...the doubt about the consensus about the doubt about...

[Confuseling]

AKA a thread for LastChild's favourite point, if the mods see fit. I don't feel I'm resurrecting something banished to AAH here. I don't think this point will go away, so I seek to contain it; but obviously, do as you think best.

This is the SOLE topic for discussion in this thread, and we will agree to remain as civil as possible.

LastChild: Do I understand that your point is that we are unable to find evidence for a consensus in favour of the NIST report as the current best understanding of how the buildings collapsed?

 

[CHF]

Don't waste your time.

LastChild isn't sure whether the authors of the NIST report are supporters of the NIST report.

So I don't think there's any hope of him even understanding what a consensus is, let alone acknowledging that one exists.

 

[Confuseling]

I'm doing a philosophy degree. I'm all about tortuous argument

I think this debate needs to be contained and then fought out once and for all. I'm game. I hope he is too.

 

[twinstead]

The consensus of the world's engineering community is a given. Any rational person who is paying attention knows it. The truther's tactic of demanding that these experts personally state they support the official story or they "don't count" is an obvious method of ignoring this and is akin to an artificial shift in the burden of proof.

 

[Par]

I'm doing a philosophy degree. I'm all about tortuous argument.

So, you thought that Saint Anselm’s ontological argument wasn’t quite daft enough and so came searching for the mythical LastChild. You’re a masochist indeed.

 

[Brainache]

Would it be helpful to point out to LC and C7 what happens in the scientific community when there isn't a consensus? Are there any hotly debated scientific theories or engineering topics floating around out there at the moment?

I can think of String Theory as one possible example which has a lot of opinions either way. People have spent billions of dollars to build a particle accellerator big enough to try to answer some of these issues. Scientists argue back and forth over the merits or otherwise of various theories all the time.

No one in the scientific community is arguing about the findings of NIST beyond a few questions about adequate fireproofing and language usage.

If there was no consensus, the journals would be full of disputes about it. There is no dispute. There is a consensus.

 

[Confuseling]

I admit, I think their objection has no merit.

I just think that in a contained environment, where the very purpose is to pin them down on why, it can be made crystal clear.

And I'm bored already of watching other threads being dragged into it.

I guess the point is he can't really refuse. He can't not post here and then troll other threads with exactly this point without revealing once and for all that he isn't interested in discussion.

Besides, if you will forgive my hubris, I think I will eat him for breakfast.

@Brainache: That is a good angle, and I would appreciate all of your input. What I hope is for this thread to remain civil, no matter what provocation. If we can prevent it from sinking into AAH then we have a lasting monument to the bankruptcy of their position.

Assuming we win

 

[nicepants]

The NIST report has been challenged and labeled a fraud by many qualified individuals, yet none of the contributing experts have come to the defense of the report or their contributions.

Is there any expectation that the contributors to said report would be obligated to "come to its defense" any time someone has a criticism of it?

 

[AZCat]

Is there any expectation that the contributors to said report would be obligated to "come to its defense" any time someone has a criticism of it?

It depends: who is criticising the report and in what forum? Wild claims and unsupported ramblings by fools on the internet are not IMO the sort of criticism that deserves a response.

 

[Confuseling]

I actually posted in politics for my first topic (possibly foolhardy) about the notion that the truthers are acting as perfect disinfo, 'useful idiots' if you will, deflecting attention away from relevant questions about the whole sorry affair. I can see every reason why officialdom would not want to put the conspiracy theories to rest.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107415

But that's a shameless plug

 

[LastChild]

I made my point in the Get A Life thread. None of you had anything. Just name calling, pictures of cats, and, cartoons and whatever else to call in the moderators to save you one more time and get it moved to AAH to cover your failure.

If you started this thread to proclaim that the authors of the official versions don’t need to stand behind their work publicly well… I heard you. It’s just your opinion and I don’t buy it. I will remind you one more time that one half of your official version the 9/11 commission already tried to publicly stand behind their work and later had to write an open letter in regret.

Post your quotes if you want to make a point. Besides it's the weekend. Get A Life. lol

 

[Confuseling]

Hello LastChild. Thankyou for joining me here. Please, my first request was for this to remain civil. I am genuinely interested in this point, because I think it touches on a lot of the substance of the disagreement between the truth movement and the debunkers. I would like this debate to be exhaustive, and to remain here, rather than being consigned to the dustbin.

You are asserting that the authors of the NIST report need to publicly proclaim their belief in the NIST report. Wouldn't they then need to publicly proclaim their belief in the proclamation of belief in the NIST report? Wouldn't this go on forever?

It is assumed, unless something is repudiated or retracted, that it stands. The authors have doubts, certainly. They won't all stand by all of it 100%, there are many authors and many subtleties, but do you not accept that they all agree, for example, that there were no explosive charges in the towers? Would they not have said so by now if they thought that were the case?

ETA: I don't really know what you're talking about with respect to the 911 commission report. Do you have a link that approximately summarises your position? If not could you just elaborate a little? What did the report say? What did they stand behind, then distance themselves from? Sorry, I'm in the dark about this bit...

 

[MIKILLINI]

LC wants qoutes from those who signed their name to the NIST report, because assigning their name to the report is not a quote nor is it a conformation of agreement to him. What this means is LC will have to remain unsatisfied. So get over yourself LC.

Perhaps LC, you can find some quotes from PNAC that they intentionally wanted a New Pearl Harbor.

 

[Confuseling]

So, you thought that Saint Anselm’s ontological argument wasn’t quite daft enough and so came searching for the mythical LastChild. You’re a masochist indeed.

Well, while there's silence. I actually quite like the ontological argument for its simplicity. There's an interesting, similar argument that holds that it is not possible to imagine anything that couldn't exist; though I have to admit I don't really understand that. It's mentioned here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/#ModArg
(really good website, I think)

I've only just started my studies really, and am much more interested in the political philosophy / sociology side of things - hence my presence here.

...
No one in the scientific community is arguing about the findings of NIST beyond a few questions about adequate fireproofing and language usage.

If there was no consensus, the journals would be full of disputes about it. There is no dispute. There is a consensus.

I have to admit that I do think it's more complicated than that. I give some credence to postmodern thought. Intersubjectivity is real in a consensus reality sort of way, although I do believe in an absolute reality too - it's just questionable to what extent it can be perceived purely.

Politics does constrain and manufacture science, as much as we hate to admit it. I just don't think it happens to quite the extent that our friends here do.

 

[Brainache]

Well, while there's silence. I actually quite like the ontological argument for its simplicity. There's an interesting, similar argument that holds that it is not possible to imagine anything that couldn't exist; though I have to admit I don't really understand that. It's mentioned here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/#ModArg
(really good website, I think)

I've only just started my studies really, and am much more interested in the political philosophy / sociology side of things - hence my presence here.



I have to admit that I do think it's more complicated than that. I give some credence to postmodern thought. Intersubjectivity is real in a consensus reality sort of way, although I do believe in an absolute reality too - it's just questionable to what extent it can be perceived purely.

Politics does constrain and manufacture science, as much as we hate to admit it. I just don't think it happens to quite the extent that our friends here do.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that politics sets the agenda for what scientists are allowed to study? Or something else?

I can understand that a scientist with a minority view on a particular subject may find it difficult to get funding, but if he is wrong, he is wrong. No amount of funding will make 3 + 3 = 259.

 

[Confuseling]

Well, I'm trying to stake out a nuanced position here - and what I wrote wasn't supposed to contradict what you wrote as such, but just to point to the fact that science does not exist in a vacuum.

Relativism has its limits, but it does have something important to teach us. Yes, there is a truth (ignoring solipsism, which is philosophically defensible, but pointless), and the only way to access that truth is science.

There are also social constructs about which, while immersed in them, we may know little. They don't alter the truth we are interrogating (except insofar as future social reality is built by our beliefs, and this impacts reality), but they affect our methods of interrogation - the experiments chosen and the interpretation of the results.

A good example at the moment, for me, is the medicalisation of social problems. I think there is a pernicious tendency, in psychiatry particularly, to try to apply pharmaceutical solutions to what would better be addressed by social policy.

 

[nicepants]

It depends: who is criticising the report and in what forum? Wild claims and unsupported ramblings by fools on the internet are not IMO the sort of criticism that deserves a response.

That's kind of where I was headed. If the criticism were to be presented by well-respected members of the scientific community in the proper forum (and I do not mean internet forum), I think that a response may be warranted. The truthers seem to want to stick to youtube, etc, instead of the proper channels for that type of criticism.

Post your quotes if you want to make a point.

LC, you still haven't specified what "quotes" it is that you're looking for. Please be specific.

 

[MIKILLINI]

I'm doing a philosophy degree. I'm all about tortuous argument

I think this debate needs to be contained and then fought out once and for all. I'm game. I hope he is too.

What your trying to find out is LC's philosophical position? He is under what I call "twoofer uncertainty".
What he wants to know is if there are any opinion/quotes from those who assigned their names in the NIST report to determine if any of them had reservations or doubts about the final consensus. Just to give a brief summary.

 

[R.Mackey]

With respect to Confuseling (and welcome!), this is only going to end in madness.

We've already explained to all parties concerned that there are (a) a large number of published papers, all materially agreeing with the NIST Report's core findings, and (b) no published papers of any sort disputing NIST's core findings. That's consensus. Cut and dried.

I'll even accept conference papers. Got any? Didn't think so.

In terms of sworn statements, if it's quotes the Truth Movement wants now, I'll give 'em two. Here's one from a first-class expert and well-known critic of the NIST Report:

Our research and that of others have shown no evidence of any conspiracy. I find it very unfair and unjustified and to blame the collapse of these towers on conspiracy , which distract the attention from the lessons that we can learn from this tragedy to make our structures more resilient to prevent such a loss of life in the future. Those 19 murderers and their organizers and supporters , who attacked us and killed so many of our loved ones, were the perpetrators of this crime. In my opinion , and in the opinion of any 9/11 victims' family members that I have talked to, the conspiracy theorists are committing a second act of injustice , perhaps unknowingly, by blaming it on some conspiracy.

Here's another, namely my own. I wholeheartedly support all of the NIST key findings in NCSTAR1. My own thorough review of NIST and competing studies leads me to conclude that the NIST Report may be incorrect in a few details, but there is absolutely no way to support any conspiracy theory on its basis. May my car snap its crankshaft if I lie.

I do not claim to be the best qualified reviewer of the NIST Report, but I am qualified. I am also at least as qualified as anyone in the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and I've written more on the subject than their entire membership combined.

If they want more quotes, let them find 'em themselves. They serve no purpose. The consensus exists even without them.

 

[Confuseling]

[ETA: To Mikillini's point]

Thanks, I'm aware that that is his general gist.

He's a real enigma, LastChild.

Part of me believes that he has a quite subtle understanding of the 911 issues, but, loathe to give it away, having been caught out on solid stances before, he prefers to remain slippery, prolonging the debate at all cost, lest he miss the fleeting chance to awaken us from our ideological slumber.

Part of me, in contrast, believes that he refuses to alight on any point whatsoever not so much because he doesn't have one, points utterly bereft of conviction being relatively easy to come by, but rather for fear of momentarily distracting himself, limiting his post count, and thereby reducing his effectiveness at his true objective: trolling.

Now either way, he arrived, presumably more by a process of luck than design, at the perfect weapon. The ultimate distracting tactic; a question that he could repeat, forever, without relevance to any conversation.

Any conversation, that is, except this one