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

[metamars]

Shock
Nationalism resonating from media overdrive
Irrational jingoism
Heroism
Machismo
Fear
Cowardice
Pressure to confirm
Irrational submission to authority
Need for a paycheck
Need for institutions to perpetuate institutions
Lack of creative thinking
Cohesion behind leadership
Need for consensus
Inability to envision the US doing anything bad (sort of the Madonna/Whore complex of nationalism)
A lack of awareness of the concept of self-organizing deception through market forces
Linear thinking
No thinking - just following orders
Thinking like Pomeroo

The systemic bias of no one ever viewing the problem as possibly an inside job

Very interesting list. One slight criticism. "Thinking like pomeroo" implies a vast (and vastly improbable) conspiracy of pomeroo's neurons, which wouldn't find anything amiss when Snidely Whiplash lashes Nell Fenwick to a railroad track with a train only a mile out. Perhaps you should say "Not thinking like pomeroo."


I think we'd do well to consider an analogous question - "How could journalists not adequately report on serious issues (including US facilitated genocide, such as in East Timor), and instead show a remarkable subordination to power?" Coverage of atrocities in E. Timor disappeared as the atrocities worsened to genocide. (So says Chomsky, who has researched this in detail, and compared to coverage of the atrocities and genocide in Cambodia.)

Journalists will tend to internalize the values of their professional environment, as described by Noam Chomsky in Necessary Illusions - Thought Control in Democratic Societies. See pp. 10 - 12, where Chomsky describes journalists often meeting very high standards, the problem being "choice of topics and highlighting of issues, the range of opinion permitted expression, the unquestioned premises that guide reporting and commentary, and the general framework imposed for the presentation of a certain view of the world".

 

[Hokulele]

Struggling to stay on topic... There is an additional distinction to make here. In most "soft" sciences, we are dealing with populations rather than individuals. The population rarely acts in a determined way to dominate an experiment, whereas an individual will. Although it does happen. The best known example of this behavior is probably the Long Term Capital Management collapse, where the market literally evolved new behaviors over time -- risks that were originally uncorrelated became correlated in response, and ultimately sank the company.

Soft science cannot treat individuals, because statistics don't apply even most of the time. Again, we are back to forensics and logical deduction. If that fails, then all we have is philosophy and speculation.

Isaac Asimov flashback!

Sorry, carry on.

 

[pomeroo]

Very interesting list. One slight criticism. "Thinking like pomeroo" implies a vast (and vastly improbable) conspiracy of pomeroo's neurons, which wouldn't find anything amiss when Snidely Whiplash lashes Nell Fenwick to a railroad track with a train only a mile out. Perhaps you should say "Not thinking like pomeroo."


I think we'd do well to consider an analogous question - "How could journalists not adequately report on serious issues (including US facilitated genocide, such as in East Timor), and instead show a remarkable subordination to power?" Coverage of atrocities in E. Timor disappeared as the atrocities worsened to genocide. (So says Chomsky, who has researched this in detail, and compared to coverage of the atrocities and genocide in Cambodia.)

Journalists will tend to internalize the values of their professional environment, as described by Noam Chomsky in Necessary Illusions - Thought Control in Democratic Societies. See pp. 10 - 12, where Chomsky describes journalists often meeting very high standards, the problem being "choice of topics and highlighting of issues, the range of opinion permitted expression, the unquestioned premises that guide reporting and commentary, and the general framework imposed for the presentation of a certain view of the world".

May we be permitted to harbor some skepticism regarding Noam Chomsky's "investigations"? The rabid America-hater, after all, denied the Cambodian holocaust for years, and when his position became embarrassingly untenable, blamed everything on--you guessed it!--America.

 

[pomeroo]

My apologies for getting snared up in derailing a great thread. I just cannot abide someone asserting that I'm a "jew-hater."

I'd be very much happy split this off to another thread where Pom can provide his evidence for this ridiculous charge.

Yes, you'll huff and you'll puff, BUT will you simply state the following?

I, RedIbis, deplore the infestation of the fantasy movement by virulent anti-Semites, whose slurs on Jews are contemptible and totally without foundation: No Jews were warned to stay home on 9/11 and the Mossad played no role in the attacks.

What is preventing you from disposing of this issue once and for all?

 

[R.Mackey]

Isaac Asimov flashback!

I take no credit. It was Myriad who invoked Hari Seldon on the last page, subtly but accurately.

 

[Hokulele]

I take no credit. It was Myriad who invoked Hari Seldon on the last page, subtly but accurately.

Ah, thanks for mentioning this. I was on "auto-scroll" through a bunch of the bickering and missed that gem of a post.

 

[pomeroo]

Ah, thanks for mentioning this. I was on "auto-scroll" through a bunch of the bickering and missed that gem of a post.

Well, it's a matter of taste, but by acting as though you're above the "bickering," you risk missing some revelations.

 

[Hokulele]

Well, it's a matter of taste, but by acting as though you're above the "bickering," you risk missing some revelations.

I agree, but I will admit I can only read so many pages of RedIbis', er, arguments before getting an itchy scrolling finger.

 

[pomeroo]

I agree, but I will admit I can only read so many pages of RedIbis', er, arguments before getting an itchy scrolling finger.

Please understand that I'm not reproaching you. I have the highest regard for your contributions. But, isn't it interesting that RedIbis could dispose of my insinuation that he is an anti-Semite by, well, disposing of it? If he just states what I've asked him to state, I will happily retract my suspicion and acknowledge that, unlike many members of the fantasy movement, he is not a Jew-hater. It's as easy as he wants it to be.

 

[Hokulele]

Please understand that I'm not reproaching you. I have the highest regard for your contributions. But, isn't it interesting that RedIbis could dispose of my insinuation that he is an anti-Semite by, well, disposing of it? If he just states what I've asked him to state, I will happily retract my suspicion and acknowledge that, unlike many members of the fantasy movement, he is not a Jew-hater. It's as easy as he wants it to be.

Oh I don't feel reproached at all (I have seen how you reproach people ).

Mostly I am admitting I am human enough that there are days I can read through the 9/11 CT sub-forum with equanimity, and days that I cannot. I wanted to thank someone for directing me to one of the "revelations" I had missed on one of the latter type of days.

 

[pomeroo]

Oh I don't feel reproached at all (I have seen how you reproach people ).

Mostly I am admitting I am human enough that there are days I can read through the 9/11 CT sub-forum with equanimity, and days that I cannot. I wanted to thank someone for directing me to one of the "revelations" I had missed on one of the latter type of days.

I am forced to admit that I must be somewhat less human than you. There are damn few days when I can read this stuff with equanimity.

 

[Hokulele]

Or more human.

 

[pomeroo]

Hmmm, it's been almost an hour. How thunderous is RedIbis's silence?

 

[pomeroo]

Or more human.

You are too kind, m'dear. (Try to hear W.C. Fields speak that line.)

 

[metamars]

May we be permitted to harbor some skepticism regarding Noam Chomsky's "investigations"? The rabid America-hater, after all, denied the Cambodian holocaust for years, and when his position became embarrassingly untenable, blamed everything on--you guessed it!--America.

Noam Chomsky denied the Cambodian holocaust for years? This is news to me.

I googled around a bit, and came across this severe criticism. I'm not about to get into this much in the near future, but this statement caught my eye:

If, as Chomsky does, one treats official statements by mass murderers as “documentation”, while treating refugee reports as “rumors” then one will necessarily conclude that conditions in totalitarian terror regimes are good, as Chomsky invariably concluded for every murderous tyrant.

Chomsky has dismissed reports pointing to 911 conspiracy as "rumors". In fact, it's partly due to this superficial "rumor" comment of Chomsky's, which I've quoted elsewhere, that I find it hard to take him seriously on 911.

To answer your question, though, if he denied Cambodian genocide in the face of considerable (non-rumor) evidence, otherwise, you would indeed be justified in harboring skepticism of his investigations. Even so, ultimately individual arguments have to be considered on their merits.

I don't buy your slander of him as an America-hater, any more than I buy your slander of Red Ibis as someone that helped "fabricated a fantasy that caters to the Jew-hating segment of your evil movement." If there are people in the 911 Truth Movement who hate Jews, and therefore love the fact that Silverstein is Jewish, that's their bad, not Red Ibis'. Your slander of Red Ibis suggests that we should harbor skepticism wrt your "investigations", also. You seem quite rabid, though I suppose it could be that you're purpose is to deliberately smear people, while cunningly affecting an aggressive tone.

 

[Myriad]

Or more human.

You took the words right out of my mouth, Hokulele.

But on further reflection, "more human" and "less human" is not quite accurate and may be a disservice to both styles. Dispassion is partly a learned skill, and the learning experiences sometimes come at a cost. (Not unlike, for instance, "learning" to eat extremely spicy food without reacting.) That's human too.

Pomeroo, I am reluctantly forced to conclude your assessment of RedIbis has merit. If he were able to offer any sort of rationale (I'd settle for that, though actual evidence would be better) for claiming that Silverstein must have lied, it would be a different story.

Oh, and thanks, Hokulele, for the kind words about my Hari Seldon post. Unfortunately it appears to have confused Max Photon. I'll have to try harder next time.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[applecorped]

So, you're a fan of the Spin Doctors? Great tunes, very catchy. A little out dated though.

 

[pomeroo]

Noam Chomsky denied the Cambodian holocaust for years? This is news to me.

I googled around a bit, and came across this severe criticism. I'm not about to get into this much in the near future, but this statement caught my eye:




Chomsky has dismissed reports pointing to 911 conspiracy as "rumors". In fact, it's partly due to this superficial "rumor" comment of Chomsky's, which I've quoted elsewhere, that I find it hard to take him seriously on 911.

To answer your question, though, if he denied Cambodian genocide in the face of considerable (non-rumor) evidence, otherwise, you would indeed be justified in harboring skepticism of his investigations. Even so, ultimately individual arguments have to be considered on their merits.

I don't buy your slander of him as an America-hater, any more than I buy your slander of Red Ibis as someone that helped "fabricated a fantasy that caters to the Jew-hating segment of your evil movement." If there are people in the 911 Truth Movement who hate Jews, and therefore love the fact that Silverstein is Jewish, that's their bad, not Red Ibis'. Your slander of Red Ibis suggests that we should harbor skepticism wrt your "investigations", also. You seem quite rabid, though I suppose it could be that you're purpose is to deliberately smear people, while cunningly affecting an aggressive tone.

It's odd that you regard my characterization of Noam Chomsky as an America-hater as a slander, as his hatred for this country is all-consuming. He regards America as the fount of all the world's evil, as you can discover for yourself in The Anti-Chomsky Reader, a useful collection of essays. I'm afraid you will search far and wide for someone who doesn't think that Chomsky hates America.

Similarly, it is odd that you characterize my suspicions about RedIbis as slander. He can set the record straight with the greatest of ease. Perhaps he will do so. He has slandered an innocent man, Larry Silverstein, accusing him of lying about something that cannot be expressed in words. Twoofers fabricated their baseless myths about the collapse of WTC 7 because Silverstein is a Jew. It's really that simple. If RedIbis wishes to distance himself from the disturbingly large anti-Semitic contingent of the fantasy movement, I have told him how to do it. I take malicious pleasure in repeating that it's as easy as he wants it to be.

 

[pomeroo]

You took the words right out of my mouth, Hokulele.

But on further reflection, "more human" and "less human" is not quite accurate and may be a disservice to both styles. Dispassion is partly a learned skill, and the learning experiences sometimes come at a cost. (Not unlike, for instance, "learning" to eat extremely spicy food without reacting.) That's human too.

Pomeroo, I am reluctantly forced to conclude your assessment of RedIbis has merit. If he were able to offer any sort of rationale (I'd settle for that, though actual evidence would be better) for claiming that Silverstein must have lied, it would be a different story.

Oh, and thanks, Hokulele, for the kind words about my Hari Seldon post. Unfortunately it appears to have confused Max Photon. I'll have to try harder next time.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Again, it would be very easy for RedIbis to persuade me to abandon my suspicions.

 

[pomeroo]

You seem quite rabid, though I suppose it could be that you're purpose is to deliberately smear people, while cunningly affecting an aggressive tone.

Am I "rabid" or "cunning"? I confess to wondering about that question more than I used to. You'll admit that my aggressive tone serves its purpose of provoking people into saying things they didn't expect to find themselves saying.