----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Land" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <brin-l@mccmedia.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 3:55 PM Subject: Re: "Let's Roll"
> > 1) Commercial planes were not really hijacked on 9-11 > > 2) Commercial planes did not hit the twin towers > > 3) Commercial planes did not hit the Pentagon. > > 4) AQ did not hijack the planes? > > 5) People high in the US government knew about the hijackings > > beforehand? > > 6) Bombs were planted in the WTC and went off after the planes hit? > > However, since you asked, the answer to all six questions is, > quite possibly. > > Of course, I don't know what actually happened in New York, > Washington and Pennsylvania on 9/11, but as I said in my > original post, I am increasingly convinced that it is not > according to the version presented by the administration. > > I realize that all of the conspiracy theories are full of > holes, but that makes them no different than the government > version. I'm not quite sure where to start because you have, as far as I can tell said "you are pretty sure the government is lying, but you are not sure about what." This leaves me in the position, should I wish to argue against it, of trying to falsify every conceivable possibility. I think you might have recognized this when you mentioned your uncle's obsession with the Kennedy assassination. I've listened to the arguments on this for years. They theories range from ones that only require a small unseen non-governmental conspiracy (i.e. a single mob boss setting up Oswald), to ones that absolutely strain credibility (i.e. the Zapruder film of the Kennedy assassination being a government plant that was staged with actors to hide what really happened.) Of the two theories, the first has a much smaller hurdle to overcome than the second. I don't see any real evidence for the first, but one does not have to argue for an undetected Byzantine conspiracy for it to occur. I believe a reasonable person would require a very high burden of proof for the latter theory, and a more modest one for the former. The reason for this, I hope, is obvious. The planting of Zapruder as an ordinary citizen, but really a secret government agent, strains credibility in a way that secret mob connections do not. I hope we can agree on such a principal...because I think it is essential in analyzing most sets of data to arrive at a conclusion. If we do not, then I'd take the time to go through the types of arguments that one opens oneself up to. Speaking of which, I'd like to refer to other arenas where the "big holes" arguments have been used. One was an "alternate thinker" cosmology website that Doug asked questions about. Another is the creationist argument. In each case, there a list of holes in the standard theory are given. Many of these "holes" don't really exist, they result from apparent common sense but inaccurate arguments (e.g. the entropy argument of creationists.) Some holes do, but they are minor anomalies that can be expected in any complex set of data. I'd argue that these folks "strain at gnats and swallow camels." Particularly with evolution, there are certainly large holes in the data set tracing evolution from it's beginnings, but that is to be expected when one needs a bit of luck to have any given specimen both preserved and found. The reason I bring these examples up is that they help illustrate the main points that I hope we can agree upon before considering the issue. The first is that we should accept the same technique to evaluate arguments supporting positions that we tend to favor as we do those positions we tend to oppose. We've discussed the bias we all have before on this list. I have found, both professionally and personally, that reliance on technique is one of the best ways to counter this tendency. Feynman's comment that "science is one of the best ways we have of not fooling ourselves" relates to this. Many times I have used technique to arrive at conclusions, and then said "oh shit" after I arrived at my conclusions. The rigorous use of technique was my guard against lying to myself. After 25 years of success using these techniques, they are fairly well ingrained in me. Now, when we turn from science to politics and economics, things are not quite as simple. Nonetheless, scholarship is still valuable in this area. I say scholarship, because the reliance on technique is a hallmark of scholarship. When I read books on how to do historical research I see a parallel to my own scientific work. It's a bit softer, since history is not a science, but good technique still have a very high correlation with reliability. The second point is that virtually every complex data set will contain anomalies that are hard to reconcile with any theory. Every large data set I have obtained includes a few "head scratchers" that are, in the final analysis, accepted as anomalous results. The existence of such anomalies does not mean that the theory is wrong. Only when the anomalies are large, or form patterns do we start questioning the theories. In addition, the historical evidence for the theory determines the size of the anomalies or the number that are required to raise a red flag. For example, evidence required to overturn QM is much greater than the evidence required to overturn the previously measured density of a calibration block. This relates to two of the arguments I have listed above. Difficulty in understanding and explaining the rate at which a narrowed gene pool rediversifies, for example, do not support creationism by being "holes" in evolution. The current problems modeling the first fraction of a second in big bang theories does not overturn the tremendous success in modeling subsequent evolution of the universe. Well, I see that this is a lengthy post, and I didn't even get to the 6 scenarios. But, I think it is absolutely critical, if we are to do more than arm wave, to start with some generally accepted techniques of evaluating data. With these, we can arrive at some consensus as to what is proven, what is highly likely, and what reasonable people may differ on. Without it, I fear that arguments will be based more on what we feel is right. Indeed, this is my most fundamental argument...that we can use technique to further understanding. With it, we have a starting place for discussion. Without it, I fear that discussions will bear little fruit. My greatest hope for a response is an agreement on basic technique, or perhaps some modest modifications that addressed factors I didn't include in my post. If there is no agreement on basic technique, than I think discussing that disagreement about technique is absolutely essential. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
