Any Conspiracy-Busters here?

[thesyntaxera]

That's funny, I could swear that those wikipedia quotes directly contradict your claim to be using "inductive" and "deductive" in their normal English senses.

Who did you think you would fool by this manoeuvre?

Apparently you, because I did use it in the "normal" english sense, unless there is some "english sense" I am unaware of. You need to read closer.

 

[CurtC]

No, I used them in the exact sense of thier meaning, you cannot prove skeptical claims at this point, just as you can't prove CT claims because they share the same flaw, they are based on inductive reasoning which isn't really consider scienctific in the first place.[bolding mine]

What you're calling "inductive reasoning" is exactly how science works. A hypothesis is formed, and more data is looked at to see if it's consistent with the hypothesis. If it's not, the hypothesis is falsified, and it needs to be modified or tossed.

I highlighted the words "prove" above to show how your ideas conflict with the scientific approach. In science, an idea is never proved, it just gets stronger and stronger as it withstands more attempts to falisfy it. All theories are tentative, and can't be proved by the rules of formal logic.

But they can be falsified - I again ask, do you have any data that would falsify the theory that Al Qaeda-inspired men hijacked four airliners, crashed three of them into buildings, and the subsequent fires caused the two WTC towers to collapse? That's how science is done.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Apparently you, because I did use it in the "normal" english sense, unless there is some "english sense" I am unaware of. You need to read closer.

This is incorrect.

An investigation which presupposes the official story to be correct and then attempts to discover more details about that story is not inductive. That is not what induction means. Induction means drawing general conclusions from patterns seen in individual cases.

An investigation which approaches an event agnostically and attempts to see which interpretation of events is the best is not deductive. That is not what deduction means. Deduction means discovering new facts that are implicit in already known facts.

Either form of investigation would necessarily involve both inductive and deductive thinking to get results.

These terms simply do not mean anything resembling what you claim them to mean. Your quoted material uses the terms correctly, but you do not.

 

[thesyntaxera]

What you're calling "inductive reasoning" is exactly how science works. A hypothesis is formed, and more data is looked at to see if it's consistent with the hypothesis. If it's not, the hypothesis is falsified, and it needs to be modified or tossed.

No...it's not...*sigh*

A hypothesis must be falsifiable to be considered scientific. Science can utilize inductive reasoning from time to time, but relies on the deductive appoach to evidence to inform it's inductive guess regarding hypothesis. That is not what was done in the 9/11 investigation.

I highlighted the words "prove" above to show how your ideas conflict with the scientific approach. In science, an idea is never proved, it just gets stronger and stronger as it withstands more attempts to falisfy it. All theories are tentative, and can't be proved by the rules of formal logic.

Yeah, I know, but were not talking about the philosophy of science here, despite what we have been going on about, we are talking about how testable the official theory is, and to reiterate, it is a theories ability to be falsified that makes it scientific...I know this must sound like a paradox...but have faith, for it is how science is done. Formal logic utilizes deduction as a means to make scientific theory more probable.

But they can be falsified - I again ask, do you have any data that would falsify the theory that Al Qaeda-inspired men hijacked four airliners, crashed three of them into buildings, and the subsequent fires caused the two WTC towers to collapse? That's how science is done.

Since you apparently still don't know what falsification means in science, go back up and read the link to the definition...and then read my answer to this same question.

 

[thesyntaxera]

An investigation which presupposes the official story to be correct and then attempts to discover more details about that story is not inductive.

No, that is exactly what induction is, and furthermore, what you are describing is a bias in favor of the official story, which would be a bias against deduction. If you ignore some but not all evidence, if you do not chase and investigate every lead then you are not deducing at all. This is how criminal investigations are handled all the time, and this was a criminal investigation....not an accident reconstruction.

That is not what induction means. Induction means drawing general conclusions from patterns seen in individual cases.

Yeah, thats what I said. You are drawing, just as the 9/11 commision has drawn, conclusions from patterns seen in individual cases, this is induction, this is what you are doing. It's all very clear, but if you would like to chase your tail on this, please do.

An investigation which approaches an event agnostically and attempts to see which interpretation of events is the best is not deductive. That is not what deduction means. Deduction means discovering new facts that are implicit in already known facts.

Actually, in investigation, you take in all available evidence, and exhaust every lead before you attempt to form a theory, you may use inductive reasoning or your "hunch" as it were, but it is the systematic dissection of all the evidence that garners the truth.

Either form of investigation would necessarily involve both inductive and deductive thinking to get results.

This is true, with more emphasis on the deductive portion, and an extreme emphasis on deductive investigation.

These terms simply do not mean anything resembling what you claim them to mean. Your quoted material uses the terms correctly, but you do not.

I suspect you need to brush up on your scientific method, and philospophy a bit before you get all accusatory....these terms are being used in a most literal interpretation.

