Metatheory and the NIST report

[pomeroo]

You'd lose that bet.

Well, it wouldn't be the first bet I've lost. So, you're saying that you are a big fan of Steven Jones's bogus science, but you don't admire the boys, who share your enthusiasm for cranks who refuse to submit to peer-review?

What is there not to like about them, once you get past the fact that they're wrong about absolutely everything?

Seriously, are you here for a real discussion or to chat?

Seriously, I'm here to watch another pretentious fantasist get crushed by very smart people who really know what they're talking about.

I'm not interested in chatting with you. If you have something to add to the conversation, don't keep me in suspense.

Too bad. I was hoping we could talk about baseball or chess. Trust me, by the time you flee this thread, you'll wish we had.

 

[Gravy]

You're apparently having a different discussion with different theories being addressed.

So in that quote you do not see where NIST summarized its conclusions? Really?

 

[Gravy]

Do you have a problem with the concept of "falsifiability" as I've defined it at top?

I already answered your question. You gave a bad example. I'm all for falsifiability. When should we expect your presentation of evidence? I'll mark my calendar.

 

[Anti-sophist]

This thread has intrigued me. Add me to the list of people eagerly awaiting for ya'll to work out the theoretical details of the philosophy of science and move on to the work of demonstrating the non-falsifiability of the NIST report. That seems like an absurd position, to be frank, but I'm willing to listen.

To the OP, I did actually enjoy your original post, as compared with most people who come here to argue NIST. You understand the basics of the philosophy of science far more than most so I have high hopes for this thread.

However, it's trivial to demonstrate the falsifiability of the NIST report.

 

[Dave Rogers]

NIST's theory is basically a heat-induced collapse theory (HICT). Without heat weakening the steel, there is no collapse.

I'd just like to take issue with this statement, which is patently false. Arguing by analogy:

Jones's thermite theory is basically an iron oxide theory. Without iron oxide, there is no thermite reaction. However, iron oxide alone cannot possibly produce the heat required to melt structural steel, as it is relatively inert. Therefore Jones's thermite theory is physically impossible.

Can you see the logical error now?

Dave

 

[Anti-sophist]

I'd just like to take issue with this statement, which is patently false. Arguing by analogy:

Jones's thermite theory is basically an iron oxide theory. Without iron oxide, there is no thermite reaction. However, iron oxide alone cannot possibly produce the heat required to melt structural steel, as it is relatively inert. Therefore Jones's thermite theory is physically impossible.

Can you see the logical error now?

Dave

I don't think you've correctly reproduced his argument -- namely because he hasn't actually asserted anything yet.

He was asked by R.Mackey to explain the NIST theory. This is a great question by R.Mackey because 99% of truthers lose right off the bat, right then and there, since they are completely incapable of explaining the NIST theory. This statement was simply his explanation of the NIST theory as he understands it, in a nutshell.

His explanation leaves something to be desired but I don't think he was asserting that the NIST report is false in an analogous manner to yours.

The problem here is we are all sort of pre-emptively trying to destroy his apparent argument. An argument that he hasn't gotten around to making yet. As best as I can tell, he's given absolutely no argument that the NIST report is false, incorrect, pseudo-science, or anything else. He's merely laying the 'ground-work'.

 

[GregoryUrich]

Gregory Urich is striving to reach the 500-post mark before revealing that a vast, mathematically-impossible conspiracy brought down the Twin Towers with explosives. He is a strong contender to win the coveted JREF award for Slowest Telegraphed Punch in History.

Jay Howard will, I suspect, reveal the existence of that same mathematically-impossible conspiracy more expeditiously.

I mean, he will, won't he? My God! What if he doesn't?

Ahh, my old friend probability.

One thing at a time Pomeroo, at least we know how much the Towers weighed now.

What if he doesn't?

 

[The Almond]

I, too, am intrigued by the OP, and I've always been fascinated by the philosophy of science. Just as a side note, I'd like to point out that Kant was excluding mathematics in his truth with a capital T statement. Indeed 2+2=4 is True, always and it is unfalsifiable. One does not need to be omnipotent to see that, and it's clearly the root of the Greek's obsession with arithmetic and geometry.

Anyway, to the topic at hand, I've always been a logical positivist. I have compared the NIST theory to Jones's thermite, controlled demolition, space beams and all of the various theories in between. Ultimately, I believe that the NIST theory explains far more of what happened, how it happened and encompasses more of of the available data. Thus, it is a superior theory. In order for me to discredit the NIST theory, I would have to be shown a theory which encompasses more of the data and explains them without need for added complications.

I'd also like to make a distinction between true scientific method and forensics. NIST completed a forensic study of the WTC towers. To be clear, science attempts to explain what DOES happen, whereas forensics explains what DID happen. Thus, I believe that the element of reproducibility, while possible on a small scale in a forensic investigation, is ultimately useless for determining the quality of a theory. Forensic science, by it's nature works on single events.

 

[Viper Daimao]

I too find this thread very interesting for the same reasons others have stated. Though I think it would be more enjoyable and manageable if a lot of the OT and snide remarks were left out.

 

[GregoryUrich]

Welcome Jay Howard,

Your OP and discussion so far are a breath of fresh air. Unfortunately you will have to ignore 4 of 5 posts here because many of the people are just nasty hecklers who don't engage in scientific discussion. There are also a number of very knowledgable people here so I hope you don't let the aforementioned types discourage you. I am looking forward to your handling of the NIST report regardless what your conclusions may be.

 

[twinstead]

My interest in this thread stems from the fact that so many truthers come on this forum and soberly proclaim that the NIST report is total garbage, when from what this layman can see, while not perfect it is so far the best, most detailed, and most credible explanation of the event available.

I wonder why the disparity

 

[calebprime]

To begin to have a dialogue about the adequacy of the NIST report, we cannot simply approach an interlocutor with a lump-sum of data that only corroborates itself from its own perspective. For the skeptics sake, this dialogue must begin at the beginning...

solemn.

When taking into account the Zapruder film, we cannot deny the apparent snap of the President’s head toward the lone assassin. The (LAT) cannot account well for this evidence and is thus thrown into doubt despite its parsimonious nature.

no.

Take your favorite position on the cause of the WTC towers collapse and ask: "What conditions would need to be met in order to disprove my theory?"

Thought I’d give you guys a shot at an adult discussion.

"adult" means several hundred posts on Kuhn, Popper, and Kant?

Would it be juvenile of me to ask you what you think caused the collapse of the WTC?

The NIST report, the criteria outlined above and everyone reading.

This doesn't make sense. Not a good sign.

Since JFK's head first moves forward, and then back, you are wrong. There are several reasons why you could be wrong. This is just one reason why you are.

Overall, as is usual with 9/11 deniers, a terrible start. Please put your best evidence forward as soon as possible. It's one thing to be wrong, quite another to be long-windedly wrong

yes.

Are you saying I'm wrong about the concept of falsifiability or about its application to the JFK debate?

If it's the latter, I have no horse in that race. If it's a bad example, so be it.

If you have a problem with the concept, then there is a serious issue.

Which is it?

It's a bad example that shows that solemn philosophical introductions don't mean much if the author doesn't know that various tests have been done on the direction of JFK's head-snap, and the example is typical of a seeming anomaly: It doesn't amount to much in the face of all the other evidence.

So, when you said to RMackey, "We will test your claim," you meant, "The NIST report and everyone reading will test your claim"? Do I have that straight?

ETA: Never mind. No response necessary. Do carry on.

beat me to it.

Welcome Jay Howard,

Your OP and discussion so far are a breath of fresh air. Unfortunately you will have to ignore 4 of 5 posts here because many of the people are just nasty hecklers who don't engage in scientific discussion. ...

No. Fresh air?
No. I haven't observed any heckling.

I second the motion that you present your theory of what happened, and you present in simplest terms your best criticism of NIST. We don't have to agree on the philosophy of science, or 'metatheory'.

eta: You believe that thermate did it, therefore a controlled demolition, yes?

from the link:

"As a veteran of 3 Whitehouse administrations, you have proven yourself to be an unflinching patriot and a voice of authority. There does not appear to be any other way to account for all these data than by a thermate reaction. How and why was thermate in the WTC buildings?"

 

[GregoryUrich]

I, too, am intrigued by the OP, and I've always been fascinated by the philosophy of science. Just as a side note, I'd like to point out that Kant was excluding mathematics in his truth with a capital T statement. Indeed 2+2=4 is True, always and it is unfalsifiable. One does not need to be omnipotent to see that, and it's clearly the root of the Greek's obsession with arithmetic and geometry.

Anyway, to the topic at hand, I've always been a logical positivist. I have compared the NIST theory to Jones's thermite, controlled demolition, space beams and all of the various theories in between. Ultimately, I believe that the NIST theory explains far more of what happened, how it happened and encompasses more of of the available data. Thus, it is a superior theory. In order for me to discredit the NIST theory, I would have to be shown a theory which encompasses more of the data and explains them without need for added complications.

I'd also like to make a distinction between true scientific method and forensics. NIST completed a forensic study of the WTC towers. To be clear, science attempts to explain what DOES happen, whereas forensics explains what DID happen. Thus, I believe that the element of reproducibility, while possible on a small scale in a forensic investigation, is ultimately useless for determining the quality of a theory. Forensic science, by it's nature works on single events.

Regarding your 2 + 2 = 4 truism. I think Kant excluded mathematics because nothing can be True that is not real. Numbers and mathematics as a whole are just a simplified model to help us think about the world. There is usually a context in which the model is useful. The model or it's abstractions are never True (real) other than as an abstraction in itself. It is interesting to note that spatial or phenomenological boundaries must be defined for the real entity in order to define the abstraction. These boundaries are necessarily arbitrary and can only approximate reality.

Example:

Since the one of the basic uses of mathematics is counting, let's do some counting. Let's count horses.

Abstraction

1 horse = 1 the same horse (logical identity)
1 horse = 1 another horse
1 horse + 1 another horse = 2 horses

Real

1 horse <> 1 another horse
1 horse + 1 another horse <> 2 horses (by reason of false identity)

 

[The Almond]

Regarding your 2 + 2 = 4 truism. I think Kant excluded mathematics because nothing can be True that is not real.

Indeed, I had forgotten that. It's been a while since I've studied Kant.

Numbers and mathematics as a whole are just a simplified model to help us think about the world. There is usually a context in which the model is useful. The model or it's abstractions are never True (real) other than as an abstraction in itself. It is interesting to note that spatial or phenomenological boundaries must be defined for the real entity in order to define the abstraction. These boundaries are necessarily arbitrary and can only approximate reality.

Example:

Since the one of the basic uses of mathematics is counting, let's do some counting. Let's count horses.

Abstraction

1 horse = 1 the same horse (logical identity)
1 horse = 1 another horse
1 horse + 1 another horse = 2 horses

Real

1 horse <> 1 another horse
1 horse + 1 another horse <> 2 horses (by reason of false identity)

Thanks for clearing that up. I think keeping this in mind will be very useful in this discussion.

 

[jay howard]

O.k., so according to the NIST report,

"The structural damage alone did not cause the collapse of the towers, as they stood for periods of time and collapsed after fire-induced weakening of the cores, floor systems and exterior walls. In the absence of impact damage, there would have been no insulation damage and the likelihood of collapse of the towers under the intense fires would have been very small."(327)

You're correct that without the heat, NIST predicts no collapse. But that doesn't mean that heat alone led to the collapse. Do you see the distinction?

Yes. I see the difference. Thanks for the quote. Since we all agree that without the heat, NIST predicts no collapse, their theory can be characterized as a "heat-induced collapse theory." That's all I'm getting at here. Not trying to deny that the buildings were damaged from impact, only that heat was the key.

I do agree, of course, that NIST attempted to replicate circumstances in the Towers.

Good. We're on the same page here.

Then let me clarify. For the purposes of our discussion, or any scientific discussion, "to be falsified" means that a theory is shown to be significantly inferior to at least one other theory.

This simply isn't the definition being used here. I stipulated this from the beginning and explained it a few times since. Falsifiability is a binary quality. A theory is either falsifiable or not. If it is falsifiable, but not yet falsified, then the theory is possible. If conditions are met to falsify it, then it is not possible.

If no conditions exist to falsify it, then it is non-falsifiable and useless.

Issues of "significant inferiority" would have to be refined through other adequacy categories like explanatory power. I'm not trying to get into a pissing contest with you on this. I didn't invent these criteria, just using them.

If there are no theories that can plausibly explain a given phenomenon, then any given theory may simply be incomplete.

This is interesting, but not sure how there couldn't be a theory about some phenomenon. Maybe if there are no "good" theories to explain a phenomenon, then any given theory may be incomplete. But then we have to get to the heart of a "good" theory.

This sentiment is consistent with your opening post where you claimed that "we will always fall short of absolute truth." We will never reach a 100% confidence level in statistics. 95% is generally good enough for anyone, as it is for me.

Are we settled, then?

I agree that a 95% probability is pretty darn good for the world in which we live. Settled on that point.

 

[jay howard]

However, it's trivial to demonstrate the falsifiability of the NIST report.

Hey, I agree. But would it be trivial to demonstrate the non-falsifiability of the report?

 

[T.A.M.]

Welcome to the forum Jay. enjoy your stay.

For the rest...

Good luck...My Debunking Fatigue Syndrome is particularly bothersome today, so I think I'll pass on this one.

TAM

 

[Apollo20]

The NIST Report is open to criticism more for what it doesn't say about the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, than what it does say. The NIST Report only deals with SOME aspects of collapse initiation while studiously avoiding many important areas of contention surrounding the events at the WTC on 9/11. The NIST Report has nothing of value to say about the collapse times; or about the time history of the rotational angular momentum of the upper sections; or about the impact location of the North Tower antenna and whether or not the towers collapsed into their own footprints; or about the pulverization of the concrete; or about the velocity distribution of the ejecta; or about the composition, morphology and particle size distribution of the WTC dust and debris; or about the sustained high temperatures of the rubble pile; or about the gaseous emissions from the rubble pile; or about the detection of spherical particles as evidence for molten metals.

The NIST Report is also deficient in its discussion of the initial fuel-air deflagrations and the role of reactive particulates in the evolution of the fireballs. NIST completely ignore the contribution of the shredded airframes to the development of the fires. NIST ignores the chemical effects of molten aluminum and burning plastics so that its modelled temperature-time histories are highly questionable. NIST also offer no explanation for the sulfiding/chlorination of the structural steel and fail to consider the potential for liquid metal embrittlement and ignore the possibility of other metals besides aluminum as offering better explanations for the molten metal seen flowing from WTC 2.

The NIST Report is therefore incomplete and inadequate as a scientific study of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2.

 

[R.Mackey]

Welcome back jay, and try not to be scared off by some of the comments here. Some of the regular posters here are quite willing to have a rational discussion, others are simply a bit fed up at being led down this path innumerable times.

Yes. I see the difference. Thanks for the quote. Since we all agree that without the heat, NIST predicts no collapse, their theory can be characterized as a "heat-induced collapse theory." That's all I'm getting at here. Not trying to deny that the buildings were damaged from impact, only that heat was the key.

As I said, if you want to restrict our discussion to the post-impact phenomena, which are heat-driven, that's fine. It merely doesn't cover the entire NIST theory. To hold this discussion, we should agree that the NIST post-impact estimate of condition is acceptably accurate, and focus on what happened next.

This simply isn't the definition being used here. I stipulated this from the beginning and explained it a few times since. Falsifiability is a binary quality. A theory is either falsifiable or not. If it is falsifiable, but not yet falsified, then the theory is possible. If conditions are met to falsify it, then it is not possible.

If no conditions exist to falsify it, then it is non-falsifiable and useless.

Let me try it this way -- I am willing to admit the possibility of, and even lay out the evaluation criteria for, a theory that is superior to NIST's. The existence of such a theory makes the NIST theory falsifiable. My previous message described how you would falsify NIST through comparison. Do you understand my point?

Issues of "significant inferiority" would have to be refined through other adequacy categories like explanatory power. I'm not trying to get into a pissing contest with you on this. I didn't invent these criteria, just using them.

No such contest implied. At the end of the day, we are likely to have two theories, neither perfect, but each with its own strengths and weaknesses. It is possible that both will be plausible, differing only slightly in quality, as compared to your criteria. More likely, however, is that one of the two will be seen to be deeply inferior -- given a survey of your writings on other forums, I suspect that we will reach this conclusion, and there will remain little doubt about which theory is more likely to be correct.

This is interesting, but not sure how there couldn't be a theory about some phenomenon. Maybe if there are no "good" theories to explain a phenomenon, then any given theory may be incomplete. But then we have to get to the heart of a "good" theory.

In the case of the WTC Collapses, I am confident that NIST is a "good" theory, so this side issue should not distract us.

I agree that a 95% probability is pretty darn good for the world in which we live. Settled on that point.

Good. Then we should be ready. Would you like to begin with your observations of the truss tests (NIST NCSTAR1-6C)? Or elsewhere?

 

[beachnut]

Ahh, my old friend probability.

One thing at a time Pomeroo, at least we know how much the Towers weighed now.

What if he doesn't?

And in the end a lighter WTC still fails in fire, it falls. I think truth "scholars" are the most fun to watch bring up trivia and fail to prove things that did not happen. I love this, a person comes with a conclusion, but acts like he has no conclusion. The "truth" from the truth movement, especially the "scholar" for truth and Justice, how ironic, how bizarre. Someone only interested in the "truth" and justice would ignore the rest. Oops.