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

[pomeroo]

That's pretty funny coming from you, RedIbis.

You have repeatedly accused Larry Silverstein of "lying through his dentures", but you have refused to even say what it is that you allege him to be "lying" about, and you have failed spectacularly to substantiate your accusations. In fact, you ran away with your tail between your legs on those threads when you could not substantiate your accusations.

You also repeatedly accused General Myers of criminal negligence and actual complicity in the terrorist attacks of 9/11, but you have refused to say what it is that you allege constitutes criminal negligence or complicity on his part, and you have failed spectacularly to substantiate your accusations against him. In fact, you ran away with your tail between your legs on those threads, too, when you could not substantiate your accusations.

And yet, here you are demanding that Pomeroo "prove it" when he suggests that you might just have an agenda of your own while you repeatedly make egregious, unsubstantiated and entirely unsupported accusations of serious criminal behaviour against others.

My irony meter has exploded.

Red's refusal to dispose of the matter by responding to post # 264 was unanticipated by me.

 

[pomeroo]

Prove it.

ETA: The more I think about it, the more stupid this becomes. I've criticized Giuliani. Does that make me anti-Italian? I've criticzed General Myers. Does that make me anti-Generals?

Playing the race card is a sure sign of desperation and losing the debate.

Refusing to denounce the vicious Jew-haters who comprise a significant segment of your evil movement is a bizarre way to conduct the debate.

 

[Max Photon]

The Mad Hater

[...] Show us the ordinary American citizen who lost rights since 2001. Hint: there are none. Habeas corpus is alive and well, but the criminal justice system was not intended to protect stateless warriors who kill non-combatants.


And I say that the neocons have inflicted no--zero--damage to America's freedoms.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury, seems to disagree with you.

Paul Craig Roberts archives

 

[pomeroo]

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury, seems to disagree with you.

Paul Craig Roberts archives

Well, if Roberts disagrees with me, he must be wrong.

Like many conservatives, I used to respect Roberts. When he went completely off the deep end in the opening days of the invasion of Iraq--he decided that a sandstorm had doomed the whole enterprise and America was headed for a catastrophic defeat--I washed my hands of the the whole Lew Rockwell nuthouse. Please understand that I came to 9/11 debunking through a libertarian discussion forum. 'Hardfire' is sponsored by the Libertarian Party of NY. I believe strongly in individual freedom.

I contend that no ordinary citizen's freedoms have been affected even slightly by anti-terrorism legislation.

 

[Max Photon]

I contend that no ordinary citizen's freedoms have been affected even slightly by anti-terrorism legislation.

Ordinary citizens? As opposed to what other kind?

 

[pomeroo]

Ordinary citizens? As opposed to what other kind?

Uh, those who work with foreign terrorists. I hate trick questions. They always trip me up.

Hey, Maxie, I liked the way you pointed out that someone with half of Frank's IQ couldn't be me. Here you were, right for the very first time on this forum, and you didn't even realize it! Ain't life grand!

 

[Max Photon]

Sorry Max, no habeas corpus for you

Uh, those who work with foreign terrorists.

But Pomeroo, you yourself have accused me of hating America, and have practically labeled me an enemy combatant assisting the terrorists.

...I guess I should thank my luck stars you're not El Presidente.

 

[Major_Tom]

Max asks:

I am still trying to determine what term best describes the class of problems where experimental feedback is so great that the subject exerts control over the investigators and the investigation.

If not teleology, then ________?

The realities of power
Puppetry
The higher order criminal mind
Mastering the mind game
Criminal application of game theory
The art of deception
The art of (starting a) war (or two)
Hypnotic suspension of emotional intelligence in order to thieve

What you are looking for, Max, cannot be found by strictly applying some scientific methodology.

Would you look to modern psychology or sociology for some parallel ideas? To anything found at a typical university?

Fooling your fellow man is an art form. Being able to see the subtle methods used to deceive is also an art form.

Variations on the same tricks for thousands of years.

Ancient methods employed: Find yourself a patsy (dark skin works well). Drum up mass hatred. Go steal more stuff.

Are you looking for some greek word which describes these cycles?

 

[RedIbis]

Red's refusal to dispose of the matter by responding to post # 264 was unanticipated by me.

Like I already said and you stubbornly refuse to understand: you could ask me to pledge that the sun rises in the east, and because it comes from a spiteful and bitter half rate public access "host", I won't do it.

I don't give a damn what pledge you propose, stick it in your giant hardfire tankard.

 

[Myriad]

Myriad,

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted you. What do you say we have a fresh start, and just take it from there?

Peace,

Max

Every post is a fresh start, Max.

But if you want to get us back on topic, how about responding to post 50 in this thread, which directly and thoroughly addresses your OP question?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Max Photon]

The "Teleology Lens" is only useful after the "Science Lens" has resolved that an agent capable of teleology is acting. Otherwise, it gives you an image that is not so much wrong as useless.

Suppose I leave a block of ice outside my house on a hot summer day, and I come back later and find nothing but a puddle of water. I can use science I can determine whether or not, given the temperature, the elapsed time, and the size of the ice block, the ice block would be expected to melt into a puddle of water.

If the answer is "no," then I can try the teleological lens: who stole my ice block, and why?

If the answer is "yes," then the teleological lens is useless. Note that the science lens has not proven that someone didn't come along and steal my ice and pour some water in its place to cover up the crime. What the science lens has proven is that such a hypothesis is unnecessary.

Now, "unnecessary" is one of those words whose meaning in scientific inquiry is a bit different from its everyday meaning. In the everyday meaning, eating the dish of ice cream I ate yesterday was unnecessary. But I did it anyhow. Unnecessary things happen all the time. So why should the ice-thief hypothesis being "unnecessary" make any difference in whether I should believe it or not? Why not "investigate" anyhow?

But the "unnecessary" in an unnecessary hypothesis has a stronger meaning. It really means that if the science lens cannot find a reason why the evidence requires an additional hypothesis to explain it, then nothing of value can be learned from considering such a hypothesis.

Suppose, for instance, that in actual fact, someone really did steal my block of ice, leaving absolutely no evidence except the absence of ice and the puddle of water. If due to being unwilling to entertain unnecessary hypotheses means that I never know about the ice thief, what do I lose thereby? Note that the ice thief has not done me any harm; the fact that the temperature was sufficient to melt the ice before I noticed it was missing means that I would have lost the ice in any event, even if the supposed ice thief had not stolen it.

If there were other evidence to make a thief hypothesis necessary -- such as the disappearance of an ice block too large to have melted by itself, a pattern of missing ice throughout the neighborhood, witnesses to masked men loading blocks of ice into the back of an unmarked van, a pair of ice tongs carelessly left behind at the scene -- then the situation would be quite different. Then the hypothesis of ice melting naturally would be no longer sufficient to account for the evidence. A thief hypothesis would no longer be unnecessary. And questions like "why is the ice thief doing this?" and "what if the ice thief strikes again?" would become at least worth considering, even if the evidence is not sufficient to fully answer them.

But to accept an unnecessary hypothesis is way more harmful to rational thinking than an unnecessary dish of ice cream is to one's waistline. It's like dividing by zero in math. It introduces a sort of unbounded variable into a scenario, from which wild fantasies can flow unchecked:

Holy crap, someone mopped up the puddle of water before I could collect samples that could have determined through trace-element analysis whether or not the water really came from my ice melting! Through my teleological lens, this looks highly suspicious! And why would an ice thief have bothered to steal the ice in the first place, let alone go to such great lengths to cover it up? It seems a lot of effort to go to for little reward. Unless my ice contained something of great value! There didn't seem to be anything in it. But suppose if it were full of flawless precious diamonds! Those wouldn't have been noticeable inside the ice, and that explains why it was stolen! It all fits! What, you don't find that plausible? Are you claiming that flawless diamonds aren't transparent? Or that it's not possible for diamonds to be frozen into ice? How can you be failing to see the big picture here, are you blind? I've been robbed of millions of dollars, and not only that I have a vital lead on the actions of a gigantic diamond smuggling operation. Such an operation would be capable of making huge amounts of money, and for what purpose? Perhaps to build particle beam devices to energize the upper atmosphere and bring about a new ice age! And yet, the police are telling me they won't even investigate! They cannot possibly be uninterested in what very well might be a multi-million dollar theft, a global diamond smuggling operation, and a plot to turn the world into a frozen wasteland! The only explanation is that they must be in on it too! Damn you, ice thieves! Damn you all to hell!!!!

And that is why the "Science Lens" is the one to use for 9/11, unless and until evidence requiring a teleological hypothesis is presented. Note that with regard to the plane crashes, such evidence (that there were hijackers, not just a series of coincidental accidents) does exist and a teleological hypothesis was accordingly created, investigated, and verified. Evidence that the collapses were inconsistent with the effects of the well-verified phenomena of structural damage and fire in the towers does not exist, so the hypothesis of the collapse being facilitated via planted explosives, accelerants, and/or thermal reagents is unnecessary.

An unnecessary hypothesis is by definition one for which there is no evidence requiring it.

If there are no facts for a hypothesis to explain, then nothing can be learned by investigating that hypothesis.

Respectfully,
Myriad

(bold mine)


Myriad,

To many, the embedding space of 911 - not just 911 itself - has features that make the consideration of an inside job a necessary hypothesis, to use your term. (Of course, you probably don't see it that way.)

As just one example, it certainly appears to many that the neocons used 911 to manufacture consent for attacking Iraq, even if the excuses morphed away from this over time.

Max

 

[Major_Tom]

Max, a magician uses the methods, "harmonics", that you describe.

After thinking about the question I could see extreme similarities only in the professions of magician and con man (and military-power structure equivalents to these professions). Oh yes, and Satan himself.

A magician performing in front of a live audience does what you describe, mostly in mime.

Nobody actually believes that a woman was sawed in half or that the magician can actually make things disappear. Yet nobody can see how he actually creates the illusion of magic.

Are you possibly looking for greek words that describe what a magician or con man does?

 

[Max Photon]

Maxelangelo

Max, a magician uses the methods, "harmonics", that you describe.

After thinking about the question I could see extreme similarities only in the professions of magician and con man (and military-power structure equivalents to these professions). Oh yes, and Satan himself.

A magician performing in front of a live audience does what you describe, mostly in mime.

Nobody actually believes that a woman was sawed in half or that the magician can actually make things disappear. Yet nobody can see how he actually creates the illusion of magic.

Are you possibly looking for greek words that describe what a magician or con man does?

Major Tom,

Most readers really had a problem with my choice of teleology to describe the class of problems or experiments where human nonlinear resistance emerges. So I was trying to illicit a better word, if one exists.


By the way, painters also fit in the category with magicians. Da Vinci would destroy his notes so that others would not figure out how he created a given painting. Paintings are magic illusion - there is no hot chick in the frame smiling at you. But there is a rule: to kill the magic, reveal the trick (hence the Magician's Oath.) So da Vinci would destroy his notes so viewers would not see the "mind behind the design." He cloaked the teleological nature of the problem so that the viewer would only see (the illusion of) the "science" - i.e., the "real" woman.

 

[pomeroo]

But Pomeroo, you yourself have accused me of hating America, and have practically labeled me an enemy combatant assisting the terrorists.

...I guess I should thank my luck stars you're not El Presidente.

You are an aging hippie who recycles the puerile anti-American cant of the sixties. Although you may have delusions of grandeur, I suspect that you're quite harmless. Please note that your insinuation that I have labeled you as an enemy combatant is quite a stretch. All of you fantasists who want to clap three times and whisk the jihadists out of existence are, in an obvious sense, aiding our enemies. Your numbers are tiny and your message is incoherent nonsense. The risk that your type of "thinking" will gain a foothold is quite small. There are, however, people who actively aid the jihadists by securing funding for their operations and enabling them to avoid detection. You will, of course, continue to pretend that they don't exist.

 

[pomeroo]

Like I already said and you stubbornly refuse to understand: you could ask me to pledge that the sun rises in the east, and because it comes from a spiteful and bitter half rate public access "host", I won't do it.

I don't give a damn what pledge you propose, stick it in your giant hardfire tankard.

You can spew insults until the cows come home, but everyone has noticed that you refuse to denounce the Jew-haters in your evil, mindless movement.

 

[Max Photon]

Max breaks an old record

You are an aging hippie who recycles the puerile anti-American cant of the sixties. Although you may have delusions of grandeur, I suspect that you're quite harmless. Please note that your insinuation that I have labeled you as an enemy combatant is quite a stretch. All of you fantasists who want to clap three times and whisk the jihadists out of existence are, in an obvious sense, aiding our enemies. Your numbers are tiny and your message is incoherent nonsense. The risk that your type of "thinking" will gain a foothold is quite small. There are, however, people who actively aid the jihadists by securing funding for their operations and enabling them to avoid detection. You will, of course, continue to pretend that they don't exist.

For the record, you must be older than me.....what's an aging hippie?


(Oh, and by the way.....what's a record?)

 

[Max Photon]

Pomeroo, RedIbis, there is now a dedicated thread for your discussion.

 

[Max Photon]

Okay, all we have to do here is figure out who had the biggest bono

This thread is intended to be an extension of R.Mackey's excellent thread Offer to the Truth Movement: Let's Settle It

In that thread, Ryan addresses critical 911 issues through the lens of the scientific method. But is the scientific method really the most appropriate for 911?

This is a reasonable question.

My answer is that there is no practical difference between the Scientific Method and criminal investigation, which would seem to be the only alternative. The mechanisms and the traditions are different, but both follow the same logical pattern.

Ryan,

I would think a fundamental difference between the scientific method and a criminal investigation is that a criminal investigation adds to the process the question: Cui bono?

 

[beachnut]

...
To many, the embedding space of 911 - not just 911 itself - has features that make the consideration of an inside job a necessary hypothesis, to use your term. (Of course, you probably don't see it that way.)
...

For those who use teleology to express their lies, fantasies, and failed ideas of 9/11. Like you?

Nope, teleology is for the fantasy spewing false information experts, like you spewing the military did it with no evidence. Your mildec mumbo jumbo fits this topic perfectly, the topic of spewing false information is pure teleology of blaming others and being too lazy to do the thinking required to understand 9/11.


Do you find yourself incapable of action to correct the way you think things should be going? Have you dropped back to a fantasy world, so you can blame others for things to explain why you are unable to influence current events and policies. Instead of taking action to correct policy and other things happening now; do you blame the past event of 9/11 on your scapegoats, made up ideas to protect your failure to control the world around you?

 

[Max Photon]

mwa-mwamwamwamwa

Speaking of filters, Beachnut's posts alway remind me of Charlie Brown's teacher.