 

[thesyntaxera]

any more broken records?

 

[CurtC]

Since you apparently still don't know what falsification means in science, go back up and read the link to the definition...and then read my answer to this same question.

OK, I read the Wikipedia article on falsifiability, and I assure you that's how I was using the word. The 9/11 investigation came up with a theory and tested it in ways that would falsify it. They found none. Do you have any evidence that would falsify their theory? I keep asking this.

we are talking about how testable the official theory is, and to reiterate, it is a theories ability to be falsified that makes it scientific...I know this must sound like a paradox...but have faith, for it is how science is done.

That's what I've been saying - the 9/11 investigation came up with a theory that is falsifiable. You're claiming it's wrong, and I'm asking to see the evidence that would falsify it.

You keep describing in vague ways that the investigation was inductive rather than deductive. But it's obvious by now that your use of these terms does not agree with our use of them, therefore you're not communicating your ideas to us. Please describe, without using the words inductive or deductive, specifically why the 9/11 investigation was not done well, and give a specific example or two. I mean, I can simply say "the investigation was too deductive!" until I'm blue in the face, but it won't help progress this discussion at all.

 

[thesyntaxera]

The 9/11 investigation came up with a theory and tested it in ways that would falsify it. They found none. Do you have any evidence that would falsify their theory? I keep asking this.

Like I said already, if a theory doesn't possess the possibility that it could be false than it is not scientific, I really don't know how to explain it any other way. In the case of 9/11 there was an official story before all of the evidence could have been gathered, infact the official story began the day of the attack when we heard that bin Laden was behind it, they took 18 months, sealed 28 pages of the report, sealed 6,000 photo's, showed no plane hitting the pentagon, and explained how there wasn't any explosives with government appointed experts.

They ignored a massive pile of circumstantial evidence, because there was a story in place that they were looking for evidence of...

That's what I've been saying - the 9/11 investigation came up with a theory that is falsifiable. You're claiming it's wrong, and I'm asking to see the evidence that would falsify it.

Listen, a theory isn't true or false. Facts are true, lies are false. Theories are formed from an expected set of probabilities for occurance, and if they can't be faked, they are not science, if there is no way to test the theory, it is not science, if it is the result of a preestablished story that guided the investigation, it is inductive logic at its worst.

it's obvious by now that your use of these terms does not agree with our use of them, therefore you're not communicating your ideas to us.

what are you guys some kind of skeptic cult that avoids the slings and arrows with semantics? I have been communicating just fine, you are only hearing what you want to hear.

Please describe, without using the words inductive or deductive, specifically why the 9/11 investigation was not done well, and give a specific example or two. I mean, I can simply say "the investigation was too deductive!" until I'm blue in the face, but it won't help progress this discussion at all.

I already have, several times. You as a skeptic should investigate my claim of a lack of deduction on your own if you wish to debunk it. If I were to say anything, you in your bumbling skepticism using rationalization would just attempt to debunk each circumstance instead of looking at the greater picture that is painted by all the circumstantial evidence, coincidental foul ups, blocked inquiries, sealed records, and unreleased photo's that should only validate the official story more if it is in fact accurate. I can't really see how releasing anything would jeopardize national security....or whatever excuse was given for not opening the books.

 

[Ed]

an explanation as to why I can't see a photo of a plane hitting the pentagon

Are you denying it did? If so, without clear proof I submit you are mad.

an explanation as to why a deductive investigation wasn't done

Whan a person harps on a specific word or phrase it is a sign of wooishness. Generating hypotheses based on data and testing them works for research in every scientific discipline and there is no reason to suspect that approach did not work here. Anyway, I suspect that it was looked at every which way from sunday.

a good reason not to release 6,000 sealed photo's

Depends whats in them. I have no need, personally, to see any more photographs of people falling to their deaths. I also have zero need to see the effects of a 1000+ foot fall on a human body. Do you?

an explanation as to the reasons for Osama bin Laden and Iraq to be responsible when according to Year Zero they had little to do with it

"BIN LADEN: (...Inaudible...) we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all. (...Inaudible...) due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for. "
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/binladentext_121301.html

if you can't answer these questions with certainty...ie facts...not guesses, not rationalizations, not tired inductive rhetoric, then I don't see how you can support any story...because obviously you don't have complete picture to begin with.

Inductive, deductive, it is like Ian and his one note about materialism. Evidence trumps silly theory everytime and I have not seen a jot of evidence from you yet.

Why? Who? How was it covered up?

If you can't give even some information on those things you have nothing.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

No, that is exactly what induction is, and furthermore, what you are describing is a bias in favor of the official story, which would be a bias against deduction. If you ignore some but not all evidence, if you do not chase and investigate every lead then you are not deducing at all. This is how criminal investigations are handled all the time, and this was a criminal investigation....not an accident reconstruction.

All of this is incorrect. Presupposing your conclusions is incompatible with both proper deduction and proper induction, so calling such an "investigation" either inductive or deductive is inaccurate.

You can make valid deductions without having all the evidence, and as long as they are valid deductions from the evidence you do have they will still be correct. It is only making inductions from limited data that is dangerous.

I strongly suggest that in future you just don't use the terms "inductive" or "deductive". You don't know what they mean, and your misuse of the terms obscures the meaning of your posts. Find other ways of expressing yourself that do not cause confusion.

Yeah, thats what I said. You are drawing, just as the 9/11 commision has drawn, conclusions from patterns seen in individual cases, this is induction, this is what you are doing. It's all very clear, but if you would like to chase your tail on this, please do.

As I said, the 9/11 commission by necessity employed both deductive and inductive methods, and it would have done so however it was conducted.

Actually, in investigation, you take in all available evidence, and exhaust every lead before you attempt to form a theory, you may use inductive reasoning or your "hunch" as it were, but it is the systematic dissection of all the evidence that garners the truth.

There is no such thing as "all available evidence", unless you are omniscient. All you can do is collect all the evidence that is available and that a reasonable person might think relevant. Sometimes you form a theory halfway through the investigation which changes your perception of relevance, so that you seek out information which you would not have thought to be relevant when you began the investigation.

I suspect you need to brush up on your scientific method, and philospophy a bit before you get all accusatory....these terms are being used in a most literal interpretation.

Look, one of us is just wrong here. One of us knows a lot less about this topic than they think. Can we agree on that?

 

[CurtC]

Like I said already, if a theory doesn't possess the possibility that it could be false than it is not scientific, I really don't know how to explain it any other way.

Is that what you've been harping about? You think the prevailing theory of the 9/11 events is not falsifiable? You're flat wrong. Find evidence of explosives in the WTC. Find a picture of a missile, or anything other than a 757, hitting the Pentagon. There are literally thousands of ways to falsify it. Unfortunately for you and other CTs, nothing like that has ever shown up.

In the case of 9/11 there was an official story before all of the evidence could have been gathered

Well, duh! There was lots of evidence on the first day pointing to what happened. Should everyone wait quietly in suspense, like a jury, while they're waiting for all the WTC wreckage to be cleared?

Listen, a theory isn't true or false.

After it's falsified, a theory is false. For example, Lamarckian evelutionary theory is false.

You as a skeptic should investigate my claim of a lack of deduction on your own if you wish to debunk it.

Maybe I could if I understood what you're saying.

If I were to say anything, you in your bumbling skepticism using rationalization would just attempt to debunk each circumstance instead of looking at the greater picture that is painted by all the circumstantial evidence...

What circumstantial evidence? Every bit of hearsay indicating a conspiracy that I've seen has been, uh, unreliable, to be polite. Are you saying that we should overlook the fact that all that hearsay and conjecture is unreliable, but instead look at the overall picture that this unreliable evidence points to? Is that your point of all this?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Just a reminder to those "debating" thesyntaxera/rouser2:

 

[thesyntaxera]

Are you denying it did? If so, without clear proof I submit you are mad.

Hey god, I am not denying anything, I am asking why there isn't one? It's a simple question, so don't think about it too hard.

Depends whats in them. I have no need, personally, to see any more photographs of people falling to their deaths. I also have zero need to see the effects of a 1000+ foot fall on a human body. Do you?

I'm not a gore hound as your implying, but that is not the only thing that is in 6000 pictures, be realistic.

Inductive, deductive, it is like Ian and his one note about materialism. Evidence trumps silly theory everytime and I have not seen a jot of evidence from you yet.

Well since I am not going to be able to prove anything to you anyway, and since the only evidence available to me is the evidence that is available to you, I assume that since you are arguing with me about it you have gone through all of that same circumstantial evidence that the CT's have gone through and drawn different conclusions. So in essence you are doing the exact same thing the other way...you can't prove your claim anymore than a CT buff....and thats the problem. There isn't enough public information.

Thanks for stopping over god, I figured you would be busy.

 

[thesyntaxera]

Is that what you've been harping about? You think the prevailing theory of the 9/11 events is not falsifiable? You're flat wrong. Find evidence of explosives in the WTC. Find a picture of a missile, or anything other than a 757, hitting the Pentagon. There are literally thousands of ways to falsify it.

Well, if only there was a picture released to public of a plane hitting the pentagon on the 11th....or maybe they should have heeded the observations and reports from the people who heard more than two explosions, and observed damage to the lower floors of the building...regardless of credibility they are still there, and they were there.

Unfortunately for you and other CTs, nothing like that has ever shown up.
Well, duh! There was lots of evidence on the first day pointing to what happened. Should everyone wait quietly in suspense, like a jury, while they're waiting for all the WTC wreckage to be cleared?

Thats because they never released any....duh! No, they should have cleaned up the toxic debris as quickly as possible instead of allowing firefighters, police officers, port authority workers, and civilians to trapse though it.

After it's falsified, a theory is false. For example, Lamarckian evelutionary theory is false.

I am moving you from slightly intelligible to semi moron in my mental picture of you. That not what that means at all....evolutionary theory isn't proven, thats why it's a theory...all good theories must contain the possibility that they could be wrong....it's about science not being deterministic.

What circumstantial evidence?

 

[thesyntaxera]

All of this is incorrect. Presupposing your conclusions is incompatible with both proper deduction and proper induction, so calling such an "investigation" either inductive or deductive is inaccurate.

Presupposing conclusions based on past evidence to extrapolate about the future is induction...this is not incorrect as you assert.

You can make valid deductions without having all the evidence, and as long as they are valid deductions from the evidence you do have they will still be correct.

No, not always, and deducing properly requires all available evidence to be gathered; they didn't even test the steel for explosive residue until two years after the fact. In fact most of the independant investigation didn't occur until after the AGENDA FOR WAR was approved.

It is only making inductions from limited data that is dangerous.

Exactly, my assertion this entire time.

I strongly suggest that in future you just don't use the terms "inductive" or "deductive". You don't know what they mean, and your misuse of the terms obscures the meaning of your posts. Find other ways of expressing yourself that do not cause confusion.

I strongly suggest you take a refresher course in logic. I have used plain language, so the problem is on your end, as far as I can tell...but I could be wrong.

As I said, the 9/11 commission by necessity employed both deductive and inductive methods, and it would have done so however it was conducted.

This could be the problem, I am one of those in the "there is no place for induction in logic" camp.

There is no such thing as "all available evidence", unless you are omniscient. All you can do is collect all the evidence that is available and that a reasonable person might think relevant.

What...? So my assertion still stands, they didn't gather all of the available evidence that they could have at the time.

Sometimes you form a theory halfway through the investigation which changes your perception of relevance

ummm....isn't that using induction to steer your conlusion?

 

[CurtC]

That not what that means at all....evolutionary theory isn't proven, thats why it's a theory...all good theories must contain the possibility that they could be wrong....it's about science not being deterministic.

You've almost got it - a theory must be falsifiable to be scientific, but what happens when good evidence is found that contradicts a theory? It is then false, like Lamarckian evolutionary theory. That theory was falsifiable, and has been falsified, therefore is false. You claimed that theories are not true or false. I said they can be false, and demonstrated with an example.

Back to the circumstantial evidence - you finally mentioned that some people, I assume at the Pentagon, heard more than one explosion. Is that remarkable, and does it point to a conspiracy? It's not surprising to me that, with a jet airliner hitting the Pentagon, and the building partially collapsing, that witnesses might hear something that sounds like explosions more than once. That data is not inconsistent with the terrorist theory.

Is there anything else? Anything at all?

 

[thesyntaxera]

You've almost got it - a theory must be falsifiable to be scientific, but what happens when good evidence is found that contradicts a theory? It is then false, like Lamarckian evolutionary theory. That theory was falsifiable, and has been falsified, therefore is false. You claimed that theories are not true or false. I said they can be false, and demonstrated with an example.

Back to the circumstantial evidence - you finally mentioned that some people, I assume at the Pentagon, heard more than one explosion. Is that remarkable, and does it point to a conspiracy? It's not surprising to me that, with a jet airliner hitting the Pentagon, and the building partially collapsing, that witnesses might hear something that sounds like explosions more than once. That data is not inconsistent with the terrorist theory.

Is there anything else? Anything at all?

....my point is that there isn't anything to disprove the conspiracy theory.

 

[Ed]

....my point is that there isn't anything to disprove the conspiracy theory.

Nor that martians did it.

Who? Why? How was it covered up?

 

[thesyntaxera]

Nor that martians did it.

Who? Why? How was it covered up?

Exactly, martians are the least likely candidate, although reptiles from the 4th dimension might be to blame.

or...

you are asking me to speculate, and I won't. There isn't enough evidence available to me to make a guess, and even if I were to guess it wouldn't prove anything, just like you apparently can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the official story is the rock solid truth.

 

[Manny]

you are asking me to speculate, and I won't. There isn't enough evidence available to me to make a guess

Ding ding ding! We have a winner! After all these pages of mental masturbation, you've come full circle to agreeing with the other people on this thread. Having reviewed all the evidence and alleged evidence, there isn't enough credible information to even hazard a guess other than the "official" story backed by scientists, witnesses and other people in a position to determine what really happened.

...and even if I were to guess it wouldn't prove anything, just like you apparently can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the official story is the rock solid truth.

A shadow of a doubt? I suppose that's true in the sense that you can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are not a paid agent of al Qaeda. What of it?