Metatheory and the NIST report

[beachnut]

I am not afraid to engage.

1. Medicine is my expertese. While I have extensive training in physics and mathematics due to my electronic engineering tech diploma (3 year), which I recieved prior to my medical degree, the knowledge is unused, and the gears do not turn so well wrt it.

2. R. Mackey asked us to keep all convo not related to the topic to a minimum, so I am respecting such a request from one of our top, most literate and knowledgable debunkers.

TAM

There is one so called engineer and a veiled truther who claims big things about arguing scientific method and they are not using physics and math, they are using their membership in 9/11 truth and justice to argue not much of any science. The noise is not from those who can think rationally, it is from 9/11 truth members who are not able to use physics or math to figure out anything. They are using words. They are defending their cult of 9/11 truth with words. They are failing.

There is one so called engineer and a veiled truther who claims big things about arguing scientific method and they are not using physics and math, they are using their membership in 9/11 truth and justice to argue not much of any science. The noise is not from those who can think rationally, it is from 9/11 truth members who are not able to use physics or math to figure out anything. They are using words. They are defending their cult of 9/11 truth with words. They are failing.

You will need no physics or math to counter the words these two fact less truth movement defenders. They can not even show that the NIST theory easily meets the concepts the new guy set forth. With out the ability to apply his own concepts properly he has shown he is a fraud and not prepared to honestly approach the NIST theory. Has he rolled out the Ryan problems with NIST? When they do it is further proof of junk science.

The truth movement members are not equipped to live up to the opening post. The OP is beyond the capabilities of Greg and Jay to show for much of anything.

 

[Dave Rogers]

No, any main claim on which the NIST theory is dependent that could be proven false would falsify the NIST theory independently of any alternate theory.

Aaargh, will you please stop moving the goalposts? I think I already stated that. I was just discussing your specific assertion that the NIST theory could be falsified by a counter-theory. Yes, if it makes you feel better, I agree that - for example - if the NIST theory had claimed that the WTC1 antenna should have been left hovering in mid-air after the collapse, then the failure of said antenna to do so would falsify the NIST theory independently of any counter-theory. Happy now?

If we are left with no good alternative theories (as the majority of people here believe), the only way to falsify the NIST theory is by the above method.

I would put it the other way round - if we are left with no significant contradictions between NIST's predictions and observation, then we require a more parsimonious theory in order to reject NIST.

Dave

 

[GregoryUrich]

Aaargh, will you please stop moving the goalposts? I think I already stated that. I was just discussing your specific assertion that the NIST theory could be falsified by a counter-theory. Yes, if it makes you feel better, I agree that - for example - if the NIST theory had claimed that the WTC1 antenna should have been left hovering in mid-air after the collapse, then the failure of said antenna to do so would falsify the NIST theory independently of any counter-theory. Happy now?

I would put it the other way round - if we are left with no significant contradictions between NIST's predictions and observation, then we require a more parsimonious theory in order to reject NIST.

Dave

You don't need any alternative theory to examine whether NIST's is a good theory or whether it is falsifiable. It seems most people here want to focus on anything except NIST's theory. What's the point of flogging dead horses.

So far I have seen people claiming that the NIST theory is a good theory but no one will venture to give valid falsification criteria. This is harder than flogging a dead horse because we will have to examine the structure of the claims as well as the individual claims.

 

[twinstead]

So far I have seen people claiming that the NIST theory is a good theory but no one will venture to give valid falsification criteria. This is harder than flogging a dead horse because we will have to examine the structure of the claims as well as the individual claims.

With all due respect, if YOU are the one whom you have decided is the arbiter of what is 'valid falsification criteria', we are in for a long thread.

 

[Dave Rogers]

So far I have seen people claiming that the NIST theory is a good theory but no one will venture to give valid falsification criteria. This is harder than flogging a dead horse because we will have to examine the structure of the claims as well as the individual claims.

Sorry, R.Mackey, I've been trying to keep on topic, but this is just one too many. So far we seem to have the following mark-of-woo exchange going on:

GU: What would be valid falsification criteria for NIST?

Rest of us: Well, for example, [posts list of sample falsification criteria].

GU: Yes, but what would be valid falsification criteria for NIST?

ROU: Something along the lines of [posts general description of characteristics of acceptable falsification criteria]

GU: Why won't anyone post what would be good falsification criteria for NIST?

ROU: [posts yet another definition of falsification criteria]

GU: I see nobody's prepared to discuss falsification criteria for NIST.




Gregory, what you seem to be asking for is for us to identify specific observations that counter the NIST theory so you can assess them as falsification criteria for the NIST theory. The problem with that is that it's about as much use as asking for counter-Darwinian scientific results to falsify Darwin: the reason nobody is giving you specific examples is because there aren't any. Until you realise that, you're in the same position as the creationist ranting about how the evidence that disagrees with Darwin is being suppressed by the scientific community, then when asked what that evidence is, saying "Ask the scientific community, they're the ones suppressing it!"

If you think there are observations that falsify NIST, you tell us what they are. We can't tell you, because we don't know of any.

Dave

 

[beachnut]

You don't need any alternative theory to examine whether NIST's is a good theory or whether it is falsifiable. It seems most people here want to focus on anything except NIST's theory. What's the point of flogging dead horses.

So far I have seen people claiming that the NIST theory is a good theory but no one will venture to give valid falsification criteria. This is harder than flogging a dead horse because we will have to examine the structure of the claims as well as the individual claims.

Gregory, the NIST theory meets the falsifiable concept. If you can not see it, you are not the engineer you should be.

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

Let me just cheer you on, from this my elevated position at the fence.

Cheers,

 

[mortimer]

I am looking at this theory of gravity, and I don't believe it. I demand that everyone here provide valid falsification criteria for the theory of gravity. If you don't, then the theory is bogus.

 

[GregoryUrich]

Sorry, R.Mackey, I've been trying to keep on topic, but this is just one too many. So far we seem to have the following mark-of-woo exchange going on:


Gregory, what you seem to be asking for is for us to identify specific observations that counter the NIST theory so you can assess them as falsification criteria for the NIST theory. The problem with that is that it's about as much use as asking for counter-Darwinian scientific results to falsify Darwin: the reason nobody is giving you specific examples is because there aren't any. Until you realise that, you're in the same position as the creationist ranting about how the evidence that disagrees with Darwin is being suppressed by the scientific community, then when asked what that evidence is, saying "Ask the scientific community, they're the ones suppressing it!"

If you think there are observations that falsify NIST, you tell us what they are. We can't tell you, because we don't know of any.

Dave

Think of falsification criteria as claims by NIST, which, if shown to be false would invalidate the NIST theory.

Examples of falsification criteria:

1) The amount of combustible materials on each floor is at least n kg which is necessary to achieve temperatures causing steel to weaken.

Explanation: If it can be shown that the amount of combustible materials is less, the fires won't be hot enough to weaken the steel, thereby falsifying the theory.

2) A temperature of n degrees was reached in a structural member causing weakening to some required extent x.

Explanation: If it can be shown that the temperature was less, then the weakening will not be sufficient to cause collapse.

If those who are NIST supporters do a good job of this we will avoid straw-man arguments and accusations of straw-man arguments because we are in agreement on what the theory actually says.

This is different from: read it, thought about it, makes sense, believe it. Who has the guts to take an analytical look at the NIST theory they support?

So far, no one.

 

[Par]

If there do not exist any criteria by which a proposition might be false, then it is not really an explanation at all. That is, if there is no way a theory could be false, then there is no way that theory could be right. For a theory to be a contender explanation, it must be possible for the claim to be wrong. If I claim that you have a scorpion on your face, but you cannot see it, feel it, get stung by it or otherwise test for it in any way, then the claim is indistinguishable from its denial. There is no way to prove or disprove it, so functionally, it is meaningless. Undetectable scorpions play a larger role than for which we give them credit, however, they bring us no closer to discerning fruitful probabilities from wild speculation.

I realise this merely serves as an example of an unfalsifiable idea, but it’s worth bearing in mind that it’s non-analogous to the case of the NIST report.

In the case of the scorpion, there is simply no phenomenon that needs explaining. If we simply assume that the scorpion doesn’t exist, then we have caused ourselves no epistemological problems; nothing has been left unexplained. With regards the towers, on the other hand, there is always phenomenon that needs explaining; the buildings collapsed and something must have caused it. So, even if the NIST theory is unfalsifiable (and I’m by no means saying that it is), it’s still by far and away the most parsimonious – and consequently best – explanation.

 

[Par]

Presumably, any one or more of these being true would falsify the NIST report:

• No planes hit the buildings – it was all an illusion.
• No fires burned in the buildings – it was all an illusion.
• The fires never burned hot enough to weaken the steel.
• All the fire-proofing remained intact throughout.
• The floor slabs never sagged and remained true throughout.
• The perimeter columns never bowed and remained true throughout.
• Steel cannot be weakened by fire at all.
• The buildings contained no steel to being with.

 

[Viper Daimao]

In the case of the scorpion, there is simply no phenomenon that needs explaining. If we simply assume that the scorpion doesn’t exist, then we have caused ourselves no epistemological problems; nothing has been left unexplained. With regards the towers, on the other hand, there is always phenomenon that needs explaining; the buildings collapsed and something must have caused it. So, even if the NIST theory is unfalsifiable (and I’m by no means saying that it is), it’s still by far and away the most parsimonious – and consequently best – explanation.

