Hardfire: Szamboti / Chandler / Mackey
- Thread starter R.Mackey
- Start date
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
What is with the bizarre obsession with debating?
911kongen
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2008
- Messages
- 363
I dont know... you tell me
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
I have no idea, which is why I asked. If you don't know, why have you even bothered requesting various debates in multiple threads?
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
I don't think anyone should debate them. It only lends credibility to the idea that the TM has any scientific merit at all.
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
R.Mackey, I think this relates to the OP as well as to the request to move the dialog forward that you made a few pages back. If it doesn't, feel free to request that this be split off somewhere.
That is certainly part of it, similar sentiments were expressed by Richard Dawkins and the late Stephen Jay Gould regarding creationists. I think there is a bit more to it than that. As I see it, there are essentially three reasons I recommend against people such as R.Mackey spending time in debates:
1) The credibility issue mentioned previously.
2) Scientific principles aren't determined by debate.
3) There are better uses for R.Mackey's time.
Any one of these reasons is good enough on its own for ignoring further challenges, so I will expand a bit on each.
The Credibility Issue
Many of the debate challenges that have come up in the past two years have been on very minor points that lead back to what is becoming known as an irreducible delusion. Some of these challenges are though live debates, others through published papers and rebuttals (although not in any reputable publication), and some posted in various fora. Ace Baker and his video manipulation, the Jones/Harritt nano-thermite, and most recently, Tony Szamboti and his missing jolt are all examples of obscure and isolated ideas that have been the subject of one challenge or another. Without the apparent credibility they receive from the acceptance of their challenges, very few people will be exposed to, much less swayed by their opinions.
In each of those cases, people with a relevant background have exposed the flaws central to each topic. As has been shown repeatedly on this forum, even those laypeople with a willingness to research a bit more into those topics can point out where and how each of those ideas previously mentioned fails. You can easily see how this type of debate is seen as a play for credibility by looking at who exactly is being challenged, and in which media those challenges are broadcast.
A classic example is Charlie Sheen's recent call-out of various Republican media personalities. Brainster is far more versed in the various elements of the 9/11 conspiracy theories, but debating Brainster doesn't convey the same cachet as debating Rush Limbaugh (sorry Brainster, no offense). If Charlie Sheen truly wished to have an earnest debate with someone who knows what they are talking about, why ignore Brainster's acceptance of his challenge? It is all about the credibility factor. This is what Dawkins and Gould were referring to in the essay by Dawkins on why he doesn't debate creationists.
Science and Debate
Although scientific principles have been the topic of many, many debates, that really isn't how the scientific method works. The testing of hypotheses isn't something that is done by two or more people sneering at each other in public (although that can be fun too). Asking questions is all well and good, but finding answers to those questions and then trying, and failing, to falsify those answers is how we determine which answers are the correct ones.
Debates aren't always won by those who have the greatest command of science, but often by those who have the greatest command of oration. Debates are an excellent way to sway public opinion, which is why they feature prominently in political discourse. In a sense, debates are only about opinion. Some of these opinions may be based on facts, some on emotion, and some based on other motives such as greed, fear, or madness.
I would say that it is more than fair to call for a debate on a topic such as "Should There Be a New Investigation: Why vs. Why Not" or "What Should Be Done to Prevent Future Attacks", but not on a topic such as "Does Fire Weaken Steel: Yes or No".
Better Usage of Resources
After having seen many of the arguments put forth by the various conspiracy theorists that populate this forum, it is clear that most of them are based on other people's work. There is very little original research being done these days (Richard Gage and David Ray Griffin, I am looking at you). Even more obviously, those parroting the works of others apparently have very little understanding of what they are repeating. Simply posting the various point by point rebuttals to those arguments have little or no effect, as the CTist might have no idea what they are posting means in the first place. Sadly enough, this same ignorance sometimes applies to those who rebut as well, where they are simply reposting or linking to previous rebuttals made by those who do have the expertise.
Rather than simply rehashing debate points that have been made ad nauseum, a better approach would be to address the underlying deficiencies in the knowledge of those on both sides of the issues.
Now, none of this is to say that R.Mackey is bad at debating, but rather that there are better uses of his time. As he showed with the series of Hardfire appearances on the topic of the science of 9/11, he is quite capable of general science education, something that people on both sides of the 9/11 debate need and often sorely lack. Creating similar presentations on other topics would be a far more valuable contribution than another 2 hours of angular momentum calculations.
