• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

9/11 Challenge, Split from: Fetzer wants debate

What!?!?!? The process of gathering physical evidence used to support the prosecution or defense is based on science.

Don't you watch CSI man!?!?!?!?!
 
Aqua323 said:
911 is a crime, and the ultimate goal of the truth movement would be a trial of the government involved. It is NOT a science. You lose.:)
Click to expand...
Actually it's an act of war. We didn't put the Japanese Gov't on trial for Pearl Harbor, did we?

Oh wait, forgot... we did that one too.
doh.gif
 
Aqua323 said:
It isn't uneducated. Please tell me what I have wrong.

911 is a crime, and the ultimate goal of the truth movement would be a trial of the government involved. It is NOT a science. You lose.:)
Click to expand...

I'm afraid that on either a balance of probabilities or reasonable doubt, you lose. Your case is a non starter. The preponderance of evidence is against you. In fact, you have no evidence, only speculation and paranoia. These are not the foundations of a successful prosecution.
 
Totovader said:
If you are claiming that your position is NOT scientific- then how can you expect anyone to take you seriously?
Click to expand...

How is it scientific? It's a crime. If a crime occurs and there is witness evidence etc, the jury decides on the veracity and trustworthyness of the witness etc. There is no science, it comes down to judgement.

911 is not a science.
 
Aqua323 said:
How is it scientific? It's a crime. If a crime occurs and there is witness evidence etc, the jury decides on the veracity and trustworthyness of the witness etc. There is no science, it comes down to judgement.

911 is not a science.
Click to expand...

Expert witnesses present scientific evidence. Got some?
 
Aqua323 said:
How is it scientific? It's a crime. If a crime occurs and there is witness evidence etc, the jury decides on the veracity and trustworthyness of the witness etc. There is no science, it comes down to judgement.

911 is not a science.
Click to expand...

I think you just made my case for me.

Here's a question for you- let's see if you can answer without continuing to shoot yourself in the foot:

How do you judge the claims of the witness?

(Apparently evidence isn't allowed in your trials- and that would be science, so you can't say that)

Is it just "gut feeling"?
 
Aqua323 said:
I dont have to. It could exist, therefore it is a piece of evidence that would convince me if it surfaced.

But Totovaders challenge is fatally flawed. Falsifiability does not a apply in this situation.
Click to expand...

Then it becomes a question of probablity. The longer it takes for the alleged video to surface the lower the probability that it exists.

I could say live dodo birds still exists. (they could still exists because at one time they did exist.) but the longer it takes for a live dodo bird to surface the lower the probabilty that they do exists.

And you can't say something does exist untill you prove it.
 
Totovader said:
I think you just made my case for me.

Here's a question for you- let's see if you can answer without continuing to shoot yourself in the foot:

How do you judge the claims of the witness?

(Apparently evidence isn't allowed in your trials- and that would be science, so you can't say that)

Is it just "gut feeling"?
Click to expand...

How do juries judge the claims of a witness. They decide how reliable they think the witness is, and they look at the case as a whole and see how the witness statements contradict or support each other.

This is very simple, why are you having trouble with this?
 
Totovader please read this and learn something:

Popper uses falsification as a criterion of demarcation to draw a sharp line between those theories that are scientific and those that are unscientific. It is useful to know if a statement or theory is falsifiable, if for no other reason than that it provides us with an understanding of the ways in which one might assess the theory. One might at the least be saved from attempting to falsify a non-falsifiable theory, or come to see an unfalsifiable theory as unsupportable.

Popper claimed that, if a theory is falsifiable, then it is scientific; if it is not falsifiable, then it is not open to falsification.

The Popperian criterion excludes from the domain of science not unfalsifiable statements but only whole theories that contain no falsifiable statements; thus it leaves us with the Duhemian problem of what constitutes a 'whole theory' as well as the problem of what makes a statement 'meaningful'. Popper's own falsificationism, thus, is not only an alternative to verificationism, it is also an acknowledgement of the conceptual distinction that previous theories had ignored.


[edit] Verificationism
Main article: Verificationist
See also: Abductive reasoning
In the philosophy of science, verificationism (also known as the verifiability theory of meaning) holds that a statement must be in principle empirically verifiable in order to be both meaningful and scientific. This was an essential feature of the logical positivism of the so-called Vienna Circle that included such philosophers as Moritz Schlick, Rudolf Carnap, Otto Neurath, the Berlin philosopher Hans Reichenbach, and the logical empiricism of A.J. Ayer.

Popper noticed that the philosophers of the Vienna Circle had mixed two different problems, that of meaning and that of demarcation, and had proposed in verificationism a single solution to both. In opposition to this view, Popper emphasized that a theory might well be meaningful without being scientific, and that, accordingly, a criterion of meaningfulness may not necessarily coincide with a criterion of demarcation. Verifiability came to be replaced by falsifiability as the criterion of demarcation.

Falsificationism is neutral with respect to the question of "meaningfulness."
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
 
Aqua323 said:
How do juries judge the claims of a witness. They decide how reliable they think the witness is, and they look at the case as a whole and see how the witness statements contradict or support each other.

This is very simple, why are you having trouble with this?
Click to expand...

I'm not having any trouble with it- it's quite clear that you're wrong. You not only think that all criminal cases are only witness testimony, but you clearly do not even understand the fundamentals of scientific inquiry.

What happens when two witnesses contradict each other? If evidence is not allowed, what do you do? Flip a coin?

I'm interested in how the court system works in your world- it seems as though it's a world I should avoid.
 
Aqua323 said:
911 was a crime, right? How are crimes resolved in courts? Either "beyond a reasonable doubt", or "balance of probabilities".
Click to expand...
With physical evidence to support the prosecution or defence position.
Please find me a jury that has ever had to rule on the falsifiability of the prosecutors position.
Click to expand...
Hung Jury. The prosecution and defence could not prove or disprove to the satifaction of the jury the guilt of the accused.
 
Aqua323 said:
How do juries judge the claims of a witness. They decide how reliable they think the witness is, and they look at the case as a whole and see how the witness statements contradict or support each other.

This is very simple, why are you having trouble with this?
Click to expand...

Afew people have referred to you as Jim Fetzer, but I haven't seen you respond.

Is Aqua323 Jim Fetzer?

A simple yes or no will suffice.
 
Totovader said:
I'm not having any trouble with it- it's quite clear that you're wrong. You not only think that all criminal cases are only witness testimony, but you clearly do not even understand the fundamentals of scientific inquiry.

What happens when two witnesses contradict each other? If evidence is not allowed, what do you do? Flip a coin?

I'm interested in how the court system works in your world- it seems as though it's a world I should avoid.
Click to expand...

Even if a case has scientific evidence, that is just a part of the evidence that the Jury rule on. You are struggling with this. I think your idea to close the thread might save you from further embarassment.
 
Aqua323 said:
How is it scientific? It's a crime. If a crime occurs and there is witness evidence etc, the jury decides on the veracity and trustworthyness of the witness etc. There is no science, it comes down to judgement.

911 is not a science.
Click to expand...
So then all those arguments about "free fall speed", CD, temperatures, explosive residue, thermite residue, debri trajectories, force and mass, are not science?


Juries do not go on testimony alone. And isn't judging veracity and trustworthyness also implying falsifiability of witnesses testimony?
 
Aqua323 said:
Even if a case has scientific evidence, that is just a part of the evidence that the Jury rule on. You are struggling with this. I think your idea to close the thread might save you from further embarassment.
Click to expand...

You just contradicted yourself and then claimed that I am the one having trouble?

I'm not sure how that works...

I suggested closing the thread because you have refused to respond to my rebuttal, and instead have derailed the thread- a practice you are now very well known for. When you don't like the question, you ignore it and go off on a tangent unrelated to the discussion.
 
Aqua323 said:
Even if a case has scientific evidence, that is just a part of the evidence that the Jury rule on. You are struggling with this. I think your idea to close the thread might save you from further embarassment.
Click to expand...

So you are in the jury of 9/11 public opinion. Only one side in the case has presented any evidence. On what are basing your finding of guilt? It certainly can't be weighing the credibility of evidence.
 
Aqua323 said:
How does it help your case? I already showed that unfalsifiability does not make a statement false.
Click to expand...

Actually- you didn't show that, you just said it and then gave an example that was easily falsifiable.

It helps my case by showing that your position is unscientific. If it is unscientific- it doesn't even reach the point of "jury". You're trying to skip over evidence, logic, reason, science, and reality and just jump into a guessing game.

If science plays no part in this- then why did you just admit that evidence is allowed in criminal cases? How does that evidence work if science is not allowed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom