View Full Version : Proof & the burden of it
Bertrand Russell said about the burden of proof:
Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of skeptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.
But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.
If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
To my mind wise words indeed. Does modern day society hold up to this challenge to clear thinking? For example, where does the burden of proof lie - with the moon landing skeptics, or the believers? Who are the true skeptics and the dogmatists, according to Bertrand Russell anyway, in the controversies of the day?
Here are some of the supposed top controversies for our modern world.
JFK assassination [Who killed JFK?]
911 [What happened on 911?]
Area 51 [Are there alien spaceships at Area 51?]
Moon landings [Did the moon landings take place]
Princess Diana's death [Was Princess Diana murdered?]
Can we say what is the dogmatist viewpoint and with whom the burden of proof lies?
Personally I think we get confused over who is rightly the skeptic and dogmatist in some (not at all) of these scenerios, and I wanted to see what others thought.
Another thing that Bertrand Russell said that will probably be worth looking at whilst discussing these kind of subjects is:
"The degree of one's emotion varies inversely with one's knowledge of the facts -- the less you know the hotter you get." It applies to both sides, skeptics and dogmatists. :D
These are subjects where us Joes in the street aren't going to know the facts, so it may get a bit heated. But...
This topic isn't about the facts we know, whether we know Princess Diana was murdered or not, it's about - what is the dogmatist viewpoint for these topics and consequently where does the burden of proof lie...
:confused:
It's okay to bring this topic. :tmb:
Recently I read in many places on the closed dogmatism of science, for example. This relates to recent findings on the speed of light and neutrons.
I think that in schools today, are taught many things which we have no certainty, and yet, are explained as inseparable truths.
Thus, the foundation, or at least some of the foundations on which our knowledge is based are completely twisted, in my opinion.
The "burden of proof" is in some ways a rubbish concept, because it implies a confrontation. It can be useful, of course, but confrontation is not always a good idea.
In general, I'd say the burden of proof lies with whoever is making the newest claim. For example, the OPERA experiment is claiming that there exist neutrinos traveling faster than light. That is a new, extraordinary claim, and luckily they provided evidence with it in the form of their measurements. Now the new claim is that these measurements were faulty or inaccurate, and the ones claiming that provide evidence in the form of theoretical arguments and questions about the setup. Now OPERA claims that these arguments do not apply here, and as evidence they give more detail about their experiment set up and have repeated the experiment with altered data (in particular shorter neutrino bursts). I imagine this will continue to go on for a while. The burden of proof is with whoever wants to contradict what the other just said. But in reality, it's also very much a cooperation where all work together to find the truth. That does not apply to common internet arguments about religion or conspiracy theories.
Of course, "proof" is a very vague concept, which is why I used evidence above, but that may still be too strong. Take God, always a nice topic to argue about: To the argument "the world is complicated so there must be a God", a refutation does not have to be "There is no god for this reasons", it can suffice to just say "there does not necessarily have to be a god". Another point: Can the bible be considered evidence for his existence? I strongly think no, but no matter how much evidence I find for my point of view, I cannot make other people objectively agree with me. Finally, I do believe that there are stupid questions and stupid arguments, and it is probably safe to ignore e.g. everything on http://theflatearthsociety.org/ without giving detailed evidence, because their theory and their evidence are just so horribly bad.
And conspiracy theories are possibly the worst of all. I think that the most-well known conspiracy theories are not at all about finding the truth, no matter how much they call themselves a truth movement. They are about psychology. Take moon landings from your list: Any argument the moon landing conspiracy people have brought forth have been proven wrong forty years ago already. Yet people still believe that crap. Why? I don't think it is because they looked at the old footage and went "Wait a minute!".
First of all, the moon landing is a huge historical anomaly. Getting someone off the planet is incredibly huge. And then stopping to do it, after mankind had achieved this, that's just plain weird. It shows that the world is uncontrollable and much bigger than one can imagine. It also makes our own world incredibly small, because suddenly the radius of human exploration has increased by more than 300,000 km. On the other hand, a government conspiracy and a few sets in Hollywood? That part is easy, simple. It gives a clear "us" and "them", a neat explanation for all the complexities of one of the biggest projects in the history of earth and is, in general, far less scary.
It's also all about stories. Now, I think the moon landing is an incredible story, but I'm also one of the few weird people who think technology and science are cool and interesting. To many, especially today, science is threatening and/or boring. For them, the giant government cover-up may be a better story. A much plainer example is Lady Di: Her death, as a story, just plain sucks. A paparazzi, a drunk driver and that's it? For someone who had such a huge public role? That is just not an acceptable death for the former Princess of Wales. On the other hand, the stories about the pregnancy, the MI6, supposed racism and the like, that's a real story. Just completely made up, but much more exciting.
^^But you see?, There are so many fictional stories that have tried to pass as true, there are so many lies for the sake of interests of some kind or another, there comes a time in which many things are doubtful.
I've ever mentioned this: I don't understand how Hollywood can create characters and plots as evil, and yet, stories about the kindness, however excellent they are, are not comparable to first.
What do I mean with this?
That, inside the human being lies a point of perversion that makes anything it touches, becomes deserving of doubt.
And this, sadly, happens every time more.
I'm just going to throw this in there:
Q: Do people lie?
A: Yes they do, all the time.
Q: What reasons do they lie for?
A: *Gets out list a mile long* and says, "Have you got time to go through it all?"
Q: Do their reasons for lying make sense to everyone else in the world?
A: Sometimes, but not always.
Q: Do people in government have less motivation to lie than people "not in government"?
Q: Is their list any shorter?
Q: Are people in government somehow immune from telling lies?
That's why this thread is meant to be about where burden of proof lies. Because until we can sort out who is responsible for providing evidence to back up which assertions, it's pointless. No one person, or institution is immune from lying. There are always loads of reasons why it may be a good reason to lie. Or to be kinder - deceive ourselves about what results are saying, or what facts actually mean and support.
If we want to get to the truth surely we have to stop assuming that some people are more likely to lie / make things up than other people because it's in their natures to do so?
patriots88888
24-11-11, 12:44
And conspiracy theories are possibly the worst of all. I think that the most-well known conspiracy theories are not at all about finding the truth, no matter how much they call themselves a truth movement. They are about psychology. Take moon landings from your list: Any argument the moon landing conspiracy people have brought forth have been proven wrong forty years ago already. Yet people still believe that crap. Why? I don't think it is because they looked at the old footage and went "Wait a minute!".
As it relates to 9/11, there are many experts in the field of architecture who would strongly disagree with your assertion...
DqH1yawEUMk
Unless there is a hidden agenda in there somewhere, I would have to say they (theses experts) are all about finding the truth.
I think this an everlasting discussion/debate ; you will always have believers and non- believers. seeing is really believing in this case... or in some cases it is a proof that is has been made up.
point is ; these theories always came forward because people can't believe something like that happened ; or just didn't happen. like oswald getting murdered ; now no one would ever know the true about why he shot K dead; and the idea of one individual killing someone so beloved out of his own motivations; that just doesn't sound right. the same with area 51 ; it is because it is so a secret that people are trying to find reasons why they would keep it secret from them... it just can't be that they are not allowed to know whether the us army is doing army tests there that they have to make it bigger...
and the list is endless
I'm just going to throw this in there:
Q: Do people lie?
A: Yes they do, all the time.
Q: What reasons do they lie for?
A: *Gets out list a mile long* and says, "Have you got time to go through it all?"
Q: Do their reasons for lying make sense to everyone else in the world?
A: Sometimes, but not always.
Q: Do people in government have less motivation to lie than people "not in government"?
Q: Is their list any shorter?
Q: Are people in government somehow immune from telling lies?
That's why this thread is meant to be about where burden of proof lies. Because until we can sort out who is responsible for providing evidence to back up which assertions, it's pointless. No one person, or institution is immune from lying. There are always loads of reasons why it may be a good reason to lie. Or to be kinder - deceive ourselves about what results are saying, or what facts actually mean and support.
If we want to get to the truth surely we have to stop assuming that some people are more likely to lie / make things up than other people because it's in their natures to do so?
How much does this matter, though? The fact is that for most of these questions, such as 9/11, the evidence is already there, for both sides. It's the interpretation that varies.
As it relates to 9/11, there are many experts in the field of architecture who would strongly disagree with your assertion...
DqH1yawEUMk
Unless there is a hidden agenda in there somewhere, I would have to say they (theses experts) are all about finding the truth.
I'm afraid I didn't watch the two hour Youtube conspiracy theory video yet and in fact have no plans to do so, ever. :D
I think we have a 9/11 thread around somewhere to discuss precisely this; I also think that it went nowhere because no side has managed to convince the other. Rehashing this all in this thread is probably not going to help. But I would like to stress that I don't think the 9/11 "truthers" are lying or have a hidden agenda. They are evidently looking for alternate explanations. I just think the main, possibly subconscious, motivation is not any particular flaw in the official explanation, but rather a belief that this is all a conspiracy to begin with, and then trying to find any evidence that supports this.
patriots88888
24-11-11, 14:03
I'm afraid I didn't watch the two hour Youtube conspiracy theory video yet and in fact have no plans to do so, ever. :D
I think we have a 9/11 thread around somewhere to discuss precisely this; I also think that it went nowhere because no side has managed to convince the other. Rehashing this all in this thread is probably not going to help. But I would like to stress that I don't think the 9/11 "truthers" are lying or have a hidden agenda. They are evidently looking for alternate explanations. I just think the main, possibly subconscious, motivation is not any particular flaw in the official explanation, but rather a belief that this is all a conspiracy to begin with, and then trying to find any evidence that supports this.
If you were to watch the video, you would see that there are indeed flaws (even those which are self contradicting) in the official explanation. Regardless of what you (or anyone for that matter) accept(s) and believe(s), your assertion that those who question the official explanation are not at all about finding the truth, to put it succinctly, is wrong (at least in this particular case). These experts base their findings on science, physics, etc..., nothing more, nothing less (from what is presented in the video, which is why I felt it was relevant to post it).
The Great Chi
24-11-11, 14:57
...I'm afraid I didn't watch the two hour Youtube conspiracy theory video yet and in fact have no plans to do so, ever. :D....So much for you checking on the burden of proof, when you will not look at any proof, that does not fit your own thinking :p
On the 9/11 debate, it's pretty hard to see how followers of the "truth" movement don't have an agenda as there is so much evidence is stacked against them that if they were indeed only interested in searching for the truth there would be no movement in the first place.
We also have an interesting debate here about 11/M for almost 8 years now.
And best of all is that the first thing they did was destroy all evidence.
Just the opposite should have been done.
The doubts and whys appear unintentionally.
The Great Chi
24-11-11, 18:06
On the 9/11 debate, it's pretty hard to see how followers of the "truth" movement don't have an agenda as there is so much evidence is stacked against them that if they were indeed only interested in searching for the truth there would be no movement in the first place.Unfortunately, all you have is blinkers on and just accept what goverments tell you, without considering that they could be lying.
Most of the evidence of the official story was just all lies, like a terrorist passport found in the rubble, to justify illegal wars in the middle east.
Also and this is just as bad, it was done to remove many of the freedoms we have in the west, re: the dreaded patriot act.
The 'truth' movement is to put the american people wize to the lies of their own goverment and bring the truth that 911 was just one big inside job to create a pivotal point in history, to get the american people in tow towards a 'war on terror'.
Unfortunately, all you have is blinkers on and just accept what goverments tell you, without considering that they could be lying.
Most of the evidence of the official story was just all lies, like a terrorist passport found in the rubble, to justify illegal wars in the middle east.
Also and this is just as bad, it was done to remove many of the freedoms we have in the west, re: the dreaded patriot act.
The 'truth' movement is to put the american people wize to the lies of their own goverment and bring the truth that 911 was just one big inside job to create a pivotal point in history, to get the american people in tow towards a 'war on terror'.Here we go again with the "you don't believe in far-fetched conspiracies therefore you believe everything the government tells you".
I'm not talking about the "official" story. I never even mentioned it. I'm talking about hard facts and evidence. You're free to go and look these up on the internet, problem is you'll dismiss them if the evidence doesn't fit in with your theory. I think it's you who's wearing the blinkers.
Not to mention conventional logic goes against the theory but since when are logic and conspiracies ever compatible?
The Great Chi
24-11-11, 18:21
I think it's you who's wearing the blinkers.
Not to mention conventional logic goes against the theory but since when are logic and conspiracies ever compatible?I do not wear blinkers, I will at least look at all the evidence both 'official story' which by the way stinks to high heaven when you consider the buildings were insured for billions (payed in the event of a terrorist attack), only a few months before the attack.
I then look at the 'truthers' evidence and see buildings demolished through controlled demolision, especially that of buiding 7 that was hardly ever touched (a few fires), yet told to be 'pulled', another word for demolision.
Yes, I look at the evidence, and see an inside job. Full stop.
But all these doubts are due to so many lies and so much deceit.
So it's not surprising.
I have seen some conversations on your 9/11 and I assure you do not have half of arguments and doubts that what happened here with the 11/M.
Blackmoor said we all lie. Well, not we all lie, but some governments lie a lot.
patriots88888
24-11-11, 19:33
On the 9/11 debate, it's pretty hard to see how followers of the "truth" movement don't have an agenda as there is so much evidence is stacked against them that if they were indeed only interested in searching for the truth there would be no movement in the first place.
I'm not even getting into the 'who' and 'why'. Sure, eventually certain conclusions will lead you to those questions, but really the most logical starting point is if the official explanation holds water. And according to what these many experts say, it doesn't... the science/physics don't add up. There's no question in my mind that something is awry. That doesn't necessarily mean that anyone who is willing to look at, consider, and dispute that 'official explanation' and its many contradictions is a conspiracy theorist. Science tells us what is possible and what is not, so it's a useful tool here in regards to the 'how'. It's much tougher for science (as it relates to this) to explain/prove the 'who' and 'why'.
Not everything needs to be so black and white. It's as if a line has been drawn with so many who are either unwilling or simply refuse to be impartial and objective with this. For them it's, 'you're either with us or against us'. I say bull****! And that was my point to Cochrane.
If you were to watch the video, you would see that there are indeed flaws (even those which are self contradicting) in the official explanation. Regardless of what you (or anyone for that matter) accept(s) and believe(s), your assertion that those who question the official explanation are not at all about finding the truth, to put it succinctly, is wrong (at least in this particular case). These experts base their findings on science, physics, etc..., nothing more, nothing less (from what is presented in the video, which is why I felt it was relevant to post it).
So much for you checking on the burden of proof, when you will not look at any proof, that does not fit your own thinking :p
My problem with the video is not its contents; I only know what patriots8888 said about it. My problem with the video is just the length. Does your point really need two hours to be made?
I'm not even getting into the 'who' and 'why'. Sure, eventually certain conclusions will lead you to those questions, but really the most logical starting point is if the official explanation holds water. And according to what these many experts say, it doesn't... the science/physics don't add up. There's no question in my mind that something is awry. That doesn't necessarily mean that anyone who is willing to look at, consider, and dispute that 'official explanation' and its many contradictions is a conspiracy theorist. Science tells us what is possible and what is not, so it's a useful tool here in regards to the 'how'. It's much tougher for science (as it relates to this) to explain/prove the 'who' and 'why'.
Not everything needs to be so black and white. It's as if a line has been drawn with so many who are either unwilling or simply refuse to be impartial and objective with this. For them it's, 'you're either with us or against us'. I say bull****! And that was my point to Cochrane.
Look, one thing I realized years ago is that 9/11 is a topic that I best stay away from. I just get way too angry when discussing it, and it does not help anyone. I was going to say I'm sorry I brought it up, but then I realized that I didn't, actually. Anyway: I could spend two hours watching your video, then some more doing research about the claims made in this video and find experts who totally disagree with the ones there. I don't think it would be very hard, either, it would just take a lot of time. And I'd rather spend that doing something else. Please don't take this personally. I like debating issues with you. I just don't like this particular one.
Talking more in general and back to the original topic: Do governments lie, cover things up and so on? Absolutely. There are many, many well-documented cases, and it stands to reason that there are many cases that we do not know about yet. It is definitely legitimate to ask questions about that. But the more extreme the claims become, the more extreme the proof has to be if the claims are supposed to be taken seriously.
Uzi master
24-11-11, 22:15
Well, we know the planes did fly into the towers, and phone-calls confirm it was terrorists hijacking them, we didn't see the government plant explosives, or anything like that so if you want someone to believe it was a government conspiracy you need more solid proof than what we already have.
I'm not even getting into the 'who' and 'why'. Sure, eventually certain conclusions will lead you to those questions, but really the most logical starting point is if the official explanation holds water. And according to what these many experts say, it doesn't... the science/physics don't add up. There's no question in my mind that something is awry. That doesn't necessarily mean that anyone who is willing to look at, consider, and dispute that 'official explanation' and its many contradictions is a conspiracy theorist. Science tells us what is possible and what is not, so it's a useful tool here in regards to the 'how'. It's much tougher for science (as it relates to this) to explain/prove the 'who' and 'why'.Actually, the most logical starting point is to look at the event in isolation, that way bias is less likely to creep in. Having said that, if people want to believe the US government/Israel was behind it then they'll believe it no matter what, as has been clearly demonstrated on the internet time and time again.
The majority of experts agree with the "official" version. Like with any event, there are always going to be some who disagree, but the general consensus among the experts is that the Twin Towers collapsed as a result of the intense fires raging in the building, which we were further intensified by the thousands of gallons of jet fuel that were seeping down the buildings. And no, steel doesn't need to be melted for a building to collapse before something brings that old chestnut up. As for the Pentagon, the idea that a missile hit it instead of a plane is so idiotic that it doesn't get anywhere near as much expert attention from experts.
Not everything needs to be so black and white. It's as if a line has been drawn with so many who are either unwilling or simply refuse to be impartial and objective with this. For them it's, 'you're either with us or against us'. I say bull****! And that was my point to Cochrane.Who's talking about black and white? If anything it's the conspiracy theorists that espouse this view more as with them, and I speak from personal experience here, you've either "opened your eyes" (if you believe the conspiracies) or you're just a mindless sheep believing government propaganda (if you don't believe them). Pretty much every 9/11 "truther" I've ever encountered has accused me of believing everything the government says as soon as I make it known that I don't subscribe to the conspiracy theories. They don't even give me a chance to explain that my knowledge on 9/11 doesn't come from any government but from my own research into the topic.
The proliferation of these conspiracies actually unwittingly benefits the American government, as they help to cover up the real issue - the poor standard of aviation security at the time.
I do not wear blinkers, I will at least look at all the evidence both 'official story' which by the way stinks to high heaven when you consider the buildings were insured for billions (payed in the event of a terrorist attack), only a few months before the attack.Yeah, right...
When you resort to using coincidences to support your theory, you really don't do yourself any favors.
I then look at the 'truthers' evidence and see buildings demolished through controlled demolision, especially that of buiding 7 that was hardly ever touched (a few fires), yet told to be 'pulled', another word for demolision.
Yes, I look at the evidence, and see an inside job. Full stop.Clearly you haven't looked at the evidence, as anyone who's done even the most basic research into this subject would know that WTC 7 got hit pretty badly. Conspiracy theorists such as yourself look at a couple of pictures and conclude that the fires weren't that big, but actually, they were. Not to mention the simple logical fallacy - why would the government blow up an entire building and risk exposing the conspiracy?
Your "evidence" on WTC 7 has always been particularly flimsy. For example "pull it" has never been an industry term for demolition. That is a fact. The term "pull it" actually referred to pulling firefighters out of the building.
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/larrysilverstein%27s%22pullit%22quote
It really pisses me off when people try to pass off an outright lie as a fact.
