---
Devil's Advocate,
I think one of the most beautiful aspects of the scientific process is that it incorportate - (when done properly) - that highest-of-human-responses - empathy.
A real scientist observes - takes in the world.
A real scientist generates - or gathers from others - hypotheses, models, cartoons, metaphors, stories - they are all basically the same thing - to explain the observations.
A real scientist must be empathetic, for that is what it takes to absorb a shockingly-different hypothesis without judging it, long enough to actually be able to see clearly that which is to be (later) judged for fit against the observations.
Well, empathy is a good thing for normal social interaction. People without capacity for empathy either have to learn to overcome the handicap, or accept that other people don't interest them. However, empathy as such has little to do with most science. In fact, a lot of useful science involves suppressing normal empathy and normal sentiment.
Being a good therapist or parent requires empathy. On the other hand, being a good actor or even being a good teacher (playing a role) can involve suppressing empathy or lacking it to begin with.
Also, real science as the term is normally understood doesn't involve collecting stories or cartoons. It involves a hypothesis and testing it. With controls. Maybe you were thinking about folklore or standup comedy.
A real scientist constantly checks and rechecks the fit of these hypotheses to the observations, as new awareness and insight intervene.
There are no "right answers". All the demands on this site for "prove it, prove it, prove it" are truly imbecilic.
There are no "right anwers." There is only the relative fit - the relative consistency - of each hypothesis to the observations. (Just because a hypothesis fits best for decades, or centuries, still does not make it "right".)
I see pseudo-scientists, and hence pseudo-skeptics, as far as the eye can see in this Conspiracy section.
Of course, no one is forcing you to post here. But it may be the case that what you are saying doesn't merit scientific inquiry or response. Often, it takes a few posts with some technical claims before the relevant experts here respond. It takes a while. There are many different kinds of people here with different expertise.
I'm neither a scientist nor a 'true skeptic'--whatever that means.
The idea that there are no "right answers" is really absurd. Even you, Max Photon, live your life constrained by reality. Some questions have more uncertain answers than others. The vast majority of questions have right or wrong answers.
Why?
Because it seems that at JREF there is tremendous pressure to conform to the notion that only one hypothesis should exist (the 19-Hijacker Conspiracy Theory), and that that hypothesis is fact, until proven otherwise - of course, using standards that this selection was not subjected to.
All you one-hypothesis people - you are fakes. You are like zombies from Nazi Germany.
DA, I really know nothing about your position or your work, but I do see the monopoles - the psuedos - pressuring you to conform to a one-hypothesis world.
Is that a world you want to live in?
This part overstates your case with nearly every word. Um, Nazis?
Actually, this is an internet forum. No salaries are being made, no physical force exists, and no one is really in charge. So any pressure you feel is just yours to own. There are people here you could learn from.
-----------------------------------------------
There are two hypotheses:
- NOT CONTROLLED-DEMOLITION
- CONTROLLED DEMOLITON
All that matters is which fits ALL of the observations with the fewest anomalies.
(Interesting that most here see ZERO anomalies, and actually put it in writing. Wow!)
Actually, there are way more than these two. Also, anomalies will exist in any complex situation. If you look at the preponderance of evidence, it supports the idea that terrorists flew planes into the buildings, which damaged them and started fires which weakened the structures, causing them to fall.
-----------------------------------------------
Again, I'd appreciate it if you'd aim your energy at providing me with real critical input, rather than wasting it on trivial nonlinear resistors.
If you feel they make you hot, that is what resistors do - generate resistance, friction, heat. They dissipate energy. They are energy sinks. Conserve energy.
Max
Utililty Department
---
Nice bit of hypomanic whimsy at the end there. I'm all for it, elsewhere. Problem is, this is generally the wrong subject for that.
