Open-mindedness and pseudoscientific beliefs
The [url=http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/solutions/big_picture_solutio... of Concerned Scientists[/color][/url] in the US is very concerned after a decade's worth of government whistleblowers and scientists on the the public payroll not faring very well.
Unfortunately">www.ucsusa.org]Unfortunately, time after time, federal workers who come forward and stand up for taxpayers and American families face intimidation and retaliation, and are often fired or demoted. Worse still, their efforts to go through the chain of command or seek relief from [color=red]retaliation[/color] by agency managers nearly always fail. ...
Intimidation and retaliation? That doesn't sound very good.
And apparently, scientists working for Canadian taxpayers haven't fared very well either after blowing whistles of concern. People have lost their jobs for speaking out against corporate influence on government. And, of course, we all know about the cozy relationships between the thousands of military contractors and government in the USA and Canada. There is a special group that leaks just the battlefield cover-ups. There seems to be a general atmosphere of cover-ups and dishonesty where corporate concerns and interests seem to be synonymous with governmental priorities.
The false belief held by some people (which is included in this video) that some people are rational and other people are not is itself an irrational idea, one which probably prevents some of us from looking at our own ways of thinking.
Fair enough, but I hope you're not extending that to implying that sometimes people do science, sometimes people do pseudoscience.
[url=http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html]Distinguis... Science and Pseudoscience[/url]
One might wonder if there are not examples of "crossovers" in the other direction; that is people who have been thought by scientists to be doing pseudoscience, who eventually were accepted as doing valid science, and whose ideas were ultimately accepted by scientists. From what we have just outlined, one would expect this to happen extremely rarely, if ever. In fact, neither I nor any informed colleague I have ever asked about this, knows of any single case in which this has happened during the hundreds of years the full scientific method has been known to and used by scientists.
They not only provide no evidence that their claims are true. They also ignore all findings that contradict their conclusions. ("Flying saucers have to come from somewhere—so the earth is hollow, and they come from inside."
In fact, this quote above is merely making mock of people who report seeing UFOs and is one of the intimidation techniques the US and international governments are accused of using against very many government employees and whistleblowers in order to silence them. These people have no intention to discuss anything scientifically and are more interested in smearing entire ideas and the people who dar question official government secrecy and lies concerning a cosmic Watergate. There is little scientific objectivity on that web site. They jump straight to the very unscientific conclusion that says, basically:
People say they have seen things, therefore they must either be crazy or witches or both and should be waterboarded until they confess their heresy, or their scienfific/professional careers shall ruined whichever happens first.
The inquisition never died. The reality is that there is little choice for those who "see things" with the naked eye or other physical evidence is produced by photographs, video, and corroborated with even more physical evidence such as RADAR. Those who don't like the way the academic-industrial complex works in the US since a Bayh-Dole bill was made law by the Reaganauts in 1980 can try blowing the whistle. Whistleblowers/heretics who speak up usually haven't fared very well against the modern day inquisition though.
They make no mention of intimidation of government scientists who speak out against bad science and corporate science as is mentioned by the Union of Concerned Scientists in the USA.
And that goes for everything from pharmaceuticals that haven't been tested properly before federal approvals are granted, and federal aviation officials covering up UFO sightings and threatening commercial pilots who "see things" with anything from grounding to their jobs and pension reductions, to Health Canada scientists being fired for refusing to recant their heresies against Monsanto and corporate influence on Health Canada decisions.
[url=http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-climate-scientists-... to Fight GOP's Climate Science Inquisition[/url] Yes, the same political party that was in power and presided over a 9/11 Commission Cover-up in the last decade. Sometimes science and political expediency don't mix believe it or no.
Fair enough, but I hope you're not extending that to implying that sometimes people do science, sometimes people do pseudoscience.
If you mean am I trying to undermine the validity of real science? No, although some scientists do have tunnel vision or misinterpret. But I know that is a small minority, and that in any case, all findings can be put to the test of real scientific standards. And I'm not questioning that.
I am saying that some people, in going after beliefs which they feel are irrational, do not always take a fair look at them because of their own biases and beliefs.
Also, that some people misinterpret soft scientific theory as hard science. As I said above, Richard Dawkins's own theory of memetics is a perfect example. It is a good model, but it is not a hard science like genetics, and I think some people forget that.
I think these scientific dogmatists are actually a few steps above Catholic inquisitors of old. What they are really trying to tell us is that they prefer science when it tells them what they want to hear. At which point they are all ears.
But when science can't explain something for the moment, or when "rogue" scientists tell them things that they would prefer not to know, or if it comes down to corporate science versus the "other guys", then their defence shields are raised and ear plugs tend to be inserted at that point.
@ Fidel
Actually I would resist framing it as "scientific dogma" against the unexplained.
I think a healthy skepticism is a good thing, And the scientific method is pretty clear - either something is proven right, proven wrong, or unknown.
Plus, science is simply a method of gathering and interpreting information. it is not a viewpoint or an opinion, and it is not resistant to new ideas or change. Those are ways which people think, and they are in a certain measure good. On the other hand, when people let their biases colour their interpretation of scientific study it is just as much a pseudoscience as any other unfounded belief.
a few quibbles about your post.
In science experiments , there are confidence limits and nothing is ever proven right or wrong 100%. This is something that global warming deniers use to their advantage.
And "Scientific dogma" is really strong. I made a simple pump called the pulser pump. Anyone can prove or disprove it with a simple experiment that costs less than 50 bux. (I put the experiment online). But for about 3 years, most communication I got about the pump was people (some in the science business) calling me a liar and a faker.
I have been to a few meetings recently and seen a few videos that raise concern about "peer review". They suggest that peer review is not repeating the experiments, but rather checking the methodology to see if there are faults. If that is the case, the scientific method is no longer used in peer review! I also saw a video where a scientist who had peer reviewed some monsanto research was interviewed. He had given the research the thumbs down for poor methodology. But they published it anyway!
As PEER REVIEWED research!
So it seems that submitting the science for review is much more important than the results of the review. (The scientist basically said that the research had no merit).
I was amazed but it is hard to dismiss when the scientist gets interviewed and totally trashes the findings.
@ Fidel
Actually I would resist framing it as "scientific dogma" against the unexplained.
I think a healthy skepticism is a good thing, And the scientific method is pretty clear - either something is proven right, proven wrong, or unknown.
Plus, science is simply a method of gathering and interpreting information. it is not a viewpoint or an opinion, and it is not resistant to new ideas or change. Those are ways which people think, and they are in a certain measure good. On the other hand, when people let their biases colour their interpretation of scientific study it is just as much a pseudoscience as any other unfounded belief.
@ Brian White
Without knowing all the details of your situation, I can see you are talking as much about the behaviour of people as you are about the scientific method. That is actually the point I was getting at.
But margins of error notwithstanding, there are in fact plenty of things we know for certain through replication of results. I'm not going to make myself a nice pot of tea with some of my henbane plants out back because I know exactly what would happen to me if I did. The idea that we can never really prove anything is a notion of the same order as "how do we know reality is real?" Sorry, but I don't buy it.
Plus, science is simply a method of gathering and interpreting information. it is not a viewpoint or an opinion, and it is not resistant to new ideas or change.[font=12]
I think science has come a long way since Newton for sure. But I wouldn't say that scientists are all that open to new ideas. They fight like cats and dogs themselves when it comes to peer reviews. At the turn of the last century, for instance, scientists were resting on their laurels already. They fully believed there was nothing new to learn, and that the periodic table was maxed out at a half dozen or so elements. Boy were they ever wrong. And they were pretty arrogant about it, too. I think there was a similar sense of arrogance up to about 10 or 15 years ago. They knew everything there is to know again. Then string theory made a comeback. Hugh Everett's theories are in vogue again. It's crazy, and this time they think new laws of nature will be discovered within the next ten or 15 years. Maybe sooner. Apparently they didn't know everything. As it turns out, they knew quite a bit about approximately 4 percent of everything that exists. It's the other 96 percent that's a complete mystery for them.
[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7096142-science-was-wrong][color=blue... Was Wrong: Startling Truths About Cures, Theories & Inventions They Declared Impossible[/color][/url]
Two months before the Wright brothers’ historic flight at Kitty Hawk, a top scientist declared that “no possible combination of known substances, known forces of machinery & known forms of force can be united in a practical (flying) machine...” Germ theory was first advanced in ancient Sanskrit texts thousands of years ago, but wasn’t widely accepted until late in the 19th century. Space travel was declared “utter bilge” in 1956 by the British astronomer Royal, one of a long line of scientists who “proved” it was impossible. Throughout history, it has been difficult, even impossible, to promote the acceptance of new discoveries. Yet during the last two centuries, there has been a veritable explosion of new cures, theories, techniques & inventions that have revolutionized aviation, space travel, communications, medicine & warfare. Most of them, of course, were deemed “impossible.”[/font]
I think that today, scientists in general are not as quick to declare certain things to be impossible. But there are still some who insist on declaring hard boundaries of scientific knowledge beyond which nothing can be understood by the human mind. OTOH, Lord Reese did mention recently that he thinks perhaps that it is not possible to know much more about reality of the universe given our current stage of human evolution. Perhaps it would be like a chimpanzee trying to understand the words on the side of a crate of bananas. Is it too much to expect? Will we need to be able to think in ten dimensional or infinite dimensional calculus in the future, or will we need quantum computers to do the heavy lifting? Is our brain a form of quantum computer, a kind of transformer that allows the most delicate frequencies of energies dancing throughout the cosmos to manifest in people as Jung proposed?
@ Fidel
It's also important to remember that many astronomers thought nothing existed outside of our galaxy until Edwin Hubble proved otherwise in 1922.
But again, there is a clear distinction between the method, which is simply a way (probably the best way) of collecting and analyzing information, and is completely impartial, and those people whom you say fight like cats and dogs.
I think objectivity is key for scientists when investigating the unknown. Pseudo-science for fun and profit is everywhere these days. If we set the bar lower for drug companies and the fossil fuel industry, then they won't sink money and effort into finding real cures or real energy alternatives. They will just pocket the money we donate to them for their inferior and polluting products now and leave us in the lurch later. Good science costs money and takes time to do.
"But margins of error notwithstanding, there are in fact plenty of things we know for certain through replication of results. I'm not going to make myself a nice pot of tea with some of my henbane plants out back because I know exactly what would happen to me if I did."
Henbane? Lets go one better! Would you eat DEADLY NIGHTSHADE?
http://www.youtube.com/v/6n_fP1znhBs?version=3
shows a guy eating deadly nightshade berrys. (Several months ago and he has made more videos since).
I will repeat one of the basic facts about scientific experiments and the scientific method in general. There are confidence limits. Absolute confidence only exists in the mind. No scientific experiment ever proved anything 100%. And lots of things we know through the grapevine are actually incorrect.
You may not buy it but that does not make it any less true.
@ Brian White
Without knowing all the details of your situation, I can see you are talking as much about the behaviour of people as you are about the scientific method. That is actually the point I was getting at.
But margins of error notwithstanding, there are in fact plenty of things we know for certain through replication of results. I'm not going to make myself a nice pot of tea with some of my henbane plants out back because I know exactly what would happen to me if I did. The idea that we can never really prove anything is a notion of the same order as "how do we know reality is real?" Sorry, but I don't buy it.
They're working on anti-gravity and fantastical air and space propulsion technologies, 6079. They are working on it. There is academic science and then there is corporate science. And the secrecy involved in corporate science is well known about. They study things that academic scientists are either unfamiliar with or just never talk about. Lots of secrecy surrounding that end of things.
@ Brian
*sigh*
Yeah, I know I wouldn't die and in fact, henbane is the safest of the lot because it has the least atropine, and they used to to make beer out of it. The name Pilsener comes from henbane.
But I would still risk temporary blindness, stomach cramps, headache, burning, racing heartbeat, itchy skin, dry mouth, nightmares, and possible blackouts because effects of the drugs in that plant are well-known and consistent. It would make for a very unpleasant afternoon.
I suppose if I go up on my roof and jump off there is a margin of error in that as well, and that I might not hit the ground. Personally and practically speaking though, I don't like the odds.
I do agree mostly with what you are saying. (Apart from the sigh).
But Science does have inbuilt resistance to new ideas. A research scientist cannot just go and research an interesting set of data or an interesting theory. The first thing they have to do is make a proposal to a funding committee. The funding committee (which generally has political or business ties) will give funds to projects they like. So regardless of how much scientific value there is in what the scientist WANTS to do, he or she will only do it if their proposal is to the liking of the funding committee.
I was at an event at UVIC recently where the head of the climate research division was going to talk to the polititians about how reckless it is to defund the data gathering weather stations across northern canada.
(He is an incredibly smart man by the way.)
He just didn't get it! They are killing off climate change research DELIBERATELY. First the data gathering will be gone and then a couple of years later (because he has no data to work with) they will be asking for his head on a plate. (Or at least transferring him to somewhere USEFULL). The will have disarmed their politically dangerous scorpion by removing the venom (Data) and now they can get it to do crowd pleasing tricks.
The conservatives are anti climate science because it will cause negative effects on their tarsand friends.
I was going to leave your last two comments unanswered, because I think I have addressed your respective points a couple of times already.
On the other hand, this is a perfect segue back to the original post and video.
If my narrow understanding is the problem and there are results that don't conform with current scientific laws and theory and they can be proven to work consistently, I am prepared to be enlightened and more than happy to accept them.
But at that point I suppose they wouldn't be part of some corporate conspiracy or supernatural phenomena that the laws of science just aren't refined enough to measure yet.
They would just be like the other perfectly ordinary ways to overcome gravity - through changing air pressure, drag or thrust - which we already understand because they obey physical laws.
(edit)
Though I should clarify, I am prepared to be enlightened so long as I care about it..
I there are a number of things that I think might be true which are not proven, but I don't assume everyone in the world shares my interest,
Henbane? Lets go one better! Would you eat DEADLY NIGHTSHADE?
No, I wouldn't. And neither would the guy in the video.
He eats Solanum americanum, the American Nightshade, which is a very different plant from the European "deadly nightshade" (Belladonna). He mentioned that early settlers in North America mistakenly confused the two; it seems you have done the same.
In fact, he himself contributed to the confusion at the beginning of the video when he referred to the American nightshade as "deadly nightshade". He may have been trying to be ironic (the remark was punctuated with faux-scary music), but I'm sure he'd be the first to acknowledge that what he was eating was NOT the "deadly nightshade" plant. He also made it clear that the American Nightshade itself is toxic if eaten "green" [unripe].
Actually he made the point that american nightshade IS known as deadly nightshade in much of the usa and Canada. And he ate it in the USA. So really your superior knowlege is irrelevant, isn't it? One mans aardappel is another mans potato. But he is speaking mostly to average new worlders and he is speaking their language. (not yours)
Even some botanists call it deadly nightshade. (He said it himself) But whatever.
Feel happy to score points. Half the ordinary joes I know think wasps and bees are the same thing.
I am glad the man is not afraid of food tabu's. It might come in useful if we have a big earthquake. (I have lots of that weed in my back garden). By the way, what he did was no different than someone explaining the difference between an edible mushroom and one which is not quite so edible.
Here in Victoria, I would like to eat my Camas but there are 2 kinds. One good, one bad. Nobody has told me what mine are yet.
Wish there was a greek weed expert here.
Henbane? Lets go one better! Would you eat DEADLY NIGHTSHADE?
No, I wouldn't. And neither would the guy in the video.
He eats Solanum americanum, the American Nightshade, which is a very different plant from the European "deadly nightshade" (Belladonna). He mentioned that early settlers in North America mistakenly confused the two; it seems you have done the same.
In fact, he himself contributed to the confusion at the beginning of the video when he referred to the American nightshade as "deadly nightshade". He may have been trying to be ironic (the remark was punctuated with faux-scary music), but I'm sure he'd be the first to acknowledge that what he was eating was NOT the "deadly nightshade" plant. He also made it clear that the American Nightshade itself is toxic if eaten "green" [unripe].
You're too blind to see that what the video was doing was [b]debunking pseudoscience[/b].
It's not science, but ignorant folklore that labels the American Nightshade as "deadly nightshade". Science tells us that the berries of Solanum Americanum are toxic (and possibly deadly) when they are green (unripe), and this is perfectly true. What the man in the video was doing was eating the ripe berries, which are not toxic in small quantities.
How did he know they were safe to eat? Not by trial and error; not by relying on pseudoscientific belief or popular superstition; but by studying the botany (science!) of the Solanum genus.
So thanks for bringing this to our attention. It provides additional support to the importance of science.
Well I know that I AM always running into people who mistake moving lampshades for ghosts. Happens all the time. Only scientists would know what's really causing the lampshade to move. Because if you're not a scientist in the hire of a big corporation or an employee of the public threatened with their job for whistleblowing, or a pseudo scientific JREF forum groupee, then you must be stupid.
I think I get it now. Good video.
And by contrast Europeans didn't eat tomatoes for years after they came to NA because they assumed they were poison just like all the nightshade plants they were familiar with.
And the people who went into that isolation unit in the southwestern states (earth two, I think it was called, meant to duplicate a trip to mars) started getting poisoned because of the buildup of toxins from the potatos they were eating.
It's not my intention to pooh pooh you , Brian. Our family actually uses some homeopathy and bach flower remedies, so there are some things I accept because they seem to work. And I realize that some things are unknown, and any good scientist will tellyou that expanding knowledge leaves you with more unanswered questions than answered ones.
But the fact is that that there is a lot of science that is hard, precise and predictable to the Nth degree, and immutable. The periodic table of the elements, for one. And in any natural world we are able to survive, newton's laws of physics - Einstein Planck, Hawking, and others' expansion of them notwithstanding.
It is our minds and beliefs that don't always follow order, or seek to put order on things where there is none.
Newton took a vacation on 9/11. Just ask any JREF forum eye-dee-ot.
Fidel, you are the most foolish blind idiot I've ever come across who was capable of walking down the street, even without chewing gum at the same time.
In fact I'nm not sure how you manage the feat.
Newton took a vacation on 9/11. Just ask any JREF forum eye-dee-ot.
No Fidel, everything followed the laws of physics and chemistry just like it did on any other day.
Speaking personally, it's not that I don't think some of your conspiracy theories about that event might have some grounds.
...it's just that I don't care. It is completely irrelevant to me because no matter how it happened, that event was used to start a war. It is done.
If there's some actual proof of the conspiracy you are talking about I'll probably take notice of it (though believe it or not, I know a few other truthers, so you're not exactly a voice in the wilderness). But please... you know how to start a new thread. Post that proof in one of the endless string of threads dedicated to that event where it can be kicked around by people who are interested, and the rest of us can decide to not be there.
If you don't mind, that's all I want to say about that subject in here.
Spector, you and Smith are doing yourseves a disservice. Note that he said that "botanists" called american nightshade deadly nightshade (Thats botanists in the english tradition allowing their preconceptions to colour their Science). How do you square that with your "It's not science, but ignorant folklore"? Maybe, it is a bit of both? It seems to me that these botanists let their own folklore BECOME accepted knowlege in the USA.
Maybe some botanists are talking through their backsides? And if that is the case, maybe some other scientists are talking through their backsides too? And if most peer review nowadays is only review and scrutiny of methodology, maybe there are lots of faked results out there and lots of backsides talking? Who is going to know until the experiments are repeated independently?
If I was younger, I would be amused by you.
"You're too blind to see that what the video was doing was [b]debunking pseudoscience[/b]." Nice one. 2 points from me for that classy remark.
Now why do I feel pity for such smart science guys?
You're too blind to see that what the video was doing was [b]debunking pseudoscience[/b].
It's not science, but ignorant folklore that labels the American Nightshade as "deadly nightshade". Science tells us that the berries of Solanum Americanum are toxic (and possibly deadly) when they are green (unripe), and this is perfectly true. What the man in the video was doing was eating the ripe berries, which are not toxic in small quantities.
How did he know they were safe to eat? Not by trial and error; not by relying on pseudoscientific belief or popular superstition; but by studying the botany (science!) of the Solanum genus.
So thanks for bringing this to our attention. It provides additional support to the importance of science.
@ M. Spector
Well done, thanks.
I didn't actually watch the video (well, because we both know what is in the plants, and I guessed from the text that he doesn't die) but I did notice from the still clip that they were nightshade flowers, and not belladonna.
I have heard of some people eating berries of solanum nigrum (low plant, white flowers, black berries) and solanum dulcamara (vine, purple flowers, red berries). Nevertheless, field guides list them as poisonous because they are.
Whether one dies or not from the effect is beside the point. And as I am sure you realize, my *sigh* to Brian White was because it was also beside the point I was trying to make.
This reminds me of a conversation I had once with an acquaintance who claimed to be an herbalist, who just about killed herself tasting stuff in a swamp. Clearly she mistook swamp hemlock for angelica. So it works both ways.
(edit)
And most importantly, it has nothing to do with the properties of the drugs in these plants being random (which they are not), and everything to do with people making assumptions and mistakes (which we do).
I'm not doing that here.
You can fuck off and die.
Fidel, you are the most foolish blind idiot I've ever come across who was capable of walking down the street, even without chewing gum at the same time.
In fact I'nm not sure how you manage the feat.
And unless you can explain to us how one-fifth of a 200,000 ton steel structure(500K tons in all) could possibly annihilate the other 80 percent of itself, I think you're just gullible. And we won't even bother to ask you what caused collapse initiation of that third WTC building, the one which no amateur Cessna pilots flying for Air Al-CIA'duh flew into that day while NORAD stood down all the while. Because then you'll have to veer off into some silly segue about quantum effects on Newton's third law, or some bs answer typical of the thundering nit-wits frequenting JREF forums.
And not all of it requires high school level familiarity with Newton's laws of nature either. Sometimes critical thinking skills require common sense and, yes, sometimes intuition. If operation "mongoose" was on the table in that sonofabitch Kennedy's day, why would a similar plan to hijack passenger planes, use them as weapons against Americans and blame it on Al-CIA'duh be any less probable today? Are they more democratic today than when the shadow gov was pissed off at a weak Liberal presinit for not giving them keys to the air force to bomb and invade Cuba? Do you know how many Cubans have been murdered by US-based terrorists on the CIA's payroll since then? Common sense sometimes isn't all that common as they say. Of course, I also know whose side youre on WRT Cuba, too.
Look. There has already been a moderator's decision that this is not a 9-11 thread.
If you want to talk about that stuff can you please go get a room, because it is off-topic, and I am not interested.
Yeah, rootham at post 75. Discussions of the scientific probably should not start off with direct insults launched against other babblers like so many al-CIA'duh Cessna pilots dominating so much NORAD airspace for two hours on some infamous day that launched two highly profitable and highly illegal wars on the behooves Wall St and US Mil-Ind. complexers.
Look. There has already been a moderator's decision that this is not a 9-11 thread.
If you want to talk about that stuff can you please go get a room, because it is off-topic, and I am not interested.
- it may not be a 911 thread directly, but you cannot talk about 'pseudscience' these days without considering one of the greatest examples of this beast of the early 21st century - the desperate scrambling of various people to 'explain' the controlled demolition of three buildings in New York 'scientifically' without referring to controlled demolition. And if you want to talk about rationality, you are going to have to deal with how so many apparently intelligent, normally quite rational people could believe such blatant nonsense as the official 911 conspiracy theory. I know you don't want to think about this - but like the flat earthers of a few centuries ago, you can only close your eyes to 'truth' for so long. (and it doesn't seem all that rational to refuse to talk about such a blatant example of pseudoscience as the 911 official conspiracy theory..)
Evidently you're right; clearly some people can't stop interrupting other conversations to talk about it, even when asked politely.
This little dance we seem to be doing actually relates back to the video:
If we set aside the truth or untruth of what you want to talk about (since I have already said I think there is a possibility you might be right, but that I just don't care) I wonder what you hope to accomplish by bringing up this subject repeatedly in a thread where we are talking about something else, especially when you can just start another one of your own threads and talk amongst yourselves.
Do you have some need for everyone who is not as interested in this as you are to support you in your beliefs?
Do you think this approach is going to make me more agreeable to your position rather than just pissing me off?
Is there some reason why you can't start another thread and if I were interested I might drop in there?
I know this is a serious issue for you and not an irrational belief like religion, but the best personal comparison I can think of is evangeligal proslytizing - those missionares who repeatedly show up on my doorstep even when I have told them many times that I am not interested in their message. I cannot imagine what goes on in their heads - how they cannot take no for an answer, how they think that persisting in the same behaviour will make me any more interested or supportive for what they have to say.
Again, the message aside, the method makes no sense to me.
And what a mournful monologue it is. The YouTube video that is. I don't know anyone like the people he's talking about. He sounds a bit like one of the Windsors talking to their plants. Duller than boiled kleenex.
Evidently you're right; clearly some people can't stop interrupting other conversations to talk about it, even when asked politely.
This little dance we seem to be doing actually relates back to the video:
If we set aside the truth or untruth of what you want to talk about (since I have already said I think there is a possibility you might be right, but that I just don't care) I wonder what you hope to accomplish by bringing up this subject repeatedly in a thread where we are talking about something else, especially when you can just start another one of your own threads and talk amongst yourselves.
Do you have some need for everyone who is not as interested in this as you are to support you in your beliefs?
Do you think this approach is going to make me more agreeable to your position rather than just pissing me off?
Is there some reason why you can't start another thread and if I were interested I might drop in there?
I know this is a serious issue for you and not an irrational belief like religion, but the best personal comparison I can think of is evangeligal proslytizing - those missionares who repeatedly show up on my doorstep even when I have told them many times that I am not interested in their message. I cannot imagine what goes on in their heads - how they cannot take no for an answer, how they think that persisting in the same behaviour will make me any more interested or supportive for what they have to say.
Again, the message aside, the method makes no sense to me.
- the general answer to the question is 'no', I do not make a habit of 'dropping in' to other threads and trying to divert them to a 911 discussion - my comments in this one have been few, and in response to other things already talking about the subject in ways I thought needed clarification or rebuttal. You might turn that one back on yourself a bit - if you get involved in discussions where the pseudoscience surrounding the official 911 conspiracy theory is an obvious part of the discussion, you maybe shouldn't expect everyone to avoid this obvious part of the discussion because you don't want to go there, for whatever reason. It's certainly a valid part of any such general discussion of 'pseudoscience' and openmindedness. If you want to talk about the pseudoscience of herbology or something specifically, you might start your own thread, at which point you would be justified to tell me or anyone to keep away with anything not related - fair enough.
We're in the middle of things now, but I would confidently predict that in years to come, the widespread acceptance of the blatantly nonsensical "pseudoscience" used to 'explain' and justify the official conspiracy theory of how those buildings came down is going to be a subject of some interest and concern in circles where real science occurs, including sociological sciences looking at things like mass delusion, or mass subservience to 'authority', and other related things.
This kind of refusal to acknowledge - or perhaps inability to see - certain very large elephants in the living room seems to be a component of the new Homo corporadensis who seems to be genetically taking over our western societies at least - on other threads there are discussions about the terrible economic things going on in the world - and yet a very determined resistance to turning on the main light that needs to be turned on to understand this problem, where the money comes from and who controls it.
A bit Wonderlandian in these parts these days, altogether.
The reason why 9/11 truthers exist is BECAUSE the US had long sinced evidenced it's itching for war in the middle east and boasted the PNAC (project for a new american century) on the open internet.
Only an idiot would believe they didn't want a pretext to go to war, the simplest explanation for 9/11 -- US stirs up hornets nest, leaves door open on purpose, hi-jackers fly planes into buildings, now have pretext for war.
These guys WANTED a pretext for war not to mention the HUGE PROFITS for war corporations. 9/11 truthers may not have all the facts and maybe outright dumb sometimes but jesus christ, those who believe the offical explanation with all the evidence pointing to the fact that there was a fuck-tonne of money to be made by the oligarchy are ignoring the HUGE evidence of the war party's interest in killing for fun and profit.
@ Fidel #85
Well, with the difference that the plants are talking back. I have my own problems with the video that I mentioned already, but the fact is it is a logical exercise, intended to illustrate ways of thinking, belief, and tolerance. It's not musical theatre.
And if you find it so dull, I think there is a door here somewhere (though no matter what you do you'll have to find somebody else's thread or start your own in another 10 posts or so).
Who knows? I might actually drop in to read the phone book at you.
@ siamdave
I might be inclined to see your point except for one important thing. Any discussion of your topic is so technical and heated that it drowns out any discussion of the actual issue. Plus, you have an ongoing string of threads devoted to that topic, you can easily start another, and there has already been an official ruling that this is not a 9-11 thread. So no, it is not an "obvious part" of this discussion.
And the excuse that we're "in the middle of things" is no more a justification for this than it would be for a home invasion, or imperial conquest. I can see there's an elephant, I just think that it is so big that it belongs in its own room. And believe it or not you aren't the first person to tell me about it. I just find it boring and irrelevant, and the repeated insistence that I should somehow get excited about it is annoying.
That last point IS very much like dealing with religious zealots, except that I can usually make mormons and JWs go away if I swear, flirt, or drop my pants.
Only an idiot would believe they didn't want a pretext to go to war, the simplest explanation for 9/11...
Only an idiot would believe the U.S. wouldn't go to war without a credible pretext.
Only an idiot would believe that a suitable "pretext" for war would necessarily have to involve the deaths of thousands of innocents and the active participation of tens of thousands of people in the execution and coverup, rather than something as simple as a faked embassy bombing or a Gulf-of-Tonkin-type phony naval skirmish, or surveillance satellite photos "proving" the existence of WMD's... etc/ etc.
Only an idiot would believe it was actually necessary to destroy not one but three tall buildings in Manhattan, plus a large chunk of the Pentagon in order to establish that Osma bin Laden was really a nasty fellow.
Only an idiot would believe that the "pretext" for war was planned and executed with infinitely more careful planning and control than the resulting war itself, which was one strategic and tactical blunder after another.
Careful, Spector, you're drifting into logic... ;-)
Could we be a little kinder with the term idiot?
@ Caissa
Agreed, but do you mean idiot, or eye-dee-ot.
Only an idiot would believe they didn't want a pretext to go to war, the simplest explanation for 9/11...
Only an idiot would believe the U.S. wouldn't go to war without a credible pretext.
Only very gullible people would believe in the 9/11 pretext without demanding proof positive that al-CIA'duh did it. They have none. TYHIS IS AN ILLEGAL WAR not so unlike Hitler';s invasion of Poland after Himmler's SS perpetrated a series of false flag attacks along the German-Polish border. The world would not have known about operation Himmler at Gleiwitz without a trial at Nuremberg. 9/11, too, is a crime that needs to be dealt with by a World Court of law. But there is no proof of "al-Qaeda's" gullt in perpetrating 9/11. Only naive people are willing to have that leap of faith.
The Taliban tried to handover Osama bin Laden to crazy george II. Three times. So yes, only very gullible people would believe crazy George II and Dick Cheney are still running around and telling the truth about 9/11 and Saddam's "WMD."
No proof - phony war's illegal. You should always ask for proof before kissing American ass in Afghanistan, like the Taliban demanded of their former masters in Warshington. Anything less would be thoroughly unscientific and tending to look a lot like you yourself are a US toady.
Only an idiot would believe that a suitable "pretext" for war would necessarily have to involve the deaths of thousands of innocents and the active participation of tens of thousands of people in the execution and coverup, rather than something as simple as a faked embassy bombing or a Gulf-of-Tonkin-type phony naval skirmish, or surveillance satellite photos "proving" the existence of WMD's... etc/ etc.
In Iraq, the idiotic pretext was WMD that did not exist
In Afghanistan, the phony pretext was a phantom attack on WTC building seven. Without kamikaze pilots flying into WTC-7, the "al-Qaeda" pretext looks very made up. But only an idiot believes fire brought down WTC7 say 1350+ architects and engineers for truth. But what do they know? They are only asking for proof themselves, and the government isn't falling for any of this scientific proof business.
Two idiotic pretexts for two illegal wars. Only idiots you say?
Only an idiot would believe it was actually necessary to destroy not one but three tall buildings in Manhattan, plus a large chunk of the Pentagon in order to establish that Osma bin Laden was really a nasty fellow.
Only the extremely gullible still believe that George dubya's BFF and business partners in the bin Laden family would double cross them. Only really gullible people believe in the Elvis bin Laden bogeyman.
Only an idiot would believe that the "pretext" for war was planned and executed with infinitely more careful planning and control than the resulting war itself, which was one strategic and tactical blunder after another.
Only extremely gullible people would believe that the gladio gang are incapable of perpetrating false flags along the lines of an operation mongoose. It was on the table in Kennedy's day, and so why would a similar plan that included hijacking passenger planes and using them to kill Americans not be on the Pentagon's table today? Did they become more democratic since the Bay of Pigs? Only very gullible people might think so.
Gullible people believe in Elvis bin Laden and al-CIA'duh bogeymen fairy tales without proof because they WANT to believe. But I'd like to suggest not preaching that soft, bland, right wing pap around the real anti-war crowd. Because we'll tell you to save your breath. Not on Sundays or any other day of the week, thank you very little.
Why did you bother to quote M. Spector when you didn't actually bother to respond to him? All you did was repeat things you've said about a million times already.
Thing is, when you quite obviously ignore them and move on to your usual 6-7 talking points, repeated for the millionth time, it makes you look evasive. It makes you look like you have no choice but to concede the validity of his points.
I doubt there are many people left on the planet who are vulnerable to truther kookery, but just in case some lurker is one of them, wouldn't you rather rebut what he's saying than leave it there like there's nothing you can do? Sure, you're not likely to convince me, and you're not likely to convince M. Spector, but lots of people are going to find this page at some point.
Hehe! Okey dokey. I wish all truthers were like you.
Oh gawd, another Elvis bin Laden bible thumper. I see them loitering around the airport like all the time. Just don't make eye contact, people!
Sure, you're not likely to convince me, and you're not likely to convince M. Spector, but lots of people are going to find this page at some point.
The phony war in Afghanistan is illegal. They have no proof of 9/11 guilt, and neither do you. Do you imagine that if there was hard evidence that they wouldn't be hiding behind "national security" and slapping gag orders on whistleblowers like Sibel Edmonds? It's all about demanding proof and critical thinking.
Here's a tip: don't bet on the races. You'll lose!
Demand proof. That's all the anti-war movement is suggesting you do before agreeing to attacks on sovereign countries Nazi-style and without UN approval.
The US led war on Afghanistan using 9/11 as a pretext is illegal according to international law since Nuremberg.
The US and NATO are guilty of waging a criminal and illegal "global war on terror." This is the way Hitler and the Nazis operated when they marched into sovereign countries.
Nowhere in the UNSC resolutions of 2001 is there any mention of the use of military attacks against UN member nations.
Fidel, we AGREE with you on the illegality of the war. Or at least I think the Security Council did not have grounds to authorize it. Legality and politics are bound up here.
Why do you persist in the foolishness that says the aircraft collisions did not cause the buildings to collapse?
The issue here is WHY you believe this stuff, It's not necessary.
Besides, I have seen the photographic evidence that it was the demons who did it, which is more than they have.
Yea, Sorry about that. I am looking for the motivation behind the effort.
OK, can I rephrase, Fidel?
Why is it significant that the planes didn't knock the buildings down?