Offer to the Truth Movement: Let's Settle It

[Max Photon]

Truthers vs Falsies

R.Mackey,

Does the OP basically ask how one's model is falsifiable?

 

[R.Mackey]

Yup.

There are minor semantic differences, e.g. "what would convince you" which need not necessarily be the same as a falsification. It also does not require the person asking to have a fully formed hypothesis, and technically you cannot strictly falsify the hypothesis if it is incomplete. But in general, it should be pretty close.

 

[Clippy]

Mackey,

It's a noble attempt, but I don't see how it has much chance of working. You'd need to convince people that there was nothing being covered up, and you can't do that. Can you prove to me that Zelikow was not an administration insider and that in his calls to Rove they only discussed his academic work? Can you prove to me that Bush and Cheney testifying together in secret was acceptable? Can you prove to me that Dave Frasca's actions were not worthy of further inquiry? The fallacy here is to treat 9/11 like a scientific theory and not like a crime. Many truthers are also guilty of this.

 

[applecorped]

Depends on how YOU define the word prove.

 

[R.Mackey]

Mackey,

It's a noble attempt, but I don't see how it has much chance of working. You'd need to convince people that there was nothing being covered up, and you can't do that. Can you prove to me that Zelikow was not an administration insider and that in his calls to Rove they only discussed his academic work? Can you prove to me that Bush and Cheney testifying together in secret was acceptable? Can you prove to me that Dave Frasca's actions were not worthy of further inquiry? The fallacy here is to treat 9/11 like a scientific theory and not like a crime. Many truthers are also guilty of this.

None of this is responsive to my OP. It's not even defined. What does "worthy of further inquiry" even mean?

There really is no distinction between treating it like science and treating it like a crime. I tend to focus on the science because most half-baked MIHOP ideas are allegedly based on physics or observables, but the same requirements apply to softer theories. For example, if you want to investigate Dave Frasca, what do you want to investigate? Why? What do you think he did, and what do you think it means?

These are all questions that you would have to answer if, for instance, you were issuing a subpoena or wiretapping. You don't need to know if it's true, but you do need to have some idea what you're looking for. That's the kind of question my OP is after. It's also an approach consistent with scientific inquiry. You can't just say "it's science, and I don't do science" and duck the question.

 

[johnny karate]

Not to mention the fact that quite a bit of criminal investigation involves using science.

 

[pomeroo]

Mackey,

It's a noble attempt, but I don't see how it has much chance of working. You'd need to convince people that there was nothing being covered up, and you can't do that. Can you prove to me that Zelikow was not an administration insider and that in his calls to Rove they only discussed his academic work? Can you prove to me that Bush and Cheney testifying together in secret was acceptable? Can you prove to me that Dave Frasca's actions were not worthy of further inquiry? The fallacy here is to treat 9/11 like a scientific theory and not like a crime. Many truthers are also guilty of this.

You are peddling the standard twoofer falsehood that the 9/11 Commission had something to do with the actual investigation into the events of 9/11. Like all the other conspiracy liars who have attempted this clumsy deception, you have been exposed. Zelikow is utterly meaningless, unless you want to pretend that he somehow influenced the Democrat attack dogs on the commission, who moved heaven and earth to shift all blame from Clinton and place it on Bush. Perhaps someday you'll explain why none of the rabid Bush-bashers in the Senate swallow any of the fantasist snake oil.

 

[bonkey]

Mackey,

It's a noble attempt, but I don't see how it has much chance of working.

If you are referring to the intent behind this thread, then I would suggest that you may not have thought through the full implications...despite Mackey quite literally spelling them out at some point(s).

You'd need to convince people that there was nothing being covered up, and you can't do that.

No, you don't need to convince people of that. It suffices to show that this is the level of proof that said people are demanding.

Can you prove to me that Zelikow was not an administration insider and that in his calls to Rove they only discussed his academic work? Can you prove to me that Bush and Cheney testifying together in secret was acceptable? Can you prove to me that Dave Frasca's actions were not worthy of further inquiry?

Can you prove there isn't a teacup orbiting Pluto? Filled with Irish-blend tea? And two sugars?

Once you establish that someone has set the bar at requiring disproof in the absence of compelling evidence, its already game over. R. Mackey, to put it bluntly, wins.

In the first few pages of this thread, at least one poster tried to walk away with dignity, saying they wouldn't play this game. The game they wouldn't play was showing that their beliefs were meaningfully falsifiable. R. Mackey wins.

The more people show that they cannot or will not subject their claims to a self-admitted level of falsifiable scrutiny, the more R. Mackey wins.

The ore they show that they cannot reduce their beliefs to a set of core "must be true for there to be a conspiracy" issues, the more R. Mackey wins.

The more they refuse to play, the more R.Mackey wins.

The only way Mackey can lose is when someone comes up with a meaningful, clear issue which can be coherently explained to be a crux of whatever flavour of conspiracy that they believe in, which can be shown to be reasonably falsifiable, but which Mackey cannot answer.

I accept completely, before someone feels the need to point out the obvious, that the so-called truther movement will not accept this reasoning. But you know what...that reasoning is nothing more than the application of critical thinking. The more you reject it...yup...you guessed it...the more Mackey wins.

The fallacy here is to treat 9/11 like a scientific theory and not like a crime.

Crimes can only be meaningfully proven by application of the scientific method. To treat the events of September 11, 2001 as a crime requires the application of scientific theory and the scientific method to the analysis, tempered only by reasonable limits of practicality.

Unless you're suggesting that crime should be viewed as being about convincing a jury with rhetoric, regardless of the underlying fact, then the suggestion that the determination of criminal responsibility is seperate from scientific analysis or critical reasoning is just another example of R. Mackey winning, again.

ETA: This entire thread reminds me quite a bit of the content on Prof. Steven Dutch's site. He states up front that he won't as much as address a question if the person asking it cannot state what it would take to prove their beliefs wrong. Like Mackey, Dutch is (clearly) setting the bar. If you want to play the game, you play the game by the rules. Falsifiability is the first, inviolable rule. If you can't explain how your belief is falsifiable, then you implicitly say a hell of a lot about the basis on which that belief rests...whether you know it or not.

 

[Max Photon]

How about a clappy for Clippy?

Mackey,

The fallacy here is to treat 9/11 like a scientific theory and not like a crime.

See, someone gets it.

Here Clippy, I dedicate this thread to you:

Science vs Teleology: Which lens is best for viewing 911?

 

[Dog Town]

The fallacy here is to treat 9/11 like a scientific theory and not like a crime. Many truthers are also guilty of this.

Are you really unaware, of the army of agents charged with the criminal investigation? Explains a lot if true.
There were people, who handled scientific as well. REALLY?

 

[R.Mackey]

If you are referring to the intent behind this thread, then I would suggest that you may not have thought through the full implications...despite Mackey quite literally spelling them out at some point(s).

[...]

Once you establish that someone has set the bar at requiring disproof in the absence of compelling evidence, its already game over. R. Mackey, to put it bluntly, wins.

One minor adjustment to your remarks -- this thread wasn't intended to be about me or you "winning." It was to be about learning. I promised to try to answer any question of a given, important category, acknowledging that I would probably be unable to answer some of them. Again, even formulating the question provides clarity.

If we come up with a good critical question, we've learned where we really stand. If I can answer it, we've learned even more. Everybody wins.

What disturbs me is how few people can come up with such a question, instead offering the most bizarre variety of impassioned excuses. It is this situation -- the only one -- in which the Truth Movement "loses."

 

[Clippy]

Mackey,

What are your units for suspicion?

 

[beachnut]

Mackey,

What are your units for suspicion?

They are measured in, lies and hearsay. 9/11 truth movement is very suspicious, they spew lies and hearsay at an alarming rate, off the scale!

Does this mean you have failed to find one thing you debate that included evidence to support any of the ideas from 9/11 truth? No, you can't; 9/11 truth has no support for thier ideas. They fall into lies, hearsay, and other areas of false information and fantasy.

I can't find one thing to ask Mackey based on 9/11 truth's theories, conclusions, non-conclusion, and non-theories. (implied idea based on hearsay and what sounds good to people who lack knowledge and have some bias, or axe to grind not related to the events of 9/11!) Because there is no evidence to support the ideas of 9/11 truth.

Start your own thread for 9/11 ideas you want to support without evidence, just pure hearsay suspicion. A thread of you just think it that way; or something.

 

[R.Mackey]

Mackey,

What are your units for suspicion?

I can't answer your question without some context. If you provide your critical question for me, I might be able to answer.

 

[Niclas]

Well, i hardly think it would "settle it", but reading these debates
about WTC as a layman, i wonder why these combatants don´t come together
and actually build a model of one of the towers and try to bring it down
in a fashion that resembles the Twin Towers collapse?

The "come together part" is the biggest obstacle i presume?

There will be conflicts on how the model should be constructed and how the experiment is going to be conducted etc , just a wild guess....

 

[Niclas]

....Do you know of ANYONE who has made a model like this?
( exept the NIST )

 

[Dave Rogers]

Well, i hardly think it would "settle it", but reading these debates
about WTC as a layman, i wonder why these combatants don´t come together
and actually build a model of one of the towers and try to bring it down
in a fashion that resembles the Twin Towers collapse?

Do you mean a computer model or a physical model? If the former, the problem is that anything even approaching usefulness would need a supercomputer cluster and several months to run, and might well diverge due to chaotic effects. Even if it did give useful results, the sheer scale of the resources needed indicates that the only organisation large enough to have access to those resources is the US Government. Since the truth movement generally suspects the US Government of being the perpetrators of 9-11, that would automatically invalidate the results in their eyes, rendering the entire exercise useless.

If you mean a physical model, then does it have to be full size? If so, the cost will be absurdly high, as a proper simulation would require that one WTC tower be rebuilt and fully equipped and furnished. If not, there are some very serious scaling issues that absolutely guarantee that a true scale model will not behave the same as the real towers. For example, the fracture energy per floor of the columns scales as their cross-sectional area, i.e. the square of the linear dimensions, whereas the potential energy available scales as the fourth power of the linear dimensions. As a result, a one-tenth scale model of a WTC tower - still a major construction project - will be one hundred times more resistant to collapse, and we can therefore guarantee that it will survive. OK, so we can re-scale the dimensions of the columns, but then the model has been altered from a true scale model to one that is biased in favour of collapse, so the truth movement calls foul.

The biggest obstacle, therefore, is the astronomical cost of building a full-size physical replica of a WTC tower. Anything less would either tell us nothing useful, be rejected by the truth movement, or both.

Dave

 

[Niclas]

Yes i mean a physical model.

Why would a large model behave differently than a small model ?
Would not the laws of physics treat them equally and fairly?

Could you make an attempt to explain this in laymans terms, or
give an example?

Another question is: If we cannot make a model, is there any event or
phenomena that we know of that might compare, if only remotely
to the WTC collapse?

What is the closest thing?

 

[kookbreaker]

Yes i mean a physical model.

Why would a large model behave differently than a small model ?
Would not the laws of physics treat them equally and fairly?

Could you make an attempt to explain this in laymans terms, or
give an example?

Perhaps you should read what you are replying to:

If not, there are some very serious scaling issues that absolutely guarantee that a true scale model will not behave the same as the real towers. For example, the fracture energy per floor of the columns scales as their cross-sectional area, i.e. the square of the linear dimensions, whereas the potential energy available scales as the fourth power of the linear dimensions. As a result, a one-tenth scale model of a WTC tower - still a major construction project - will be one hundred times more resistant to collapse, and we can therefore guarantee that it will survive.

Obsheesh: Sheesh!

 

[Dave Rogers]

Yes i mean a physical model.

Why would a large model behave differently than a small model ?
Would not the laws of physics treat them equally and fairly?

Could you make an attempt to explain this in laymans terms, or
give an example?

Scaling is a well-known application of the laws of physics, whereas "fair" is a human concept. A good example of the implications of scale is to compare a mouse's and an elephant's legs. The mouse has legs which are very much more slender with respect to its body, whereas the elephant's legs are thick and stocky. If you scaled up a mouse to the size of an elephant, its legs would be unable to bear its weight. The simple reason is that the strength of a leg depends on its area, which depends on the square of its width, whereas the weight to be carried depends on the volume of the body, which varies as the cube.

Therefore, if you scale up a mouse, at about 3cm tall, to the size of an elephant, about 3m tall, the increase in scale is about a factor of 100. The mouse's legs will increase in area by 100x100 = 10,000. However, its weight will increase by 100x100x100 = 1,000,000. The pressure on its legs, defined as weight divided by area, goes up by 100 times.

Looking at it the other way round, if you scale an elephant down to the size of a mouse, its legs will be 100 times stronger than they need to be. You could therefore load down your miniature elephant with a hundred times its own weight and expect it to be able to carry it. However, if you tried to apply this result to a real, full-sized elephant, you would quickly find that an elephant is not capable of bearing a hundred times its own weight.

The same is true of a scale model of the WTC towers. Scale down the structure, and the different properties scale in different ways. A very simple result of this, of course, is that it's easier to design small buildings than large ones.

Dave