Oh, I agree that they don't pertain to the specific work that you mentioned. I still found them interesting.

Winstonm, on Apr 15 2009, 06:22 PM, said:

It would be better if a critique were published in a peer-reviewed journal, don't you think?

I endeavour to be polite whenever possible in situations like this, but ARE YOU INSANE?

I mean, wouldn't it be easier to just say "I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE FIRST THING ABOUT THE MODERN SCIENTIFIC PROCESS" and "I JUST BELIEVE WHAT I WANT TO BELIEVE REGARDLESS OF FACT" instead of what you just said? It means the same thing, and is so much clearer and honest.



V

[Lobowolf]

Just on the subject of conspiratorial plausibility, if I were a nefarious government agency in charge of all the secret evil stuff, and I had the capability to bring down the Twin Towers with a controlled demolition, and for some reason, I thought it was a great idea to do so...

Never in a million years would I institute a plan that involved or relied upon multiple successful hijackings. Just off the top of my head:
1) It would dramatically increase the chances that it wouldn't work.
2) It would necessarily involve more people.
3) It might leave traces of nanothermite that would provide fuel (no pun intended) for conspiracy theorists to say, "Hey! If it was just planes, then why is there this nanothermite!"
4) There's a much better way that eliminates problems 1-3:

I'd just drop the towers, send in my investigators, and use manufactured evidence to "show" that my predesignated patsies had done it. There was already one attempt to bring down the Towers the old-fashioned way; this time, they were successful. Found nanothermite? Yup, that's what they used. WTP?

With respect to the example of the guy who falls over dead in the restaurant, I think it's a lot more like someone walks up to a guy at a restaurant in front of hundreds of witnesses (I'd say thousands, but that would be one hell of a big restaurant), shoots the guy in the head, then shoots himself in the head. Then 5 people at surrounding tables send tissue samples to a coroner who determines that there are trace amounts of arsenic in the guy's (not the shooter, the other guy) blood. Well, ok.