Using the scorpion, a better analogy would be, you're sitting down, you see a scorpion crawl up your leg and then you watch him sting you. It hurts. Later on, some guy at a bar tells you that you were, in fact, bit by a bear.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Think of falsification criteria as claims by NIST, which, if shown to be false would invalidate the NIST theory.

Examples of falsification criteria:

1) The amount of combustible materials on each floor is at least n kg which is necessary to achieve temperatures causing steel to weaken.

Explanation: If it can be shown that the amount of combustible materials is less, the fires won't be hot enough to weaken the steel, thereby falsifying the theory.

2) A temperature of n degrees was reached in a structural member causing weakening to some required extent x.

Explanation: If it can be shown that the temperature was less, then the weakening will not be sufficient to cause collapse.

Yes, those will all do fine as examples of falsification criteria.

If those who are NIST supporters do a good job of this we will avoid straw-man arguments and accusations of straw-man arguments because we are in agreement on what the theory actually says.

This is different from: read it, thought about it, makes sense, believe it. Who has the guts to take an analytical look at the NIST theory they support?

So far, no one.

You seem to be saying that, because nobody has produced an exhaustive list of the falsification criteria against which they have evaluated and accepted the NIST theory, then nobody has carried out that process. This is an absurd statement. Where do we start?

NIST predicted that collapse would be initiated. Collapse was initiated. NIST is not falsified.

NIST did not predict that explosive residues would be found in the debris. None were found. NIST is not falsified.

NIST predicted that core columns in certain areas would show damage to paintwork consistent with them having experienced certain temperatures. Columns from those areas showed paintwork damage within the limits NIST predicted. NIST is not falsified.

NIST predicted that inward bowing of the perimeter columns would increase gradually up to a point where catastrophic failure of the structure occurred. This was observed. NIST is not falsified.

NIST did not predict that space aliens with antennae on their heads that emit a continuous "beep. beep, beep" noise jumped out of a flying saucer, stood on top of the towers and smashed them into tiny pieces with duranium space-hammers. This was not observed to happen. NIST is not falsified.

How much further do you want to take this?

Dave

 

[T.A.M.]

Think of falsification criteria as claims by NIST, which, if shown to be false would invalidate the NIST theory.

Examples of falsification criteria:

1) The amount of combustible materials on each floor is at least n kg which is necessary to achieve temperatures causing steel to weaken.

Explanation: If it can be shown that the amount of combustible materials is less, the fires won't be hot enough to weaken the steel, thereby falsifying the theory.

This would prove falsifiable ONLY the NIST theory that the contents of the building alone was enough to heat the steel enough to weaken it. Is this theory held or proposed by NIST???? no. What about the plane and the passengers, and the people inside the buildings. They were all technically fuel. What about the contribution of the jet fuel to the fire, even if brief or only initially? What about the effects of other chemicals, and chemical reactions as proposed by Greening, that might lead to higher temperatures than normally expected.

2) A temperature of n degrees was reached in a structural member causing weakening to some required extent x.

Explanation: If it can be shown that the temperature was less, then the weakening will not be sufficient to cause collapse.

Since not every piece of steel was examined, a complete list of physical evidence for this criteria does not exist. As a result, projections based on models (computer or structural recreations) are needed to test on. This was done, and it is this which NIST based its theories on. How would you suggest one would go about trying to prove these false?

This is different from: read it, thought about it, makes sense, believe it. Who has the guts to take an analytical look at the NIST theory they support?

So far, no one.

It doesn't require guts, but despite the assertions of truthers everywhere, it requires some level of expertese in the field. I do not claim to have such, so I rely on the experts (by the way, despite what many truthers and others contend, this is not an "appeal to authority" fallacy). If experts have produced such a report, and it has met with minimal discent from their PEERS, that I will accept it, unless its conclusions BLATENTLY fly in the face of logic or science. Nice try to bait however...

TAM

 

[GregoryUrich]

Yes, those will all do fine as examples of falsification criteria.

You seem to be saying that, because nobody has produced an exhaustive list of the falsification criteria against which they have evaluated and accepted the NIST theory, then nobody has carried out that process. This is an absurd statement. Where do we start?

Don't get me wrong Dave. I think everyone has done this to a greater or lesser extent. I have interpreted Jay's OP as wanting to do this as a challenge to see how NIST holds up. If we do it together it will be harder for anyone involved to "fool themselves" by ignoring evidence or misunderstanding the theory. We will also have the benefit of knowledgable people and different interpretations.

NIST predicted that collapse would be initiated. Collapse was initiated. NIST is not falsified.

NIST didn't predict anything. They built model and tweaked it to correspond to observed phenomena.