Not all of this needs to be done by R.Mackey, as there are many other topics related to 9/11 that could easily benefit from this treatment. For example, a presentation on how to do research would be an invaluable reference when dealing with the parrots. What are primary sources and why is citing them important? When two accounts conflict, how does a researcher resolve the contradictions (or even should they)? What is the best way to conduct an interview?
Other topics can include how scientific testing is supposed to work (i.e. the anti-Truthburn), what are the international contributions to what we know about 9/11, how to read and interpret the various financial documents cited and discussed (although not so much recently), and so forth.
In conclusion, I do believe there is still much to be discussed and even discovered regarding the events of September 11, 2001, but progress will not be made by engaging with those who are stuck in 2006 or with those whose work has been shown to be fatally flawed.
That is certainly part of it, similar sentiments were expressed by Richard Dawkins and the late Stephen Jay Gould regarding creationists. I think there is a bit more to it than that. As I see it, there are essentially three reasons I recommend against people such as R.Mackey spending time in debates:
1) The credibility issue mentioned previously.
2) Scientific principles aren't determined by debate.
3) There are better uses for R.Mackey's time.
Any one of these reasons is good enough on its own for ignoring further challenges, so I will expand a bit on each.
The Credibility Issue
Many of the debate challenges that have come up in the past two years have been on very minor points that lead back to what is becoming known as an irreducible delusion. Some of these challenges are though live debates, others through published papers and rebuttals (although not in any reputable publication), and some posted in various fora. Ace Baker and his video manipulation, the Jones/Harritt nano-thermite, and most recently, Tony Szamboti and his missing jolt are all examples of obscure and isolated ideas that have been the subject of one challenge or another. Without the apparent credibility they receive from the acceptance of their challenges, very few people will be exposed to, much less swayed by their opinions.
In each of those cases, people with a relevant background have exposed the flaws central to each topic. As has been shown repeatedly on this forum, even those laypeople with a willingness to research a bit more into those topics can point out where and how each of those ideas previously mentioned fails. You can easily see how this type of debate is seen as a play for credibility by looking at who exactly is being challenged, and in which media those challenges are broadcast.
A classic example is Charlie Sheen's recent call-out of various Republican media personalities. Brainster is far more versed in the various elements of the 9/11 conspiracy theories, but debating Brainster doesn't convey the same cachet as debating Rush Limbaugh (sorry Brainster, no offense). If Charlie Sheen truly wished to have an earnest debate with someone who knows what they are talking about, why ignore Brainster's acceptance of his challenge? It is all about the credibility factor. This is what Dawkins and Gould were referring to in the essay by Dawkins on why he doesn't debate creationists.
Science and Debate
Although scientific principles have been the topic of many, many debates, that really isn't how the scientific method works. The testing of hypotheses isn't something that is done by two or more people sneering at each other in public (although that can be fun too). Asking questions is all well and good, but finding answers to those questions and then trying, and failing, to falsify those answers is how we determine which answers are the correct ones.
Debates aren't always won by those who have the greatest command of science, but often by those who have the greatest command of oration. Debates are an excellent way to sway public opinion, which is why they feature prominently in political discourse. In a sense, debates are only about opinion. Some of these opinions may be based on facts, some on emotion, and some based on other motives such as greed, fear, or madness.
I would say that it is more than fair to call for a debate on a topic such as "Should There Be a New Investigation: Why vs. Why Not" or "What Should Be Done to Prevent Future Attacks", but not on a topic such as "Does Fire Weaken Steel: Yes or No".
Better Usage of Resources
After having seen many of the arguments put forth by the various conspiracy theorists that populate this forum, it is clear that most of them are based on other people's work. There is very little original research being done these days (Richard Gage and David Ray Griffin, I am looking at you). Even more obviously, those parroting the works of others apparently have very little understanding of what they are repeating. Simply posting the various point by point rebuttals to those arguments have little or no effect, as the CTist might have no idea what they are posting means in the first place. Sadly enough, this same ignorance sometimes applies to those who rebut as well, where they are simply reposting or linking to previous rebuttals made by those who do have the expertise.
Rather than simply rehashing debate points that have been made ad nauseum, a better approach would be to address the underlying deficiencies in the knowledge of those on both sides of the issues.
Now, none of this is to say that R.Mackey is bad at debating, but rather that there are better uses of his time. As he showed with the series of Hardfire appearances on the topic of the science of 9/11, he is quite capable of general science education, something that people on both sides of the 9/11 debate need and often sorely lack. Creating similar presentations on other topics would be a far more valuable contribution than another 2 hours of angular momentum calculations.
Not all of this needs to be done by R.Mackey, as there are many other topics related to 9/11 that could easily benefit from this treatment. For example, a presentation on how to do research would be an invaluable reference when dealing with the parrots. What are primary sources and why is citing them important? When two accounts conflict, how does a researcher resolve the contradictions (or even should they)? What is the best way to conduct an interview?
Other topics can include how scientific testing is supposed to work (i.e. the anti-Truthburn), what are the international contributions to what we know about 9/11, how to read and interpret the various financial documents cited and discussed (although not so much recently), and so forth.
In conclusion, I do believe there is still much to be discussed and even discovered regarding the events of September 11, 2001, but progress will not be made by engaging with those who are stuck in 2006 or with those whose work has been shown to be fatally flawed.
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
"Crush" core and perimeter columns? How do people manage to conflate "sever" with "crush"? It takes more energy to completely deform a wide flange beam or a box column than it would to merely sever the connection points.
Why, oh why is there this constant need for conspiracy addicts to overstate what's required for the tower to come apart?
Why, oh why is there this constant need for conspiracy addicts to overstate what's required for the tower to come apart?
newton3376
The Truth Movement.....still not at 1%
- Joined
- May 16, 2009
- Messages
- 1,320
For most of them, it's because they aren't engineers or scientists and simply don't have the education or experience to understand why the towers fell.
They use their imagination instead of math and investigoogle instead of reading actual engineering papers with *gasp* math and physics in it.
For the very few that should know better but continue to believe the "troof" I honestly don't know why they don't correct their viewpoint but I suspect pride and embarrassment are factors that play in...
triforcharity
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 13,961
Newton,
Money also plays a BIG role. How much money do you think Gage and his merry band of dolts make in a year?? A bunch I would bet.
They aren't even their OWN 501(c)(3), they use some other company called The Agaape Foundation.
Money also plays a BIG role. How much money do you think Gage and his merry band of dolts make in a year?? A bunch I would bet.
They aren't even their OWN 501(c)(3), they use some other company called The Agaape Foundation.
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 1,871
Mackey
Since this is your thread which topics would you like to consider on topic. We got onto TS "missing jolt" which led onto the explanation of "tilt" columns hitting slab not columns below therefore no "jolt". Then we discovered the "missing jolts" in TS's basement. Which led to Scott Milner bringing up "rotation" and so on.
What else did you discuss.
Since this is your thread which topics would you like to consider on topic. We got onto TS "missing jolt" which led onto the explanation of "tilt" columns hitting slab not columns below therefore no "jolt". Then we discovered the "missing jolts" in TS's basement. Which led to Scott Milner bringing up "rotation" and so on.
What else did you discuss.
Last edited:
Scott, neither point of view belongs in this thread. I've reported you for being off-topic. This subject didn't come up in our debate, in all likelihood because Tony is smart enough to realize that your argument is ridiculous.
That argument, incidentally, is that "it doesn't look right to me." I can't respond to that with any hope of making progress, because you've created an unfalsifiable belief. I've already written many, many pages on what happened and why. There are already many threads on this topic. Go there. Go away. Follow your membership agreement and basic rules of common courtesy.
ETA: As a parting shot, to stimulate discussion in whatever proper thread you wind up in, the impossibility of toppling behavior has already been investigated by tenured structural engineering professors, and published in real journals. The name Dr. Bazant should ring a bell. You are evidently ignorant of these viewpoints as well.
No. I don't seek debates. It works the other way around -- Truthers try to pick fights with me. You'll notice, for instance, that even now there hasn't been a single response to my Hardfire Modeling Challenge.
Richard Gage, also, was quite easily destroyed in debate by Mark Roberts on Hardfire last year. If Gage has a lick of sense, he'll avoid such debates in the future. If he doesn't have a lick of sense, I would surely be wasting my time.
Again, after my experience with Tony, I am ever more convinced that the Truth Movement, to a man, is so unscientific and so badly prepared that there can be no meaningful debate with any of them. They believe things that are false. Showing these things are false is easy. But they don't create new material. So, what's the point? A debate is the same fruitless argument in a different package -- it's a waste of time.
As Hokulele said, there is still room to use this topic for educational purposes, but in that context the Truth Movement adds nothing. They should be watching such a discussion and learning from it, not participating in and disrupting it.
