Wanna Conspiracy Debate?

A General discussion about everything other than South Park

Moderator: Big-Will

CrocoDuck
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:23 am

Re: Wanna Conspiracy Debate?

Postby CrocoDuck » Tue Jun 19, 2012 9:39 am

I have a conspiracy theory that 9/11 is pay back from the Japanese for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WW2. Japanese Samurai and Ninja posed as Islamic Terrorist so they could keep their secret hidden.
Hit me up if you're in So Cal.
Dr Sleep
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2012 9:25 pm

Re: Wanna Conspiracy Debate?

Postby Dr Sleep » Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:21 pm

Okay now I know you guys are just making sh*t up. (that's not a stab at you CrocoDuck)
Unassumption
Posts: 3849
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 8:49 pm

Re: Wanna Conspiracy Debate?

Postby Unassumption » Tue Jun 19, 2012 9:30 pm

Real conspiracies rarely have a reason to be hidden, so are usually out in the open - weather the robber barrons or politicians today. Ideology not secrecy is their cloak. But people have always insisted there is a "bigger threat" (usually teh joos!) and ignored the real threat to focus on fighting windmills.

: A 15 minute video documentary from the folks at "Architects and Engineers For 9/11 Truth

Another appeal to authority. Proponents of every whacky idea have their 15 minute 'documentaries,' full of so many bad arguments it'd take a year to counter them all. If you can't distill down a single piece of evidence, you clearly found nothing in the video. However, the official story has so much evidence in it's favor no single criticism could destroy it; like creationists you act as though disproving one stone in the mountain of evidence would change everything. The arguments in this video are old hat and have been countered to death, and the title contains the appeal to authority fallacy your quote-mining earlier shows you love.

Occam's Razor is fundamentally flawed

News to most philosophers in the world.
I guess you think all the potholes in the road are made by aliens then, if it's so useless? It's the basis of how sane people conduct their everyday lives.

You're assuming there is agreement on what is or isn't an "assumption"

There doesn't need to be agreement - even if there was, it wouldn't mean it's true.
The razor strips anything that doesn't have evidence to support it away, if you want to define that as an assumption so be it, but wordplay won't save you, the razor works as long as there are claims without supporting evidence.

one concludes there are UFOs, the other concludes there aren't

Because one doesn't understand what it is. It's like saying thermodynamics is false because some creationists think "complexity" means "i can't understand it" and they can't understand evolution, whereas other people know what thermodynamics actually is. Just because some people get it wrong doesn't mean there isn't a right answer. Simplicity in the razor = fewest independant things that would need evidence, not stuff i can easilly understand.

You're really getting quagmired in useless generalities.

You're one specific piece of evidence, for the generalities he's putting out there. We've all seen enough of 'you' to know what he's saying is true.

ere's yet another heavyweight

Who again lived in a different time and place to all the other people listed. Professors are now powerful enough to fit in the conspiracy, i guess as TMP said the conspiracy is again expanding. It's another appeal to authority. What next quoting john nash's schizophrenic delusions as evidence of your own?

I could quote any communist saying the same things about capitalism. Is anyone who thinks capitalism isn't helping the average joe, is now in on the conspiracy? It's hilarious seeing free marketeers like you quote commies to support a radically different conspiracy theory (that still has teh jews as teh enemy).

I've introduced the presupposition that the Bolsheviks were the creation of big money interests...and I then introduce evidence

The wholly inadequate 'evidence' of quotemines from fellow conspiracy nutjobs (who had very different conspiracies in mind) to support your radical conspiracy.

responded with facts. And documentation. Proof.

Quotes =/= facts. Unsourced statements =/= documentation. Evidence, even if this were evidence, would not = proof.

explain my own world view to me!

I dare you to find ONE thing someone in this thread has accused you of believing, that you don't actually believe. You won't find anything because we know you and your type better than you know yourself.

If they do everything "perfectly"...they would've gotten the 'right' president in the first place.

Thanks for pointing out holes in your own BS. Your theory requires them to be this brilliant, weather you acknowledge that as part of your "worldview" or not. that you admit world history shows they're not brilliant, disproves your theory.

Even the US military gets its funding through the big bankers and their counterfeit 'funny money'

Big bankers is defined as taxpayers in your own personal language then? That's the only way your BS sentence could be true.