NIST did not predict that explosive residues would be found in the debris. None were found. NIST is not falsified.

I would like to come to an agreement on that we assume all conspiracy theories and magical phenomena are outside the discussion because they are assumed to be false and therefore not valid falsification criteria.

NIST predicted that core columns in certain areas would show damage to paintwork consistent with them having experienced certain temperatures. Columns from those areas showed paintwork damage within the limits NIST predicted. NIST is not falsified.

Again NIST didn't predict anything. They created the model based on observed phenomena and scientific principles. The behavior of that model was consistent with observed phenomena.

NIST predicted that inward bowing of the perimeter columns would increase gradually up to a point where catastrophic failure of the structure occurred. This was observed. NIST is not falsified.

Again NIST didn't predict anything. They created the model based on observed phenomena and scientific principles. The behavior of that model was consistent with observed phenomena.

NIST did not predict that space aliens with antennae on their heads that emit a continuous "beep. beep, beep" noise jumped out of a flying saucer, stood on top of the towers and smashed them into tiny pieces with duranium space-hammers. This was not observed to happen. NIST is not falsified.

Again, I would like to assume all conspiracy theories and magical phenomena are outside the discussion because they are assumed to be false and therefore not valid falsification criteria.

How much further do you want to take this?

Dave

OK, I'll take the first step. Here is a finding from the NIST NCSTAR1 p.xxxviii.

1. If it can be shown the fires could not have caused the floors on the south side of the building to sag then the theory at least regarding WTC1 is false.

2. It is implicit in the last sentence of the finding that perimeter columns and floors on the south side were weakened and that this is a necessary condition for collapse. If it can be shown that it is unlikely that fires on the south side caused these conditions, then the theory will be shown to be false.

Just a start...

 

[beachnut]

Think of falsification criteria as claims by NIST, which, if shown to be false would invalidate the NIST theory.

This is different from: read it, thought about it, makes sense, believe it. Who has the guts to take an analytical look at the NIST theory they support?

So far, no one.

You do not understand falsification criteria. You just proved the NIST theory is valid with respect to it. Darn, you do not even know you just proved it passed the criteria. Why?

Everyone who has posted, or most, already looked at NIST. Gravy knows the NIST report and understands it much more than I. He has a feel for what it is, and what it is not. He has a big stake in it, due to being one who wants to know 9/11 and exposing 9/11 truth as false. He would rip it apart if it was full of lies. You do not have the guts it takes to use your engineering training to expose 9/11 truth as a fraud.

I for one do not need NIST to understand how the WTC fell on 9/11. You, my fellow engineer, are a fraud when it comes to using analytical skills at 9/11 topics.

You also are unable to express your 9/11 truth ideas because they fail the criteria set forth by the OP. NIST theory passed the criteria of falsification, you just proved it.

Falsifiability: If there do not exist any criteria by which a proposition might be false, then it is not really an explanation at all.

The NIST theory passes this criteria. If I have to explain it you are not good at this; and you just proved it in posts above. You are way too easy on this subject. I suspect your inability to understand this is a reflection of your joining the http://stj911.org/ Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice.

 

[GregoryUrich]

Oops, double post.

 

[beachnut]

Where is Jay? You have proven the Falsifiability of the NIST theory with no outside help. That means the NIST theory is not like the Beam Weapon Theory, but a valid theory. So it is time for you to find Jay and move to the next big talking point.

 

[Totovader]

Go read the OP. "More convincing" in terms of evidence or scientific theory.

Doesn't your knee get sore from all this knee-jerk blather?

Doesn't your head get tired from all the contradictions?

Your statement that the evidence or scientific theory is what is more convincing contradicts what you were stating in the previous post- which is that falsifiability and evidence are secondary to which theory is "more convincing".

Surely you understand the problems with such an assertion...

 

[Horatius]

OK, I'll take the first step. Here is a finding from the NIST NCSTAR1 p.xxxviii.

[qimg]http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/docs/findingsWTC1xxxviii.jpg[/qimg]

1. If it can be shown the fires could not have caused the floors on the south side of the building to sag then the theory at least regarding WTC1 is false.

2. It is implicit in the last sentence of the finding that perimeter columns and floors on the south side were weakened and that this is a necessary condition for collapse. If it can be shown that it is unlikely that fires on the south side caused these conditions, then the theory will be shown to be false.

Just a start...

Maybe I'm missing the point, but if you're trying to determine if the NIST theory is falsifiable, by detemining predictions of the NIST theory that might be countered by a consideration of the evidence, haven't you just done that?

You've identified at least two aspects of the theory which you could, after some research and analysis, use to indicate if the theory is sound or not. So what are you still arguing about? Get to work, or not, but why waste more time on an answered question?