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

[beachnut]

Max:

9/11 is a mess as far as science is concerned. The "crime scene" was too large and was, albeit inadvertently, tampered with almost immediately by the rescue and recovery operations.

Photographs of GZ taken before the end of Oct 2001 show how much "clean-up" had been accomplished by that early date. Hence the crime of 9/11 will never be "solved" scientifically, mainly because of the lack of physical evidence.

Instead, we have to rely on the simulacra of second-hand reports fed to us through government agencies. This makes us detached from, and indifferent to, the real event.

Is that, (sort-of), what you are saying, Max?

Yes trying to put out fires around New York and dig out your fellow firefighters is inadvertent? ?

The crime was solved. You must of missed it, 19 terrorist did it with the help of UBL. UBL can tell you, he does not lie like 9/11 truth continuously
There is no lack of evidence to solve 9/11. The only people who can not solve 9/11 are contrarians, and people who have no clue.

I can solve 9/11 without any government source! I guessed correctly who did it on 9/11 at the second aircraft impact; UBL told everyone he was going to kill us when he could; is that science, remembering what your enemy tells you, and putting the evidence together? I only got one thing wrong in the first hour, I thought UBL had bought his own planes. I thought that because the impact looked like a large explosion when 175 impacted the WTC. When I saw how fast the plane was going, and reports of the hijacked planes, I knew it was a KE energy event. So no government is needed if you pay attention. So this is your opinion and it is wrong. I have talked to people first hand who were there on 9/11, and their testimony negates the stupid question of 9/11 truth. I have yet to see a valid idea from 9/11 truth, or anyone on 9/11 issues that dent the fact 19 terrorist did it! Solved. Next.

So you couched your kibitzing as what Max thinks. Makes for a perfect contrarian post. (irony...)

19 terrorist did 9/11; they used tactics that were 75 percent effective under surprise and doing things in combination, never done before. The fact is their tactics failed when we knew the rules, it took an hour to an hour and half to solve 9/11 as it unfolded. Proof you can solve 9/11 without government sources: The passengers of flight 93 did. Max may not understand it, he blames the military falsely and does not apologize for lack of evidence and lying about who did 9/11.

 

[Major_Tom]

I think most all of us can agree with the following statements:

1) The best way to scientifically determine why each of the 3 towers originally gave way would be to collect and forensically study all of the columns which in all probability gave way first.

2) If all columns within the collapse initiation zones cannot be collected, an acceptable alternative would be to collect and forensically study more than enough samples to form a representative collection of columns from the collapse initiation zones.

3) During the careful examination of these collections we would look for evidence to tell us:

a) To what temperatures were these columns subject?
b) To what extent fireproofing was damaged and whether this damaged fireproofing was what actually lead to collapse initiation.
c) Just where and how the columns in the collapse initiation zone first gave.


This, if possible, would have been the natural way to proceed and apply the scientific method.


So how many core column samples from the collapse initiation zones did NIST examine and why? They tell us in the following quote:

In the two buildings, there were 329 core columns (each three stories tall) traversing floors involved in fires. NIST has portions of four of these columns, and on average about half of each column was recovered. While these pieces allow some comparison of metal and paint condition with the predications of the fire model, the recovered steel represents less than one percent of all the core columns intersecting floors with fire. Thus, the forensic analysis indicating moderate temperature excursions in the recovered core columns does not, and cannot, give a picture of temperatures seen by the vast majority of the core columns. NCSTAR 1-3C, page xivi (PDF page 48)

Their entire forensic collection consisted of only 4 core columns. They admit that such a scant collection cannot give a realistic sense of what temperatures were actually experienced inside the core. And as for a practical sense of the loss of fireproofing and how and where the first columns failed, what can you learn a sample consisting of less than 1% of the total?

And how many column sections were saved for analysis from WTC 7? None that I know of.


I agree that the sceintific method could have told us all we needed to know. But from the POV of the NIST report, that which we can pretty much all agree would have been the best evidence to work with was destroyed before NIST could examine it.

Is this a question for science
Or of teleology?

It would have been science were the key evidence not trashed before NIST could examine it.

Having the key physical evidence trashed, it is a little late to preach strict adherence to the scientific method.

 

[Major_Tom]

A20 notes: The "crime scene" was too large and was, albeit inadvertently, tampered with almost immediately by the rescue and recovery operations.


This cannot be the reason NIST only collected 4 core column samples in total.


Funk de Fino Notes in a different thread: NIST had steel to choose from and they chose what they wanted.


I am open to this possibility though one must question why NIST would have made such and objectively bone-headed choice.


So why did NIST only have 4 core columns (less than 1%) from the collapse initiation zones to study? R Mackey, can this question be answered using the scientific method?

Give me something that cannot be solved by the Scientific Method.

Just as examples on the side, how about the following:

Why do you or any of us exist?
Why are human being subject to birth and death?
Why human suffering?
Why are so many human beings so blindly subject to purely materialistic desires even though all material things must perish?

Where did you come from? Where are you ultimately going?

Why are the most recent and current generations so fixed on rendering their own planet uninhabitable for future generations?

How is it that scientists and engineers are collectively so blind to the quantity and extent of waste products being released into the atmosphere as a result of their "pursuit of progress"?

The list goes on...

Please don't bother trying to answer any of these questions here. The point is that there are whole classes of questions which are too profound to apply bookish learning and some narrowly defined scientific method of which the academic culture is so fond.

 

[Pardalis]

Didn't we have this conversation before?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103573 (see post 19)

 

[Pardalis]

The "who dunnit" of 9/11 is best looked at through FORENSICS. Forensics is a science.

Now you can use Teleology to debate who had motive, etc... but just as in court, FACTS, EVIDENCE, SCIENCE, trump "motive".

TAM

I noticed Max didn't answer this important point.

So Max, how does one go about prosecuting and convicting the conspirators solely on "philosophical" evidence?

Science is good for studying rocks or box turtles. Teleology is good for studying magicians.

What if the magicians used rocks and box turtles?

 

[Patriot4life]

Plato summarized the teleological position in his dialogue Phaedo, bemoaning those who fail to distinguish between the ultimate Cause and the mere means by which that Cause acts:

“ Imagine not being able to distinguish the real cause from that without which the cause would not be able to act as a cause. It is what the majority appear to do..."

from the wiki on teleology.

here's a telelogical question regarding 9/11:

Why do terrorists hate America?

 

[OldTigerCub]

from the wiki on teleology.

here's a telelogical question regarding 9/11:

Why do terrorists hate America?

Quick answer. They can't have their way as long as democracy is a choice.

 

[T.A.M.]

Max:

9/11 is a mess as far as science is concerned. The "crime scene" was too large and was, albeit inadvertently, tampered with almost immediately by the rescue and recovery operations.

Photographs of GZ taken before the end of Oct 2001 show how much "clean-up" had been accomplished by that early date. Hence the crime of 9/11 will never be "solved" scientifically, mainly because of the lack of physical evidence.

Instead, we have to rely on the simulacra of second-hand reports fed to us through government agencies. This makes us detached from, and indifferent to, the real event.

Is that, (sort-of), what you are saying, Max?

I know this was addressed to Max, but I would like to comment.

In a perfect world, the crime scene would remain untouched, unaltered, until the investigative teams had time to do their work.

This circumstance, this scene, was different for the following reasons:

1. The recovery of human life was at stake. This must always trump the integrity of any crime scene.
2. If government agencies (FBI etc...) were not to be the ones to investigate (AS THEY ALWAYS ARE) then who was suppose to investigate this crime? The "Concerned Citizens League" ???
3. While not perfect, as things were moved, the contents of the crime scene were still available, even after moved from GZ, for some time.
4. Given the FBI did not try to halt the removal of the debris from GZ, are you accusing the FBI in any way of contributing to the alleged "cover up"?

TAM

 

[funk de fino]

If I see someone being shot I have to, as a First Aider, try to save that persons life. Does this mean I am tampering with a crime scene? Yes, it undoubtably does. Does this mean I am covering up an inside job or I am part of a conspiracy. No, I am not.

Truthers really need a reality check, it is OK to be stupid, some people are not blessed with the brains, but to have a complete detachment from reality that these morons have, is just very sad.

Some very intelligent people also display this detachment which is even sadder. I feel for their families.

 

[Myriad]

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

 

[John Blonn]

All of this talk of teleology is ironic given that the Truthers do indeed think 'teleologically,' whatever that means.

Though there are many different definitions of teleology, most of them in some way point to a flipped causal arrow; that is, the 'effect' causes the 'cause.' The effect, or goal, in this case is called the telos, is the end or purpose. This is where notions of design, intent, etc. come in: the endpoint (the telos) is known and desired, and the causes are set up so that telos is reached. In this way, then, the telos is 'causing' the causes. It is a form of retroactive causation. Teleological thinking can be seen, for instance, in biology, most recently in notions of "Intelligent Design," and historically in William Paley's example of the watch, debates on form v. function, etc.

This, of course, destroys Max's dichotomy of "Science vs. Teleology", which as I mentioned earlier is simplistic and vague. One can see that 'science' and 'teleology' are often quite intertwined through the history of science.

In any event, what is ironic about this is that the truthers are generally teleological thinkers in that they know the endpoint (9/11 was an inside job!) and work backwards to get there. Their telos (INSIDE JOB!) 'causes' the evidence they produce. The endpoint of their research is clear; they have designed their 'evidence' and 'facts' to support this end goal.

The 'scientific' way instead looks to start with the evidence and work towards the conclusion; the conclusion is not known in advance.

Again, these are horribly simplistic categories; I don't want to reify either 'teleologic' thinking or 'scientific' thinking. I can elaborate on more points if Max (or others) are curious.

TL;DR - Max's dichotomy is empirically incorrect, philosophically suspect, and poorly thought out.

 

[applecorped]

Max:

9/11 is a mess as far as science is concerned. The "crime scene" was too large and was, albeit inadvertently, tampered with almost immediately by the rescue and recovery operations.

Photographs of GZ taken before the end of Oct 2001 show how much "clean-up" had been accomplished by that early date. Hence the crime of 9/11 will never be "solved" scientifically, mainly because of the lack of physical evidence.
Instead, we have to rely on the simulacra of second-hand reports fed to us through government agencies. This makes us detached from, and indifferent to, the real event.

Is that, (sort-of), what you are saying, Max?

What physical evidence is lacking? Would the addition of said lacking evidence change anything as far as who is responsible and why they did it?

 

[Max Photon]

Hi everyone,

I have some business I need to take care of for a few days. Forgive me for starting a thread and having to run. I'll be back.

Max

 

[Clippy]

John Blonn,

Let's not forget the 9/11 Commission's own teleological thinking when it failed to consider American-based complicity in the attacks.

 

[Par]

Let's not forget the 9/11 Commission's own teleological thinking when it failed to consider American-based complicity in the attacks.

There exists no evidence for American-based complicity. Thus the notion wasn’t taken particularly seriously. I’m not sure that qualifies as teleological thinking.

 

[Heiwa]

In lieu of teleology versus the scientific method why not just use common sense and clear thinking? Based on modern physics of course when it comes to the WTCs destructions, i.e. that the theory fits the known facts (physical evidence) and cannot be refuted unless you come up with something better. The beauty of modern physics + common sense + clear thinking is that American-based complicity or FBI withholding evidence is no part of it.

 

[bonavada]

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.

<snip>

Respectfully,
Myriad

Nominated.
Outstanding

BV

 

[Lensman]

Back to the OP question - I vote for the Lens of Arisia - that'd get you the correct answers pretty damn quick.

 

[Clippy]

Par,

How could they find this evidence without looking for it?

 

[DGM]

In lieu of teleology versus the scientific method why not just use common sense and clear thinking? Based on modern physics of course when it comes to the WTCs destructions, i.e. that the theory fits the known facts (physical evidence) and cannot be refuted unless you come up with something better. The beauty of modern physics + common sense + clear thinking is that American-based complicity or FBI withholding evidence is no part of it.

So you agree the buildings fell because of the planes and fires. Thanks for clearing that up.