|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 09/17/2004 : 16:29:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The problem, though, with all these conspiracy theories for the Pentagon crach on Sept. 11 is that they ignore the deaths of the 64 people on the plane.
Yeah, this occured to me after looking at their video again.... if it wasn't the 757, where is the hijacked one and the people on it? Doesn't seem likely that a 757 full of people was taken and hidden someplace.... rofl... |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2004 : 19:09:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
I completely disagree. I have the ability to judge claims on evolution and claims about the Creation even though I have no advanced degrees in anything related to do with biology, and I don't have anything close to anything doing with the Bible.
Just because you don't have a degree doesn't mean you can't evaluate claims and evidence that the experts produce.
No, we have the right to form a personal opinion, but not the right to judge. Granted, some things require less technical expertise than others, but the "judging" of theories should be done by experts in their respective field.
The conclusion of the experts is that Evolution is the best theory to explain diversity of species. But you're saying that all school boards should have the right to individually "judge" whether or not the Theory of Evolution has merit, or whether or not it should be taught in their schools? Because I don't. The judgement has already been made. Non-experts shouldn't have a voice in this matter. Science isn't decided by popular vote.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/17/2004 20:07:43 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2004 : 22:52:36 [Permalink]
|
I don't have to be an expert in any particular science field if the debate on validity involves logic and citation of sufficient evidence. If one wants to evaluate the finer points of a particular science where there is a lot of technical language, then I'd need some background.
Perhaps it is better described as a continuum between pure baseless opinion and full scientific expertise evaluating volumes of evidence. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2004 : 22:53:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
No, we have the right to form a personal opinion, but not the right to judge. Granted, some things require less technical expertise than others, but the "judging" of theories should be done by experts in their respective field.
The conclusion of the experts is that Evolution is the best theory to explain diversity of species. But you're saying that all school boards should have the right to individually "judge" whether or not the Theory of Evolution has merit, or whether or not it should be taught in their schools? Because I don't. The judgement has already been made. Non-experts shouldn't have a voice in this matter. Science isn't decided by popular vote.
I argue that we have just as much right to judge as the experts do. Does an experts opinion matter more to me? Yes, plain and simple, an expert knows what he is talking about. However, I still have just as much right to disagree with an expert. If I can back my position with reason, then I don't give a damn what an expert says, and I see any other view as just Appeal to Authority. An expert's opinion does not override mine, but it does help to shape it. Thats what peer review is all about, and its not just peer review between experts. If what an expert says doesn't make sense, then his opinion has no more value than the average Creationist (ok, thats really low, but its not much higher). |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2004 : 23:30:52 [Permalink]
|
Let's say you've come home from work and found that your house is ringed with caution tape, public works vans, and people in uniforms. You walk up to the guy who appears to be in charge, and introduce yourself. He tells you he's a structural engineer, and after a recent natural disaster, he's found your home to be unstable. "Don't go in there," he says, "it may collapse."
Perhaps you've got skeptical leanings, and feel there's a reason not to blindly trust what the guy says. Maybe it's that you know the guy, and he's jerked you around a little bit before (but never regarding something life-threatening). Maybe you just heard something in his voice which caught you wrong.
No matter what, you go back to your car, fire up your laptop, and - usurping your neighbor's wide-open wireless LAN - start Googling up the information you need to be able to ask the right questions of the engineer, and/or examine the home for yourself to check the veracity of the engineer's opinion. Based upon that brand new knowledge, you choose to either agree or disagree with the expert opinion.
The problem H. Humbert is addressing, it seems to me, is that those people who assume that all opinions are equal would look in the front door, think "it looks okay to me," and just walk in and do their thing. If the house remains standing, they're "vindicated" as being more knowledgable than the so-called "expert," without knowing anything about the subject. If the house collapses and kills them, there's no lesson learned. If the house collapses and they wind up in the hospital (but alive), there will be a lawsuit in the offing, and no lesson learned.
You, Ricky, are wise enough to know when you're outclassed, and due to a lack of resources must trust an expert. H. Humbert seems to have been saying that there's a lot of people in the world who aren't that wise, and trust themselves even when they're completely ignorant. Many creationists, for example (you brought them into this), like verlch, seem to think they know the theory of evolution better than evolutionary biologists, but after a short conversation it's clear that that's not at all the case. Quite the opposite may be true. But, since "opinions are like buttholes - everyone's got one and they all stink," they're unwilling to give any deference to those who are actually experts in the field. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2004 : 01:19:51 [Permalink]
|
Dave, once again I appreciate your insights. You offer up a fine anology on which to build upon.
Ricky, first let me say that I see where your coming from. I don't think we really disagree a whole lot, and it is probably the way in which I'm using the term "expert." I don't mean merely or exclusively those who hold degrees in a particular field. As Dave noted, if you seek the appropriate knowledge and aquire the perspective need to evaluate a claim, then yes, of course you have a right to come to a decision. I am not claiming that one must always appeal to authority.
But my point is, at some point we all do rely on authority. To use Dave's example again, say you did have concerns about the inspector's claim that the structure was unstable. He is an "expert," and without *any* knowledge of the subject, you should trust him. If you did take the time to inform yourself, you now have earned the right to come to independent conclusions. What I don't feel is that you automatically have the right to an opinion on the matter.
But I would just like to note, even when you are "researching" a topic, who exactly are you consulting if not "other experts?" I don't even mean those strictly alive today, but really all those who have ever contributed to a particular field. Unless you go out with a ruler and a plumb bob and rework the math yourself, you are relying upon the previous insights, discoveries and conclusions of "experts." That is, everyone versed in the collective and codified knowledge of a particular area of study.
Such a reliance upon those who came before us isn't a weakness. In fact, it makes progress possible. I'm simply expressing the view that skepticism has limits. There are times when we shouldn't question the experts without a good reason to do so.
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Perhaps it is better described as a continuum between pure baseless opinion and full scientific expertise evaluating volumes of evidence.
Yes, I could agree with that as well.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/18/2004 01:35:39 |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2004 : 05:54:42 [Permalink]
|
Great thread; thank you.
I think many conspiracy theorists need to get a hobby instead of inventing shadowy drama where, most likely, none exists.
Loved the comments on experts and when to listen and when to question. I liked that my former doctor would sometimes say, "I don't know why your body does this." Her willingness to admit it helped me trust the the things she did know.
Part of wisdom, IMHO, is knowing what we don't know.
|
|
|
|
Grant
New Member
1 Post |
Posted - 09/19/2004 : 23:35:57 [Permalink]
|
I'm new here, but I just want to add my 2 cents.
My problem with this "theory" is that why would the administration go on the cheap and not use a real 757? Imagine you're the project manager to blow up the Pentagon so that your president can "retaliate" against a country whom your fellow conspiracists mistakenly pin on terrorists of the wrong nationality. (I mean if they're faking it, couldn't they have at least put one Iraqi on the plane?) Would you take the risk of using a completely different aircraft than the one you're claiming was involved? Now, think for a moment the number of people required to pull off procuring a small military jet, UAV or missile. How many people would be willing to face the threat of the death penalty on this scheme? (We're not just talking about bugging a campaign office.) I cannot imagine anyone would sign off on using the smaller craft instead of a real 757. Why would government officials gamble that during the day, thousands of witnesses and recovery personal wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the two? If a single missile part was found, or someone took a picture, then you're a dead man walking. And the biggest conspiracy ever to face this nation completely unravels with the possible executions of many administration officials.
The reality is that there are flight instructors, who have no connection to the government, who have come forward and said, "I trained one of the highjackers." Where are the people who back up the conspiracy theorists? Were they all mysteriously killed? It's not enough for a few people with no expertise to claim that the hole was not big enough and there were no big plane parts found. Show me the missile parts, or the person who fueled the UAV, or the air traffic controller who cleared it on the runway. If they can do that, then there's something to talk about. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/20/2004 : 06:09:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Grant
I'm new here, but I just want to add my 2 cents.
Hi, Grant. Welcome to the site.
You're totally right in your observations-- even the logic doesn't add up in this conspiracy. If you want it to look like you've crashed a 757 into the Pentagon, and if you're already dead-set upon crashing them into two building in New York, why not just use a real 757 instead of a missle? It doesn't make sense!
And you're right about the flight instructors, too. How do you account for all these flight instructors saying that they trained these people?
It's just too much! If these conspiracy guys just thought it through, couldn't they see that?!?
|
|
|
|
lord_hevonen
New Member
30 Posts |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
lord_hevonen
New Member
30 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2004 : 09:20:40 [Permalink]
|
Yeah, it's supposed to be satire...i got pissed off after seeing one too many of those Pentagon conspiracy pages and made this one in a hurry. I think the reason people can't recognize this as satire is because it is not funny  |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2004 : 11:12:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord_hevonen
take a look at this:
http://www.tuonpuoleinen.com/pertti/conspiracy.htm
Dude, that's hilarious! Nice work. Yeah, I think you pretty much nailed how those consiracy theorists think. I bet you'll hear others picking up on how the government moved the pentagon any day now.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/16/2004 11:12:48 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