If there is a Truther who has a good grasp of science and valid questions, then let him or her appear and talk about it online first. It's happened before plenty of times, it could happen again, but all the smart ones seem to have figured it out and moved on.
Last edited:
911kongen
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2008
- Messages
- 363
I agree with you MacKey! Debating a truther will never make him change his mind! But I dont think that is the purpose with this kinds of debates.. The debates is out there for people that is lost and looking for facts. Seeing you and Gage debating, will probably help them out. Just like debates with Mark Roberts and LC. And the debate with LC and PM! Two great debates that I know have helped a lot of people. The debate did not help Dylan og Jason.. but I dont think that was the purpose with the debate!
I think you just have to give up convincing the truth movment, but help people getting lost in this debate! That is what I think is the purpose with the debates.
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Stellafane
Village Idiot.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2006
- Messages
- 8,368
It doesn't. An injection works just as well.
[He he he -- let a few tiny minds stew over that one for awhile...]
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Stellafane, you are a bad, bad man.
Discussion on rotation of the upper section split to new thread.
Posted By: Gaspode
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
I second the gist of Hokulele's response here. My stance is that a debate is actually a poor forum to rebut truthers claims in. I acknowledge that it's a popular suggestion, but I fear that it is so for bad reasons. You see, too many people get hung up on the fact that some "head to head" airing out of the competing stances is the most useful because it supposedly puts the arguments to the greatest test. I mean, that's always been the rationale behind debates: Testing your argument against the opposition.
Problem is, head to head debate is not a forum amenable to proper dissemination of knowledge. Or in plainer english: How do you teach during a debate? It's about stance and counterstance, not about whose argument is better grounded in reality. You're responding to tactical moves and having to counter assorted fallaciously put stances (such as various pleas to emotionalism, appeals to authority, etc.). Arguments that would fall absolutely, positively flat in other presentations (like in forums such as this, or in actual formal academic journals) can actually carry in a head-to-head type of presentation such as a TV debate. It's simply not a good vehicle to teach the background necessary to truly comprehend the scope and magnitude of the conspiracy peddler's levels of deception. Worse yet, it plays into their argument, since all they'd have to do is hint at government plots to get their arguments across ("There might be something there, let's investigate again!"), whereas rationalists would be cast into the role of needing to know definitive answers. It's just plain a bad playing field for discovery of actual truth.
On top of that, there's a time disparity that works in favor of the truthers: It takes all of 5 seconds to blurt out "free fall", "NORAD stood down", and "thermite was found by a scientist", whereas it takes on the order of minutes to properly explain away the delusions behind each of those claims. Head to head debate is inherently a poor forum for arguing these issues since it puts a premium on who's a better verbal wordsmith, and actually negates the impact of careful research and assembling of supporting arguments because of the time limitations and attention spans of the audience. That is why I'm better satisfied with the debate through forums like this, as well as any attempt by truthers to enter the scientific debate with genuine, honest approaches to relevant publications and journals (no, for the thousandth time, the Journal of 9/11 Studies and Bentham Open Access do not count). We can demonstrate that the economy of argument on the truthers end is in reality a paucity of depth and understanding. That's not easy to do in head-to-head debate.
All of these reasons are why I'm very much impressed with Ryan and Mark: They've done debates, and have prevailed despite the heavy disadvantages in doing so. Me, I'd rather not cede so many advantages to forms of argument that are more susceptible to slickness and more tolerant to fallacy. I'd rather that the information is disseminated, period, and if a truther wants someone to go face-to-face, that's his problem. Me, I'm satisfied with it being out there for sane people to find and use to judge for themselves.
I acknowldge that 911kongen is making this suggestion for good, thoughtful reasons. It's just that I believe that it's not only not the best method to use to get the 9/11 myth refutations out, but that it actually can favor denialists and conspiracy hucksters' by limiting the very strengths rationalists have: Depth, detail, demonstrated expertise, demonstrated accumulation of relevant accurate knowledge, mutual support between and demonstrated convergences of independent lines of evidence, and so on. This is why I put myself to voice (well, text actually) to recommend against it: It's because it's inherently limiting to the rationalist side. And that's why it's a bad choice to make, regardless of how superior the rationalist performances have been so far.
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
What ElMondoHummus said. And said very very well.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
What attention? Shut off the internet and no one know they ever happened (or the "truthers" even exist for that matter).
Last edited: