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

[DevilsAdvocate]

Who perpetrated 911?
Just between you and me,
Is this a question for science
Or of teleology?

The answer is: Science.

You have apples and oranges. Teleology, or any philosophical thought cannot answer the question, "Who perpetrated 911". At the very, very, very most, a philosophical construct such as teleology may be able to address, "Why did someone perpetrate 911?" Although teleology really could not hold to address that question either, other than to the extent that is was “meant to happen”. Teleology cannot address a question of “who”. Only scientific methods and deduce the “who”.

 

[Heiwa]

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

No, that theory does not simply fit the facts. It is a teleologic conspiracy theory.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

No, that theory does not simply fit the facts. It is a teleologic conspiracy theory.

Oh you mean "facts", not facts I see. Please share these "facts" with us.

 

[Clippy]

They also failed to consider the possibilities that 9/11 was perpetrated by Martians, that 9/11 never actually happened, that I perpetrated 9/11, that 9/11 actually will happen in a dystopic future of cities of mutant rabbits, etc. etc.

Don't play dumb or bad comic, John. Means and motive.

 

[Clippy]

But it did consider American based involvement. Hijacked American and United Airline planes crashing into the buildings.
It's passengers were identified through the scientific method of forensics.

And which step in the 'scientific method of forensics' explained how the planes got there?

 

[Clippy]

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.

And how long do you look through the Science Lens before you realize there is almost nothing to look at? 6+ years?

 

[funk de fino]

And how long do you look through the Science Lens before you realize there is almost nothing to look at? 6+ years?

You should step away from this thread, you are making a fool of yourself.

The only thing there is nothing of to look at after 6+ years is facts or evidence that proves an inside job.

 

[MarkyX]

Many of you folks really believe that NIST has provided a logically sound collapse initiation scenario superior to anything else offered?

No logical gaps in their collapse initiation theory? How can you not see that they, too, are just guessing?

Why do you feel the need to lie to yourself, just so you can come up with an argument?

 

[Clippy]

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.

Your question has no bearing on the matter of whether their thinking was teleological.

Please answer the question.

How could they find the evidence if they didn't look for it?

 

[Furi]

From Wikipedia:

Teleology (Greek: telos: end, purpose) is the philosophical study of design and purpose. A teleological school of thought is one that holds all things to be designed for or directed toward a final result, that there is an inherent purpose or final cause for all that exists.

And that is why I will continue to use the Science Lens as a primary source for reasoning the capability/function/potential of things,

I may however be mis-interpreting

What degree of minutae are you going to have to uncover the inherent purpose? Are you going to have to reason down to Molecular/Atomic/Sub Atomic/Theoretical Fundamental level, or do you take them as read and just plough on regardless using a nice big Macro Lens and just let sciency types look with the TEMs

How would you uncover this inherent final purpose? personal perception or maybe scientific reasoning? and is there any reason why something should continue to be 'WAD (working as Desinged)' after this perceived final purpose has been apparantly met?

Does the acceptance of Teleology as a method of reasoning require the existance of a designer at all levels or only at known designed works? if known does this include the proposal that there is an supernatural designer for all materials and processes?

There seems to be a lot of hurdles that would require that I need to utilise teleological reasoning after Scientific Reasoning/pragmatism and probably only when relating to known specific designs that seem to primarily of an aesthetic nature (after finding serving no derived technical or pragmatic function).

Depending on your personal level of Grand Unification Conspiracy Group beliefs you could argue that the destruction of the WTC had a pragmatic value when weighed against your own paranoia beliefs, however just because an individual wants there to be additional levels of esign and purpose, does not mean that any additional details or grand design is required.

 

[Dave Rogers]

This is the same question, really, as whether the origin of species should be viewed through the lens of science or of teleology, and the result is much the same. The former gives you a clearer understanding of the processes involved, and valuable predictions on which to base your choice of future actions. The latter gives you something to do to waste time on a Sunday.

Dave

 

[Clippy]

What about decisions that are hard-wired? One could argue these are best analyzed through the lens of teleology.

 

[Furi]

What about decisions that are hard-wired? One could argue these are best analyzed through the lens of teleology.

Do you mean autonomic functions, or instinctive such as choosing to exit that burning building as fast as you can, If you mean instinctive these can be over-ridden (Fireman or Retrieval of a loved one in relation the burning building example)

or is this the hard-wired response that 'just has to be' correct as no other explaination is possibe? if so please cite an example

 

[Clippy]

Do you mean autonomic functions, or instinctive such as choosing to exit that burning building as fast as you can, If you mean instinctive these can be over-ridden (Fireman or Retrieval of a loved one in relation the burning building example)

or is this the hard-wired response that 'just has to be' correct as no other explaination is possibe? if so please cite an example

In the context of Dave's post, I thinking more about survival instincts, here meaning any instinct that could be seen to increase the fitness of the organism. One could argue that your examples of instincts overcome are merely examples of instincts superceded by others (e.g. risking my life to save a relative could increase my biological fitness, instinctive altruism and desire for compensation being the motivations for the fireman).

I'm not a biologist, so perhaps this isn't the best example. But consider a flock of geese heading south. You see them traveling in a v formation high above you (please no flight 93 derails on the meaning of overhead ). You've seen geese feeding at your pond which, when they arrive, seem to fly in uncoordinated flight patterns. If you want to know why they are flying in a v, it helps to know what their goal is: flying hundreds of miles with little or no break (if some ornithologist wants to correct this, please do so).

 

[gumboot]

Mikillini:

Chemistry is not the problem or the answer when the evidence is gone!

In the cosy corners of Nistian orthodoxy the true believers worship at the alter of a "scientific authority" created by an elite group intent on legitimizing the rules of its own game - the NIST. Meanwhile, it is clear (once the veil of deception is lifted), that many Nistian JREFers, (who remain nameless while "naming" their opponents), are simply a self-appointed constabulary for the censure, admonishment and ridicule of miscreant posters - what you guys call "truthers" - declared to be so simply because they dare to ask a few questions.

Is it just me or does the above post sound like it came from the brain of a foaming-mouthed religious zealot?

Apollo20, your post doesn't even make sense.

 

[Woolgatherer]

Well before you choose a lens you have to know your patch size. If we're talking 35mm I'd go with about a 50mm lens because that's closest to human perception. Anything longer or wider will distort things. On the other hand if we're talking, say, 16mm patch, you'll want a 25mm lens for the same perspective.

But do the truthers use a lens at all? Perhaps they take their snaps with a pinhole. You know, a hole poked in a piece of tinfoil.

 

[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.

Please answer the question. How could they find the evidence if they didn't look for it?

Please refrain from attempting to change the subject. The claim with which I took issue – and indeed the topic of this thread – is one of teleology, not evidence.

 

[gumboot]

In the context of Dave's post, I thinking more about survival instincts, here meaning any instinct that could be seen to increase the fitness of the organism. One could argue that your examples of instincts overcome are merely examples of instincts superceded by others (e.g. risking my life to save a relative could increase my biological fitness, instinctive altruism and desire for compensation being the motivations for the fireman)

I think something to consider is perception and conditioning as well...

A resident of a house, suddenly exposed to a raging inferno in their living room, is naturally going to be shocked and afraid by this unusual scenario, and will flee in an effort to survive.

A fireman, in contrast, arrives at the site already expecting to see a fire-engulfed house, has been in and around many other fire-engulfed houses, is trained to deal with fire-engulfed houses, and is properly equipped to survive an encounter with a fire-engulfed house.

This from the fireman's perspective the fire is much less of a threat to their survival than to the resident of the house.

You see the same thing in the classic war film scene - the rough veteran seems totally unperturbed as the green-eared new recruit ducks and dodges in fear at bullets whizzing overhead.

Grimes: Why aren't you shooting?
Waddell: We're not being shot at yet.
Grimes: How can you tell?
Waddell: A hiss means it's close. A snap means...
[a bullet whizzes close by]
Waddell: Now they're shooting at us!

 

[Pardalis]

Is it just me or does the above post sound like it came from the brain of a foaming-mouthed religious zealot?

That's because it is.

Greening believes in every conspiracy theory that's out there, remember?

 

[T.A.M.]

Please answer the question.

How could they find the evidence if they didn't look for it?

Please provide proof that the FBI and other investigative agencies DID NOT LOOK FOR evidence that insiders or govt officials may have contributed or been negligent around the 9/11 attacks. I am not saying they did, or did not, but unless you have proof they did not, then you are merely speculating.

TAM