Burden of proof

Yiwah wrote:

jas wrote:

Yiwah, please be more explicit in what you're talking about. The progressive collapse theory is not supported by science. The onus is on the believers of this theory to prove its validity.

I am an outsider the WTC debate, please keep that in mind.  I'm not particularly interested in it...my interest was piqued by the position on burden of proof taken in the OP and I have been following the topic based solely on that.

YOU have made the claim that whatever theory being officially promoted is "not supported by science".  Despite the fact that it is very much supported by science.  You apparently disagree with the science, which is NOT the same thing as the offical theory not being "supported by science".

a) "not supported by science"

b) "I disagree with the science"

 

I see you taking position b, while calling it position a.

Since you disagree with the official theory, you should be proving how the official theory fails.  You could be showing people why the science is flawed, but instead you simply talk as though it's been proven, and settled, and accepted.  Which it most certainly is not, quite obviously, since there so much controversy on the entire topic.

So, you are not beginning from a premise of settled, widely known facts which shouldn't have to be proven.  You are making a contentious claim, and telling others it's their job to prove you wrong.

 

I hope you have benefited from this more explicit explanation as to what I am referring to specifically in reference to the WTC threads. 

I again point out that this approach (claiming something as a proven and accepted fact, then asking others to disprove it) is the underlying theme I take issue with, and is not isolated to the WTC threads.

You are contradicting yourself. If the official theory makes a claim, as it does, then, according to you, the official theory is required to prove itself as it makes a claim of something to be true. So when those who don't accept the official theory ask valid questions, the burden is really on the official theory to answer them, no? I mean, within reason. But, rather, you're now arguing the opposite of what you argued in the OP suggesting it is now upon those who question the claim to provide the burden of proof.

As another outsider to the 9/11 conspiracy arguments (and the official theory is as much a conspiracy theory as any), I see there are a number of very good questions the proponents of the official theory can't answer. But rather than acknowledge the questions can't be answered by the theory and offer further research, proponents instead engage in character attacks upon those who ask the questions--the heretics, if you will.

pants-of-dog is being amazingly patient and is not making any character attacks of any kind.  Me, not so much.  OTOH the entire thread is a character attack on those who believe the NIST report is reasonably accurate.

The relevent bit of the official story is that the aircraft colliding with the towers caused them to collapse.  Not much room for conspiracy there.  If you wish to raise questions about woho planned and executed the attack and did the upper reaches of the Bush administration deliberately allow the attack to succeed, that is a whole other story.

Bush certainly exploited the attack, but I am much more convinced that it happened due to incompetence on the administrations part rather than malfeasance.  But malfeasance is at least plausible.

The NIST report and it's summaries contain a huge amount of evidence and calculation concerning the collapse, it's not as though the NIST just did some hand waving.

My apologies on the thread drift.

Babble has a certain set of official rules, and another set of unofficial rules (mostly permission to violate the official rules by long time babblers).  None of these rules require rationality.  This gives a large space for long time babblers (in particular) to operate.  Some of them show signs of being true believers.  It's not surprising under these circumstances that some of the argumentation gets flawed.

Hmm, how to explain?

A true believer is one locked into a true believer system.  True believer systems are belief systems that are designed to resist outside challenges to their veracity.  Cults are centered around true believer systems.

Some sub species of Marxism are true believer systems.

That's what true believers look like from the outside, but it's not quite the whole story. 

A key component of a true believer system is that is designed to reject questions from outside the system.  They typically include the idea that any challenge to the system is by definition an attack from a hostile party.  At least that is one of the classic defences.  So it's a little more than asymetric application of logic.

Yiwah, sorry that I went pressing for specific details and ended up dragging you into a WTC collapse debate (even if it is second-hand). Thank you for the "neener neener" clarification, I believe it cleared up my misunderstanding of your response in #44 (and second time through, I realize you were perfectly clear even there). Of course having identified the problem, there is the still the challenge of coming up with a solution to it. I think I will watch the Monty Python "Here For An Argument" sketch a few times and see if inspiration strikes.

damn, does anyone know the secret of getting white out back into the bottle?

Yiwah, the blog you quote from appears to be written by one person, someone who remains anonymous, by the looks of it. One person who also makes the erroneous assumption that those who don't say anything are "not questioning" the NIST report, perhaps even implying that they support it?

If you're so passionate about defending a theory that says it's normal for skyscrapers to disintegrate and descend into their basements in under 15 seconds after short-lived upper floor fires, why don't you come into the thread and lay some truth on us? 

When I say the offical theory is not supported by science, I mean it is not proven or even somewhat supported by any known principles of physics. It has been extensively laid out why in numerous prior threads. Threads which you claim to have read but for some reason haven't participated in. No scientist has been able to cite any law of nature or physics that allows for the descent of one portion of a building through a larger portion at a speed which is within seconds of free fall. I'm sorry you don't like or agree with that fact, but it is a fact. Any grade-schooler can tell you the explanation we've been given defies known laws of physics. Unless you can answer to this false notion right here and now, you cannot claim to speak for science or rational observation, let alone complain about anybody's burden of proof, especially in threads you choose not to participate in.

jas wrote:

......

When I say the offical theory is not supported by science, I mean it is not proven or even somewhat supported by any known principles of physics.....

First of all, I do not believe that Yiwah has made any claims about the WTC specifically and is actually discussing your inability or refusal to provide evidence that supprts your claims.

For example, in the portion of your post that is noted above, you neglect to show how the WTC collapse would not be supported by the conversation of momentum or any other "principle of physics".

On a related note, science does not prove anything. All of the theories currently held by science are contingent in that they may be discarded at any moment that we observe data that disproves said theory. This is why (and this ties into the OP neatly) scientifc experiments are devised in such a way that it is possible to show a theory is false. This is called falsifiability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

I agree, TB. Those thread were hard to follow because of it. I didn't like the spamming of "sources" to prove a spurious point, nor the appeal to dubious authorities. I'm not sure moderators are equipped to keep that in check--the first is easy, if time consuming, but the latter is extremely difficult unless you have some background in the discipline. We certainly can't ban conversations about vaccines--made clear by the fact that many of the fears vacc sceptics had proved to be true in the end, as recent news indicates.

What "other boards" have done this, Sineed? How did they frame it? "We support the conclusions drawn by NIST" or "9/11 as a topic of discussion is off limits" or somewhere in between?

We are currently under a topic ban, and I think always have been, on the topic of abortion in terms of pro choice or anti choice.

I think the main part of the reason for this is that Rabble is for reproductive self determination for women, full stop.    But if memory serves, I think it's also because such arguments go on and on and on, get ugly and attract trolls.   

If so, the 9/11 threads meet at least some of that criteria.

Yiwah wrote:

Quote:

Only a handful of architects and engineers question the NIST Report, but they have never come up with an alternative. Although at first blush it may seem impressive that these people don't believe the NIST Report, remember that there are 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

See. There's a claim that is made.  A very precise claim. And the numbers are linked as though there is a source to support the claim. But the links do not support the claim at all. The claim, to be precise is "that there are 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report." Is there a poll whereby all those members explcitly stated they "do not question" the NIST report? Same goesfor the AIA. Where is your support for that claim?

I'm not trying to be difficult, but you can hardly demand one stanard for your opponents while adhering to quite another.

Catchfire wrote:

I'm not comfortable with a topic ban, nor even a "conspiracy theory ban" such as HuffPo imposes. There are certain things we at babble can do--prevent spamming, e.g.--but as for ways to ensure discussion surrounding these kind of topics remain in the real while allowing scepticism? I don't know.

I presume you have bans for a couple of reasons:

Some issues are a matter of opinion and unsolveable

This site has some set beliefs and guidelines which are non-negotionable, so there is no reason to hear any counter-argument.

You don't want to draw obstructionists, or have debate which heats up to the point of attack and libel, or which shuts down discussion.

I know of at least one site which has a specific area for rants and complaints, where the rules are a bit more lax (without dropping their ban on personal attack and discriminatory comment). Basically anyone who goes to that part of the space knows that he or she can vent spleen without censure. It is significant that members have for the most part respected it and not used it as a place to attack the core values of the site. If they didn't it would probably break down.

Not trying to change your system; I am new here, after all. But you mentioned it, and I am just pointing out that some forums set up areas where special rules apply.

James B. Meigs, editor in chief of Popular Mechanics wrote:

On February 7, 2005, I became a member of the Bush/Halliburton/Zionist/CIA/New World Order/ Illuminati conspiracy for global domination. It was on that day the March 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics, with its cover story debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories, hit newsstands. Within hours, the online community of 9/11 conspiracy buffs--which calls itself the "9/11 Truth Movement"--was aflame with wild fantasies about me and my staff, the magazine I edit, and the article we had published.

He then lists the key techniques employed by conspiracy theorists:

1. Marginalization of opposing views

Quote:

The 9/11 Truth Movement invariably describes the mainstream account of 9/11 as the "government version" or "the official version." In fact, the generally accepted account of 9/11 is made up of a multitude of sources: thousands of newspaper, TV, and radio reports produced by journalists from all over the world; investigations conducted by independent organizations and institutions, including the American Society of Civil Engineers, Purdue University, Northwestern University, Columbia University, the National Fire Protection Association, and Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.; eyewitness testimony from literally thousands of people; recordings and transcripts of phone calls, air traffic control transmissions, and other communications; thousands of photographs; thousands of feet of video footage; and, let's not forget the words of Osama bin Laden, who discussed the operation in detail on more than one occasion, including in an audio recording released in May 2006 that said: "I am responsible for assigning the roles of the 19 brothers to conduct these conquests . . ."

2. Argument by anomaly

Quote:

In an article about the Popular Mechanics 9/11 report, Scientific American columnist Michael Shermer makes an important observation about the conspiracist method: "The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics). All the `evidence' for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy."

3. Slipshod handling of facts

Quote:

There are hundreds of books--and hundreds of thousands of Web pages--devoted to 9/11 conspiracy theories, many bristling with footnotes, citations, and technical jargon. But despite the appearance of scholarly rigor, few of these documents handle factual material with enough care to pass muster at a high-school newspaper, much less at a scholarly journal. Some mistakes are mere sloppiness; others show deliberate disregard for the truth.

4. Repetition

5. Circular reasoning

Quote:

But among 9/11 theorists, the presence of evidence supporting the mainstream view is also taken as proof of conspiracy. One forum posting that has multiplied across the Internet includes a long list of the physical evidence linking the 19 hijackers to the crime: the rental car left behind at Boston's Logan airport, Mohamed Atta's suitcase, passports recovered at the crash sites, and so on. "HOW CONVENIENT!" the author notes after each citation. In the heads-I-win-tails-you-lose logic of conspiracism, there is no piece of information that cannot be incorporated into one's pet theory. Like doctrinaire Marxists or certain religious extremists, conspiracists enjoy a worldview that is immune to refutation.

6. Demonization

If you go back to those earlier threads on 9/11, you'll see posts by me, citations of various experts, professors with PhDs in engineering, who have published on-line refutations of the claims made by conspiracy theorists.  Following these posts, you'll see the attacks against these experts, the ad hominem arguments, the links to on-line refutations of badly-typed pdfs (I recall one where the 911 truther being cited didn't know how to use quotes properly, but he's being quoted as an expert who can understand some pretty complicated math and physics.)

The attacks against Popular Mechanics are legion.  Just type "Popular Mechanics 911 truth" into google, and you'll find out how "Popular Mechanics" can't be trusted because it's a Hearst publication.

7. Guilt by association (this one is funny!)

Quote:

Soon after the Popular Mechanics report appeared, conspiracy buffs began parsing the names of the various researchers who contributed to the article, noting the odd coincidence that Benjamin Chertoff, then the head of the magazine's research Department, has the same last name as the then newly appointed head of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff. In a rare instance of reportorial initiative (most 9/11 "Internet researchers" rarely venture beyond Google), Christopher Bollyn phoned Ben's mother, who volunteered that, yes, she thinks Michael Chertoff might be a distant cousin. "Chertoff's Cousin Penned Popular Mechanics 9/11 Hit Piece," read the headline on Bollyn's next American Free Press story. "This is exactly the kind of `journalism' one would expect to find in a dictatorship like that of Saddam Hussein's Iraq," he concluded. Later, a headline was added to his article: "Ben Chertoff: Propagandist & Illuminati Disinformation Tool."

8. The paranoid style

Think X-files...

Finally, he says this:

Quote:

The American public has every right to demand answers and all too many reasons to lack confidence in the government. Sadly, in such a climate, the fantasies of 9/11 conspiracists provide a seductive alternative to facing the hard facts and difficult choices of our time.

A bit lengthy, but worth a look:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/4199607

The burden of proof depends on various factors especially what is the proof being used for.  If for instance the proof is to be used for a criminal conviction then it needs to be beyond a reasonable doubt.  As it implies in a situation where you are not sure which of various things might have occurred then it is wrong to convict of a crime because you have a reasonable doubt.  Now if you are suing for damages that is the civil court and the burden is the balance of probabilities.  If you think it is more likely than not that the person being sued caused the damage then you find against them even if there are two reasonably possibly interpretations of the evidence.

But that is only the burden on the final outcome of a trial.  We also access evidence at every stage and that is the "preponderance of probabilities."  For any individual piece of evidence in a criminal trial the test is not beyond a reasonable doubt.  

Quote:

the Supreme Court of Canada appears to have put to the rest the argument over the existence of an intermediate standard. The case of F.H. v. McDougall involved allegations of sexual assault by a former resident of an Indian residential school in British Columbia against an Oblate Brother who was a teacher at the school. The action was commenced in the year 2000 and related to incidents which took place in 1968 and 1969. There were no independent witnesses and the case boiled down to a matter of the credibility of the plaintiff as opposed to the defendant. The trial judge believed the plaintiff and awarded damages. The British Columbia Court of Appeal reversed that decision, stating that the trial judge had given insufficient weight to inconsistencies in the plaintiff’s testimony. The matter went to the Supreme Court of Canada, where a significant issue related to the burden of proof. The Supreme Court reviewed the case law and summarized the various approaches in civil cases as follows:

“1. The criminal standard of proof applies in civil cases depending upon the seriousness of the allegations;
2. An intermediate standard of proof between the civil standard and the criminal standard commensurate with the occasion applies to civil cases; 
3. No heightened standard of proof applies in civil cases, but the evidence must be scrutinized with greater care where the allegation is serious;
4 No heightened standard of proof applies in civil cases, but evidence must be clear, convincing and cogent; and
5. No heightened standard of proof applies in civil cases, but the more improbable the event, the stronger the evidence is needed to meet the balance of probabilities test.”

Justice Rothstein, writing for a unanimous bench, stated that “…it is time to say, once and for all in Canada, that there is only one civil standard of proof at common law and that is proof on a balance of probabilities. Of course, context is all important and a judge should not be unmindful, where appropriate, of inherent probabilities or improbabilities or the seriousness of the allegations or consequences. However, these considerations do not change the standard of proof. I am of the respectful opinion that the alternatives I have listed above should be rejected for the reasons that follow”.

Justice Rothstein went on to refer to the inherent problems in an intermediate standard of proof, quoting one commentator who said that to suggest that the standard of proof is “higher” than the “mere balance of probabilities” “…leads one inevitably to inquire what percentage of probability must be met? This is unhelpful because while the concept of “51% probability”, or “more likely than not” can be understood by decision makers, the concept of 60% or 70% probability cannot”.

Justice Rothstein went on to say that to suggest “…that depending upon the seriousness, the evidence in the civil case must be scrutinized with greater care implies that in less serious cases the evidence need not be scrutinized with such care. I think it is inappropriate to say that there are legally recognized different levels of scrutiny of the evidence depending upon the seriousness of the case. There is only one legal rule and that is that in all cases, evidence must be scrutinized with care by the trial judge… Similarly, evidence must always be sufficiently clear, convincing and cogent to satisfy the balance of probabilities test”.

[url=http://911summary.com/legal.php]Legal scholars question 9/11[/url]

Sineed wrote:

James B. Meigs, editor in chief of Popular Mechanics wrote:

1. Marginalization of opposing views

The 9/11 Truth Movement invariably describes the mainstream account of 9/11 as the "government version" or "the official version." In fact, the generally accepted account of 9/11 is made up of a multitude of sources: thousands of newspaper, TV, and radio reports produced by journalists from all over the world;

agencies that are provided the information by gov't-commissioned sources. There are also many journalists questioning the events.

Quote:

investigations conducted by independent organizations and institutions, including the American Society of Civil Engineers, Purdue University, Northwestern University, Columbia University, the National Fire Protection Association, and Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.;

all or most of them commissioned for that very purpose, one of them from UL being fired for actually expressing a dissenting opinion.

Quote:

eyewitness testimony from literally thousands of people;

The most damning of which they ignored, as the eyewitnesses themselves have stated, as well as the Jersey wives.

Quote:

let's not forget the words of Osama bin Laden, who discussed the operation in detail on more than one occasion, including in an audio recording released in May 2006 that said: "I am responsible for assigning the roles of the 19 brothers to conduct these conquests . . ."

Heh. heh.

Quote:

2. Argument by anomaly

In an article about the Popular Mechanics 9/11 report, Scientific American columnist Michael Shermer makes an important observation about the conspiracist method: "The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory ...

Um, which well-established theory are they referring to? The one proposed by FEMA, which was later discarded by NIST? The first version of the NIST report? The second one? The third? The PBS Nova video which people still widely cite but the premise of which NIST does not actually use? What "well-established theory" is he talking about here, Sineed?

Quote:

3. Slipshod handling of facts

There are hundreds of books--and hundreds of thousands of Web pages--devoted to 9/11 conspiracy theories, many bristling with footnotes, citations, and technical jargon. But despite the appearance of scholarly rigor, few of these documents handle factual material with enough care to pass muster at a high-school newspaper, much less at a scholarly journal. Some mistakes are mere sloppiness; others show deliberate disregard for the truth.

But don't bother giving any examples or anything.

Quote:

4. Repetition

How does that saying go? "Pot, meet kettle?" (or: "If  it's repeated ad nauseum, it must be true!")

Quote:

5. Circular reasoning

But among 9/11 theorists, the presence of evidence supporting the mainstream view is also taken as proof of conspiracy.

No, sorry. The evidence does not support the mainstream view. The official theory has had to go into all kinds of contortions to fit the evidence.  That's kind of what the whole debate is about.

Quote:

6. Demonization

I think most people will agree that the attacks against truthers have been much more vicious, condescending, and  disrespectful, even in mainstream media, by about 10 to 1 than the reverse.

In any debate, tactics used  by both sides will mirror the other's. Everything he claims here can easily, and even more so, be claimed against the denier/anti-science side. I just thought I would address some of those points specifically.

Main stream biology doesn't investigate bigfoot...so, clearly, biology and zoology are crocks of shit.

But the ever-solid fields of ufology and bigfoot specialized cryptozoology (non bigfoot centric cryptozoologists are full of nessie droppings) are the only true sciences. Along with theology. Because what is science other than BELIEVING?!

And babble consequently acknowledges and respects that. Where's the corollary for science-based threads? How much of the 9/11 narrative can be questioned? I'm not comfortable with a topic ban, nor even a "conspiracy theory ban" such as HuffPo imposes. There are certain things we at babble can do--prevent spamming, e.g.--but as for ways to ensure discussion surrounding these kind of topics remain in the real while allowing scepticism? I don't know.

Perhaps if we had threads on creationism, it might come somewhat close.

I'm not much for banning topics or people, to be honest.  But at the same time, certain trolls become tiresome, as do certain subjects.   Trolls can be dismissed objectively, I think.

Tiresome topics are, in the end, unfortunately subjective.