They're wild claims weather you have evidence for them, very radical departures from what we know that conflicts with a lot of evidence (the official story) so you need a LOT of evidence for it to be true. You have less than mundnae evidence for your extraordinary claims. That you can't even grasp how insane your claims sound makes me fear for your mental health. You silly goose.
AND BY THE WAY, I WIN
triplemultiplex
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:24 am

Re: Wanna Conspiracy Debate?

Postby triplemultiplex » Tue Jun 19, 2012 10:14 pm

RedStone2 wrote:Occam's Razor is fundamentally flawed and virtually useless. You're assuming there is agreement on what is or isn't an "assumption". It's perfectly circular and self-canceling. Two different people use Occam's Razor...one concludes there are UFOs, the other concludes there aren't.


Assuming UFO's = alien space ships, the former is not using Occam's razor correctly. If one concludes from the paltry evidence available that the only explanation for unidentified flying objects is that they are space craft from another plant/solar system/galaxy/universe, then that conclusion relies almost exclusively on some rather massive and as yet unverifiable assumptions.

It assumes:
life exists in beyond Earth
some of that life is intelligent enough to construct interstellar spacecraft
that intelligent species has some reason to come to Earth
the intelligent species wishes to keep it's presence secret, but happens to be kind of bad at it

This is just an example of how an extraordinary claim that doesn't have the extraordinary evidence to support it violates the principle of Occam's Razor. It is introducing too many unproven or unprovable (and by that I mean unfalsifiable) assumptions.

It is a waste of anyone's time and energy to try and debunk every troll-y conspiratorial claim that gets vomited onto this forum. There is a reason why these are considered fringe claims by real historians. And though I'm sure RedStone thinks it's because every historian, media outlet and important figure is in on the cover-up (knowing or unknowingly), it is just because there is insufficient evidence to support such an elaborate alternative history narrative. I'll grant that history is not science, but among professional historians, there is still a peer review process. And I'll trust the consensus opinion of experts in the those fields over fringe websites and Truther videos.
__________________________________________________

You read it! You can't unread it!
RedStone2
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 6:57 am

Re: Wanna Conspiracy Debate?

Postby RedStone2 » Wed Jun 20, 2012 7:06 am

Unassumption wrote:Your theory requires them to be this brilliant
OK so...with regard to the Gulf of Tonkin, a conspiracy that involved hundreds and thousands of sailors and fighter pilots, and yet was successfully perpetrated and covered up for nigh unto half a century and is STILL successfully concealed from 90+% of America to this very day...

...this was perped by individuals who are NOT very bright or who ARE very bright? Which?

And if a conspiracy of this globe-spanning magnitude can be concealed and successfully carried out by people who are not especially bright...aren't you therefore agreeing that 'not very bright' people could pull off gargantuan conspiracies?

I mean...I'm only trying to agree with you but you won't let me. :-(

And if Gulf of Tonkin was perped by veritable dummies...wouldn't that mean it is entirely possible other large conspiracies have been perped and/or are currently underway and that are also concealed from the mainstream public yet again?

I recall somebody here previously claiming they could only have perped the Manhattan Project because there were unique circumstances at the time...but then whoops, here comes the Gulf of Tonkin conspiracy. What happened to those "unique circumstances"?

Unassumption wrote:Another appeal to authority. Proponents of every whacky idea have their 15 minute 'documentaries
Huh?? How is directing attention to information in a video an "appeal to authority"? What in the world are you talking about? Let's review: We're having a discussion in this corner of the thread...about 9/11. So I simply ask for folks to look briefly at the info and then we can discuss from there.

And the 15 minutes are only an excerpt from a 2-hour documentary. So now you'll have to come up with a new rule of thumb whereby all 2-hour videos are also automatically discredited. I suppose we should advise all video producers to avoid 15 minute and/or 2-hour length videos. I recommend 1:23:00 length videos. Those are absolutely impossible to peg because of their length, from my experience.

By the way, 7 of the 10 original commissioners for the 9/11 Commission Report have now repudiated their own report. They point out all the cover up, all the withheld info, blocked testimonies, stonewalling, falsified docs, etc. 7 out of 10! There ain't no "official story". Not any more.
http://spktruth2power.wordpress.com/2010/01/25/the-911-commission-rejects-own-report-as-based-on-government-lies/

triplemultiplex wrote: It assumes:
life exists in beyond Earth
some of that life is intelligent enough to construct interstellar spacecraft
that intelligent species has some reason to come to Earth
the intelligent species wishes to keep it's presence secret, but happens to be kind of bad at it
Again, you are presuming to be the final judge on what is or isn't "extraordinary". There are many. many folks...high level academia, high-level defense industry, high level military intelligence etc....who would disagree with your (bare) assertion that the idea of intelligent non-humans is "extraordinary". Therefore, your application of Occam's Razor is 100% subjective.

The reference to the aforementioned groups is not an appeal to authority but simply to counter your repeated references to "the real historians" (an 'appeal to authority' by your own definition, by the way) and a mystical group you refer to as "the experts". You want experts on the UFO/ET scenario? I already gave you a source--the Disclosure Project.

The 'experts" have spoken of the matter of UFOs/ETs. The 'experts" have spoken on the veracity/credibility (lack thereof) of the 9/11 Commission Report. The "experts" have spoken on the matter of shadow governments and secret cabals. I've documented all of it in these two threads.

Here is a 2-minute testimony on the ET/UFO scenario given at the Washington Press Club..that if it doesn't make the hair stand up on the back of your neck, you must be in coma! And this guy was a mere Airman Second Class...so I can't be blamed for "appealing to athority" can I now?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQl7t62q71o
Unassumption
Posts: 3849
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 8:49 pm

Re: Wanna Conspiracy Debate?

Postby Unassumption » Wed Jun 20, 2012 3:00 pm

The content of the video, not the video itself, is an appeal to authority. I know how easy it is to misquote experts, or to pretend someone's qualified in a field they aren't, or to be qualified in a field but a fringe nutjob anyway.

successfully concealed from 90+% of America to this very day

If "90% of Americans" (asspull statistic much?) is too distracted by bread and circuses to google a basic fact, why would the government need to engage in such costly and risky conspiracies to hide things people won't pay attention to or care about anyway?

...this was perped by individuals who are NOT very bright or who ARE very bright? Which?

As you yourself said in the comment I was responding to, the government would have to make massive mistakes to need to do these conspiracies or for them to be known by you. It seems I've been quotemined here as much as Disreli and Willson.

You say the government is so incompetent that the cold war being faked by capitalists is more likely than the USSR posing a real threat, but your theory requires the government is so powerful it can do, well, what your comment says it can. I point this contradiction out and you respond by saying the opposite of what you originally said, and trying to say I supported your original view when I was attacking it? Er, I guess that's what happens when you reject basic epistemology.

They point out all the cover up, all the withheld info, blocked testimonies, stonewalling, falsified docs, etc.

Information that would have shown the incometence of the Bush government and it's response to the attacks, not complicity in them. You can't jump from evidence being hidden to the nature of the evidence and motives for it being hidden, or at least, you can't jump this far. What about all the other comissions that this most investigated event in US history has had, that all point the same direction? The details may be debated, the general story is not.

you are presuming to be the final judge on what is or isn't "extraordinary

If something would require a lot of independant events for it to happen, it is unlikely. The evidence suggests how unlikely a thing is, as do any laws of nature (based on innumerable pieces of evidence) that it would need to breech (As faster than light travelling aliens would need). The universe follows this in thermodynamics, sane people follow it with ockham's razor.

a mystical group you refer to as "the experts"

What people who have spent years studying the evidence (which is open for anyone to see if they have the years to look) commonly agree on, is not "mysterious." If all but one person who sees the same crime scene gives the same report but the one person gives a radically different view, who would you agree with? Apparently you would have no way to distinguish which is true, as you reject ockham's razor. Glad the justice system isn't run by people like you!

I thought TMP was strawmanning you when he brought ancient aliens into the picture, your response suggests otherwise. You going to say the planes that crashed into the towers came from Xenu's home world next? If not, how would you disprove such a theory, given it has as much evidence as your own!
AND BY THE WAY, I WIN
RedStone2
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 6:57 am

Re: Wanna Conspiracy Debate?

Postby RedStone2 » Thu Jun 21, 2012 9:43 am

Unassumption wrote:The content of the video, not the video itself, is an appeal to authority.
Amazingly bizarre nonsense. The video presents evidence from the standpoint of science, the laws of physics, and simple common sense...among many other aspects. What in THEE world are you talking about?

Unassumption wrote:You say the government is so incompetent that the cold war being faked by capitalists is more likely than the USSR posing a real threat
Absolutely pure fabrication. I never said anything about it being "more likely". I said the evidence indicates the Bolsheviks and the Communists were propped up by Western bankers.

Unassumption wrote:...your theory requires the government is so powerful it can do, well, what your comment says it can.
Again, I'm not sure what you're confused about but...yes, the "government" DID successfully perp the Gulf of Tonkin false flag and then used it to commence their Vietnam War mass murder. And it's not a "theory". It's a fact.

Unassumption wrote:I point this contradiction out and you respond by saying the opposite of what you originally said.
Which contradiction was that again, exactly? And maybe you could actually quote these two allegedly "contradicting" quotes of mine. Happy hunting.

Unassumption wrote:Information that would have shown the incometence of the Bush government and it's response to the attacks, not complicity in them.
That's pretty ironic. You've been trying to hold me to sky-high standards of evidence...and yet you make this crazy leap...a completely bare assertion that rules out an "inside job". Where's your evidence which clears government insiders of involvement?

Directly from the horses' mouth...the absolute top official authorities are saying they don't know WHAT happened. They're complaining they've been lied to from top to bottom.

What kind of a crazy, anti-intellectual, anti-scientific approach is yours...to say "well, the 9/11 commissioners are rejecting their own report so let's re-investigate 9/11 BUT PRECLUDE the possibility of criminal elements within the US government having been involved". lol

Unassumption wrote:you can't jump this far.
Nobody "jumped", bro! You're doing all the jumping. When I'm having a discussion like this, I never "jump" anywhere. I'm happy to let the discussion and the evidence lead to wherever...regardless of whether I already have strong views.

That's just routine 'good form' when you're having a discussion with someone who may have opposing views. You're constantly jumping ahead on my behalf...announcing to me what my supposed beliefs are. It's total baloney, pardon my French. Below is yet another example:

Unassumption wrote:I thought TMP was strawmanning you when he brought ancient aliens into the picture, your response suggests otherwise.
Howzabout you let me, at long last, tell you what my views are...instead of this 'mind-reading' nonsense? Come on, guy.

You're off on some hugely far-flung tangents, literally somewhere in 'outer space' with "ancient aliens"...and I'm simply saying...one man's "ordinary" is another man's "extraordinary" and therefore Occam's Razor is 100% subjective. For some, the idea of intelligent non-humans is not extraordinary or 'unlikely'.


I did not concede, as you incorrectly pegged me, that there is no way to reason one's way to solid conclusions. I just don't like the Occam's Razor approach because the philosophy behind it fails to recognize the utter subjectivity of categorizing something as 'extraordinary".
triplemultiplex
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:24 am

Re: Wanna Conspiracy Debate?

Postby triplemultiplex » Thu Jun 21, 2012 9:31 pm

RedStone2 wrote:...and I'm simply saying...one man's "ordinary" is another man's "extraordinary" and therefore Occam's Razor is 100% subjective. For some, the idea of intelligent non-humans is not extraordinary or 'unlikely'.

I did not concede, as you incorrectly pegged me, that there is no way to reason one's way to solid conclusions. I just don't like the Occam's Razor approach because the philosophy behind it fails to recognize the utter subjectivity of categorizing something as 'extraordinary".


So when we talk about ordinary vs. extraordinary, those words are not used colloquially in this context. "Ordinary" is a stand in for "that which conforms to or builds on the consensus opinion of experts in that field"; "extraordinary" is a stand in for "that which significantly deviates from the consensus opinion of experts in that field". We are not talking about what an individual considers ordinary or extraordinary. For many people, belief in an omnipresent deity is 'ordinary'. But when we are speaking in terms of logic and science, the existence of such a deity is an extraordinary claim with insufficient evidence for or against.

Peer review and consensus opinion are the result of numerous individuals independently replicating each other's research and reaching the same conclusion over and over again to the point where a huge majority of experts in that particular field agree on it. And that last part is key to 'consensus opinion'. It's not about the actual number of experts who agree, it's about the proportion of experts who agree.

One can trot out seemingly impressive numbers of experts who think climate change is fake, smoking is healthy or someone other than Oswald shot Kennedy, all of which has happened. But without the context of how many experts are in that field, that number is irrelevant. If I say there are 2,000 sex offenders in City A, I could make it seem like nearly everyone in City A is a pervert. But that's only a relevant statistic if we know that City A is Los Angeles or Key West (sorry Key West, but I needed a small town that most people have heard of.)

So this is the context we are discussing when I describe RedStone's claims as "extraordinary." History is full of examples of seemingly extraordinary claims that turned out to be not so extraordinary because when a majority of experts examined them, the evidence was there for them to reach the same conclusion. But when it comes to all this stuff about 9/11 or fake communists or whatever the hell else has been spewed into this thread, the vast majority of people who study this shit do not reach conclusions that would support RedStone's alternative history narrative.

And just like we trust experts to fix our cars, perform heart surgery and shoot terrorists in the face, I'll trust the experts when it comes to American History. Because I'm aware that they know what they do because most of their colleagues agree with them.
__________________________________________________

You read it! You can't unread it!
RedStone2
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 6:57 am

Re: Wanna Conspiracy Debate?

Postby RedStone2 » Mon Jun 25, 2012 4:21 am

triplemultiplex wrote: So when we talk about ordinary vs. extraordinary, those words are not used colloquially in this context. "Ordinary" is a stand in for "that which conforms to or builds on the consensus opinion of experts in that field"; "extraordinary" is a stand in for "that which significantly deviates from the consensus opinion of experts in that field".
First of all, who is "we"? When I refer to "ordinary", I give it the meaning that I choose...not that "we/you" choose...all due respect.

And where is this mysterious mystical "consensus opinion of experts" that you refer to? Who determines what is the "consensus"...me or you? Who determines which "experts" get to be numbered among the experts? It's utter nonsense. 100,000% subjective.

triplemultiplex wrote:when we are speaking in terms of logic and science, the existence of such a deity is an extraordinary claim with insufficient evidence for or against.
There you go again! When had you proven or demonstrated that there is no science-based and/or scientific proof which lends support to theism? A gigantic and crazy leap on your part. I would argue you simply do...not...understand...the way in which you are imposing innumerable of your own assumptions (i.e. presuppostions) on the discussion.

And by the way...I looked up a number of sites that presume to define "Occam's Razor"...primarily at the Wikipedia site (or is it CIA-pedia?)...and saw nothing of your stipulations about needing to track down a mythical "experts consensus" before proceeding with the use of the Razor. I think you're making this all up.

In fact, one need look no further than Galileo and his advocacy of 'helio-centrism' to see the sheer subjectivity (and folly) of your "experts consensus" theory. In his day, Galileo laughed himself silly over the "experts consensus"...even wrote a scathing critique ("Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems") of the basic ideas behind Occam's Razor.

What you're not realizing is that many, many times in history there has been only a tiny, tiny few who had their facts straight. And everybody else was wrong. Look at what the economic "experts" have done to our economy. Look at what the health "experts" have done to our health. Look at what the education "experts" have done to our education. You can have your "experts", my friend.

And by the way, even Wikipedia concedes that the use of Occam's Razor in arguing for or against God...is a toss-up. Seems to me, your argument about Occam's Razor leaning against theism should be settled among you secularists...before you bring it to us theists!

And there are many secularist thinkers who have grave doubts about Occam's Razor. I found a handful in just one trip to Wikipedia:

Occam’s razor...becomes a “mirror of prejudice.” --- Dieter Gernert, "Ockham's Razor and Its Improper Use", Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 135–140, (2007).

And on top of all of that...just who ARE the experts when it comes to, for example, something like "9/11--inside job or not?".

Among the thousands of experts who have studied just one tiny aspect of 9/11 (the architectural and structural engineering questions)...the architects and engineers who REJECT the official story outnumber by a 100-to-1 (and maybe more like 1000-to-1) those architects who are willing to speak or write in favor of the official version.

Numbered among the official-version-rejectors...are the original chief builder/architect/designer of the World Trade Center (John Skilling)...and the second chief builder/architect (Frank DeMartini) who oversaw the re-building after the 1993 bombings at the WTC.

THEN...you have the vast majority of 9/11 commissioners (7 out of 10...and counting), the absolute top official authorities on all 9/11 matters...who reject their own version of 9/11. I would dare say your "experts consensus" methodology is in deep, deep trouble if you're hoping to routinely confirm the mainstream media's version of 9/11 events!

Same goes for the UFO/ET scenario. Just who gets to be the 'experts? Would it be the Ivory-Tower-dwelling, nay-saying theoreticians who are applying Occam's razor in the same subjective way Galileo's detractors did against his heliocentric theories?

Or would it be the 500 hands-on experts from Disclosure Project who are testifying from inside the military, intelligence and technology worlds?
triplemultiplex
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:24 am

Re: Wanna Conspiracy Debate?

Postby triplemultiplex » Mon Jun 25, 2012 9:46 pm

Well I tried to point out why these are fringe claims, but apparently the system by which we as a society learn stuff and come to agree on stuff is beyond some people. And then it's right back to claiming with absolute certainty that the position of a few fringe persons means I should reject consensus opinion of my so-called "experts."

"Experts", by the way, are people who have studied and practiced a field for a long-ass time. They publish papers for their peers to look at and try and reproduce each other's work. You get to be an expert by publishing your own research and have it reproduced by others in that field. No one is deciding who gets to be an expert. If your research is good enough, your conclusions will get repeated.

"Consensus Opinion" is the name we give to this repeated replication of research resulting in the same conclusion(s). It's not like everyone in that field gets together and votes. The idea with the best evidence is the conclusion that will be found by the most experts who repeat the research.

The beauty of this system is that when somebody genuinely finds some new information that suggests we should change what we think about something, others knowledgeable in that field should be able to verify it at will. At the same time, flawed conclusions are weeded out as replication of research yields different results.


It's kind of weird how RedStone keeps throwing in these way out of left field comments that are beyond what I might consider "mainstream conspiracy theory". Stuff that takes an even greater denial of reality than the normal schlock.
Al Qaeda is fake?
The CIA runs Wikipedia?

Makes me wonder if there any fringe ideas that RedStone doesn't accept? Or for that matter, any 'mainstream' ideas that he does?
You okay with gravity? How about algebra? The weather? I know there's weird conspiracies out there about the government controlling the weather. Germ theory of infection? They all have so-called experts.
Is there a single historical event that isn't wrapped in conspiracies that are being kept from us?
__________________________________________________

You read it! You can't unread it!
Unassumption
Posts: 3849
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 8:49 pm

Re: Wanna Conspiracy Debate?

Postby Unassumption » Mon Jun 25, 2012 10:44 pm

I'm just wondering how you differentiate out the true from whatever it is you don't believe?

From presupositionalism to praxeology, a lot of people claim we can't know things through evidence but insist they know the truth, to a higher degree of certainty than evidence could ever get us.

Makes me wonder if there any fringe ideas that RedStone doesn't accept?

If that is, there are any ideas you don't believe in :P

It's not that a lot of people agree, it's that those who have taken the time to see the evidence agree. No one has time in their life to see everything themselves, and must trust other sources, but there is evidence a source is reliable, even if it's only in the form of it's products like cars

People in closely related fields, who are able to point out if someone has something wrong, are most liable to compete for jobs pay and reputation; they've got every motive to point out if someone's BSing even ignoring the moral instincts (or envy) most have.
It's not a bunch of people who agree and have high social status - every political party and religion has that kind of 'expert' but not all can be right. It's when they've spent time looking at evidence.
AND BY THE WAY, I WIN
RedStone2
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 6:57 am

Re: Wanna Conspiracy Debate?

Postby RedStone2 » Tue Jun 26, 2012 6:28 pm

triplemultiplex wrote:Well I tried to point out why these are fringe claims, but apparently the system by which we as a society learn stuff and come to agree on stuff is beyond some people.
Again...you're imposing your assumption that something is a "fringe claim". You've made a leap.

And quite ironically...you're arguments about Occam's Razor are with folks like the those who run Wikipedia, and with many intellectuals and philosophers I came across in mere minutes of researching the Internet. Starting with Galileo, as one example.

triplemultiplex wrote:And then it's right back to claiming with absolute certainty that the position of a few fringe persons means I should reject consensus opinion of my so-called "experts."
Absolute certainty? I never claimed such. Ironically, you certainly DO come across like your beliefs are "absolute certainty". And "fringe persons"? With 9/11 for example, the experts (architects and engineers) who have studied the structural aspects of 9/11 outnumber, by about 1000-1, the few stragglers who try to defend the official story.

According to your own arguments about "proportions"...the "fringe persons" are the official-story-backers...a story which has now been abandoned by the official commissioners.

triplemultiplex wrote:"Consensus Opinion" is the name we give...
I am fully aware of what name you give it. I'm asking--where do you find it? Is there an Encyclopedia of Consensus Opinions? In that sense, your confident assertions about "consensus opinion" are a reference to something mythical.

Where is the official "consensus opinion" on 9/11, for example? Where do I look that up?

triplemultiplex wrote: The idea with the best evidence is the conclusion that will be found by the most experts who repeat the research.
And "most experts" have determined the official government claims regarding 9/11, for example, are incorrect and falsified.

triplemultiplex wrote:Makes me wonder if there any fringe ideas that RedStone doesn't accept? Or for that matter, any 'mainstream' ideas that he does?
There you go again with presumptions about what is the "fringe'.

In any case, you guys are constantly hanging back in the Land of Generalities. It's very safe there. Everything is vague. No inconvenient details to grapple with. I've already provided a ton of specific evidence on specific scenarios...with tons of experts and evidence to look through.

But you guys keep retreating to generalities. Pick a topic...and let's go for it...instead of you tossing out all these broad questions...that if I answered specifically, you wouldn't address it anyway...because you haven't so far! So why broach this latest half dozen of broad subjects?

Unassumption wrote:I'm just wondering how you differentiate out the true from whatever it is you don't believe?
It starts by not being unreasonably close-minded.

In my view, the intellectual integrity and quality of your presuppositions makes the difference between erroneous findings and correct findings.

With 9/11 for example...if you start with a presupposition that says "it is impossible that criminal elements inside US government are responsible for 9/11"...that is utterly illogical and virtually irrational. The deduction process is already fatally flawed from that very starting point. The fact is...it IS possible.

Unassumption wrote:It's not that a lot of people agree, it's that those who have taken the time to see the evidence agree.
And among those who "have taken the time" to research the structural aspects of 9/11...the official-story-rejectors outnumber the others in absolutely massive numbers.

And we haven't even gotten to all the other aspects of 9/11...the aviation experts, the national security experts, the financial forensics experts.
Unassumption
Posts: 3849
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 8:49 pm

Re: Wanna Conspiracy Debate?

Postby Unassumption » Tue Jun 26, 2012 7:21 pm

It starts by not being unreasonably close-minded

How do you open your mind 'selectively' to let your conspiracy in, but none of the conspiracies you nodoube reject not in. Consistancy isn't closed mindedness, and accepting some ideas but not others with no clear reason (like ockham's razor) to differentiate between them, means inconsistency.

In my view, the intellectual integrity and quality of your presuppositions makes the difference between erroneous findings and correct findings.

Your answer begs the question of how you tell the "Intilectual quality" of a presupposition.

Ockham's razor doesn't have to deal with that, as it tries to limit the presuppositions (things assumed without evidence) involved in an explanation.

.if you start with a presupposition that says "it is impossible that criminal elements inside US government are responsible for 9/11".

We don't start with the "presupposition" that our conclusion is right. We start with the evidence. The evidence happens to lead us to that conclusion. The idea that 'criminal elements within the government' caused 9/11 involves many more presuppositions, than muslims flew planes into the buildings.

What exactly IS this government of which you speak? Conspiracies always talk about "them" who are doing evil things, but never really flesh out who the shaddowy conspirators are.
Whatever "the government" is, it's nothing like the incompetent and divided group that's actually in Washington, and doesn't include the foreign leaders military and buisinessmen who have to be in on your plans.

The fact is...it IS possible.

EVERYTHING is possible so your idea being possible is nothing special. It's how probable it is, given the evidence, that matters. I'd usually say "so is the cold war being a giant conspiracy" to show how absurd claiming something is possible therefore probable is, but I can't think of anything you'd consider absurd to pop in there. It's induction, not deduction, that matters.

the financial forensics experts.

Being an expert in a totally unrelated field, doesn't make you an expert in this one.

It's when I see this line of "logic" used to support more widely held beliefs, like creationism, that irks me. It's possible evolution is a giant conspiracy, but given the mountain of evidence, not likely mate. Anyone who uses the tactics of redstone, needs to look at themselves in the mirror. Though I'm sure we all do, on some issues we're biased on, we have to be careful we don't end up like this guy without knowing it!
AND BY THE WAY, I WIN
RedStone2
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 6:57 am

Re: Wanna Conspiracy Debate?

Postby RedStone2 » Tue Jun 26, 2012 8:13 pm

Unassumption wrote:Your answer begs the question of how you tell the "Intilectual quality" of a presupposition.
Frankly, I don't think you understand the definitions of many of these 'logic' phrasings you use.

For example, my comment "the quality of your presuppositions makes the difference between erroneous findings and correct findings" is not a "begging of the question". It's a simple statement of fact.

As to the question of how we arrive at solid presuppostions...it's a case-by-case basis...I gave a specific example...ruling out "inside job" with regard to 9/11 is unreasonable and illogical.

Unassumption wrote:We don't start with the "presupposition" that our conclusion is right.
Again, who is "we"? And I would certainly disagree with you--the two or three of you here in this thread have absolutely precluded certain possibilities.

So have the government hacks who produced the official reports which are now being rejected by the top official government authorities--7 out of 10 of the 9/11 commissioners . These commissioners are now dismissing the people who were supposed to deliver the info on 9/11...as hacks, in so many words. They're thoroughly disgusted. Why aren't you?

The final official report on Building Seven at the World Trade Center DID preclude the possibility of professional demolition through pre-placed explosives. They openly admitted they had precluded that possibility. You should watch that 15 minute excerpted video. It's documented in there. So you're wrong, I would dare say.

And this 'official' preclusion was pure insanity. Amazingly bizarre and utterly anti-scientific.

Unassumption wrote:EVERYTHING is possible so your idea being possible is nothing special.
I would say you're being silly and a bit disingenuous. Not all proposed presuppostions are created equal. If I'm looking at the violence of 9/11...I don't ask "did a rare breed of kittens in Mongolia have anything to do with this?". You can feign all you want...but there are some reasonable starting points in developing theories and/or presupps regarding who was behind 9/11.

Unassumption wrote:Being an expert in a totally unrelated field, doesn't make you an expert in this one.
I never said it did. Where do you come up with these interpretations of my comments?? I'm saying there was a financial 'money trail' of evidence with regard to 9/11. There are a number of financial analysts who have followed the 9/11 money trail and it leads right back to the CIA, the Pentagon, the US government.

Any time you want to delve into the details, let me know.
Unassumption
Posts: 3849
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 8:49 pm

Re: Wanna Conspiracy Debate?

Postby Unassumption » Tue Jun 26, 2012 11:43 pm

For example, my comment "the quality of your presuppositions makes the difference between erroneous findings and correct findings" is not a "begging of the question". It's a simple statement of fact.

I meant to say "your 'answer' is just you rephrasing my question." I didn't get the name of the fallacy right, you got me. Whatever, I wasn't even trying to call you out with that and the rest of the sentence should've tipped you off to what I meant.
You're still evading the question of how you differentiate between true and false, or as you've now rephrased it, presuppositions of high or low "intilectual quality." This is something believers in ockham's razor don't have to deal with, but you do.

Again, who is "we"

The government >_> we know who you are and are coming to get you <_< WOOO!
Seriously, if there was this hyper competent state planning this huge conspiracy through the ages, why would they let someone like you expose it?

I meant those who do not reject ockham's razor as you do. As my comment was a rejection of that idea, from which your conspiracy seems to stem, it should've been obvious what "we" meant.

Given the evidence we know of (like some of the people you claim conspired together not even being alive at the same time) your theory is almost certainly false. It's close enough to impossible to call it impossible -but this isn't a presupposition it's been judged against the evidence as such.

the government hacks who produced the official reports which are now being rejected by the top official government authorities-

How would a government competent enough to fake the entire cold war, not be able to silence these leaks? Nixon's conspiracy leaked, because no one doubted he was incompetent, but the hyper-competent government you have admitted your theory requires should surely have been able to silence these officials? What would conspirators possibly have to gain, from leaking their conspiracy? Maybe they want people like you making it look even crazier than it is so no one would believe it even if it was true?

These commissioners are now dismissing the people who were supposed to deliver the info on 9/11...as hacks

If you look into WHY they're dismissing them as such, you'll see the reasons don't fit your conspiracy at all. You can't shave the details off a piece of evidence to make it fit your theories!

The final official report on Building Seven at the World Trade Center DID preclude the possibility of professional demolition through pre-placed explosives.

They also precluded the idea it fell into a mine, was disolved in acid, poofed out by a wizard or shot by a missile; should we waste millions of tax dollars investigating THOSE potential causes too? If not, why would you reject those AND accept your simmilarly nonsensical idea? There have been numerous sources across the net pointing out how ridiculous the controlled demolition idea is (it did NOT fall at free fall speed (9 seconds) and you can see that on all footage). You ignore that they came to conclusions, radically different to your own, but pick and choose the bits of the document you like to back you up.

Not all proposed presuppostions are created equal.

As I asked, how are they not equal?
What makes a presupposition less valid - for example, your idea of kittens blowing up the world trade centre rather than a controlled demolition?

We who support ockham's razor, don't need to say some presuppositions are less valid than others; just that some explanations contain more of the equally bad presuppositions. Without such a tool, you seem to have no consistent reason why some presuppositions are less valid than others - it's your approach that seems utterly subjective.
We would say the rare kittens thing supposes more things that we don't have evidence for, than the controlled demo, which supposes far far more than "angry muslims did it."

I never said it did.

But you acted as though it did by quoting experts in totally unrelated fields, as if their oppinion mattered on this topic.
AND BY THE WAY, I WIN

Return to “Off Topic Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests