You have seen the ban notice. Do you want to restate your opinion now?
Science vs Teleology: Which lens is best for viewing 911?
- Thread starter Max Photon
- Start date
I still have a hard time grasping why this thread is going on so long. Isn't the OP question the same as asking if a crime is better investigated by a Sylvia Browne than by a real forensic investigation? Could someone please explain the actual significance of such a question or is the question one of tacit admission that in the face of real science the truth movement would stand no chance?
I can answer that.
In between all the derails and pointless bickering, there is actually a useful discussion here, one that I think is about the philosophy of science. It would probably fit on three pages if posters could be bothered to stick to the OP, but I digress.
This is basically correct, but the question also reveals some subtleties.
Science in specific is not generally concerned with "who benefits," but there is a careful study of cause and effect. Correlation does not always imply causation, but it often reveals one. In addressing this related question, science has evolved some sophisticated tools for testing the relation -- statistics, double-blind experiments, sensitivity analysis. This often applies even if the mechanism is poorly known or not known at all. Heredity, for instance, was well understood and even quantified centuries before even a cursory understanding of DNA.
Criminal investigation differs at the top level because, again, we are treating an invidiual rather than a population, so our use of statistics etc. is limited. The standard of the criminal hypothesis is method, opportunity, and motive, where the latter is the best fit to your question. Method fits the concept of science quite well.
As for motive, this on its own is neither sufficient nor necessary to close a criminal investigation. It is only a clue. Many crimes have no motive, at least no sane rationale. Many crimes have no beneficiary. Others may have many possible motives. The same properties that make individuals difficult to treat scientifically -- impulse -- also create any number of default answers to the question of "who benefits." As in, "the Twinkie made me do it" or "it seemed like a good idea at the time."
I find cui bono is a useful tool for speculating about new hypotheses, e.g. "follow the dollars," but it is not so good at excluding hypotheses. Similarly, guessing what a particular process might be good for can lead to new scientific hypotheses, especially in the biological sciences, but we need to determine whether cause and effect are really that and not just coincidence, or related effects, independently.
In between all the derails and pointless bickering, there is actually a useful discussion here, one that I think is about the philosophy of science. It would probably fit on three pages if posters could be bothered to stick to the OP, but I digress.
This is basically correct, but the question also reveals some subtleties.
Science in specific is not generally concerned with "who benefits," but there is a careful study of cause and effect. Correlation does not always imply causation, but it often reveals one. In addressing this related question, science has evolved some sophisticated tools for testing the relation -- statistics, double-blind experiments, sensitivity analysis. This often applies even if the mechanism is poorly known or not known at all. Heredity, for instance, was well understood and even quantified centuries before even a cursory understanding of DNA.
Criminal investigation differs at the top level because, again, we are treating an invidiual rather than a population, so our use of statistics etc. is limited. The standard of the criminal hypothesis is method, opportunity, and motive, where the latter is the best fit to your question. Method fits the concept of science quite well.
As for motive, this on its own is neither sufficient nor necessary to close a criminal investigation. It is only a clue. Many crimes have no motive, at least no sane rationale. Many crimes have no beneficiary. Others may have many possible motives. The same properties that make individuals difficult to treat scientifically -- impulse -- also create any number of default answers to the question of "who benefits." As in, "the Twinkie made me do it" or "it seemed like a good idea at the time."
I find cui bono is a useful tool for speculating about new hypotheses, e.g. "follow the dollars," but it is not so good at excluding hypotheses. Similarly, guessing what a particular process might be good for can lead to new scientific hypotheses, especially in the biological sciences, but we need to determine whether cause and effect are really that and not just coincidence, or related effects, independently.
I suppose you're right. I was tempted to label China our "rival," but I suspect that the Chinese will reveal themselves to be an outright enemy in due course. After all, their extensive military buildup is directed specifically at America's capabilities.
As much of it you sling, the last statement causes Me to doubt that.
Max wants to cow us all into submission.
Clippy
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2008
- Messages
- 608
I agree, way too much of moos and joos.
A bit off-topic, but don't you mean decades? Who before Mendel had any sort of a proper quantitative understanding of heredity. Certainly not Lamarck!
Of course motive is not enough, that's why means is a necessary filter.
And the 9/11 Commission considered how many hypotheses? One? That's called junk science.
Do so called truthers ever get anything besides the date of 9/11 right? Since when was the 9/11 commission a scientific investigation?
And still you try to pretend that the 9/11 Commission was tasked with providing a scientific explanation for the events of that terrible day? Do you remember my experiment last week with asking you liars why we shouldn't believe that the massive, multi-agency investigation "solved" the case? None of you had anything to say. The intelligence agencies did the detective work; NIST did the science. Your evil, mindless movement has been unable to challenge any of the conclusions reached by serious researchers. Ten thousand pages produced by highly qualified experts represent real science. Your side's endlessly recycled falsehoods and distorted quotes don't quite rise to the level of junk science.
So you claim that I misquoted you above. Report me if I did otherwise address what I said. Or ignore me. I really could care less what you and your impotent brethren do...
We will indulge Max's fondness for Latin by asking "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes ?" and pray that no one starts churning out "custard" puns (or starts throwing custard pies).
Yes, who will watch the watchmen? Your movement has aimed very high in this instance. You call into question the motives and methodologies of law enforcement agencies that free societies rely on for protection. If the FBI labors to produce evidence that is instantly branded as fake by agenda-driven cranks, its very purpose is being challenged.
Is it possible to envision a citizen's team that can penetrate the bureau and expose a massive conspiracy to fabricate enormous amounts of evidence? Sure, but it always comes back to what I've been hammering away at for a long time: SOMEONE HAS TO SPILL THE BEANS. There has to be a hook, something the investigation can latch onto, a spoor to follow. SOMETHING has to hint at the possibility that ALL the evidence presented by the exhaustive multi-agency effort is tainted.
I keep showing the simple but daunting math. If you have 1000 people each of whom has a 99% probability of keeping the conspiracy's dark secrets, there is a 99.996 % probability that at least one person will leak them. You conspiracy liars tap dance around this devastating blow to your fantasies because it is so crushing and so unanswerable. I remind you types continually that your imaginary conspiracy is mathematically impossible. Once when I allowed that, technically, it isn't precisely impossible but rather wildly implausible, a hopeless idiot called me a liar. Let's agree that the chance of thousands of people across a wide range of professions living with their complicity in a monstrous crime without ever uttering a peep is zero.
So, your mindless movement must deny the mountain of evidence, but it is helpless to chip away at it. Elias Davidsson, the America-hating Icelandic fraud, was reduced to shrieking that I was a liar when I exposed his falsehoods about the flight manifests. BUT--bear in mind the extremely high stakes we are playing for. If the manifests reveal the names and seating positions of the hijackers, you clowns can fold up the circus tents and go back to searching for real lives.
Here, then, is another opportunity to tell us why the case isn't solved. The evidence produced by the massive, multi-agency investigation is flawed because...?
Do you know how to answer a direct question or are you as dishonest as your impotent brethren? Either answer the question or you go on ignore...
There were 7,000 agents from the FBI alone, over 1,000 researchers with NIST, the thousands of engineers in ASCE, the air traffic controllers, the police and firefighters, the forensic examiners, the military personnel--your imaginary conspiracy exceeds 10,000 accomplices, willing and unwilling. I selected 1,000 as a number that is much smaller than the conspiracy you imagine. I used .99 as a probability of keeping one's mouth shut higher than any human, excepting possibly James Bond or G. Gordon Liddy, could conceivably aspire to. My estimate that the secret would be leaked is wrong on the low side. The actual probability that the imaginary conspiracy dreamed up by fantasists would unravel approaches 1, or certainty.
MIKILLINI
Incromulent Logic
- Joined
- May 3, 2007
- Messages
- 2,979
Just between you and me
The answer cannot be seen
unless you accept the reality
it was both science and teleology.
But Max deals in his own philosophy
creating a different teleology.
Max, so A20 cannot post anymore?
Is he on any other forums that you know of? Any other discussions involving A20accessible?
What you have been hinting at can be considered a 2 tiered (or level) system. You mentioned as much.
Level 1 consists of events as they superficially seem to happen. A bunch of engineers doing a scientific study functions on this level.
Level 2 is "the man behind the curtain", cunning, sly, the secretive part of the magician, covert operations, tricking or "outsmarting" level one existence. Puppeteering level one existence when useful.
Level one is associated with routine, innocence, naivete, a belief that rules largely govern man, authority should be trusted at face value. Associated with "sheep"
Level 2 is inherently secretive. One of it's strongest defenses is in getting the sheep to believe it doesn't exist. "Nothing to fear, sheep. Just go on grazing".
It's nature is secretive and predatory, and in this sense is dominated by it's own egoistic cravings. Feeling, empathy is weakness. Traditionally associated with snake (serpent) or fox.
Level 2 behavior instinctively hides it's tracks. It's nature is to destroy evidence which can lead to exposure of the deed.
This 2 level interaction is just a basic model to illustrate some points.
People do speak of NIST's scientific investigation as if it was performed in a vaccuum.
What science can properly analyze "cunning"? Motive? Ulterior motive behind decision making? None.
For example, Frank made the following comments concerning the sceintific method used by NIST:
These are decent objections. Haven't seen any valid responses yet.
A dovelike innocence allows people to ignore the fact that there may have been people in high places that wished to sort through columns debris before NIST was allowed access.
When NIST claims it was only able to examine 4 of over 3oo core columns from the fire affected regions, motive and reason for choosing to examine such a tiny, insignificant fraction of samples escapes attention for those practicing the NISTian faith.
Therefore if you look at the 911 "problem" from the possibility of 2 general levels existing, you cannot just sheepishly accept purity of the scientific method without paying close attention to whether the imput data, or the scientists themselves, can be manipulated.
NIST's examination of only 4 of over 300 columns of the most important areas of the bulidings, the fire affected regions AND the collapse initiation zones, should raise a red flag to anyone not totally blind to the possibility of the manipulation of evidence.
Is he on any other forums that you know of? Any other discussions involving A20accessible?
What you have been hinting at can be considered a 2 tiered (or level) system. You mentioned as much.
Level 1 consists of events as they superficially seem to happen. A bunch of engineers doing a scientific study functions on this level.
Level 2 is "the man behind the curtain", cunning, sly, the secretive part of the magician, covert operations, tricking or "outsmarting" level one existence. Puppeteering level one existence when useful.
Level one is associated with routine, innocence, naivete, a belief that rules largely govern man, authority should be trusted at face value. Associated with "sheep"
Level 2 is inherently secretive. One of it's strongest defenses is in getting the sheep to believe it doesn't exist. "Nothing to fear, sheep. Just go on grazing".
It's nature is secretive and predatory, and in this sense is dominated by it's own egoistic cravings. Feeling, empathy is weakness. Traditionally associated with snake (serpent) or fox.
Level 2 behavior instinctively hides it's tracks. It's nature is to destroy evidence which can lead to exposure of the deed.
This 2 level interaction is just a basic model to illustrate some points.
People do speak of NIST's scientific investigation as if it was performed in a vaccuum.
What science can properly analyze "cunning"? Motive? Ulterior motive behind decision making? None.
For example, Frank made the following comments concerning the sceintific method used by NIST:
These are decent objections. Haven't seen any valid responses yet.
A dovelike innocence allows people to ignore the fact that there may have been people in high places that wished to sort through columns debris before NIST was allowed access.
When NIST claims it was only able to examine 4 of over 3oo core columns from the fire affected regions, motive and reason for choosing to examine such a tiny, insignificant fraction of samples escapes attention for those practicing the NISTian faith.
Therefore if you look at the 911 "problem" from the possibility of 2 general levels existing, you cannot just sheepishly accept purity of the scientific method without paying close attention to whether the imput data, or the scientists themselves, can be manipulated.
NIST's examination of only 4 of over 300 columns of the most important areas of the bulidings, the fire affected regions AND the collapse initiation zones, should raise a red flag to anyone not totally blind to the possibility of the manipulation of evidence.