So much for looking at all the evidence...
patriots88888
24-11-11, 23:14
Actually, the most logical starting point is to look at the event in isolation, that way bias is less likely to creep in. Having said that, if people want to believe the US government/Israel was behind it then they'll believe it no matter what, as has been clearly demonstrated on the internet time and time again.
Actually no, as it was the assigned responsibility of NIST whose conclusions have been shown to be suspect at best (not to mention contradictory, as they changed their official findings once they were shown to be inconsistent). The logical follow-up would be to examine and scrutinize these conclusions if those findings have been shown to be in error (which they were).
The majority of experts agree with the "official" version. Like with any event, there are always going to be some who disagree, but the general consensus among the experts is that the Twin Towers collapsed as a result of the intense fires raging in the building, which we were further intensified by the thousands of gallons of jet fuel that were seeping down the buildings.
And it has been shown that those intense fires did not reach sufficient temps to cause the supports and connections to fail in the manner which they did. It's also been shown that the vast majority of jet fuel was blown out/incinerated upon impact. What was actually seeping down the buildings has been shown to be molten iron, which could only have reached that state with the aid of incendiary devices. Any fires from jet fuel would not have been sufficiently hot enough to cause this to happen.
And no, steel doesn't need to be melted for a building to collapse before something brings that old chestnut up. As for the Pentagon, the idea that a missile hit it instead of a plane is so idiotic that it doesn't get anywhere near as much expert attention from experts.
The data clearly shows a total symmetric collapse (not just 'any collapse'), which is only found in a controlled demolition. As for the Pentagon, the expert testimony that I refer to did not cover that. These were experts in architecture of high rise structures so it only stands to reason that they would not.
Who's talking about black and white? If anything it's the conspiracy theorists that espouse this view more as with them, and I speak from personal experience here, you've either "opened your eyes" (if you believe the conspiracies) or you're just a mindless sheep believing government propaganda (if you don't believe them). Pretty much every 9/11 "truther" I've ever encountered has accused me of believing everything the government says as soon as I make it known that I don't subscribe to the conspiracy theories. They don't even give me a chance to explain that my knowledge on 9/11 doesn't come from any government but from my own research into the topic.
I do not know (nor care) where or how this 'truther' label started. What I do know is that much of the official explanation has been shown by these experts to be in error in accordance to physics... the symmetrical free fall manner in which all 3 towers collapsed (if not impossible, highly unlikely), the total failure of 400+ connections all within seconds of one another (again, highly unlikely), among various other inconsistencies which should (and does) raise the appropriate scrutinizing and re-examination of such.
The proliferation of these conspiracies actually unwittingly benefits the American government, as they help to cover up the real issue - the poor standard of aviation security at the time.
Actually, the poor standards of security in general... there's no doubt in my mind that some type of incendiary device(s) had to be used and were placed within these towers. That does not mean that those incendiary agents/devices were necessarily placed there as part of an 'inside job'. That is an example of this 'black and white' attitude which I refer to.
Actually no, as it was the assigned responsibility of NIST whose conclusions have been shown to be suspect at best (not to mention contradictory, as they changed their official findings once they were shown to be inconsistent). The logical follow-up would be to examine and scrutinize these conclusions if those findings have been shown to be in error (which they were).Nope, it's only logical to the look at the incident in isolation instead of trying to find holes in the "official" theory.
And it has been shown that those intense fires did not reach sufficient temps to cause the supports and connections to fail in the manner which they did. It's also been shown that the vast majority of jet fuel was blown out/incinerated upon impact. What was actually seeping down the buildings has been shown to be molten iron, which could only have reached that state with the aid of incendiary devices. Any fires from jet fuel would not have been sufficiently hot enough to cause this to happen.
The data clearly shows a total symmetric collapse (not just 'any collapse'), which is only found in a controlled demolition. As for the Pentagon, the expert testimony that I refer to did not cover that. These were experts in architecture of high rise structures so it only stands to reason that they would not.
I do not know (nor care) where or how this 'truther' label started. What I do know is that much of the official explanation has been shown by these experts to be in error in accordance to physics... the symmetrical free fall manner in which all 3 towers collapsed (if not impossible, highly unlikely), the total failure of 400+ connections all within seconds of one another (again, highly unlikely), among various other inconsistencies which should (and does) raise the appropriate scrutinizing and re-examination of such.I'll refer you to this website for these
http://www.debunking911.com/
I know it's a bit lazy of me just redirecting you to a website, but I really don't have the time to explain for the 50th time why the conspiracies are BS. All of the myths perpetuated by "truth" movemnet have been debunked.
Also, with regards to experts, you'll find just as many if not more who support the "official" theory.
Actually, the poor standards of security in general... there's no doubt in my mind that some type of incendiary device(s) had to be used and were placed within these towers. That does not mean that those incendiary agents/devices were necessarily placed there as part of an 'inside job'. That is an example of this 'black and white' attitude which I refer to.I've not heard one person talk about how explosives allegedly brought down the towers without also mentioning how it was the government/Israel that did it, so it's only safe to assume that when someone says they believe explosives brought down the towers, they're inferring that it was an inside job.
So are you telling me that the terrorists managed to plant explosives in the World Trade Center buildings?
patriots88888
24-11-11, 23:45
Nope, it's only logical to the look at the incident in isolation instead of trying to find holes in the "official" theory.
I'll refer you to this website for these
http://www.debunking911.com/
I know it's a bit lazy of me just redirecting you to a website, but I really don't have the time to explain for the 50th time why the conspiracies are BS. All of the myths perpetuated by "truth" movemnet have been debunked.
Also, with regards to experts, you'll find just as many if not more who support the "official" theory.
I have read up on most of the links which you provided, which either...
A: Further support the findings by the experts in the video I posted
and/or
B: Do not sufficiently debunk anything.
I've not heard one person talk about how explosives allegedly brought down the towers without also mentioning how it was the government/Israel that did it, so it's only safe to assume that when someone says they believe explosives brought down the towers, they're inferring that it was an inside job
So are you telling me that the terrorists managed to plant explosives in the World Trade Center buildings?
Why would it necessarily have to be terrorists?
I have read up on most of the links which you provided, which either...
A: Further support the findings by the experts in the video I posted
and/or
B: Do not sufficiently debunk anything.I guess the mind sees what it wants to see.
Why would it necessarily have to be terrorists?If not the government or terrorists, then who?
patriots88888
25-11-11, 00:55
I guess the mind sees what it wants to see.
What I am having most trouble with is this: The experts I have been referring to would either have some hidden agenda or were either misinformed and/or lacked the necessary vital data to draw their conclusions. What's so troubling about that is that I find it difficult to believe they would so willingly place their reputations as experts in their field on the line if such is the case. Is it impossible to believe they could be wrong/misinformed/etc...? No, just not likely (especially when taking into consideration the credentials of theses experts). These aren't just some random, off-the-street joes spouting their two cents.
If not the government or terrorists, then who?
I do not know, and for me to suggest any specific person(s) would only be speculation without basis on my part (or anyone else's who feels the same). However, I don't believe it necessary to be as black and white as either 'terrorists' or 'government inside job'.
What I am having most trouble with is this: The experts I have been referring to would either have some hidden agenda or were either misinformed and/or lacked the necessary vital data to draw their conclusions. What's so troubling about that is that I find it difficult to believe they would so willingly place their reputations as experts in their field on the line if such is the case. Is it impossible to believe they could be wrong/misinformed/etc...? No, just not likely (especially when taking into consideration the credentials of theses experts). These aren't just some random, off-the-street joes spouting their two cents.I wouldn't be surprised if some of them had hidden agendas. I don't think they're lying just wrong.
As I said, there are plenty of experts that dispute the claims of these other experts.
I do not know, and for me to suggest any specific person(s) would only be speculation without basis on my part (or anyone else's who feels the same). However, I don't believe it necessary to be as black and white as either 'terrorists' or 'government inside job'.It's got nothing to do with black and white. As far as 9/11 is concerned there are only two options.
That said though, this is all irrelevant as there were no explosives in the towers and this has been proven. There's also the small fact that logically, the conspiracy doesn't make sense.
The Great Chi
25-11-11, 09:50
......That said though, this is all irrelevant as there were no explosives in the towers and this has been proven....That statment you just made has not been proven, as it is all part of the lies.
There were explosive chemical traces found at the site and surrounding area by landing on other buildings roofs, there was also pictures of angled cut beams using shaped charge explosives to make the building fall, there was explosive plumes going off on each floor in a pattern of controlled demolision, as seen when each tower supposidly 'collapsed by plane'. Debris was thrown out a lot further due to explosives. I could go on. It was explosives !
Also the most important incriminating fact was all the remaining steelwork lying on the ground in the rubble, was shipped off abroad, real double quick for smelting down. Hence trying to get rid of the evidence fast.
That statment you just made has not been proven, as it is all part of the lies.
There were explosive chemical traces found at the site and surrounding area by landing on other buildings roofs, there was also pictures of angled cut beams using shaped charge explosives to make the building fall, there was explosive plumes going off on each floor in a pattern of controlled demolision, as seen when each tower supposidly 'collapsed by plane'. Debris was thrown out a lot further due to explosives. I could go on. It was explosives !
Also the most important incriminating fact was all the remaining steelwork lying on the ground in the rubble, was shipped off abroad, real double quick for smelting down. Hence trying to get rid of the evidence fast.It's all been debunked. Go and look it up for yourself.
Again, I think people forget with whom the burden of proof lies on some of these matters.
So... for example, in a court of law - it's not up to the defendant to prove they are innocent, it is up to the prosecution. Ie, the one's with the claims.
The defendant (if they're smart) will find ways to poke holes in the evidence of the prosecution, but they are not obliged to. The burden of proof falls entirely with the prosecution. Also, the defendant does not have to come up with an alternative plausible scenario when showing the prosecution's evidence is wrong - merely that it is wrong.
With 911 - it's not up to the skeptics to the dogma to provide a plausible counter scenario that makes sense or is logical, they merely have to show that there are problems with the evidence of the accepted dogma.
But what is the "dogma" and who are the "skeptics" in these scenarios?
Here's my answer to my question: :D
JFK
The dogmatist viewpoint is that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK. The burden of proof lies with the US Government, not the naysayers who say LHO wasn't there, etc.
Some people say the CIA are responsible, in which case the burden of proof for that scenerio lies with them. But it is not necessary to provide an alternative proposal to legitimately be a skeptic against the dogmatist viewpoint that LHO assassinated JFK.
911
The dogmatist viewpoint is that some Arab terrorists under the control of Osama Bin Laden hijacked some planes and then flew them into various buildings.
The skeptic in this scenerio is the one that doesn't believe this viewpoint. The burden of proof that these events actually happened this way lies with the US government.
Area 51
The burden of proof lies with the conspiracy theorists who claim that alien aircraft are being held here. The skeptic in this case is the one who believes it is merely a military base, albeit one of high secrecy and technology.
Moon Landings
The dogma is that the moon landings took place. The burden of proof lies with NASA who claim they got astronauts up there. The skeptics are the ones who dispute this.
Princess Diana
This is a tricky one. The dogma is that it was a nasty accident and so naturally the officialdom behind that should supply proof that it was only a nasty accident. At the same time, there are those who are convinced it was a murder, and they equally are obliged to provide proof that supports that theory. It just seems more intertwined than the others. Because showing something wasn't a nasty accident has the only other option of murder (or joint suicide).
Anyway, that's my view. That doesn't necessarily mean I agree with the dogma view or the skeptic view, but I think it's important to understand where the burden of proof actually lies in these things.
It seems to me that some people seem to think that the only way a skeptics to the dogmatist viewpoint can prove the orthodox view is wrong is for them to provide an alternative plausible option, but it isn't. All they need to prove is that what is being put forward cannot be true. And that's where the discussion should start from over what is truth and what isn't.
Another thing Russell cautioned against was: Just because the existence of a teapot is affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school (or seen on TV, told to us in the newspapers or from politicians mouths...) doesn't mean to say it's the truth. And doesn't mean to say that people who dispute the existence of the teapot should be sent to see a psychiatrist or the inquisitor.
It's not that I think conspiracy theorists are right always (although personally I love it when there's some meat behind the idea) but I do worry that they get dismissed by the ones who were told the teapot existed at Sunday school or in ancient books, just a little bit too quickly.
:) Sorry, such a long post.
The Great Chi
25-11-11, 13:18
It's all been debunked. Go and look it up for yourself.Of course they would try and debunk it, they do not want us knowing explosives brought these buildings down. That would mean an inside job.
You are just going round in circles with your adherance to the official story, round and round, giving all sorts of debunking answers, desperately trying to cling to whats is told to you as the 'official story', because if it is not, then your neat little world will be shattered.
Mind you it would affect a former President and a former Prime Minister more, as they would be brought up on war crimes of creating illegal wars, if it is proved its an inside job.
The jury is not out on this story yet ;)
I'm sorry Blackmoor but I think that's absolutely ridiculous. It just doesn't work like that. When you make a radical claim (e.g. we didn't land on the moon or 9/11 wasn't carried out by 19 terrorists acting on behalf of Bin Laden) the burden of proof is on you, not the other way around.
For example, I'm a Christian but even I except that the burden of proof lies with us to prove God exists (although religion is a little different to the examples given here). So basically what you're doing is tantamount to a Christian saying the burden of proof is on non-believers to disprove the existence of God.
Of course they would try and debunk it, they do not want us knowing explosives brought these buildings down. That would mean an inside job.
You are just going round in circles with your adherance to the official story, round and round, giving all sorts of debunking answers, desperately trying to cling to whats is told to you as the 'official story', because if it is not, then your neat little world will be shattered.
Mind you it would affect a former President and a former Prime Minister more, as they would be brought up on war crimes of creating illegal wars, if it is proved its an inside job.
The jury is not out on this story yet ;)Who are "they"? There are plenty of independent sources on this. Or are "they" all in on it too? Are we all just government misinformation agents?
Yep, there you go again with the "official story" crap. I keep telling you I've researched this on my own and come to my own conclusions. Based on the evidence I've seen and simple logic, I don't believe there is any inside job. Not everybody is as deluded and paranoid as yourself, get over it.
The Great Chi
25-11-11, 13:35
Yep, there you go again with the "official story" crap. I keep telling you I've researched this on my own and come to my own conclusions. Based on the evidence I've seen and simple logic, I don't believe there is any inside job. Not everybody is as deluded and paranoid as yourself, get over it.You are going round in circles, get over it ;)
I'm sorry Blackmoor but I think that's absolutely ridiculous. It just doesn't work like that. When you make a radical claim (e.g. we didn't land on the moon or 9/11 wasn't carried out by 19 terrorists acting on behalf of Bin Laden) the burden of proof is on you, not the other way around.
For example, I'm a Christian but even I except that the burden of proof lies with us to prove God exists (although religion is a little different to the examples given here). So basically what you're doing is tantamount to a Christian saying the burden of proof is on non-believers to disprove the existence of God.Don't you see - making the claim that you landed on the moon is the radical claim not the other way around!
Just because we've been told it (...the teapot is in all the books, told to schoolchildren, etc) doesn't mean the idea isn't radical and that the burden of proof doesn't lie there.
I think we have to go careful here with just because we think the proof we've seen is sufficient (you obviously think the proof you've seen for the moon landings is sufficient) that it somehow means the burden of proof switches over to the other side.
That's not true.
And that's what this thread is all about - looking at accepted without thinking, orthodox views - where people get confused over where the burden of proof lies for stating such a thing.
With the moon landings - the burden of proof lies with NASA.
I mean it is so easily analogous to the very example that Russell himself gives: "If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit..."
Anyone can say they went to moon. I did it last week actually... The burden of proof lies with them to show it.
And as Russell says: Even if the assertion cannot be disproved, you cannot say - it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it (which is how a lot of arguing against the moon landings goes!!).
The Great Chi
25-11-11, 13:45
With the moon landings - the burden of proof lies with NASA.......We have to consider that this is the most epic and wonderful moment of USA supremacy of technology to be able to put men on the moon. How dare anyone say we never landed there.
PS......This is an easy one to find out the answer. Train the Hubble telescope on the moon landing areas and lets see those lunar rovers, the Stars and stripes flag, and the lower bases of the lunar lander which they blasted off from.
PPS....Have we seen these pictures yet ?
Ward Dragon
25-11-11, 13:47
I think we have to go careful here with just because we think the proof we've seen is sufficient (you obviously think the proof you've seen for the moon landings is sufficient) that it somehow means the burden of proof switches over to the other side.
That's not true.
I disagree. If one side provides evidence and makes a convincing case, then they've already met the burden of proof. It then falls to the other side to provide evidence to the contrary if they want to get taken seriously.
With the moon example, we have video, samples taken from the moon, and other scientific readings showing that the moon landing happened. Now the burden of proof is on the "skeptics" to show that NASA's evidence is fabricated. In the forty years since the moon landing, the "skeptics" have not been able to convincingly show that the evidence is fabricated, so the rational conclusion is to think that the moon landing happened.
We have to consider that this is the most epic and wonderful moment of USA supremacy of technology to be able to put men on the moon. How dare anyone say we never landed there.
PS......This is an easy one to find out the answer. Train the Hubble telescope on the moon landing areas and lets see those lunar rovers, the Stars and stripes flag, and the lower bases of the lunar lander which they blasted off from.
PPS....Have we seen these pictures yet ?
Even if they did that, you'd just say the new pictures are fake too :p I mean, if you don't trust NASA's video of the moon landing, then why would you trust NASA's telescope pictures?
Don't you see - making the claim that you landed on the moon is the radical claim not the other way around!
Just because we've been told it (...the teapot is in all the books, told to schoolchildren, etc) doesn't mean the idea isn't radical and that the burden of proof doesn't lie there.
I think we have to go careful here with just because we think the proof we've seen is sufficient (you obviously think the proof you've seen for the moon landings is sufficient) that it somehow means the burden of proof switches over to the other side.
That's not true.
And that's what this thread is all about - looking at accepted without thinking, orthodox views - where people get confused over where the burden of proof lies for stating such a thing.
With the moon landings - the burden of proof lies with NASA.
I mean it is so easily analogous to the very example that Russell himself gives: "If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit..."
Anyone can say they went to moon. I did it last week actually... The burden of proof lies with them to show it.
And as Russell says: Even if the assertion cannot be disproved, you cannot say - it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it (which is how a lot of arguing against the moon landings goes!!).Well in the beginning the burden of proof would've been on NASA, but they, along with other experts, have already proven it beyond reasonable doubt, so the burden of proof the shifts onto the tinfoil hat brigade.
You are going round in circles, get over it ;)Yes, talking to a conspiracy theorist is very much like going round in circles, although I'd compare it more to banging the head against a brick wall.
The Great Chi
25-11-11, 13:58
Princess Diana
This is a tricky one. The dogma is that it was a nasty accident and so naturally the officialdom behind that should supply proof that it was only a nasty accident. At the same time, there are those who are convinced it was a murder, and they equally are obliged to provide proof that supports that theory. It just seems more intertwined than the others. Because showing something wasn't a nasty accident has the only other option of murder (or joint suicide)......The problem with the Lady Di 'accident' is not that of looking for proof any more. Peoples minds are already set on the subject.
You have those whos minds are set on it just being an accident and others whos minds are set to believe that she was 'murdered to look like an accident' because of one or a number of reasons....
The UK royal family would be embarassed by Diana marrying an Arab, they would never have accepted such an event.
The possabilty of having a baby by Dodi which was hinted at, would be another embarassment to UK royalty.
Diana's campaign against world Landmines would also expose her to assasination by powerful organisations.
Princess Diana was never assassinated. The burden of proof is on those claiming she was.
I disagree. If one side provides evidence and makes a convincing case, then they've already met the burden of proof. It then falls to the other side to provide evidence to the contrary if they want to get taken seriously.
With the moon example, we have video, samples taken from the moon, and other scientific readings showing that the moon landing happened. Now the burden of proof is on the "skeptics" to show that NASA's evidence is fabricated. In the forty years since the moon landing, the "skeptics" have not been able to convincingly show that the evidence is fabricated, so the rational conclusion is to think that the moon landing happened.Well I think some people would argue that they have shown certain bits of evidence were fabricated, but that's not the point of this debate.
I'm afraid I agree with Russell on this - it doesn't matter if it's accepted wisdom (either due to being written in books, etc, etc) the point is the burden of proof stays with person who is asserting the claim. If someone comes up with a reason why they think it's wrong - then it's up to the person who made the original claim to answer.
In the case of the moon landings - the skeptic in this scenerio is the one the disputes the "official story". They are merely required to state that flaws (as they see them) in the evidence. It's NASAs job to demonstrate beyond doubt that they did what they claim they did.
For you - the evidence they supplied is enough. For others - not so.
Like Russell says, the skeptic may not be able to disprove the assertion, but then goes on to say:
"But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense." That's why the burden of proof lies with the original claimant - just because the skeptic cannot disprove an assertion by someone else, it doesn't mean it's wrong to have doubt.
Again, I think people forget with whom the burden of proof lies on some of these matters.
So... for example, in a court of law - it's not up to the defendant to prove they are innocent, it is up to the prosecution. Ie, the one's with the claims.
The defendant (if they're smart) will find ways to poke holes in the evidence of the prosecution, but they are not obliged to. The burden of proof falls entirely with the prosecution. Also, the defendant does not have to come up with an alternative plausible scenario when showing the prosecution's evidence is wrong - merely that it is wrong.
That sounds good, but it really isn't helpful at all. We are not talking about court trials here. There is no danger that an innocent person gets their life destroyed based on our collective opinion about the moon landings. And we are not looking for one side to win and the other to loose; the goal is to find a common truth that all can agree on. So court-room definitions do not really work here. As I said before, the whole concept of burden of proof does not really help anyone here. Everyone should be able to back their opinion up with some evidence, and any argument that can be proven to be wrong is wrong, no matter who said it.
But what is the "dogma" and who are the "skeptics" in these scenarios?
Here's my answer to my question: :D
JFK
The dogmatist viewpoint is that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK. The burden of proof lies with the US Government, not the naysayers who say LHO wasn't there, etc.
Some people say the CIA are responsible, in which case the burden of proof for that scenerio lies with them. But it is not necessary to provide an alternative proposal to legitimately be a skeptic against the dogmatist viewpoint that LHO assassinated JFK.
911
The dogmatist viewpoint is that some Arab terrorists under the control of Osama Bin Laden hijacked some planes and then flew them into various buildings.
The skeptic in this scenerio is the one that doesn't believe this viewpoint. The burden of proof that these events actually happened this way lies with the US government.
Area 51
The burden of proof lies with the conspiracy theorists who claim that alien aircraft are being held here. The skeptic in this case is the one who believes it is merely a military base, albeit one of high secrecy and technology.
Moon Landings
The dogma is that the moon landings took place. The burden of proof lies with NASA who claim they got astronauts up there. The skeptics are the ones who dispute this.
Princess Diana
This is a tricky one. The dogma is that it was a nasty accident and so naturally the officialdom behind that should supply proof that it was only a nasty accident. At the same time, there are those who are convinced it was a murder, and they equally are obliged to provide proof that supports that theory. It just seems more intertwined than the others. Because showing something wasn't a nasty accident has the only other option of murder (or joint suicide).
Anyway, that's my view. That doesn't necessarily mean I agree with the dogma view or the skeptic view, but I think it's important to understand where the burden of proof actually lies in these things.
It seems to me that some people seem to think that the only way a skeptics to the dogmatist viewpoint can prove the orthodox view is wrong is for them to provide an alternative plausible option, but it isn't. All they need to prove is that what is being put forward cannot be true. And that's where the discussion should start from over what is truth and what isn't.
I've thought long and hard about why in Area 51, it's the conspiracy theorists that have the burden of proof, while in all other cases it's the government. And finally I realized: In all the cases you say are "dogma", someone already has provided the evidence you say they have to provide. There are official reports about JFK, 9/11, Princess Diana and the moon landing. There is a recent official statement by the US government that Area 51 has no aliens, but no official report about what is really going on there.
You are right when you say (in the later post) that NASA is making an extraordinary claim when they say they went up to the moon, and have to provide evidence for that. And NASA did provide that evidence. The FBI provided evidence for the theory that JFK was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald, the french police provided evidence for what happened to Diana, it's all there. This is not actually dogma, in my opinion.
So the conspiracy theorists are not just arguing against the explanation, they also have to argue that the evidence provided by the official side is wrong or not sufficient. This can and does happen, of course. But I think for that claim, the burden of proof lies very much with the ones making it, not with the government.
Another thing Russell cautioned against was: Just because the existence of a teapot is affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school (or seen on TV, told to us in the newspapers or from politicians mouths...) doesn't mean to say it's the truth. And doesn't mean to say that people who dispute the existence of the teapot should be sent to see a psychiatrist or the inquisitor.
It's not that I think conspiracy theorists are right always (although personally I love it when there's some meat behind the idea) but I do worry that they get dismissed by the ones who were told the teapot existed at Sunday school or in ancient books, just a little bit too quickly.
:) Sorry, such a long post.
Russel's teapot is not a good analogy, because it was, by definition, impossible to prove. This isn't the case here. There is no reason why we can prove what really happened on the moon or in that Paris underpass beyond a reasonable doubt (I think we already have, but that's not really relevant here). What we're talking about here is not the existence of a teapot, but the geological composition of Phobos.
We have to consider that this is the most epic and wonderful moment of USA supremacy of technology to be able to put men on the moon. How dare anyone say we never landed there.
PS......This is an easy one to find out the answer. Train the Hubble telescope on the moon landing areas and lets see those lunar rovers, the Stars and stripes flag, and the lower bases of the lunar lander which they blasted off from.
PPS....Have we seen these pictures yet ?
I think we do have pictures taken from earth that show these things. NASA also left equipment on the moon, the presence of which can be tested from earth - for example a retroreflector that can be used to measure the distance from the earth to the moon - send a laser beam there and wait until you receive it back, then multiply with c, and you got the distance. Other lunar probes also found evidence of the moon landings.
The Great Chi
25-11-11, 14:05
....Even if they did that, you'd just say the new pictures are fake too :p I mean, if you don't trust NASA's video of the moon landing, then why would you trust NASA's telescope pictures?Ha Ha, a very good point.
I actually do believe that we did land on the moon but we do need proof that all that equipment is still lying there.
Actually, there is one form of proof and that is one or more of the landings left a large mirror on the surface facing Earth, so that a laser could be fired at it from the earth, and measur ethe distance between. The laboratory in the USA that measures this, say it is still functioning to this day. Is that proof enough ? or do we need to send some Japanese up there to take photos :D
Ward Dragon
25-11-11, 14:06
Well I think some people would argue that they have shown certain bits of evidence were fabricated, but that's not the point of this debate.
I'm afraid I agree with Russell on this - it doesn't matter if it's accepted wisdom (either due to being written in books, etc, etc) the point is the burden of proof stays with person who is asserting the claim. If someone comes up with a reason why they think it's wrong - then it's up to the person who made the original claim to answer.
In the case of the moon landings - the skeptic in this scenerio is the one the disputes the "official story". They are merely required to state that flaws (as they see them) in the evidence. It's NASAs job to demonstrate beyond doubt that they did what they claim they did.
For you - the evidence they supplied is enough. For others - not so.
Like Russell says, the skeptic may not be able to disprove the assertion, but then goes on to say:
"But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense." That's why the burden of proof lies with the original claimant - just because the skeptic cannot disprove an assertion by someone else, it doesn't mean it's wrong to have doubt.
But we're not talking about a nebulous claim like "God exists" which has no tangible evidence to support it. That was what Russell was directing his comments towards. In the case of all of these conspiracy theories, the "official" version has tons of evidence to support it and is widely accepted as true due to all of the evidence, not due to dogmatic teaching and intolerance of questions. That's why in these cases, the "dogmatic" view belongs to the conspiracy theorists who accept on blind faith that the official version has to be wrong and then desperately look for any modicum of evidence that might support their claim. The burden of proof is on the conspiracy theorists to show they have a point.
The Great Chi
25-11-11, 14:10
....I think we do have pictures taken from earth that show these things. NASA also left equipment on the moon, the presence of which can be tested from earth - for example a retroreflector that can be used to measure the distance from the earth to the moon - send a laser beam there and wait until you receive it back, then multiply with c, and you got the distance. Other lunar probes also found evidence of the moon landings.Can you link to these pictures ?
The laser beam distance measurement - I just mentioned also at the same time :D
But we're not talking about a nebulous claim like "God exists" which has no tangible evidence to support it. That was what Russell was directing his comments towards. In the case of all of these conspiracy theories, the "official" version has tons of evidence to support it and is widely accepted at true due to all of the evidence, not due to dogmatic teaching and intolerance of questions. That's why in these cases, the "dogmatic" view belongs to the conspiracy theorists who accept on blind faith that the official version has to be wrong and then desperately look for any modicum of evidence that might support their claim. The burden of proof is on the conspiracy theorists to show they have a point.He didn't use a nebulous example - he used a very specific kind of example, which is very similar to claiming landing on the moon.
This is logical reasoning that applies to the burden of proof in all cases, not some special types. (Of course, we can always dispute Russell - no-one is infallible! :D)
This is about where the burden of proof lies, not with whether the case has been proven. They're not the same, are they not?
If the conspiracy theorists can find gaps in the evidence of the person putting forward assertions, it doesn't mean they've proved their point, only that the original person putting forward their point hasn't proven that.
Eg, if a skeptic finds a flaw in the NASA evidence, it doesn't automatically mean that the moon landings didn't happen. It means the case isn't proven. They're not the same thing.
Spot on as usual Cochrane. We may disagree politically but as far as common sense and logic go we're exactly the same.
Ward Dragon
25-11-11, 14:17
He didn't use a nebulous example - he used a very specific kind of example, which is very similar to claiming landing on the moon.
This is logical reasoning that applies to the burden of proof in all cases, not some special types. (Of course, we can always dispute Russell - no-one is infallible! :D)
This is about where the burden of proof lies, not with whether the case has been proven. They're not the same, are they not?
If they conspiracy theories can find gaps in the evidence of the person putting forward assertions, it doesn't mean they've proved their point, only that the original person putting forward their point hasn't proven that.
Eg, if a skeptic finds a flaw in the NASA evidence, it doesn't automatically mean that the moon landings didn't happen. It means the case isn't proven. They're not the same thing.
Russell was specifically addressing the existence of God, and he constructed his teapot example specifically such that there could never be any supporting evidence for it. He was trying to show that in a case where there is no evidence, the burden of proof falls on the person making the claim.
However, in all of these cases you've mentioned, there is plenty of evidence. The "official" side has already met their burden of proof by providing convincing evidence to support their claims. They might not be right, but they will never be disproven unless the conspiracy theorists provide convincing evidence to the contrary. Thus the burden of proof lies with the conspiracy theorists to show why their version of events is a better explanation than the official version.
Russell was specifically addressing the existence of God, and he constructed his teapot example specifically such that there could never be any supporting evidence for it. He was trying to show that in a case where there is no evidence, the burden of proof falls on the person making the claim.
However, in all of these cases you've mentioned, there is plenty of evidence. The "official" side has already met their burden of proof by providing convincing evidence to support their claims. They might not be right, but they will never be disproven unless the conspiracy theorists provide convincing evidence to the contrary. Thus the burden of proof lies with the conspiracy theorists to show why their version of events is a better explanation than the official version.That's your viewpoint and I accept that, but the question here is not whether they have met the burden of proof, it's who the burden of proof lies with. It lies with NASA.
You think they've met that burden of proof and others don't. I get that some people will never be convinced, but that doesn't mean to say that the burden of proof doesn't lie with the person stating what they've done.
Edit:
The burden of proof for the moon landings lies with NASA.
The burden of proof that NASA has fabricated evidence lies with those that claim that.
Is that better?
/edit
As for Russell's example - you're right it was originally set up as a thought exercise for religion, but the point I was making is that - he used an example that wasn't nebulous and this allows us to apply that directly in order to think about these particular scenerios. And, he certaintly was not advocating that talking about God required a special kind of reasoning.
You think they've met that burden of proof and others don't. I get that some people will never be convinced, but that doesn't mean to say that the burden of proof doesn't lie with the person stating what they've done.Most people feel NASA have met that burden of proof. It's only a minority who don't. So if a few people disputed the evidence put forward for gravity, would the burden of proof lie with the scientists who have proved its existence or the people who don't believe in it? Your logic would seem to suggest that the burden of proof would lie with the former.
Most people feel NASA have met that burden of proof. It's only a minority who don't. So if a few people disputed the evidence put forward for gravity, would the burden of proof lie with the scientists who have proved its existence or the people who don't believe in it? Your logic would seem to suggest that the burden of proof would lie with the former.Find out the figures and lets discuss it. I have a feeling that you'll be surprised at how many are "uncertain" about the moon landings.
Also, another Bertrand Russell quote (don't hate me :p, he's just so good at these)
If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it's still a foolish thing
The number of believers (either way - for or against) is irrelevant. Although interesting, so I'd love to see some recent figures.
----
Edit: Sorry forgot to add this.
Things in the scientific community - eg, gravity - are always up for dispute. When they use empirical evidence to make their points (ie, like photos, data from rocks, etc), the burden of proof is on them always. And, what's interesting is the amount of times they falsify data or make mistakes that are later challenged.
I suppose the point that you and Ward are making is that certain theories eventually become accepted as "fact" - the prevailing paradigm, that in the absence of evidence to the contrary are believed and accepted.
This is true to some degree. But doesn't quite work in the same way as what we're discussing. Because to overcome an existing paradigm often scientists come up with new scenerios to replace it - for these of course the burden of proof lies with them. In the same way that those who say the CIA, rather than Lee Harvey Oswald, killed JFK - the burden of proof lies with them.
However, it doesn't stop evidence accumulating all the time that shows that an existing paradigm is not correct. And it is this kind of challenge that actually starts the shift for the scientific community to look for alternative new paradigms, because the existing one is doubtful.
Ward Dragon
25-11-11, 14:33
That's your viewpoint and I accept that, but the question here is not whether they have met the burden of proof, it's who the burden of proof lies with. It lies with NASA.
You think they've met that burden of proof and others don't. I get that some people will never be convinced, but that doesn't mean to say that the burden of proof doesn't lie with the person stating what they've done.
To go with the court case example, initially the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to prove their charges. If the prosecution makes a really compelling case, then the burden of proof switches to the defense lawyer to try to create enough reasonable doubt that the jury doesn't convict the defendant.
The burden of proof for the moon landings lies with NASA.
The burden of proof that NASA has fabricated evidence lies with those that claim that.
Is that better?
I suppose.
As for Russell's example - you're right it was originally set up as a thought exercise for religion, but the point I was making is that - he used an example that wasn't nebulous and this allows us to apply that directly in order to think about these particular scenerios. And, he certaintly was not advocating that talking about God required a special kind of reasoning.
The teapot was defined such that there could never be any evidence for its existence. That's why I consider it to be nebulous. What are the properties of a teapot that can never be seen? What effect does it have on anything? It's deliberately vague. I'm certain that Russell's intention was to warn against blindly believing things without any supporting evidence. As such, I think that these dogmatic conspiracy theories are more along the lines of what Russell was cautioning against because they ignore all available evidence in favor of their own version of the truth which makes for a better story than reality.
Find out the figures and lets discuss it. I have a feeling that you'll be surprised at how many are "uncertain" about the moon landings.I'm aware that there are a few nutters out there, but it's pretty safe to say that the majority of people accept that we went to the moon.
Things in the scientific community - eg, gravity - are always up for dispute. When they use empirical evidence to make their points (ie, like photos, data from rocks, etc), the burden of proof is on them always. And, what's interesting is the amount of times they falsify data or make mistakes that are later challenged.So if I were to claim that gravity doesn't exist (despite all the evidence to the contrary) the burden of proof wouldn't be on me?
Ward Dragon
25-11-11, 14:44
I'm aware that there are a few nutters out there, but it's pretty safe to say that the majority of people accept that we went to the moon.
So if I were to claim that gravity doesn't exist (despite all the evidence to the contrary) the burden of proof wouldn't be on me?
Exactly :p As I understand it, dogmatic does not mean widely believed. It means something is taught as fact without supporting evidence and anyone who questions it is punished.
For the most part, that doesn't apply to scientific findings because the whole point of science is to question everything and try to continually add onto and improve the current knowledge base (although there are exceptions when politics get involved, such as with global warming).
And similarly with a lot of these conspiracy theories, the "official" version has a lot of supporting evidence and the government doesn't care what individual people believe, so I don't consider the official version to be dogmatic. Rather it's the conspiracy theories that require ignoring all available evidence and accepting the "hidden truth" on blind faith, so I consider the conspiracy theories to be the dogmatic claims.
To go with the court case example, initially the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to prove their charges. If the prosecution makes a really compelling case, then the burden of proof switches to the defense lawyer to try to create enough reasonable doubt that the jury doesn't convict the defendant.I said that at the beginning in different words. The defense if they have sense will poke holes in the argument of the prosecution - but the burden of proof always lies with prosecution.
The teapot was defined such that there could never be any evidence for its existence. That's why I consider it to be nebulous. What are the properties of a teapot that can never be seen? What effect does it have on anything? It's deliberately vague. I'm certain that Russell's intention was to warn against blindly believing things without any supporting evidence. As such, I think that these dogmatic conspiracy theories are more along the lines of what Russell was cautioning against because they ignore all available evidence in favor of their own version of the truth which makes for a better story than reality.We're all going to see in anything our own interpretations, it's human nature. What's important here is that he provides clarity of thought on how burden of proof should be applied. Why bring dogmatic conspiracy theories in here as if they are the only instances where faulty thinking applies in human kind? The whole point of this thread is to discuss who it applies to and why, and not make prejudgements about "people who believe conspiracy theories" and those that don't. Half the time these conspiracy theorists are legitimately the "skeptics" and not the "blind believers" in the scenerios postulated. And as he said - it is not "intolerable presumption" on the part of "human reason" for them to doubt it.
I'm aware that there are a few nutters out there, but it's pretty safe to say that the majority of people accept that we went to the moon.Get the figures and then lets discuss it.
So if I were to claim that gravity doesn't exist (despite all the evidence to the contrary) the burden of proof wouldn't be on me?It would depend in what way you were stating that gravity doesn't exist. Some scientists actually don't believe it exists - however, it requires clarity of thought and reasoning to take on board the arguments and discuss it.
Get the figures and then lets discuss it.Google it. I just did it and it appears at the most polls have about 25% saying they doubt we went to the moon.
It would depend in what way you were stating that gravity doesn't exist. Some scientists actually don't believe it exists - however, it requires clarity of thought and reasoning to take on board the arguments and discuss it.You didn't answer my question.
Ward Dragon
25-11-11, 15:17
I said that at the beginning in different words. The defense if they have sense will poke holes in the argument of the prosecution - but the burden of proof always lies with prosecution.
If the prosecution has made a really compelling case and met their burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, then I do think that the burden of proof passes to the defense. It's innocent until proven guilty, so once someone has been proven guilty then it's up to them to try to prove otherwise.
Similarly with these examples, the "official" version has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt for most people, so it falls to the skeptics to support their claims with evidence of their own.
We're all going to see in anything our own interpretations, it's human nature. What's important here is that he provides clarity of thought on how burden of proof should be applied. Why bring dogmatic conspiracy theories in here as if they are the only instances where faulty thinking applies in human kind?
Because that's what you made the thread about, applying what Russell said to conspiracy theories. You asked whether it's the official version or the conspiracy theories that are dogmatic and have the burden of proof, so I say it's the conspiracy theories. Obviously Russell was mainly talking about religion, which I could easily get into as well, but it seemed off topic :p
The whole point of this thread is to discuss who it applies to and why, and not make prejudgements about "people who believe conspiracy theories" and those that don't. Half the time these conspiracy theorists are legitimately the "skeptics" and not the "blind believers" in the scenerios postulated. And as he said - it is not "intolerable presumption" on the part of "human reason" for them to doubt it.
I've yet to see a conspiracy theory that offered compelling evidence, whereas the "official versions" have a lot of evidence behind them. Therefore the burden of proof lies with the conspiracy theories to show that they are asking legitimate questions and not just being contrary for the sake of going against the grain.
Google it. I just did it and it appears at the most polls have about 25% saying they doubt we went to the moon. I would have thought it was more in some quarters. Still, interesting.
You didn't answer my question.I simplistic terms - if you were to assert that gravity didn't exist, the burden of proof would be on you. But it's more complicated than that because people don't actually know what gravity is anyway - scientists I mean. They know that we don't fall off the earth - but someone (Newton) had to show that was due to "gravity" (the burden of proof was with him) and how that force looked in action. He never explained what gravity was though, so it's very difficult to say gravity doesn't exist without clarifying exactly what you're talking about.
Ward Dragon
25-11-11, 15:40
I simplistic terms - if you were to assert that gravity didn't exist, the burden of proof would be on you. But it's more complicated than that because people don't actually know what gravity is anyway - scientists I mean. They know that we don't fall off the earth - but someone (Newton) had to show that was due to "gravity" (the burden of proof was with him) and how that force looked in action. He never explained what gravity was though, so it's very difficult to say gravity doesn't exist without clarifying exactly what you're talking about.
If we're still applying what Russell said, then surely the burden of proof would be on scientists to define gravity, not on Mad Tony to prove that an ill-defined concept doesn't exist :p
Anyhow, I think the main point for me is whether the skeptic view provides anything useful. With the gravity example, if Mad Tony provided an alternative to gravity which provided more accurate calculations than the current model, then we'd switch to his version. But if he couldn't improve upon or replace the current model with something better then he'd be ignored unless (or until) someone else came along with a better model.
I view the conspiracy theories the same way. Even if there are aliens at Area 51, what does that matter overall? If someone shows up with alien technology that would obviously be awesome, but until that happens it makes no difference one way or the other whether there are aliens there. So due to absence of proof of the aliens, I'll go with the simplest explanation. I think the government was working on something secret and didn't want the Soviets to find out, so they let everyone think it was aliens to deflect suspicion about what was really going on.
Dennis's Mom
25-11-11, 15:40
The problem with all of the "alternate" theories is that they simply really on the silence and cooperation of too many people, and the after the fact complicity of people who will ask no questions and implement whatever plan(s) the conspirators were aiming for.
The risk is always too great for the outcome. As little as I think of Sarah Palin and as much compelling evidence as there may be, even I can't believe she didn't give birth to that last child because it simply involves too many people who have little reason to be silent about such things.
If the prosecution has made a really compelling case and met their burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, then I do think that the burden of proof passes to the defense. It's innocent until proven guilty, so once someone has been proven guilty then it's up to them to try to prove otherwise.Well it shouldn't fall to the defense, because the burden lies with the prosecution. Quote from Wiki (but there'll be loads of places to find this:) The burden of proof is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the best translation of which seems to be: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges."
Similarly with these examples, the "official" version has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt for most people, so it falls to the skeptics to support their claims with evidence of their own.In your view.
Because that's what you made the thread about, applying what Russell said to conspiracy theories. You asked whether it's the official version or the conspiracy theories that are dogmatic and have the burden of proof, so I say it's the conspiracy theories. Obviously Russell was mainly talking about religion, which I could easily get into as well, but it seemed off topic :p I know what you mean, but I'm trying to have a discussion about burden of proof which keeps to the pure and theoretical, not the expectation we have based on experience.
What I find strange with subjects like this (not referring to you particularly, Ward) is that in that list of conspiracy theories I sometimes take the side of official theory and sometimes don't, but I don't feel the need to assume that those who think otherwise are wrong (they may be right) and I certaintly don't feel they're stupid (Tony...). But often people do. Anyone who doesn't think like me is - bad, mad or stupid - kind of mentality. Frankly that just shows a lack of wisdom and tolerance, imo.
I've yet to see a conspiracy theory that offered compelling evidence, whereas the "official versions" have a lot of evidence behind them. Therefore the burden of proof lies with the conspiracy theories to show that they are asking legitimate questions and not just being contrary for the sake of going against the grain.I respectfully disagree in some key areas, but that's not the point - I asked for people's opinions, whether I like and agree with them or not! :D
Ward Dragon
25-11-11, 15:47
Well it shouldn't fall to the defense, because the burden lies with the prosecution. Quote from Wiki (but there'll be loads of places to find this:)
But once someone has been convicted, then they have to prove they are innocent (or that the prosecution broke the law) in order to appeal their sentence.
In your view.
If the majority of people believed a conspiracy theory, then it wouldn't be a conspiracy theory anymore. It would be the official version :p
What I find strange with subjects like this (not referring to you particularly, Ward) is that in that list of conspiracy theories I sometimes take the side of official theory and sometimes don't, but I don't feel the need to assume that those who think otherwise are wrong (they may be right) and I certaintly don't feel they're stupid (Tony...). But often people do. Anyone who doesn't think like me is - bad, mad or stupid - kind of mentality. Frankly that just shows a lack of wisdom and tolerance, imo.
I kind of addressed this in my previous post which you might not have seen yet (damned load balancing :hea:). If someone is rather rabid about their point of view then that will probably get a negative reaction from me regardless of what their view is, but in general I don't care what other people believe unless they can use their belief to make a difference. If believing what they believe allows them to discover something new, prove something interesting, etc. then more power to them. But as long as it's just a belief that doesn't lead to anything interesting happening, then it seems irrelevant to me.
If we're still applying what Russell said, then surely the burden of proof would be on scientists to define gravity, not on Mad Tony to prove that an ill-defined concept doesn't exist :pI tried to say this was more complicated and that was why I didn't want to get into it. I did say - It would depend in what way you were stating that gravity doesn't exist. Some scientists actually don't believe it exists - however, it requires clarity of thought and reasoning to take on board the arguments and discuss it.
However, he means (surely) that the burden of proof on whether people fall off the planet or not, when he says gravity exists?
So yes, strictly speaking you're right - there is burden of proofs in all different directions in what is being asserted and what isn't for any subject.
I've already given a summary (previously reply) of how proofs operate in science.
The purpose of this thread isn't for me to answer every single instance - but for us as a group to look at the 5 controversies listed and discuss the ins and outs of who is responsible for proving what.
But once someone has been convicted, then they have to prove they are innocent (or that the prosecution broke the law) in order to appeal their sentence.That's different, that's the appeal stage.
If the majority of people believed a conspiracy theory, then it wouldn't be a conspiracy theory anymore. It would be the official version :pThat's not true. Since when did the official version have a vote on what everyone thought?
I kind of addressed this in my previous post which you might not have seen yet (damned load balancing :hea:). If someone is rather rabid about their point of view then that will probably get a negative reaction from me regardless of what their view is, but in general I don't care what other people believe unless they can use their belief to make a difference. If believing what they believe allows them to discover something new, prove something interesting, etc. then more power to them. But as long as it's just a belief that doesn't lead to anything interesting happening, then it seems irrelevant to me.Yeah, I've been trying to post for ages too. I now have two threads of thought to keep track of.
I think we all think we're the reasonable ones in our judgements. Unfortunately we need people like Russell to keep us honest. That includes me too. :)
Edit:
The problem with all of the "alternate" theories is that they simply really on the silence and cooperation of too many people, and the after the fact complicity of people who will ask no questions and implement whatever plan(s) the conspirators were aiming for.
The risk is always too great for the outcome. As little as I think of Sarah Palin and as much compelling evidence as there may be, even I can't believe she didn't give birth to that last child because it simply involves too many people who have little reason to be silent about such things. I know what you mean and I agree to some extent. You'd think that we would know by now if some of these were true, it would all be out in the open. For example, the (alleged) government assassins who killed JFK etc. How can they possibly keep it quiet, surely someone would speak? But then people do come forward and say things - and it makes no difference. Eg, E. Howard Hunt's deathbed confession.
However, with Sarah Palin - I didn't realise there was this controversy over her children, I must look it up. But with something like this, you think - there is little to keep people quiet about this and lots of reasons for them to speak up, so why don't they.
Ward Dragon
25-11-11, 16:20
So yes, strictly speaking you're right - there is burden of proofs in all different directions in what is being asserted and what isn't for any subject.
Exactly :) It isn't a one-way proof. If one side is offering evidence, then that puts something material on the table and raises the bar so to speak. Then it's not an abstract statement anymore. There is actual evidence to analyze and discuss. Then if people don't believe that evidence proves what it's supposed to prove, they have to explain why or provide a better explanation for the evidence. It goes back and forth.
That's not true. Since when did the official version have a vote on what everyone thought?
I meant that whatever the majority of people believe becomes the official version. For example, centuries ago the official version was that the earth was flat and a minority of people believed it was spherical, and now today the official version is that the earth is spherical and a minority of people believe it is flat.
The evidence in that case is on the side of the earth being spherical, so eventually that viewpoint won out and became the official version. I think that will happen eventually for all issues like that. If the official version is wrong, then sooner or later it will fall out of favor as evidence comes out to support an alternative view.
Yeah, I've been trying to post for ages too. I now have two threads of thought to keep track of.
I waited for awhile to see if more posts would happen, so hopefully the trains of thought are now combined into one discussion :p
I know what you mean and I agree to some extent. You'd think that we would know by now if some of these were true, it would all be out in the open.
Exactly. That's why in my mind many of these cases are in the appeal stage. The official side has already presented a strong case and convinced the majority of the public, so they've essentially gotten their conviction so to speak, and now it's up to the dissenting viewpoint to appeal their case and provide new evidence or a convincing new analysis of the existing evidence which points to a different sequence of events.
patriots88888
25-11-11, 16:35
Not to keep harping on that video (but I will :p), what I found most compelling (and reassuring) was the narrator stating that (and I'm paraphrasing here) '...we (the viewers) are left to draw are own conclusions' from what is presented (as it should be). Not once did I hear anyone in that video state it's either their way or the highway.
I wouldn't be surprised if some of them had hidden agendas. I don't think they're lying just wrong.
If that is the case, I can't think of anything more damaging to one's reputation than that. I also find it difficult to believe these experts would go on record making such statements if their conclusions were not able to be backed up (with scientific means). I can't believe they would risk everything (most notably trust, as the majority of them have a responsibility to certain procedures which deal in public safety) just to have their moment in the sun to voice their personal feelings on 9/11.
As I said, there are plenty of experts that dispute the claims of these other experts.
And there were plenty of those who believed the Earth was the center of the universe until some were brave enough to question that and make observations of their own and reach their own conclusions. (Copernicus/Galileo). As it relates here, majority is irrelevant.
It's got nothing to do with black and white. As far as 9/11 is concerned there are only two options.
Sure it does because the majority are unwilling to even consider any other plausible alternatives (most likely because it's much easier that way).
That said though, this is all irrelevant as there were no explosives in the towers and this has been proven.
I've seen nothing which shows this has been proven so any guidance to such proof would be appreciated.
There's also the small fact that logically, the conspiracy doesn't make sense.
I don't believe I've ever made mention of any conspiracy... again, more black and white attitude.
Exactly :) It isn't a one-way proof. If one side is offering evidence, then that puts something material on the table and raises the bar so to speak. Then it's not an abstract statement anymore. There is actual evidence to analyze and discuss. Then if people don't believe that evidence proves what it's supposed to prove, they have to explain why or provide a better explanation for the evidence. It goes back and forth.:D No, lol, I disagree. There are different burdens depending on what is being asserted, not necessarily what evidence is being supplied. The person who asserts - I went to China for my holidays, always holds the proof of burden for that particular assertion, no matter how much evidence is supplied.
It's not the skeptics job to prove that they didn't go to China once the evidence gets beyond a certain bar. The skeptic merely needs to point out that the evidence doesn't prove what the person putting the assertion out there says it does. It's not the skeptics job to prove an alternative scenerio happened - however, they often do in eg, science, because that can make a more plausible argument, but it isn't essential.
I meant that whatever the majority of people believe becomes the official version. For example, centuries ago the official version was that the earth was flat and a minority of people believed it was spherical, and now today the official version is that the earth is spherical and a minority of people believe it is flat. The majority tend to believe the official version because frankly they don't have the direct evidence (or education, including techniques in analytical thinking) to make their own minds up half the time - they have to trust what they're told to some degree. The get the "filtered" evidence. The official viewpoint is nearly always about the powerful's viewpoint.
Exactly. That's why in my mind many of these cases are in the appeal stage so to speak. The official side has already presented a strong case and convinced the majority of the public, so they've essentially gotten their conviction so to speak, and now it's up to the dissenting viewpoint to appeal their case and provide new evidence or a convincing new analysis of the existing evidence which points to a different sequence of events.I know what you're saying.
However, in my mind, applying this to these controversies - we don't have a jury of randomly selected peers (with - hopefully - no axe to grind either way) assessing that something is proven or not proven in this very specific way.
This simply has not happened. We've been fed an official line and the filtered evidence to prove it. It's actually a shame we haven't gone through this kind of structured assessment, because we would have at least gone through the process of determining burden of proof and making sure some attempt was done to adhere to that.
I know that official enquiries are meant to be attempts at this - but they're not actually the same as criminal trials (Criminal trials are flawed, but official enquiries are nowhere near as rigorous in terms of objectivity, even though more information may be provided and supposedly analysed.)
----
I waited for awhile to see if more posts would happen, so hopefully the trains of thought are now combined into one discussionThanks, I was getting lost. :)
Not to keep harping on that video (but I will :p), what I found most compelling (and reassuring) was the narrator stating that (and I'm paraphrasing here) '...we (the viewers) are left to draw are own conclusions' from what is presented (as it should be). Not once did I hear anyone in that video state it's either their way or the highway.
Then allow me to harp on for a minute, too: This is a common rhetoric strategy used by a lot of conspiracy theorists (not all, of course). Especially in relation to 9/11, you find a lot of sites and videos that stress independent thinking, making up your own mind and so on. It's a good strategy: Make the viewers think that you value their intelligence, flatter them, so they become more receptive to one's ideas.
In a non-conspiracy example, the german "Bild" tabloid had "Bild dir deine Meinung", "form your own opinion", as it's slogan for a while. And on the title page, it always gives its own opinion on events in the world, who was a star, who was absolutely horrible, who deserved to die and so on. The claim that they don't want to feed you a particular opinion does not mean that they don't.
In the case of this video, does it mention experts who hold a different opinion? Does it evaluate and compare different explanations for what seemed weird to them? Is anyone allowed to really advocate for the official position? If not, then I think it is safe to say that the video has an agenda, no matter how much it claims that it does not.
If that is the case, I can't think of anything more damaging to one's reputation than that. I also find it difficult to believe these experts would go on record making such statements if their conclusions were not able to be backed up (with scientific means). I can't believe they would risk everything (most notably trust, as the majority of them have a responsibility to certain procedures which deal in public safety) just to have their moment in the sun to voice their personal feelings on 9/11.
There is a high percentage of americans who believe in conspiracy theories about 9/11. The public perception is also very much that there are two equally valid positions about 9/11. Do you really think that these experts have something to loose if another expert proves them wrong? They can just freely ignore it (there are plenty of examples of that in the 9/11 conspiracy community. I think there are still some people out there who spout the "it did not burn hot enough to melt steel" crap), discount it as propaganda or focus on something else instead.
And there were plenty of those who believed the Earth was the center of the universe until some were brave enough to question that and make observations of their own and reach their own conclusions. (Copernicus/Galileo). As it relates here, majority is irrelevant.
In theory, you're right. In practice, you're wrong. Yes, a single person's new argument can completely invalidate the views held by the majority. But that does not mean that a position held by a minority always deserves the same attention as the mainstream. One fact of science is that better explanations always make it into the mainstream; it can just take a while. With regards to 9/11, lots of experts have looked at the evidence brought by the conspiracy theorists and dismissed it as insufficient or wrong. Majority is not a proof, but it can be an indicator.
Ward Dragon
25-11-11, 16:59
:D No, lol, I disagree. There are different burdens depending on what is being asserted, not necessarily what evidence is being supplied. The person who asserts - I went to China for my holidays, always holds the proof of burden for that particular assertion, no matter how much evidence is supplied.
It's not the skeptics job to prove that they didn't go to China once the evidence gets beyond a certain bar. The skeptic merely needs to point out that the evidence doesn't prove what the person putting the assertion out there says it does. It's not the skeptics job to prove an alternative scenerio happened - however, they often do in eg, science, because that can make a more plausible argument, but it isn't essential.
I disagree here again :o Hypothetically you say you went to China and you have pictures, plane tickets, souvenirs, etc. and I say that still doesn't prove anything. At that point, how would you prove it? If I can simply reject all of your evidence without providing any kind of rationale, then it's impossible for you to prove it. I could even say that I don't believe you went to China because China doesn't exist :p At some point, the burden of proof would surely be on me to back up why I reject all of your evidence.
This simply has not happened. We've been fed an official line and the filtered evidence to prove it. It's actually a shame we haven't gone through this kind of structured assessment, because we would have at least gone through the process of determining burden of proof and making sure some attempt was done to adhere to that.
In the case of these examples where the official version is widely believed due to the public evidence supporting it, simply saying the evidence has been twisted isn't enough to convince most people. If the opposing viewpoint wants to gain traction, then they have to show how the evidence was twisted, or find new evidence that contradicts the widely-believed version of events. That's the only effective way to get the majority of people to change their minds. Therefore I think that if people want to change the public viewpoint, then practically speaking the burden of proof is on them to convince everyone that they are right.
patriots88888
25-11-11, 17:32
In the case of this video, does it mention experts who hold a different opinion? Does it evaluate and compare different explanations for what seemed weird to them? Is anyone allowed to really advocate for the official position? If not, then I think it is safe to say that the video has an agenda, no matter how much it claims that it does not.
Ideally, this would be the best way to go about (and is of course, something I would like to see). I guess I'm being 'suckered in' then because I fail to see this agenda (hidden or otherwise) in that video.
There is a high percentage of americans who believe in conspiracy theories about 9/11. The public perception is also very much that there are two equally valid positions about 9/11. Do you really think that these experts have something to loose if another expert proves them wrong? They can just freely ignore it (there are plenty of examples of that in the 9/11 conspiracy community. I think there are still some people out there who spout the "it did not burn hot enough to melt steel" crap), discount it as propaganda or focus on something else instead.
If they are in fact being deliberately misleading, I would hope so. I believe that's really the most important issue here, who can we trust?
In theory, you're right. In practice, you're wrong. Yes, a single person's new argument can completely invalidate the views held by the majority. But that does not mean that a position held by a minority always deserves the same attention as the mainstream. One fact of science is that better explanations always make it into the mainstream; it can just take a while. With regards to 9/11, lots of experts have looked at the evidence brought by the conspiracy theorists and dismissed it as insufficient or wrong. Majority is not a proof, but it can be an indicator.
Understood, just making the point that 'majority' doesn't always equal 'right'.
The Great Chi
25-11-11, 17:43
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g293/greatchi/Proud-flag.jpg
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.