Bad Physics
The tedious tide of theological threads appear to have been replaced by a population of piss-poor physics posts. Their common premise is that physics is simple, certainly not requiring much understanding of maths, and physicist have it wrong. Sometimes with, sometimes without, a conspiracy.
I'm not sure which is worse.
Any explanations?
I'm not sure which is worse.
Any explanations?
Comments (132)
Perhaps, the problem is that the word, physics, in itself has a certain powerful influence in out thinking.
Probably, we just have to be able to see that It is being done badly, using our critical awareness.
The tradition I'm sympathetic with Russell, Chomsky, Strawson, etc. Say that physics is simple in the following sense: the structures they study are simple, what's one particle compared to a biological organism which is composed of billions of particles are have properties not found in particles in isolation.
But, it's certainly true that the mathematics, the theories, the experiments and all the false leads are fiendishly difficult. So anyone who says it's easy, is either a genius mathematician, or doesn't know physics well. That's my initial impression.
Your mistake is thinking that the magical thinking of theology stays in theology. Its not physics they have trouble with, its thinking.
Also, Dunning Kruger effect. They don’t know enough physics to realise how ignorant they are about physics.
Explanation #1 - Poor enforcement of the pseudo-science rules.
Explanation #2 - Failure to recognize that apparent similarities between phenomena are metaphorical rather than physical, e.g. quantum uncertainty and free will.
Explanation #3 - People just get really excited about waves. They think they explain everything. Fields too. They just sound all sciencey and stuff.
Explanation #4 - Emerson wrote
To believe our own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men, -- that is genius. Speak your latent conviction, and it shall be the universal sense; for the inmost in due time becomes the outmost,--and our first thought, is rendered back to us by the trumpets of the Last Judgment.
We gotta stop letting people read Emerson.
Explanation #5 - It's logic - The most sciencey stuff is weird, e.g. quantum mechanics and relativity. 2) I have some weird ideas. 3) Therefore my ideas must be sciencey too.
I think we all like to see others struggle, especially brain surgeons and rocket scientists. Sometimes (rarely, I admit) it's like Gibbs on NCIS: All the kids are running around the office panicking and trying to solve a cyber attack on all the computers as the screens are going wacky. Gibbs goes over and pulls the plug. Granted, some infestation might continue in the back ground, but at least the kids stopped freaking out.
If you STEM guys want us dummies to butt out, then 1. quit sharing your consternation with the public, 2. do a better job of dumbing things down, and 3. remember who pays the bills and show a little curiosity outside of your field, like we are doing.
You can't blame us for wanting to pitch in when reality and nature discredit our heroes.
While the devotees of higher awareness often disparage the limited vision of science, they seem to be the first to reach for science (through speculative quantum theories) when it can be positioned to 'prove' or embolden their positions. Everyone thinks they are Paul Davies.
I agree with that. However, science often uses the language of higher awareness when discussing their conundrums. "Spooking action at a distance"? Common! You gotta admit that's an invite. :razz:
If you begin with the premise that God is infinitely wise and complex and that certain texts are a direct expression of his knowledge and that those texts contain explanations for all the mysteries of the universe, doesn't it logically follow that a man made discipline would be child's play in comparison?
How so?
:up:
"Bad physics" also follows from doing and/or subscribing to bad philosophy (i.e. unsound, indefeasible, reasoning with/towards 'reified abstractions' OR (non-inferential, intuitionist/folk) 'woos-of-the-gaps') like most e.g. psychologisms, idealisms, non-naturalisms, essentialisms, esotericas....
[quote=The Geneaology of Morals, Essay 3][T]he fact that generally the ascetic ideal has meant so much to human beings is an expression of the basic fact of the human will, its horror vacui. It requires a goal—and it will sooner will nothingness than not will.[/quote]
(emphasis is mine)
Thus, every woo-of-the-gap is a tell-tale, or symptom, of the (congenital) refusal to admit to oneself "I don't know" or publicly "We don't know yet."
This seems inevitable as physics relies heavily on math - not just as a tool but also as an idea bank from which it borrows models (mathematical ones) to provide a framework for its theories/hypotheses. With such a strong bond between the two, magic is inevitable.
Coming to bad physics, there isn't too much of that around - the world of science is rather harsh to ideas/theories/hypotheses that lack rigor, especially of the mathematical kind. All one has to do to realize this fact is to release a hypotheses of poor quality into the wilderness of science; it won't last very long out in the open.
Bad physics on the forum, this forum, is not an issue for me. It's fun to see someone get it wrong, assuming real physicists got it right, and by joining in make it even more wrong. :joke:
To say nothing of the nature of the waves, ocean waves vs probability waves - all the same stuff apparently. The more esoteric ones travel through the absence of the aether, as well! Spooky action, truly. :rofl:
And then, there are all those infinities . . . :scream:
Don't forget the God Particle.
I'm sure there a bunch of terms that physicists pull from somebody else's discipline because they keep getting punked by "reality." It's no wonder others feel free to chime in when they see the struggle using familiar terms.
...and so in order to survive they migrate to the Philosophy forums.
Perhaps we make the environment too comfortable.
I blame Newton.
[quote=Woe is me who forget the name of this philosopher]Philosophy is the junkyard of science[/quote]
Philosophy is science? I thought science was the bastard step-child of philosophy. :gasp:
That math, physics, theology, etc. can't be discussed sensibly on philosophy forums?
What flavour is that quark? I don't know bite it and see. Ha ha ha!
Banno - I think you have to be careful with sweeping statements.
I agree with Manuel when he said...
Quoting Manuel
There is nothing wrong in trying to simplify the message that science has established through complex analysis. We are all on a journey of discovery and self-learning, so if people mis-interpret what science is saying then you have the opportunity to point out where their thinking has gone wrong.
However there has been a tendency in recent decades for such corrective answers to be unavailable, and for people to be just beaten down without justification - because the speculation being advocated by scientists was being promoted as fact, when it wasn't.
If we are truly scientific we should acknowledge real facts and good logic if there is nothing to counter them - even if caveats are placed around the alternate speculation.
But sadly, as in the old days of religious zealots, the scientific zealots are not prepared to compromise even when the facts are presented to them.
That is not pseudo-science - that is real science vs scientific dogma.
:grin: :up:
I can only quote from physicists or scientists who I think are reliable. And when such work is promulgated through popular works - which is perfectly fine it's how I learn about them - there is going to be a good bit simplification and I have to take a lot of it on trust, since I can't do the equations.
Having said that, I tend to like scientific literature that is a bit contrarian in the sense of looking for loopholes in popular accounts, because I think this is how I think science tends to progress.
Funnily enough, those who make the craziest claims about physics can be philosophers like Rosenberg. But saying that physics is trivial or easy, is a mistake.
It just so happens that the rest of reality is incredibly hard.
Hi Manuel
Anyone who is not working within a specialist field has to trust the findings being described by the experts, and rely on peer reviews to point out errors. That would be as true for Einstein on biochemistry, as it would be for you or me reading a text book.
Quite often, we can see a consensus amongst experts about the facts/basic evidence, but differences in interpretation about what those facts mean.
I don't mind the speculation, whether it comes from scientists or non-scientists, as long as
- it agrees with the evidence/facts; is logical; and doesn't have evidence to contradict it.
Most scientific principles (if not all) come down to quite understandable factors for the layman, and I think that scientists should explain their findings to their colleagues as well as the ordinary person in simple language, so long as it doesn't distort the true principles of their findings.
Assuming that this happens correctly, and the principles behind different interpretations are clear, it is open to anyone to comment on validity, so long as their criticism has a logical foundation.
It is also open to people with knowledge to explain why some interpretations are incorrect. But when they can't explain why something is incorrect, we rarely see an acknowledgement that two or more valid interpretations exist, and we need more evidence to determine which is correct.
No we tend to find that the desire to preserve previous dogma leads to bizarre explanation with no evidence to justify them, accompanied by attempts to smear the counter-view rather than argue against it.
Even ordinary people have a right to point out discrepancies - and when they do, it is up to scientists to investigate and resolve the dilemma honestly instead of trying to smear the commentators as cranks. If there is a deficiency in the scientific case that is a problem for scientists not the commentator.
I mean sure. But it would be however a bit annoying to have many random laypeople saying "this is wrong", when the person in question has years of experience on a single topic.
Nevertheless, your point is valid and I agree with the layman explanation standard. Another issue altogether is if people use professional credentials or knowledge in a field as evidence for something which is crazy.
I have in mind Dennett and his denying phenomenal consciousness. He knows brain sciences better than me, I'm sure. But his conclusions aren't plausible.
Do not mention the cursed one. The Starter of Interminable Threads. The insatiable devourer of time.
But I would more so say that when Dennett says “consciousness ain’t real” he is denying the “phenomenal” bit, not the “consciousness” bit. He is basically denying a dualistic approach. Consciousness is real and all, but no more than a physical process. The “feeling of red” IS a specific neurological state, and no more than that. It’s not something “produced by” a certain neurological state no it IS the neurological state.
That’s what he seems to be saying to me at least.
I've been thinking about this more and I wanted to follow up on this more. I wrote:
Quoting T Clark
First - a question for @fdrake and @StreetlightX, two moderators who have a strong knowledge of and interest in science. It seems to me that moderators are less likely to crack down on questionable science than in the past. Do you think that's true? Has there been a change in moderation policy? Maybe it's just one of those cyclic things.
Second - there used to be several pugnacious science types who tended to jump on science baloney. I'm thinking in particular of Timeline and Apokrisis, but there were others. TL exploded and Apo sleeps most of the time now.
I don't really mind our pseudoscientific members and their writing. It's fun for me to feel all superior. On the other hand, allowing bad science a place to speak is not this forum's job. It's here to provide bad philosophy a place to speak. They come here because they get smacked down and banned on science forums. You actually have to know something real to write there.
That all said, can we name names (threads?). Like, eyeballing it - there's a weird one about entropy which I probably would have gotten rid of had I caught it earlier (report things people!), the other one about physics equations which went exactly as planned, as it were (precisely by those who know their physics), and... well.. am I missing something?
No, I don't think so. @Banno raised the question and it set me thinking. I endorse a policy of toleration until it becomes intolerable. I think you're right, though - we should call out pseudoscience when we see it. Sometimes I do and sometimes I don't.
Thanks.
Despite generally being able to come up with wonderful examples, it's not always too clear what he's saying, at least to me. What you interpret him to say may be correct.
He thinks he's getting rid of dualism. The thing about being no more than a physical process is a bit confusing. What's "more" than a physical process? Everything is physical or the stuff of nature.
But yeah, his thought arouses a lot of debate.
It's a good question to consider if "good science" can lead to bad or misleading thinking. :chin:
But that's for another thread.
Reality deniers come in many shapes & sizes: Vaccines, the Holocaust, Flat Earth, climate change, etc.
I wish I knew what causes this. I have close relatives & friends who deny at least one (and typically many) aspects of reality. My amateur psychologist analysis is that this is partly driven by fear. The way they view themselves and how they fit into the world is being challenged. And they are afraid of that change.
And the thing is - they are not stupid people. You can have intelligent conversations with them on any number of issues, you can share laughter & tears, etc.
And then - whoo-hoo . . . . . . . ! They dive off into outer space somewhere.
Now back to your question. The "bad physics people" phenomena is a relatively (pun intended) minor example compared to flat earth folk. And in this particular case case I share the sentiments of other responders that there is more than a touch of Dunning-Kruger mixed in . . .
I tend to delete low effort obviously wrong ones for being low effort. I tend to leave decently written obviously wrong ones up. To my reckoning, we're not a space that formally punishes being factually wrong - it's the perniciousness of the falsehood that matters.
I will delete commonly known pseudoscience inspired topics without much mercy, though. Since they're about harmful disinformation.
Yes, "bad physics" threads are necessary to bring attention to the fact that even highly intelligent people, like physicists, sometimes are amongst those who cannot accept reality.
But when they wander on down from the heights to mingle with us great unwashed, and start using *our* English, they just entered my bailiwick. They can then expect some participation.
A little off topic, but since I am not a musician, mathematician, physicist, or logician, maybe you folks can clear something up for me: I think I once heard or read that all logic could be reduced to formula. The idea I got was that logical argument, fallacies, and such was really just journeyman stuff, and the continued pursuit of logic would bring one to formulas. Is that true?
I also saw a recent post here that asked about physics and math, as if someone might think they are different. I always viewed physics as just another form of advanced math, like calculus and whatnot. Am I wrong on that?
I've heard music is another language. I certainly can't read it (yet, it's on my to do list). But two people from different countries that don't speak the same "regular" language can both get the same song out of a sheet of music. Correct?
Anyway, I really don't want to be a nuisance. But that doesn't stop my head from spinning with intuition and ideas. Every once in a while, I'll throw something on the wall and see if it sticks. It's pretty easy to shut me down with numbers and formulas. No need to berate me, just X%$# y *@! / 56! = 5 = $ and I'm gone.
Thanks.
You mean here, or on the Internet in general? Personally I'm much more interested in bad physics than in bad theology. And in bad math most of all. It's the Internet, not the Royal Society. Then again when Newton was president of the Royal Society he ordered the burning of the the last surviving portrait of his great rival Robert Hooke. If these guys showed up on the Internet today they'd flame with the best.
Quoting James Riley
Yes you are wrong. Math is to physics as hammers and nails and wood and bricks are to construction. Tools and materials of the trade, essential to the enterprise, but not the enterprise itself.
In logic, a statement need only be logically correct. "If A implies B and A is true, then B is true." This is a logical truth because it's a valid statement true under any conceivable assignment of meanings to A and B.
In math, a statement needs to be logically valid AND mathematically valid to be true. "If 2 + 2 = 5 then I am the Pope." That is a mathematical truth. Note that it's NOT a logical truth, because it depends on the meaning of "2 + 2 = 5". We need to know that mathematically, 2 + 2 = 5 is false. At that point, the implication becomes true; but in the real world, meaningless.
In physics, a statement must be experimentally true about the world, not just mathematically correct. Mathematical models that are not physically confirmed (string theory, eternal inflation, etc.) are labeled as speculative. They are not physical truths even if they are mathematically correct.
There are many such speculative theories floating around in physics these days. In fact that's one of the great criticisms of contemporary physics. "The Trouble With Physics" by Smolin, "Lost in Math" by Hossenfelder, etc. The complaint is that since the physicists have been stuck for decades, they're now reduced to churning out one speculative mathematically correct but physically unverifiable theory after another; while publicly making ever more grandiose claims of knowing how the world works, ie "A Universe from Nothing" by Krauss.
See how easy that was? All you have to do is throw me a bone that I actually have to chew on. Now I have to go chew on that and leave you alone. :nerd: :grin:
Yes: understanding physics takes work. Hard work.
What explains the recent (past several decades) of bad physics from the hard-working professional physicists?
I leave that to physicists to decide. To presume I have any idea that its "bad physics" is delusional. Ditto for you (unless you're a physicist, of course).
I can't speak for you. But I'm entitled to (and do in fact have) an informed opinion on the matter. I can refer you to some recent books by physicists on the subject. And since the work of modern physics is primarily supported by government grants and I'm a taxpayer, I most definitely have say.
You may remember the Superconducting Super Collider, a massive particle accelerator in Texas that would have been far more powerful than the current Large Hadron Collider, but killed by Bill Clinton in 1993 for budgetary reasons. As the bureaucrats said to the astronauts in the film, The Right Stuff, "What makes the rockets go up? Funding. No bucks, no Buck Rogers."
Review of Sabine Hossenfelder's book:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/lost-in-math-review-the-beauty-myth-1529703982
Lee Smolin's book:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Physics
Peter Woit's article. He has a book too.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/why-string-theory-is-still-not-even-wrong/
Also see these vids by Sabine Hossenfelder. She's terrific on explaining physics and also on explaining these methodological and philosophical issues with contemporary physics that I'm referring to.
https://youtu.be/9qqEU1Q-gYE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwTkBkb94Rc
Note that all these books and articles, and others like them, are intended for mainstream audiences. So these authors are physicists who understand the physics; and who also believe that it IS the business of the public to make informed judgments on the validity of the work currently being done by the physicists.
We are a long long way from when Isaac Newton returned home during the London plague to invent calculus, develop his theory of optics, and conceive of the law of universal gravitation. He did all that with paper and quill pen. Today, science is a massive public works project, and its funding is not all that different from a vote on a referendum to float a bond to repair a highway. It's all public money, and quite a lot of it.
Well we can't all recognize our delusions. If you're not a physicist, I'm not interested in your amateur opinion -- no matter how many pop science books you read.
Quoting fishfry
Yes, and I'm sure there are plenty of responses to "The Trouble With Physics" by physicists (in fact, I'm certain of it). Debate within the sciences are wonderful. But, much like the creationists, to pretend we know something we don't simply because a few outliers publish books -- ditto with the climate change "debate" -- is absurd.
You're welcome to your delusions.
Did I say something that bothered you? By way of conversation, I'm wondering why you think the public is entitled to a voice in which highways to build, which public projects to fund, but not which scientific projects to fund? Or am I misconstruing your concerns? I thought you might find my links of interest to your own knowledge. After all it's true that we are not physicists, but you seem to be saying that we shouldn't even bother to read popular accounts of the work of physicists.
But then why have a philosophy forum? Are we armchair philosophers allowed to have opinions, informed or not, on the philosophical issues of the day? After all philosophers work a lot cheaper than physicists. Are we allowed to opine on Wittgenstein but not Witten? Where do you draw the line?
They do have a say in that -- a limited one.
That has nothing to do with whether physics has been "bad" for the last few decades. The OP isn't about funding science.
Nice.
Ok. Suppose I phrased it somewhat differently:
[i]I've been reading some books and articles, and watching some videos, in which professional physicists criticize the current practices of some areas of physics on the grounds that they have substituted abstract math for experimental contact with the world. I do tend to agree with this point of view; but of course the physicists being so criticized would disagree, and I lack the professional competence to have an authoritative opinion on the matter.
That said, I am sharing these links with the forum because they are interesting and educational in and of themselves, whether you agree or disagree with their point of view.
[/i]
Would that be better?
I still would like to know, in your opinion, why I'm entitled to opinions about the work of some professionals but not others. I gave the examples of Wittgenstein, a philosopher that a lot of people around here have a lot of opinions about; and Ed Witten, a superstar mathematical physicist who, interestingly, is the only working physicist to have won math's greatest prize, the Fields medal.
It seems to me, if I'm reading you correctly, that I am entitled to opine (ignorantly as it happens in this instance) on Wittgy; but not on Witten. I wonder if you can help me understand the distinction.
Mentioning Ed Witten reminded me of my other favorite Witten: Jason Witten, the former longtime superstar tight end for the Dallas Cowboys, a professional football team.
Now Jason Witten is an incredibly skilled athlete, for many years at the absolute top of his craft in a difficult and dangerous activity that fewer than 1700 human beings are qualified to pursue at that level in any given year. To be a superstar of his longevity and accomplishments puts him in the top 0.000000014286 or so of humanity.
As it happens, many partisans of the Dallas Cowboys, as well as their many more passionate haters, as well as fans of professional football everywhere, have strong opinions about the performance of Mr. Witten, despite the fact that most of these opinionated amateurs never do anything more physically demanding than get up off the couch to fetch another beer.
By your logic, sports fans have no right to opine on the play of these gifted athletes who devote their entire lives from the time they're 8 years old to getting better at their craft.
And yet, Mr. Witten and all other professional athletes, as well as the league itself, absolutely want beer-swilling couch potatoes to have strong opinions on the play of their athletes. Why? Because the opinionated couch potatoes watch the ads on tv and buy the merchandise sold by the league. We are talking about an almost fifty billion dollar industry in global merchandise sales (across all sports), plus the massive television and streaming revenue from the ads.
Without sports fans not only being allowed, but being mightily encouraged, to have strong opinions on the skill of professional athletes, there could be no professional athletes! At least none making the kind of money they make now.
What do you make of this? If pro physicists sold jerseys would it be okay to cheer your favorites and boo your rivals?
I am asking you: Given a professional, when am I allowed or not allowed to hold an opinion on their work, given that I can have no real understanding of what it is they do?
Wittgenstein yes, Ed Witten no, Jason Witten yes?
Do you at least take my point? Your own position doesn't seem consistent. You haven't given me a standard that I can apply.
Thanks!
Quoting Banno
I'm a big fan of hers.
Certainly. if someone wants to spend a billion dollars to create a perpetual motion machine or to prove once and for all that the earth is flat, then the public can reasonably say that this is a waste of money. But this line of discussion is not what the OP is talking about. The OP is about TPF being cluttered up with "Stupid Physics" posts.
In my opinion, there's a danger in the very idea of "debate" -- as if we're qualified to judge whether there's even "two sides" to the story. I don't think, most of the time, we're even competent enough to make that judgement. Again I refer to creationism, 9/11 truthers, holocaust denial, anti-vaxxers, climate change denial, etc. To even say "I've read both sides of this debate, and I align myself with x" is itself ridiculous. Flat earthers are out there -- does that mean we should read their books and conclude that there's debate?
That being said, for those of us who aren't experts in a given domain, it's our responsibility to weed out who to listen to. This is a very tricky thing, and we're living in the midst of a real dilemma of this very thing.
For me, I go with the whatever consensus is reached among experts. The vast majority of the time, I turn out to look like a genius because of that simplistic, 3-year-old strategy. I'd say that's a good rule of thumb for anyone. If one wants to learn more about a topic, listen to them. That's not to say dissent is not valuable -- it is. But within boundaries.
Quoting fishfry
You're entitled to opine about anything you want. But since you asked for my opinion: I don't take either very seriously. Not just from you but from anyone. If I know a little something about a topic, and someone has something to say that I find interesting on a philosophy forum, then I take it from there. 95% of what I read here is so uninteresting to me that it's not worth bothering with. I'm sure you feel the same way.
When it comes to science, especially mathematics and physics, I have less patience for people's armchair opinions. It's much easier to be a bullshitter in philosophy (and sociology, and literary criticism, etc) than it is in the hard sciences. In my opinion. And so yes, I do perhaps come down more harshly on that class of opinions.
Quoting fishfry
I do.
Yep.
But happy to extend the analysis more widely, it that helps explain what is going on.
I was thinking in terms of appeals to authority - that there are, I would suggest, strong grounds for thinking that 2+2=4, and that those who disagree here have made a fundamental mistake; and that this is so, even if they have invented for themselves good reason to think that 2+2=4 is somehow problematic.
...that there is an authority vested the skills of mathematicians and physicists who have done the hard stuff, so if @jgill says your maths is rubbish, then your maths is rubbish.
That having watched a few dozen videos on youtube does not give you licence to re-write General Relativity.
Yes indeed.
See my last post. First, do the work so that you know what it is you are simplifying. Because that's why it might look, to those who have not done the work, that Quoting Gary Enfield
...like if someone were to propose a theory about the size of the universe without presenting the maths to back it up.
There was another really cool insight early in the lecture. He noted that the Lagrangian formulation of Newtonian physics was a hidden clue to quantum theory, but that only became clear in retrospect.
Quoting Banno
I think this is related to the Wiki effect. There's knowing things and knowing "about" things. If I want to know about quantum field theory for example I can just skim the relevant WIki page and know enough to yak about it online ... despite that fact that don't know it. These days it's so easy to know about, and imagine that you know. You see it all over. Like last March when everyone suddenly became an armchair epidemiologist. It's human nature.
Quoting EricH
Mea culpa mea culpa mea maxima culpa. I hijacked the thread. Or perhaps I exemplified the thread by making a stupid physics post :-)
Quoting Banno
I haven't watched that one yet but /r/badmathematics is one of my favorite Reddit rooms.
Maybe I should watch that vid. I always tend to get annoyed whenever physicists start talking about infinity, because it doesn't seem to relate to the mathematical infinity that I know and I end up thinking they're doing bad physics or bad math. Ok I should watch the vid.
Love that. Yes, science is dangerous. To cranks and charlatans, and folk who make confused assertions about determinism and truth.
I tried to get annoyed at what she was saying, but failed. She is intelligently careful.
I seem to recall seeing this vid a few weeks ago and it annoyed me. I don't remember the details and no need to re-trigger myself :-)
But one doesn't have the time to get a Ph.D. in physics and a Ph.D in climate science and a Ph.D in epidemiology in order to have an opinion on these things. And even if I had a spare eight or so years to get a physics PhD, it would take another ten or whatever years to get to the level of what these professionals are talking about. So one must learn to absorb what one can and make the best informed decision possible. Because at the very top of any profession there are the biggest differences of opinion. Surely you can't be saying that I can't have an opinion from just a little bit of study. Modern life is too complex. We must all "know about" things, which takes ten minutes in lieu of "knowing" them, which takes ten years.
Quoting Xtrix
I don't believe in creationism ... but what gives me the right to say that? Do I have to get a PhD in divinity studies too? And become a priest as well?
And on a serious note, though I don't believe in creationism, I am a bit of a student (ie watched a bunch of Youtube videos) of criticism of Darwinian evolution. There are some valid points being made. There's a lot we don't know. Science is never settled.
Quoting Xtrix
It always strikes me as a bad sign of our postmodern world that when we want to marginalize and dismiss someone's ideas, we accuse them of being interested in the truth. How quaint! Don't they know that narrative is all that matters?
The 9/11 commission report was a very shoddy piece of work. The commission's own co-chairs Hamilton and Keane said publicly that the commission was set up to fail and that the Bush administration blocked them at every turn. There are still many unanswered questions about the event.
One doesn't need to believe that Dick Cheney personally gave the order to want to find out what really happened. Don't you? The government's account is seriously incomplete and riddled with problems.
Quoting Xtrix
In some countries holocaust denial is a crime punishable by prison. I believe in free speech. I believe in the right of holocaust deniers to say their piece. I supported the ACLU's position in the 1977 Skokie case and I still support that position today. If Nazis don't have free speech then nobody has free speech. This I believe.
Quoting Xtrix
This isn't the time or place, but "anti-vaxxer" is a loaded term. Which vax and what circumstances? And if the covid vax works, why did everyone in Congress stay home or wear masks the other night at Biden's speech? They're all vaxed. In your worldview is there such a thing as individual critical thinking? The government says jump and you say, "How high?" That's how the Germans got themselves into trouble once. Dissent is crucial in a free society.
Quoting Xtrix
I don't mean to trigger you with my political opinions, this is not a political thread. But I tend to be open minded about things. The climate is changing constantly. Who could possibly deny that? When people say "climate change denial" they really mean that the developed world should put a boot on the neck of the developing world. It's a very complicated and nuanced set of issues that are not addressed by smears and slogans.
Quoting Xtrix
I've always been open to alternative ideas and by nature I'm a contrarian. If you didn't want to hear my opinions you shouldn't have asked :-)
Quoting Xtrix
But it's the PhD problem again. It takes a lifetime to become competent at anything, let alone everything. But you need to form judgments to function in the world. What do you suggest? Truly I AGREE WITH YOU that it would be better if before I form a judgment on climate I become a professional climatologist; and before I form a judgment on physics I should become a physicist. But your position is not practical. I hope you can see that.
Quoting Xtrix
Oh I love flat earth theory!. There are some very interesting philosophical aspects. Someone should start a thread on it sometime. Sabine Hossenfelder has a video about it. She made the insightful point that although flat earth theory is nonsense, it nevertheless raises questions for scientists in how to communicate with the public. How DO we communicate scientific ideas to people who will never have the time to become experts? You don't want people to get their opinions from pop science, so how SHOULD they learn what scientists think is true? I think you may have worked yourself into a contradiction.
Quoting Xtrix
Yes. I agree with that. Who should we listen to? In the past year we've been told to listen to "science," but professional epidemiologists and infections disease specialists have many differing views on covid. Social media and the mainstream media have ruthlessly suppressed all but the official government view. That's not good in a free society. You want more debate, not less. And yes it's hard to know what's true.
Quoting Xtrix
Without becoming an expert yourself? Contradiction! Of course you do agree that we don't have the time to become subject matter experts on every important question. We MUST simply accept consensus; or, if we are contrarians, reject consensus! After all if you look at the history of the world, you would be right more often than you were wrong if you REJECTED every consensus. Geocentrism was "settled science" for 2000 years. And did you know that the data actually fit the geocentric theory better than it fit the Copernican theory? Copernicus had the sun at the center of concentric circular orbits. The numbers did not fit. It was Kepler who figured out that orbits were ellipses with the sun at one focus. THEN they got the data to fit correctly. Scientific knowledge is very hard won; never "settled"; and always subject to revision.
Quoting Xtrix
Ahem :-) And like I said, over the LONG term, you would look like a greater genius REJECTING the consensus view on almost everything. Feeling sick? Here are some nice leeches to bleed the bad humours out of you. Fire? It's caused by phlogiston, everybody knows that.
The consensus view almost always turns out to be wrong. That does not mean that you go around rejecting everything we know is true about the world. That would be silly. It DOES mean that healthy skepticism and independent thinking are virtues in individuals and societies. When the government tells you that we must invade Iraq because Saddam has WMDs, do you wave your flag and mindlessly support the war? How did that work out? How about Afghanistan? That war had virtually unanimous support in 2001. Now we've been there 20 years, we control LESS territory now than we did the day we invaded, the opium crop is at record levels thanks to the protection of the US Army (we're on the side of the dope dealers, if you don't know that look it up), and if and when we finally leave, the entire world will see that the US has just lost another war. Since 9/11 we've created more terrorists than we've killed, we've violated international law, we've become a torture regime, and in the end the Taliban are going to retake control of Afghanistan and we ended up turning Iraq over to the Iran-favoring Shiites instead of the Sunni Iran-hater Saddam.
But you know, at the time it was the consensus. Which is exactly why you should have tried to think it through for yourself. Why did we invade Iraq when they had zeroto do with 9/11? Because Saddam had WMDs? Turns out the administration lied the country into war. But that's ok. The government lied the country into the Vietnam war too. Gulf of Tonkin? Never happened, but LBJ got his excuse to escalate the war on behalf of the generals and defense contractors.
Quoting Xtrix
I say it's the most mindless, dangerous, and wrong thing you could possibly do. SOMETIMES the consensus is right and sometimes it's fatally wrong. The Soviet Union collapsed shortly after their own debacle in Afghanistan. Then we went in and executed the same failed strategy against the same people, and we're getting the same results. But man was the Afghanistan war ever a consensus. The whole country loved that war in 2001.
You have to think for yourself.
Quoting Xtrix
It's fair to say that you and I have different worldviews.
Quoting Xtrix
I never tell anyone to take me seriously! This is an anonymous internet discussion forum.
But when I give an opinion I try to back it up, and maybe even if someone disagrees with me they may get an insight or two. Maybe the examples of Afghanistan and geocentrism will make you reflect on your feelings about the weight we should give to consensus. Maybe not.
Quoting Xtrix
That's true for everyone. There are a lot of new threads every day and a lot of posts in each thread. It's like a buffet. You pick what you like.
Quoting Xtrix
Well that's the funny thing. It comes down to personality. I am a born contrarian, always have been. I don't know why. Whenever society picks up a lot of steam on any issue, I'm always one to think that's a bad sign, that they're probably doing the wrong thing. That's just me.
But we weren't really talking about opinions on physics. I didn't say I don't believe in quarks. I said that the direction of the field may be off on the wrong course, based on some actual physicists who have written books to that effect. That's more philosophy of science than science.
Quoting Xtrix
So glad!
I hope you don't reply to my political opinions, that is not what this thread is for. I may have been having some fun coming down on the side of Nazis. Well actually I oppose Nazis. I support free speech for Nazis because I support free speech for everyone. Free speech used to be a liberal virtue. Lately it's not. I think that's a bad sign.
But 9/11? Don't you want to know the truth? You can't have studied the matter very much if you think the government did an investigation. Again, that does not necessarily mean that Dick Cheney gave the order, or that Mossad did it, or that "Lucky Larry" Silverstein blew up the buildings because they needed a fortune in asbestos remediation. I assert no particular alternate theories. I just want to know the truth. That makes me a 9/11 truther, and proud of it.
I'm what they call a heterodox thinker. You say flat earth? I would be happy to write a few hundred words on why it interests me, and why it offers valuable philosophical insights, even though it's wrong. Kierkegaard did the same. You say climate, I ask you how many third-world peasants must die because the liberal elite raise the cost of energy. Quite a few, as it turns out. None of these issues are remotely as simple as you seem to think.
Here's a piece on how environmentalism hurts the poor. I didn't read much of it and don't necessarily endorse the author or the site on which it appears. I only want to show you a different point of view. Here's a para:
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/matt-ridley-exposes-environmentalists-take-moral-low-ground-defend-rich-poor/
Can you see that "climate denial" is a buzzphrase that shortcuts critical thinking?
Scientism. Science wants to rule the world, have the say on "how the world really works". So of course there has to be an ideologically loaded, simplied "version" of science aimed at the masses who don't have the necessary education to understand science for what it is.
Such is the price for wanting to be the arbiter of the truth.
Quoting Banno
Exactly - although the point in that thread was about the speed of expansion being faster than the current speed of light, rather than the size of the Universe as you have just implied. The maths concerning the speed of expansion, (based on known & accepted values for certain parameters), was very specifically laid out, together with the evidence to back it up.
Nobody challenged the calculation, or provided any evidence to counter the opinion - they just offered a bizarre inflation theory with no physical evidence to support it, and gave calculations of current speed of light values - instead of providing justifications for saying that it couldn't be exceeded despite the evidence to the contrary. The invite is still there to do so.
Given that there were two theories which had validity, did we get that acknowledgement, or did we get attempts to smear the counter-argument to inflation?
I'll leave the discussion there, not here.
Yep. He's the best.
Nonsense.
So often, that would seem to be the consensus.
It doesn't seem to help much.
Sorry I don't know what this was in reference to. I wrote several posts late last night and I'm just checking my mentions. What did I say?
Quoting Banno
I think it's very helpful. If one remembers how often the US government has lied the country into war, one might tend to be skeptical of the next beat of the war drums. If one side of an epidemiology debate is promoted constantly by the MSM and the government, and the other side is de-platformed, banned, suppressed, and actively shut down (as has been the case), one might at least cast a skeptical eye on the government story. And by other side I don't mean the jerks who go into stores and pick mask fights with clerks. I mean reputable senior scientists who dissent from the official party line and aren't allowed to be heard.
There are always indicators. When everyone falls into lockstep on a narrative, that's when to be skeptical. When there's a Rush to Judgment, that's when to be skeptical. Skepticism isn't the same as reflexively denying everything that people accept. It's just a question of stepping back and trying to sort things out for yourself. It's more a mental habit than a hard and fast rule.
I agree with you that in a given moment you can't always tell when something's going to turn out to be right or wrong. But there are always clues. In the run-up to the Iraq war, a million people marched against the war nationwide. They just didn't get any tv coverage as the administration said that they hoped "the smoking gun doesn't turn out to be a mushroom cloud." They used Condoleezza Rice, a woman with high public approval, to scare the hell out of the country. I saw them do it. It smelled like a lie to me at the time.
Likewise the whipping up of hostility to Russia by the Dems. Starting after the 2016 election and continuing to the present moment. Russia's not our enemy. Their GDP is $1.4T, ours is $21T. California's GDP at $3.2T is larger than Russia's. We're being propagandized again.
Quoting Banno
...and yet, of course, I did reply, so falling into a contradiction of my own making. Oh, well.
It's just that something's being the consensus view is insufficient to show that that something is wrong. SO recognising that something is the consensus view is not all that useful.
I advocate a skeptical stance toward all government-induced hysterias and promotion of narratives that make no sense yet allow no dissent. You're saying there's no hard and fast rule. I agree. But there are indicators. The relentless 24/7 MSM barrage, the deplatforming and marginalizing of dissent are clues. If you don't see this I guess I can't say it any better. Do you remember the mood in this country in the runup to the Iraq war? Iraq didn't have a thing to do with 9/11 and that was perfectly well known at the time; but by the time the MSM and the government were done, a majority of the country believed Saddam had been responsible. I don't mean to cherry-pick this one example, but it's a doozy. Yet people keep falling for the propaganda. They'll have no trouble lying us into the next war.
You might be interested in taking a look at John Hand's Cosmosapiens. He discuses physics, and well every other major science in very, very interesting ways, often always going against the mainstream, but it a quite respectable manner and evidence heavy manner. The best science book I've ever read.
But I'm missing many... :wink:
True. Again, this is why I said it's tricky, but in the end a good rule of thumb is go with the consensus, if there is one -- and especially when it's an extremely high one (evolution, climate science, relativity, electromagnetism, atomic theory, germ theory, and so on).
Quoting fishfry
So you're a 9/11 truther. Got it. I'll skip the rest of your post. Be well.
As are Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton, co-chairs of the 9/11 commission.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_9/11_Commission
Do you really believe a full investigation was done and that the full truth is known?
Or is it that you realize that there wasn't a real investigation and the truth is not known, but you're ok with that because, well, it's the consensus? Of whom, exactly? It's actually NOT the consensus!! Only 46% of the world believes Al-Qaeda did it (2008 numbers). By your own logic you should agree with them!
Peace, friend. Or are you one of those always eager to send someone else's kids off to war?
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_conspiracy_theories
Because pissed off Saudis can't decide to fly planes into buildings all by themselves?
Because the government did a piss-poor, shoddy simulation of an investigation. Please see my post above containing the words of Hamilton and Keane, the co-chairs of the 9/11 commission, telling us it didn't get at the truth.
Do you hear what I'm saying? I didn't post an alternate theory and I didn't post something from Alex Jones. I posted the words of the co-chairs of the commission. They could have chosen to say, "We want the American people to know that we got to the bottom of this." They did the opposite. They told the world that the Bush administration blocked them from getting to the bottom of it.
Which part of what they said causes you to not want to be interested in finding out what the late, great Paul Harvey would have called, "the rest of the story?"
I understand, though. A lot of people really don't want to know what happened that day. "19 Arabs because they hate our freedoms." Well we have a lot fewer freedoms since then, maybe the Arabs like us by now. If not we'll invade and torture some more of them.
When does the Freedom of Info Act take effect? 25 years?
Yes, maybe the buildings were brought down by dynamite. Maybe JFK wasn't killed by Oswald. Maybe Pearl Harbor was planned (or allowed). Maybe we DID fake the moon landing. If you want to doubt everything -- especially things that are "important events" -- that's your business. In that case, spend the rest of your life debating creationists and flat earthers.
Again -- when it comes to science, and I'm neither an expert nor have time to reach an even intermediate level of knowledge, I go with the consensus view. As we all do for everything else -- everything that hasn't been manufactured to be "controversial," I mean. Manufactured controversy which leads to all kinds of armchair "theories" that "could be true," because science is "never settled," after all, and a lot of it is "just theory," etc. I have no time to waste on nonsense like that. Life is too short.
What the government says about something hardly makes it a scientific consensus. Nor does public opinion -- as most can't identify the US on a world map. Hardly the same thing. Different than, say, what civil engineers say about the impact of planes crashing into buildings. You're confusing categories.
Thinking for yourself and healthy skepticism is important. But notice the italics. Letting your imagination run wild and questioning everything always, under the guise of simply being a "contrarian" (a very self-serving view), is completely hopeless. But you're welcome to it.
I don't know the status of the 9/11 files. Thousands of government documents on the JFK assassination are still sealed after 57 years. Funny they'd still have so many secrets when it was just a lone nut.
Quoting Xtrix
You didn't answer my question. Do you think we know the full truth of 9/11, despite the commission's own co-chairs telling us that we don't? Or do you just not care? I'm curious to understand. Myself I'd like to know the truth. And for that you said I'm not worth talking to. I'd like to understand that too. That's like a physicist saying they want to know the truth about nature, and you go, "Oh, a nature truther! I don't want to talk to YOU anymore!"
As Plato said: “No one is more hated than he who speaks the truth.”
And you hate people who even ASK about the truth. How bad is that?
I want to know what things are, not just how they work. But, to find out, you need to look deeply into physics. Then you get to the point of realising that the best answer physics has to what we are actually made of, the essence of matter and energy, is "stuff". Something.
In short, physics doesn't have the answers but you can't say a thing about any of it unless you are one, or you get attacked.
Maybe all the ex theists, having discarded their religious views are now all struggling with all sorts of new existential problems which used to be accepted under the blanket of having been simply created or carried out by God?
I agree with you that consensus is what's important. I sometimes say that truth is what you can convince people of. That's not quite right. It's more that truth is useless unless you can convince the people who are making real-life decisions. In situations like that, the scientific consensus reinforced by an understanding of uncertainty and the consequences of failure is the best we can do.
No, you're transparently attempting to make a point which you believe supports your call to question things. Nevertheless: what exactly would the "full truth" be? It's a ridiculous phrase. Am I certain that the WTC was hit by airplanes that were hijacked by Islamist extremists plotted by Al Qaeda? Yes, I am. But that's not what's important here.
What's important, as I mentioned before, is the reason why people like you want to enter into "debate" about it in the first place and not, say, about the assassination attempt on Reagan. There's a reason we learn from psychology: with big events (just look around during this pandemic), especially very emotional ones, people want to look for special explanations of why it happened. They also want to appear like they have "special knowledge." So suddenly they become cheap skeptics -- even when otherwise they couldn't think themselves out of a paper bag -- and get drawn into the sophistry of conspiracy theorists and other quacks, who of course are just "questioning" and "thinking for themselves" (what could be wrong with that?).
You're clearly of this cloth. And no amount of explanation by me or anyone else can convince you of where you're going wrong. But you are. You go way too far towards one extreme, then want to justify it with the standard arguments about "free thought," while of course invoking Galileo and the Church, how "everyone believed" the earth was flat at one point (straight out of Men in Black, if I recall), sapere aude, etc. etc. etc. Been there, done that.
So yes, to answer your question: I'm fairly certain, given the evidence -- and common sense (uh oh -- that controversial term! Have a field day with that one!). But this doesn't have anything to do with physics, which was the OP. With the sciences, I'm even more certain. (It's like gambling, where I win time and time again because I know how to bet on winners -- i.e., the scientists.)
Again, if you want to waste your time chasing every claim that literally anyone can conjure up, have at it. I've got one for you now: the WTC was brought down by space lasers. All the video footage of the planes was CGI. Behind it was a secret deal involving the Business Roundtable, George Soros, and Dick Cheney.
Have fun with that one. Could be true, after all. Where do you draw the line, exactly? Because wherever you do draw the line, it needs to be re-calibrated. But as Bob Dylan once said, "I can't teach you how to weed it out."
Quoting fishfry
:lol: Exactly. Something Donald Trump could say, too.
* I'm fully vaccinated, as well. I was the first one at my job to sign up. No hesitation whatsoever, despite all the BS surrounding it and some of the concerns of my co-workers. Did I have to refute every one of their claims beforehand? No. Did I have to go through every internet theory and debunk them all? No. I had a friend who is a very bright anti-vaxxer try to convince me not to do it -- and she had a mountain of information about it, too. Information that I would have had to spend months unraveling. I took it anyway, and I've been absolutely fine -- no surprise whatsoever. Why? Why was I so certain it would turn out that way, given all this "controversy"? It's a matter of common sense, critical thinking, probability, BS detector, etc. But mainly it's just going with what the consensus of experts say. I do this same thing with all kinds of issues in life and, as I said before, I come out looking super smaht, when in reality it's just extending what we do all the time -- going to a doctor, a mechanic, a lawyer, etc. It's trusting in expertise, and not getting sucked up into the vortex of bullshit that always surrounds "big" issues (and which gets amplified with social media these days). It's picking your battles and weighing probabilities.
You forgot - that's Jewish space lasers.
A good well-thought out response.
No, no. Those people have it wrong. In my theory, it's Ethiopian space lasers.
Yes -- a common defense for all quacks, charlatans, and bad faith actors. Knowing the difference between honest, healthy skepticism/questioning and quackery? That's what I meant by "weeding it out." There's no algorithm to do so. "Or you got it, or you ain't."
I have been thinking about starting a discussion on how, sometimes, it makes more sense to pay attention to the questions people ask than to the answers they give. That's you're most likely to find where bias, prejudice, and goofy thinking are hiding. So far, I haven't been able to get an intellectual handle on how to think about it.
These are useful distractions for those in position of power. You get people going down the rabbit hole, and they'll never emerge. Focus on JFK, 9/11 and the like and you can forget about Yemen, Taiwan, Russia and all the other states where issues are at stake.
But there are actual conspiracies' people could look at that are useful: just open The Wall Street Journal or The Financial Times, you'll learn how money moves and shapes interest. Or try Foreign affairs to see how the military thinks the US should treat China. It's enough to send chills down your spine. Apparently these things aren't interesting...
So bad physics is a result of contempt for science.
That resonates with me. A great way to make a statement is to disguise it with a question. And naturally, the presuppositions people reveal with their questions often means answering that question is impossible until a whole lot of other detritus is dealt with.
:100:
But we all have a right to question everything. I don't follow your claim that there are subjects that we have no right to question.
[s]I'll try to keep my responses brief[/s], since we can surely agree to disagree on a number of things. (Addendum: The brief thing didn't work out).
Quoting Xtrix
* A full, fair, and comprehensive criminal investigation. The kind that the 9/11 commission didn't do, by its own co-chairs' admission.
* Full responses to the questions of the families of the victims. The families sent a long list of questions to the commission, very few of which have ever been answered.
* And so forth. Surely it's perfectly clear, beyond dispute, that the commission didn't do a thorough investigation. So why shouldn't one be done?
Quoting Xtrix
No, it's not. Who paid for it? Who planned it? Who knew ahead of time? Why was there an air defence stand down? How did three steel-framed buildings collapse, the first, last, and only such collapses of steel-framed buildings in history? How does it happen that the PNAC document laid out the framework for a succession of Middle East wars that are now coming to pass? And that the PNAC signatories all ended up in the Bush admin? It's like you suspect a guy of robbing a bank, and you don't have any hard evidence, but you DO find in his home a project plan for robbing that bank. That's a clue, even if it's not conclusive.
Look I am not interested in debating 9/11 here. You brought up 9/11 as a subject that cant even legitimately be discussed. I just don't get this at all.
Quoting Xtrix
In the case of Reagan there was no investigating board whose obvious purpose was to cover up and bury the truth rather than reveal it.
Quoting Xtrix
I hear this about JFK all the time. "Conspiracy theorists don't want to believe that a lone nut nobody like Oswald could have killed a great man like JFK." This may well be true. But it doesn't put Oswald on the sixth floor of the Texas Schoolbook Depository at 12:30pm Dallas time on November 22, 1963, with a rifle in his hands. You may well have proof of this. But your psychological theory isn't it, and therefore isn't relevant to determining what actually happened.
People got emotional after a group of Roman Senators killed Caesar on March 15, 44BC. But their emotionalism does not somehow magically prove that Caesar was stabbed by a lone knifeman.
Psychological theories aren't evidence.
Quoting Xtrix
Again, what of it? it's a great pop psychology theory of zero evidentiary value in a criminal conspiracy. And say what you will, 9/11 was a conspiracy. Unless you think it was all done by a lone planeman.
Quoting Xtrix
Ok. But notice how you have zero interest in the facts of the case, or of the clear implications of the statements by Keane and Hamilton that their investigation was barely deserving of the name. You want to talk about me, you want to talk about the psychological proclivities of people "like me," and on an on. Tell me how you think the buildings collapsed at freefall speed in defiance of the laws of physics. That we can talk about (in some other thread, please). The rest of this is irrelevant nonsense.
Quoting Xtrix
Actually science has a hell of a lot to do with 9/11 The government's description of the collapse of the buildings violates the laws of physics. Especially the infamous building 7, which collapsed perfectly symmetrically at freefall speed into its own footprint from "office fires" without ever being hit by a plane.
I see you've never actually taken the trouble to study the case.
But how can you say I have no right to question these things? I have every right. Look at what's been done in the name of 9/11, from the Middle East wars abroad to the suppression of civil liberties at home. All going back to the government's account of 9/11. I would say that every American has a civic and patriotic duty to study and question this case.
Quoting Xtrix
But I don't. 9/11 is not a research interest of mine, nor do I know much about it beyond the basics. I'm simply questioning your belief that I am somehow beyond the pale as a human being for even daring to question the government's account or to even remind you that the commissions OWN CO-CHAIRs questioned their own account.
Quoting Xtrix
You say this to marginalize someone wanting to know what's behind Keane and Hamilton's remarks? That's a very puzzling turn of mind you have.
Quoting Xtrix
Your remarks are so irrelevant as to border on unhinged. Keane and Hamilton. They are the ONLY SOURCES I'VE QUOTED. They co-chaired the commission. But your mind can't deal with that, so you flail about wildly.
Quoting Xtrix
Again. That's all you've got. Not a single acknowledgement from you that the only sources on 9/11 I've quoted are Keane and Hamilton, Hamilton and Keane. The co-chairs of the commission. They literally told us not to believe a word of their fraudulent report. You can't handle that and don't even seem to be able to mentally process it. So you throw out psychological theories and slurs and jokes instead.
Quoting Xtrix
I'm happy for you. By the way, why did most of Congress stay home, and the ones that did show up social-distanced and wore masks at Biden's speech the other night? I'm not the only one who noticed that. Someone called it the greatest anti-vax add ever. Can you explain this to me. Why do they need to stay home, socially distance, and wear masks if every single one of them is vaxed?
Quoting Xtrix
I'm happy for you. You and I have different personality types.
Quoting Xtrix
I'm happy for you. What point are you making? I would say that if we draw a continuum between "natural born rebel" and "natural born conformer," I'm closer to the former and you to the latter. It's ok. Some like chocolate and some like vanilla. it's a great big world out there. I'm a pluralist. I accept that there are people different from me.
Quoting Xtrix
And personality, one's degree of conformity. Psychologists have studied this for years. You may have heard of the famous Milgram experiment, in which normal people were induced to subject others to fatal doses of electrical shock when told to by authorities. It's a frightening experiment.
Now I would say in the case of the vax, you are being perfectly prudent. I do wonder why you're going on about it. When told to jump, you say "How high?" and I say, "Why should I?" We both know this about ourselves and each other. You're belaboring the obvious.
Quoting Xtrix
You're just trying to say that your personality type is "right" and mine is "wrong." I know that one loses the debate when they bring up the H-word, but you'd have made a fine Nazi. Conformity and not wanting to be out of step is exactly how one lunatic brought an entire great nation to insanity and ruin.
Not that I have anything against the free speech rights of Nazis!! LOL. Only the Nazis themselves.
Well I blew it when I said i'd keep it brief.
You and I are different. The fact that you have an anti-vax friend tells me that in real life you must at least be a little tolerant of those with different opinions and personalities.
Also FWIW I have always been interested in cranks and crazies. I spend a lot of time online correcting and clarifying bad math; but I myself am a lifelong student of math crankery. I am interested in math cranks. That doesn't mean I agree with them. I find alternate takes on things to be interesting. I just don't see why you think that makes me a bad person.
And finally I must note for the third time, with respect to all the irrelevant nonsense you spouted in this post, that regarding 9/11 I never put forth any alternative theory or quoted ANYONE other than Keane and Hamilton, the co-chairs of the 9/11 commission, who told the world that their investigation did not get to the bottom of the incident. You won't even respond to the point.
Peace, brother. And remember to stay home, wear your mask and social distance even when you go out, and cower in fear at all times even though you're vaxed, because your Leaders told you to. Heil Fauci.
Sorry I just can't help needling people like you.
This is an important point. Very important.
Quoting fishfry
I never once said that.
Quoting fishfry
I'm talking about 9/11 truthers -- those who believe the towers were an "inside job," brought down by the government -- through use of remote control planes or dynamite installed in the buildings, etc. The "Building 7" crowd. If you're talking about something else, fine -- yeah, there are holes in all kinds of commissions. But the evidence isn't restricted to one official governmental commission.
Quoting fishfry
:roll: Ask a civil engineer.
Yes, it was the first time in history. It was also the first time in history the US was attacked in such a way on its own soil (besides Pearl Harbor). So what? It happened: the planes flew into the buildings, and the buildings collapsed. If you want to learn about it, there's plenty of credible information out there. The NIST comes to mind. Direct your very free-thinking questions to them. While your at it, direct your skepticism towards electromagnetism -- isn't THAT theory a little funny?
Quoting fishfry
Actually you seem rather neck-deep in conspiracy bullshit. You're not even hiding it well.
But I've never said things can't be legitimately discussed. Some things can, some things can't. I don't consider 9/11 "questions" to be legitimate ones -- they're not after "truth," they -- like Creationists and Holocaust deniers before them -- start with an idea that's been planted into their heads and they try to poke holes, distort and exaggerate every word and every detail, use false arguments and sophisticated sophistry to confirm their gut feelings. All with either no alternatives, or stories that are so ludicrous as to be embarrassing. Flat earthers do the same thing -- are their questions "legitimate"? Maybe to you -- not to me. 9/11 truthers are in the same group, in my judgment. Again, your circle of legitimacy needs to be shrunk -- by a lot.
Quoting fishfry
No -- that's just an excuse you tell yourself. The real reason -- and obvious to anyone with any historical or psychological sense -- is that Reagan didn't die. Had he died, it would have been another JFK moment, and people like you would be defending bogus theories about Hinckley being a CIA operative or something.
There's plenty of problems with that assassination attempt I could conjure up right now. How did this guy get so close to the President? Did you know there were warning signs that were ignored by the FBI? Full documentation is still classified. Reagan's stint in the hospital was odd -- no reporters, no pictures. Many people think that he really died but a look-alike was put in his place from then on -- plenty of video evidence that suggests this. Etc. I'm not saying any of it is true -- but how can you not question? Don't you want to find out the truth? If you want to sit and idly believe the standard narrative, that's on you. Why are you so conforming?
Quoting fishfry
Again, not a surprise you miss the point. What psychology does do is show why people like you even care about evidence in the first place.
Quoting fishfry
Quoting fishfry
Indeed. I do the same with Creationists and Flat Earthers as well. Normally I don't even bother with the claims about "facts" or "evidence" at all -- so you're an exception in that case!
But still ultimately another deluded individual. And again, me saying so won't sway you. I already know that. I'm writing mainly for others -- you're a good demonstration of thinking gone awry.
Quoting fishfry
Quoting fishfry
:lol:
Guess I caught a real one here. Funny I anticipated the building 7 thing above -- without having read further. Shocker.
Quoting fishfry
Another typical response. Actually in the 9/11 case I have, a little. But I regret spending even a second on it -- the most it deserved was 0 seconds, like the claims of flat earthers. Of course I could be wrong about them too! But that's a risk I'm happy to take. I trust my bullshit-detector.
Quoting fishfry
Quoting fishfry
Quoting fishfry
Calm down...
Quoting fishfry
Why? WHY?
Quoting fishfry
Yes. You have poor judgment and I don't. That's the difference.
Quoting fishfry
I actually did laugh at this one. You rebel you! Just a natural born rebel!
Or naturally born deluded. But go with whichever is more psychologically pleasing.
Quoting fishfry
Yes, and I suspect you'd go right to the end of that experiment -- if the experimenter was a 9/11 truther, of course.
Quoting fishfry
Yes, nailed it. That's what's happening here. :lol:
Quoting fishfry
Quoting fishfry
Yeah...that's definitely what's happening. I'm totally being needled by you.
Quoting fishfry
Calm down. I never said you're a bad person. I take interest in cranks like you just as you take interest in math cranks. Do many of the math cranks you encounter readily admit that they're cranks? Probably not....
But then again, for a super-conforming Nazi like me, it's hard to know unless some expert tells me. :kiss:
Don't you mean the natural born rebel, you conforming Nazi you?
You can mock Q all you want, but what about the EVIDENCE? Why don't you want to talk about the EVIDENCE instead of just ridiculing?
You would know of all people. Even taking a straightforward case as the following is instructive. Take a more or less democratic state that is actually quite serious about security matters: Israel. They managed to fool, lie and distort there nuclear weapons program to other powerful states. Sure, some states knew a bit about it, but not much, at least not much in the beginning of the program.
What happened? One conscientious scientist, Mordechai Vanunu, managed to blow the whistle and let the world know that Israel had nukes. Of course, he's now under arrest, can't leave the country, labeled as a traitor, etc. Yet, if in such a secretive country, with relatively few people in the know about such a delicate subject could not keep such a secret, how in the world would an inside job, involving hundreds of people, if not more, possibly commit 9/11 without anyone saying something substantial about it?
Then there's the whole mess of what happened after the attacks. The main goal was always Iraq, not Afghanistan and the hijackers were Saudi. A very clumsy plan to go to war in Iraq.
In short, these "theories" are nonsense.
Quoting Xtrix
Evidence is experiential. Essentially a private affair. I cannot say, only show. But I can only show if you want to see.
It's about looking at the obvious. Keep a (very very very very) open mind about it, and you'll get there. :wink:
Yes, this and a thousand other reasons. But to quote Strangelove: “There’s nothing to figure out—the man’s obviously psychotic.”
To bring it back to “bad physics,” it should come as no surprise that people with terrible judgment and delusions of grandeur are attracted to such claims— it further supports the self-serving picture they’ve created for themselves of being “contrarian.”
This is the same crew who glibly parrot jingoist slogans about American exceptionalism and vote for Donald Trump. Skepticism and questioning about everything except what matters in the real world, because the latter would mean you may have to actually do something. And that’s hard work. Better to sit and get your feeling of superiority from self-created labels like “dissenter” and “nonconformist.”
Easy, cheap, predictable, and common. But can also be quite amusing. It’s almost too easy, and I know I shouldn’t ridicule— but I can’t help myself.
Quoting Tom Storm
I really was laughing through most of it.
But remember: in alternative world, he’s the one “needling” ME. Classic Trump mentality: “No, you’re the puppet.” Patterns of similarity are emerging.
Quoting Manuel
Yes— not open minded enough. Exactly. That’s my problem. After all, it’s about facts and evidence... nothing about conspiracies!
Quoting Manuel
And it should take a person about 15 seconds to come to that conclusion, without even hearing “the pitch.” To tweak Hitchens: delusions can be dismissed without evidence.
How do we tell? I’m beginning to think it can’t be formally taught. You have it or you don’t.
This is baloney - self-righteous, passive-aggressive crap. I agree with you that conspiracy theories are almost always wrong and wrong-headed. At the same time, I've known smart, perceptive people who believe some of them. They're just wrong. Questioning their judgement on this particular issue is reasonable, questioning their psychological motivation is irrelevant. Argue the question.
You didn’t come close to understanding what I wrote.
Quoting T Clark
Give me a break. If they’re “smart and perceptive” and yet buy into what a 10 year old could recognize as complete bullshit, I question more your judgment of their “perception” than anything else.
You were straight-forward and clear in what you had to say. I've complimented the clarity of your writing before.
So the idea that people with terrible judgment also are more likely to make armchair claims about physics being “bad” is “baloney” to you? Seems almost like a truism to me.
(Notice this says nothing whatever about debate within physics.)
This and simply charlatanry. You get people like Deepak Chopra making a killing from bamboozling people. As is often said, studying consciousness is spooky and hard as is modern physics, so they must be connected in these very respects.
Plus these physicist's get rewards, recognition and respect for what they do. If they can do it, why can't I? Tough luck.
Which is not to say that one can't be skeptical of certain claims made by such people. but one should be careful.
Quoting Xtrix
It's hard to articulate how one should "think" about these topics. A portion of it is simply probability, as is "what is more likely to be true" an inside job or what happened?
But yeah, "teaching" this to certain people is super difficult and rarely rewarding for the people involved.
Perpetrated by scientists who want to rule over other people.
Or, to be more charitable: Bad physics is the result of the proletarization/plebeification of education.
The students are not to blame, but those making the curricula and the education policies. It's the idea that everyone could or even should become a Renaissance man/woman that is so horribly amiss. If you set for yourself the goal that even some poor semi-literate kids who don't even get a proper meal every day should be taught science and art, then of course you have to dumb things down so that even they can get the impression that they understand it.
Indeed. Much more careful than most people are, in fact. It's very tempting to have opinions about everything, rather than constantly saying "I really don't know enough to have a real opinion about that," so I get the urge. In today's landscape especially, where everyone thinks they're experts about whatever their media tells them is an "issue" -- masks, vaccines, epidemiology, medicine -- it's an almost unavoidable pitfall.
Quoting Manuel
I tend to agree, but it's like playing poker: there's incomplete information, so you have to use your judgment about probabilities (is the likelihood that this person's range beats me here greater than my hand's strength?) -- but determining that probability is "subjective," dependent on how the person gathers information and assesses the situation.
Like poker, like life. Some are winners; most are losers. But the losers attribute their losses to bad luck, never improve, and never learn exactly where they go wrong. So it goes with conspiracy theorists as well: they're convinced they're doing God's work, that they're of Galileo's cloth. Yet their conclusions are so absurd it's almost shocking. What I love the most is when they make predictions based on their beliefs. Then it becomes as apparent as poker: they're always wrong. Look no further than the Q-anon people. It's such stupid nonsense that they actually make predictions -- smarter charlatans never do that, for good reason.
Watching the day come and go when Trump was supposed to re-take office and watching them scramble for explanations was hilarious. As hilarious as the "end of the world" people. The date comes and goes and nothing happens -- of course.
What really set me off was you bringing Donald Trump into it. I have friends whom I like, respect, and trust who voted for him. Add to that the fact that your comment is an obvious attack on the person you are arguing with. I can never figure out whether that sort of thing is an ad hominem attack or just an insult. You're not going to convince him. Why not drop it?
So do I, including family members. So what? It's still terrible, terrible judgment.
Yes. I guess the safest move if you disagree with a particular interpretation is to use arguments based on other physicists conclusions. So even if we don't know if something like the Many Worlds interpretation is correct, we could say that we tend to think that physicist X or Y seems more sensible to us.
Or we can say nothing. Depends a bit on the person.
Quoting Xtrix
I agree. There's something about this "incomplete information" that leads rational people to disregard opinions which are plain crazy, such as that Trump is some kind of hero rescuing kids in a ring of pedophiles based in a pizzeria. Why some people have this and others lack it, is a good question.
But there's level of crazy. JFK seems to me to be less crazy than 9/11 which is less crazy than Q, etc. And I'll go further, I think you're allowed to have one or two such ideas, as long as it doesn't cloud everything in your vision. It's a fine line.
What gets me is the real conspiracies aren't mentioned much by such people. Pinochet getting into power was a real conspiracy, Dilma Rousseff getting kicked out in a coup was a real conspiracy, parts of Operation Gladio seem to be quite serious. But for some reason, these one's that actually have evidence aren't often mentioned by Jones and people of that mind set.
Quoting Xtrix
And in such instances we even play around with the word "belief". The "belief" Q people have is more akin to religion than it is as the word is used when talking about philosophy or many aspects of ordinary life.
To return to physics, it's a bit like Flat-Earthers or Moon landing deniers. What possible evidence will change there minds? If nothing will, it's likely a cult.
I think I understand why some people support Donald Trump and I can sympathize with their motivations. Claiming that Biden stole the election shows bad judgement, but I don't think voting for Trump necessarily does.
We don't have to take this any further. I've had my say and I can't think of anything to add.
Yes. Reminds me of Nietzsche:
"There are horrible people who, instead of solving a problem, tangle it up and make it harder to solve for anyone who wants to deal with it. Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all."
That's how I feel about people with awful judgment "weighing in" on anything -- whether it's physics, the election, the coronavirus, vaccines, 9/11, or anything else.
I don't disagree, but how does one determine the line between sound and awful judgement?
A history of stupid choices and stupid judgments comes to mind. But generally it's not something easy to explain.
:up: We do!
Quoting Xtrix
It's good you said that. So, yes or no, may I take it that it is permissible to discuss the US government's account of the events of 9/11/2001? To this moment I had not realized you felt that way.
Quoting Xtrix
Ahhhhhh, this is helpful. In fact when you reacted to my labeling myself as a 9/11 truther as if I'd admitted to frolicking on Epstein island with Prince Andrew, I asked myself if perhaps you and I simply have different definitions of this term.
Following the distinction among the artificial intelligence community between weak and strong AI; let me propose some perhaps clarifying definitions for your provisional agreement.
* A weak 9/11 truther is someone who simply questions the official account and would like to see a serious criminal investigation done. Someone who perhaps knows of Hamilton and Keane's remarks and knows that the families of of the victims have been among the most vociferous advocates of a full investigation. Someone who knows that the entire pile of rubble, the evidence of the greatest crime in American history, was collected by a fleet of dump trucks the next day and hauled off China as scrap with zero forensic analysis performed. Someone perhaps who knows of the PNAC report and finds it curious. Someone who is troubled by a long laundry list of strange doings: the military stand downs, the terrorist exercises scheduled for that exact day, the collapse of the steel-framed buildings, the shorted airline stocks, the involvement of the Saudis, covered up for years and finally exposed due to the efforts of the truthers. I could go on, there are literally hundreds of such anomalies.
Weak truthers don't have answers; only questions. And "move along, nothing to see here you conspiracy nut" does not satisfy us intellectually.
* A strong 9/11 truther is characterized the way you define a 9/11 truther. Holding to a specific alternative theory, often involving elements of the US government, Mossad, mini- or micro-nukes, directed energy weapons, and the Prince of Darkness himself, Richard Bruce Cheney.
Is that a helpful distinction? Frankly I don't know how anyone who takes the time to begin to study this case can be anything but a weak truther. There was simply never any criminal investigation done and there are hundreds of significant questions unanswered.
Quoting Xtrix
I understand exactly how you feel. I used to feel exactly the same way. People would be talking about 9/11 and some conspiracy nut would mention "building 7," which I'd never heard of, had no idea what it was, and cared even less. That all changed the day I saw a ]video of the collapse of building 7. You can't unsee it. It's a controlled demolition. That doesn't mean that Dick Cheney personally pressed the plunger. It only means that the government can not explain it. The 9/11 commission didn't even mention it, and the NIST report was unable to computer-model anything past the first two seconds of collapse. It remains unexplained.
Like I say, I don't blame you. I used to feel exactly the same way. Till I saw the video and found out that the NIST computer model was unable to explain the collapse.
But please, I'm open to learn. If you have a serious engineering explanation for the collapse of building 7, by all means tell it to me. And to the world, because the government hasn't got one. Maybe you didn't realize that. I didn't, till I looked into it.
Quoting Xtrix
"Holes in all kinds of commissions" covers honest mistakes of a relatively minor nature. That doesn't begin to describe the weakness and obfuscation of the 9/11 commission report.
Quoting Xtrix
Like these guys?
Quoting Xtrix
You must realize that this is an extremely disingenuous remark, why'd you make it? If gravity made things go up that day, the fact that it was the first such attack on US soil since PH would not obviate the need to explain the phenomenon. Besides, 9/11 was a military attack by a sovereign foreign government. 9/11 was a crime perpetrated by "19 Arabs because they hate our freedoms" if you find such a mindless slogan comforting. Of course our friends at PNAC want you to think of 9/11 as Pearl Harbor. They wrote: "[b]Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."
You took the bait. Like they knew you would.
Quoting Xtrix
You are only revealing your lack of intellectual curiosity. It's true that one thing happened then the other thing happened. You are imputing causation where none has ever been proved. This is a philosophy forum, after all. I'm entitled to note this instance of post hoc ergo propter hoc, "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X."
Quoting Xtrix
And you seem remarkably uncurious about the world.
Quoting Xtrix
Ok. You never said there are things that can't be legitimately discussed. I believe you.
Quoting Xtrix
And now you just did You can't even keep your own story straight from one sentence to the next.
Quoting Xtrix
Why not? The case is full of unresolved anomalies and unexplained facts. The 9/11 commission report was a joke, the NIST report worse. Are we supposed to just accept it anyway on the say-so of you and George Bush? "Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th " You do Dubya proud.
Quoting Xtrix
Wow. You marginalize and dismiss the questios of the 9/11 widows like this? I am very serious here. You should educate yourself. Nobody has been more vociferous in their demand for 9/11 truth than the relatives of the dead. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Quoting Xtrix
Again, low-intellect snark rather than facts, evidence, and logic. You equate mere questioning of the many unexplained aspects of 9/11 with flat earthers?
People asking questions makes you feel this way. The widows of the dead asking questions makes you react like this. They should shut up and collect their government payoffs, is that it?
Quoting Xtrix
I don't see that at all. I suppose that if a guy with lifelong connections to the Mafia had strolled unchallenged into a tightly secured police station and shot Hinkley dead in front of seventy cops, that might have gotten tongues wagging. (I refer of course to the shooting of Lee Harvey Oswald by Jack Ruby, if there's anyone to whom that wasn't clear). But absent that, I don't recall anything out of the ordinary or questionable about that case.
Quoting Xtrix
But you need to "conjure them up." Because there aren't actually any questions about this particular case. You don't seem to be able to distinguish between conjuring and actual unanswered questions.
Quoting Xtrix
LOL. Good stuff! There was nothing remarkable about the case at the time. You seem to think people make up conspiracies, rather than simply notice anomalies in the official explanation and look for answers.
Quoting Xtrix
You honestly don't seem to be able to distinguish between people making things up, and people noting actual, substantive anomalies. I don't understand your lack of discernment. Some events happened pretty much the way the authorities say, and others didn't. It takes judgment, an open mind, and a desire to research and learn, to tell the difference. It's not easy. But when you equate the questions the 9/11 widows asked the 9/11 commission with flat earthers, you do yourself a disservice. I don't actually think you're that stupid. I don't know why you're trying to convince me that you are.
Note: I really hated writing that. We're mostly civil. But to equate the 9/11 widows to flat earthers is stupid. I tried to rewrite this sentence or find a better word but I couldn't. Please forgive.
Quoting Xtrix
That was exactly my point, which YOU missed. I've heard this for years. "People can't accept that a nobody like LHO could change the course of history by killing JFK, so they look for a conspiracy. And THEREFORE there is no conspiracy." I can't imagine worse logic.
And after all -- didn't a lone nobody like Gavrilo Princip spark World War I by assassinating the Archduke Ferdinand and his lovely wife Sophie, virtually by accident? Nobody ever says they don't believe a 19 year old Serbian nobody could have changed the course of history.
People question the official stories of the JFK assassination and 9/11 precisely because the official explanation are so full of holes. Not because they are psychologically disposed to see things that aren't there. And this explains your Hinkley example. There really weren't any mysteries about that case. That I know of. And if there were, as you enumerated, they didn't resonate with enough people.
Quoting Xtrix
Ad hominems are all you've got. No facts, no evidence, no logic. Mindless jokes. The 9/11 widows are flat earthers. You're embarrassing yourself.
Quoting Xtrix
Why don't you provide some so we can both find out?
Quoting Xtrix
I honestly don't see it. I've advanced no alternative theories. I've pointed out established facts and asked questions.
Quoting Xtrix
Flat earthers like the 9/11 widows and Hamilton and Keane. Can't you see how weak your own argument is?
Quoting Xtrix
I have not advanced a single alternative theory that I say I believe. You're reading things I didn't write. I'f I'm deluded, tell me exactly what I'm deluded about.
Quoting Xtrix
That's because the collapse of building 7 has turned more people into 9/11 skeptics than any other single fact. Well, maybe the missing airplane debris at Shanksville or the total lack of photographic evidence of an airplane hitting the Pentagon. But Building 7 is the one event that startles people when they investigate it. I can't help that.
Quoting Xtrix
You have as little curiosity about 9/11 as you do about flat earth theory. I just find this a stunning admission.
Quoting Xtrix
I'm pretty calm. But of course you haven't facts or evidence or logic, so "calm down," and "Flat earther!" are all you've got. I'll have some ad hominy with those grits.
Quoting Xtrix
Well? Why?
Quoting Xtrix
I would say the same about you. I'd use the word discernment. You can't distinguish the questions the 9/11 widows put to the commission, from flat earthers.
Quoting Xtrix
Actually a questioner of authority is more like it. Not actually much of a rebel, sad to say.
Quoting Xtrix
What am I deluded about? I've asked questions, and linked to the questions asked by others. I've asserted no alternative theories at all, not a single one, beyond the perfectly true fact that the 9/11 commission did a piss-poor job and did not conduct a criminal investigation. And that no criminal investigation into 9/11 has ever been done. This is a factual matter of public record. The 9/11 was not a criminal investigation. So what do you think I'm deluded about?
Quoting Xtrix
That didn't even make any sense.
Alright enough of this. You can have the last word. And thanks for the chat, it was fun.
Quoting fishfry
Lots of things go unexplained. All kinds of strange things happen during disasters. There's nothing about that video -- or logic generally -- that suggests a demolition. The building fell for structural reasons due to the impact of the WTC collapse. It can't be sketched out exactly how, perhaps, but neither can how we evolved from primates. Must mean "God did it." Or maybe aliens. Or maybe a demolition by a corrupt government.
If you can't see the absurdity, and where your reasoning is going wrong, then, again, you're caught in the rabbit hole and there's no pulling you out. And I'm not interested in trying to.
Quoting fishfry
Oh you mean the conspiracy theory-peddling "non-profit" group of quacks known as the "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth"? Funny that's who you offer up. In that case, there's a group of "scientists" who you'll be interested in who deny climate change. There were lots of scientists paraded around by tobacco companies who denied any link to cancer. There are all kinds of scientists -- with degrees! -- who meet annually to discuss new findings for "creationist research" -- that Noah's flood was responsible for the Grand Canyon, etc.
I know what you're thinking: "How am I to know who to listen to?" But you've already made your choice. You've thrown in with the small minority of cranks. I throw in with the vast majority of credible scientists. I advise you to take a break from truther websites and have a conversation with them instead.
https://web.archive.org/web/20070809030224/http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf
Quoting fishfry
Not at all. I'm just not interested in whether Santa Claus likes chocolate chips or macaroons. Nor am I "curious" about Jewish space lasers, Bigfoot, Creationist theories, climate "skepticism," and moon landing conspiracies. Like I've said before -- you're welcome to your delusions. Have fun with that.
Quoting fishfry
For the same reasons you (I would hope?) think "questions" about whether Reagan was really replaced by a robot after his assassination aren't legitimate. Some things are so stupid you just can't bother with them. If you don't recognize that 9/11 truther claims are of the exact same cloth, then your judgment is simply terrible. And, like I said, it won't matter what I say about it. Nor can I convince you or teach you. You simply possess terrible judgment.
Quoting fishfry
Quoting fishfry
:rofl: Exactly.
Quoting fishfry
Was I not just noticing anomalies in the official explanation? Can you prove me wrong? Why do you hate questioning? How can you dismiss all the people who want answers to these questions?
Quoting fishfry
You continually missing the point here is very telling indeed. I'll leave it for anyone following this sad discussion to judge for themselves, but it's an interesting teaching tool.
All deluded people think they have "substance" and "evidence," including flat earthers. That doesn't make them all equally ridiculous, but the commonality is still there. You simply aren't capable of seeing how ridiculous your theories about controlled demolitions are, and how similar they are to creationist and flat earth theories. So be it -- that's no surprise.
Quoting fishfry
No -- it's precisely because they are psychologically disposed. Which is why JFK's assassination has numerous theories, because it was a shocking event, and Reagan's doesn't -- because it turned out OK. If it hadn't turned out OK, you'd be hearing plenty of "mysteries" (some of which I already made up as examples) and would probably be arguing about how closed-minded I am for not taking them seriously. Your last sentence proves the point: it didn't resonate with people. Yes, and JFK theories do -- as do 9/11 theories (but not the WTC bombing in 1993). Why? For exactly the reasons mentioned.
Quoting fishfry
Quoting fishfry
You fail to see that you're embarrassing yourself. Also no surprise.
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Someone with your level of judgment lecturing anyone about "logic" is itself pretty embarrassing. But again, nothing I haven't encountered before -- Creationists say the exact same things. :roll:
Quoting fishfry
Shocking! How can I be so closed minded and incurious! How can I be so awful to those poor 9/11 widows! I don't know how I live with myself.
Quoting fishfry
No kidding? I suspect Ken Ham would as well. I'll lose as much sleep over either.
Quoting fishfry
What are Creationists "deluded" about? They're just asking questions too.
To say it one more time: the very fact that you care about this, and have judged (poorly) that this is something worth pursuing, and that it's all a "mystery" worth solving, etc., is on par with any other conspiracy theory of your choice.
It's the same argument used with Creationists ("God of the gaps"), in that there will always be questions and holes and mysteries and problems with any historical event, if one cares to delve deep enough into it. The very reason there is this level of controversy about 9/11 and not the 1993 bombing, or the JFK assassination and not the Reagan assassination, is well known by psychologists, and is rather predictable. You see it all around the world, in fact.
There's nothing wrong with questioning things. But what you choose to question, and why, matters. What you choose to do with your time, energy, and attention matters. It's a judgment call.
It's precisely judgment that you lack. Regarding "delusion": you're deluded if you believe building 7 was "demolished," for example. Which you said. So there's a specific example for you.
Quoting fishfry
I doubt that very much.
To the extent that this counts as a post, you're right. I just wanted to say that I ran my eyes down to the end and didn't read whatever you wrote. 9/11 is actually not much of an interest of mine, I watched a bunch of 9/11 vids a while back (before Youtube banned them all) and made a mental note of the standard talking points. And to be fair, I do believe we haven't been told the full truth about it; and that since it is an undeniable fact that there has never been a criminal investigation, I'd like to see one. Further discussion about the subject wouldn't be of interest to me. And you did yourself no favor by equating the questions of the 9/11 widows, formally submitted to the 9/11 commission and most of them still unanswered to this day, with flat earth theory. This marks you in my mind as a most unserious individual.
And now I really am done here.
Yes -- you're fairly predictable.
To summarize this odd discussion: you're yet another deluded 9/11 truther desperately pretending to not be a 9/11 truther -- exactly like most 9/11 truthers. "I'm one of the REASONABLE conspiracy theorists!"
It's simply terrible, terrible judgment. On par with flat earth theory -- many proponents of which are probably nice people as well, but likewise deluded.
It was fun embarrassing you -- have a good time with your unanswered "questions."