CTists: The Worst Analysts in All History, or Just This Century?

[Horatius]

Well, everyone gets it wrong sometimes. You think researchers/scientists/skeptics throughout history have never been wrong or made mistakes? Many scientists throughout history have developed theories which have been laughed at by their peers. Their ideas being ridiculed by others only to have it confirmed later & accepted by their peers.

Ok, so 98% of Conspiracy Theories are shown to be unfounded, but the point Im making is, the people you gather your evidence from & hold in high esteem make mistakes too.

The problem is, at least with the 9/11 CTs, is that pretty much 100% is wrong. Can anyone point to any major issue in which the CTist got it right, that isn't known to everybody, CT or not?

And while scientists may make mistakes, we're also open to the possibility that we've made a mistake. If new evidence comes up, we change, and change for the better. Take a look at CTists. They keep harping on the same debunked crap, except for the few times that they turn around and claim something even more outrageous. Take TS1234 for example. He starts out as a run of the mill "WTC was CD" type, and now he's actually supporting the Beam Weapon O' Doom theory.

I just checked with some Christian nuts I work with & yep, that cat is evil. Black cat,green eyes etc. So Im not listening to it.

Damn right. He's outside slaying a mouse even as I type......Better the mouse than me.....

 

[Mobyseven]

Now here's a cat:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/12233455a2c4d22c9e.jpg​

The conspiracy nuts are the worst analysts in all of history, to be sure. It's an act of pure generosity to call them "analysts" at all.

I think conspiracism is a psychological disorder in which a very stupid person (usually a white guy) thinks he's a genius.

That's not a cat! It's a hologram!

 

[PerryLogan]

Cat, hologram...why are we splitting hairs here?

 

[Horatius]

Cat, hologram...why are we splitting hairs here?

Because our cats have shed hair all over us?

 

[chipmunk stew]

Lol, Posts/Polls like this should surely be in the "humor" forum?

The fact that there's a humor forum does not bar humor from the other forums. If we couldn't express the humor we find in this topic, we'd all go nuts.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Well, everyone gets it wrong sometimes. You think researchers/scientists/skeptics throughout history have never been wrong or made mistakes? Many scientists throughout history have developed theories which have been laughed at by their peers. Their ideas being ridiculed by others only to have it confirmed later & accepted by their peers.

Ok, so 98% of Conspiracy Theories are shown to be unfounded, but the point Im making is, the people you gather your evidence from & hold in high esteem make mistakes too.

I'm guessing that you're either sympathetic to the Inside Job theories or you haven't examined them and their proponents very closely. There is no similarity between the work of scientists and the anomaly-hunting, dot-connecting, implication-ignoring, coherence-avoiding, evidence-lacking speculation perpetrated by conspiracy theorists.

When scientists make mistakes, or propose hypotheses that turn out to be incorrect, they do so because the available evidence fits their proposal in a coherent way and they don't yet have access to experimental data or evidence that contradicts it. But a scientific hypothesis or theory is always falsifiable. That is, there are always specific experimental results that could overturn any scientific theory. In over-simplified terms, if an experiment fails to produce the results predicted by the theory, the theory is bunk.

Conspiracy theorists make mistakes in primary assumptions, in logical argument, in logical coherence, in gathering evidence, in interpreting data, in valid modelling and calculation, in accepting valid criticism, in irrationally dismissing contra-evidence, and in sum, in reaching a sound, falsifiable conclusion. In short, they make mistakes every step of the way and at very fundamental levels, and they show little concern towards correcting these mistakes.

Yes, everyone makes mistakes. But equating conspiracy theorists' mistakes to scientists' mistakes, implying that there is a level playing field between them, is hopelessly, ridiculously, utterly false.

 

[Trigood]

I'm guessing that you're either sympathetic to the Inside Job theories or you haven't examined them and their proponents very closely. There is no similarity between the work of scientists and the anomaly-hunting, dot-connecting, implication-ignoring, coherence-avoiding, evidence-lacking speculation perpetrated by conspiracy theorists.

When scientists make mistakes, or propose hypotheses that turn out to be incorrect, they do so because the available evidence fits their proposal in a coherent way and they don't yet have access to experimental data or evidence that contradicts it. But a scientific hypothesis or theory is always falsifiable. That is, there are always specific experimental results that could overturn any scientific theory. In over-simplified terms, if an experiment fails to produce the results predicted by the theory, the theory is bunk.

Conspiracy theorists make mistakes in primary assumptions, in logical argument, in logical coherence, in gathering evidence, in interpreting data, in valid modelling and calculation, in accepting valid criticism, in irrationally dismissing contra-evidence, and in sum, in reaching a sound, falsifiable conclusion. In short, they make mistakes every step of the way and at very fundamental levels, and they show little concern towards correcting these mistakes.

Yes, everyone makes mistakes. But equating conspiracy theorists' mistakes to scientists' mistakes, implying that there is a level playing field between them, is hopelessly, ridiculously, utterly false.

Nominated!
I wrote: As cogent and clear exposition of the scientific method as I've seen lately. Note especially the emphasis Chipmunk places on "falsifiability," which is the essential feature of the scientific method.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Nominated!
I wrote: As cogent and clear exposition of the scientific method as I've seen lately. Note especially the emphasis Chipmunk places on "falsifiability," which is the essential feature of the scientific method.

Thanks! My first nomination.

 

[D2011]

I'm guessing that you're either sympathetic to the Inside Job theories or you haven't examined them and their proponents very closely.

Ive only been reading up on this stuff for the past month or so really.My job,study, tuitions ( no not educational....guitar & bass) kids & other past times suck the time out I would like to dedicate to this topic. So i dont agree with anything until I know the facts or have no reasonable doubt to the explanation.

I was handed a bunch of dvd's. 911 Loose change, Plane sight, Martial Law & Terrorstorm by a friend & after getting at least 3 or 4 emails a week suggesting Mars will be the same size as our moon in a few days ( as far as visibility goes) or "look at this giant cat its real!". Or some guy standing on one of the WTC towers getting a photo of a plane coming towards him etc etc my BS radar went balistic.

I spent a whole weekend & watched them all & then jumped on the internet to see if I could find any opposing views or debunks to what was said & I nearly crapped at how much stuff was out there. So 6 weeks later here I am wading my way through it all.

Someone said in the "Is there any explanation for the WTC towers free falling ?" post there should be a FAQ in here.

Not sure why this hasnt been done? It would cut down on the time having to wade through one topic that has 187 pages,lol.

I see there is a 911 Loose change pinned topic, but there would be good if there was a pinned FAQ or section that debunked each point like so.

Loose change FAQ's ( just one!)
Plane site FAQ's
Martial Law FAQ's
Terrorstorm FAQ's
WTC towers collapse
WTC 7 collapse
Pentagon Attack

dot-connecting

HEY!!!!!!!!! HEY HEY HEY!!!!! BACK OFF !!!..... Im fantastic at that game...Haha.

Nominated!
I wrote: As cogent and clear exposition of the scientific method as I've seen lately. Note especially the emphasis Chipmunk places on "falsifiability," which is the essential feature of the scientific method.

Guess I havnt been around here long enough to know what the hell you are talking about. But

Thanks! My first nomination.

Whatever you got nominated for came in reply to my post, so you owe me.

D2011

 

[gumboot]

I see there is a 911 Loose change pinned topic, but there would be good if there was a pinned FAQ or section that debunked each point like so.

Loose change FAQ's ( just one!)
Plane site FAQ's
Martial Law FAQ's
Terrorstorm FAQ's
WTC towers collapse
WTC 7 collapse
Pentagon Attack

There's ample links to that sort of think. I suggest going to one of a range of excellent sites that address all of the main points. I am sure someone will be quick to post them for you.

-Gumboot

 

[D2011]

I suggest going to one of a range of excellent sites that address all of the main points. I am sure someone will be quick to post them for you.

Ok Thanks. Yeah, I just went to one of the sites in Chipmunks signature:

http://www.debunking911.com/

& it seems to cover some of the last 3 I mentioned.

D2011

 

[maccy]

Guess I havnt been around here long enough to know what the hell you are talking about. But

Whatever you got nominated for came in reply to my post, so you owe me.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51331

it's what the 'nominate' button is for.

 

[D2011]

it's what the 'nominate' button is for.

Oh ok. Im gonna nominate him too. I'll be a star by default.

D2011

 

[gumboot]

Ok Thanks. Yeah, I just went to one of the sites in Chipmunks signature:

http://www.debunking911.com/

& it seems to cover some of the last 3 I mentioned.

D2011

Also, if you haven't already, you should check out both Gravy's Loose Change Viewer's Guide and MarkyX's Screw Loose Change Video. If you still consider Loose Change relevant after going through both of these, no one can help you.

In addition, MarkyX's Frequently Stupid Theories is a good brief look into some of the more common claims.

Much of your other points are covered by the same material.

-Gumboot

 

[D2011]

Also, if you haven't already, you should check out both Gravy's Loose Change Viewer's Guide and

See, why isnt that in the pinned/sticky area as a FAQ? Maaaan, theres like a hundred links in there....sheeesh.

Ive got a lot of readnig to do now, thanks.

That covers 90% of the stuff I was after. Now is there any debunking on the terrorstorm vid? Or is it still being evaluated?

D2011

 

[chipmunk stew]

See, why isnt that in the pinned/sticky area as a FAQ? Maaaan, theres like a hundred links in there....sheeesh.

That's a great idea.

We do have a "Links" menu that we really should take advantage of.
I'll PM tkingdoll, our resident "Links Executive", and see if she'll set it up for us.

Since I neglected to do so in my previous posts:
Welcome to the forum, D2011!

 

[gumboot]

That covers 90% of the stuff I was after. Now is there any debunking on the terrorstorm vid? Or is it still being evaluated?

Some of us started to, but it kind of fizzled out. A lot of Terrorstorm is just political ranting rather than fact-based. I'll ty dig up the Terrorstorm thread and bump it for you.

-Gumboot