= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vladimir_Nesov comments on The 9/11 Meta-Truther Conspiracy Theory - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (178)
The wrong way to profess a controversial claim is to just assert it or even worse assume it in some other claim. The right way is to give arguments. What is considered correct in the community is very much relevant to how one makes an assertion. The problem isn't that controversial claims are being made, but the irresponsible way they are being made.
I don't have an objection to the way PlaidX's comments have been voted down when they've clearly contained faulty reasoning. I do have an objection to people being voted down for making honest questions.
We'd have to move to specific examples.
I don't object to these comments being downvoted: 1 2 3 4. The first one is unfoundedly dismissive about evidence opposing one's own argument, the second presents evidence against one's own argument (even in failed demolitions, buildings don't actually fall over) and tries to present it as evidence for the argument, and the third claims to provide links to original sources without actually doing so. The fourth is making a bold claim that contradicts scientific research, without really backing up that claim in any way.
I do object to these being downvoted (this list includes some that don't have a negative karma now, but did before): 1 2 3. The first asks an honest question, the second seems to provide a reasonable answer to the question presented, and the third makes a perfectly valid query.
I'm ambivalent on these being downvoted: 1 2. The first one is made in a tone that is possibly a bit too confident and it does feel like it's grasping at straws a bit, but then the first two sentences do make a very valid point. The second is implicitly throwing its support behind the conspiracy theory interpretation without backing it up any more, but then it is drawing attention to the fact that the parent was needlessly downvoted. It's also good to express that some particular question might be important, but at the same time it would again be nice if a better explanation would have been given regarding why it's important.
On the second list, I agree about the first comment, disagree about the last (the answer to the question as stated should be obvious: improbable a priori, so the valid question needs to be more specific), and partly about the second (the first part of the comment is informative, but the second part talks of black boxes not surviving "conveniently" and speculates on stuff that requires more support and sounds dubious without it (passenger lists).
Kaj, I agree with your general sentiment but disagree with your specific opinion on my comment:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/1kj/the_911_metatruther_conspiracy_theory/1cy6
You are
I wasn't denying that a video is evidence: "the building collapsed as if imploded" part wasn't the bit I objecting to. I was objecting to the fact that you admitted there being a study which explained why the building collapsed that way, but then you just said "AFAIK the collapse pattern is not consistent with this claim", without providing anything to support your claim. If there are trained engineers saying that this collapse pattern does fit one that would be caused by structural damage, then you can't just say you disagree with them; you need to explain why you're right and they're wrong.
I don't understand how I'd be begging the question or committing the mind projection fallacy in this.
Well I understood the video to be supporting my claim. IIRC the study claimed that one central column was damaged and caused the collapse. IMHO this cannot explain how any building can collapse in basically free fall speed. Saying "it collapsed because of fire/structural damage/planes" is a zero information theory that can explain any outcome, therefore it is also unscientific because it cannot be falsified. It is the phlogiston theory of 911.
The whole issue of the dispute is how to explain the collapse of the buildings. If you say "we have scientific research that explains it" well, you are begging the question. And you are also projecting your mind because all you know is that there is a paper written by some people who claim to provide a scientific explanation of the collapse. That doesn't mean that the paper really is a scientific explanation. Again, that is exactly the point being disputed.
You could as well say "The 911 commission has scientifically explained it all, no need for further discussion."
The video shows that the building collapses. You didn't previously say that it was just one column that was damaged, only that there was "structural damage". Damage to just one column causing such a collapse does sound a bit counter-intuitive, but then it would be hardly the first thing in physics that would be a bit counter-intuitive. And if you only specify "structural damage", as you originally did, then it certainly isn't obvious that structural damage couldn't cause such a collapse, so the video didn't support your original claim.
It can be falsified: by showing that sufficient structural damage couldn't have been caused by the conditions surrounding the collapse.
Umm. You were the one who brought up the study, which you said provided an explanation. Not me. If somebody uses the word "study" in such a context, I'm going to assume that it was a scientific one unless there's reason to assume otherwise.
Sure, the paper might only claim to be scientific, even though it's actually written by people who don't understand the science involved, or even by people who are purposefully misleading others. But if you're going to claim something like that, you need to back it up. You still haven't provided any evidence for why the study would actually be flawed or unscientific, other than stating that you don't know how damage to a single column could cause such a collapse. You say the science of the paper is the very thing being disputed, but you haven't said anything to make people believe that there is a valid dispute in the first place.
Bzzt. The hypotheses are capable of explaining different counterfactual outcomes: if you could repeat the experiment (so to speak) with structural damage but no fire, with fire but no structural damage, or with planes and all their effects but a certainty of no explosives, you might falsify some. In any case, you obviously know that the "official story" includes far deeper theories: