roland comments on The 9/11 Meta-Truther Conspiracy Theory - Less Wrong

43 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 22 December 2009 06:59PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (178)

Comments (178)

Sort By: Best

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: roland 24 December 2009 02:15:41AM -2 points [-]

If you had provided links to such originally, instead of trying to pass the video as evidence by itself

Kaj, are you serious? When you watch the WTC7 collapse and it's roof staying basically horizontal during the whole process can you imagine this to happen unless all columns are destroyed at exactly the same time? At least from my physical understanding of this world there is something very wrong with the official explanation.

But, I've taken some time to google up some videos for you:

Richard Gage Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth Alex Jones NIST Report Welding Engineer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2IVgrnb80I

Eyes Wide Shut: Gross Negligence with NIST Denial of Molten Metal on 9/11: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs_ogSbQFbM

MIT engineer Jeff King: WTC was demolished on Airplane Day: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiRIdlb88tg

9/11 Blueprint for Truth presented by Architect Richard Gage, AIA(this is a 2 hours presentation): http://video.google.com.br/videoplay?docid=-8182697765360042032#

Nine Scientists Find Active Nano-thermite in 9/11 WTC Dust -- April 6, 2009: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sT5IOD17gN8

About the Jaynes reference, I'll have to find it again.

I see that the downvote squad has been active, oh well. ;)

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 24 December 2009 10:57:08AM 1 point [-]

Kaj, are you serious? When you watch the WTC7 collapse and it's roof staying basically horizontal during the whole process can you imagine this to happen unless all columns are destroyed at exactly the same time?

Like I said before: 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. If a structural engineer told me that it is possible, I'd believe him, just as I believe scientists when they tell me about the bizarreness that is quantum mechanics. Certainly the prior probability for "physics is sometimes counterintuitive" is far higher than the prior for "there was a conspiracy to cause 9/11". Also, MatthewB's explanation sounds quite plausible to me.

But yes, providing these sources earlier would have been good.

Comment author: roland comment score below threshold [+] (16 children)

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 24 December 2009 06:19:04PM 3 points [-]

what about the structural engineers who say that the collapse had to be due to a controlled demolition? You seem to totally discount that.

For this whole time, I've been commenting on whether or not your original comment deserved being downvoted or not, not whether I believe in 9/11 theories in general. I didn't mention the engineers that support your view, because I was responding to a comment where you implied that seeing the video should by itself convince anyone that something is up and that any report claiming otherwise is unscientific. By itself, meaning "even without the knowledge that there are engineers saying otherwise". Yes, structural engineers saying that the collapse had to be due to a controlled demolition is pretty strong evidence, far stronger than any intuitive interpretation about a single video - which is why you should have brought them up in the beginning.

(So what is my stance on 9/11 theories in general? Undecided. The issue doesn't really interest me enough that I'd spend time and energy researching it in the detail required to form a proper opinion. Sorry. :) )

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 24 December 2009 08:41:55PM 3 points [-]

So what is my stance on 9/11 theories in general? Undecided. The issue doesn't really interest me enough that I'd spend time and energy researching it in the detail required to form a proper opinion.

If all you have is weak evidence, you can only end up "uncertain" if your prior says "uncertain", that is you expect the building to have been detonated or not about equally, before taking into account the way it collapsed. Which doesn't sound right. It seems that while evidence is weak, you should remain pretty confident that the building wasn't detonated.

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 24 December 2009 09:26:25PM 1 point [-]

I have several (well, two) relatively intelligent, mostly rational friends who have studied 9/11 theories in detail and come to the conclusion that there might actually be a conspiracy, so I'm setting my confidence intervals somewhat wide in this matter.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 24 December 2009 09:57:08PM 0 points [-]

blinks

Of the "explosive in building" sort, or the "deliberately ignored intelligence" sort?

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 24 December 2009 10:27:47PM * 0 points [-]

I think "explosive in the building" sort, though I haven't asked for the exact details.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 24 December 2009 10:47:16PM * 1 point [-]

It's either strong evidence, or privileging the hypothesis. Uncertainty is half-way from disbelief to conviction, it's not a trivial milestone. If you allow for a likelihood ratio of 10 to go either way from "uncertain", you are already changing level of belief between 1% and 99%. This is the opposite side of this situation: if you've just dropped or introduced a strong piece of evidence (like recalling that you haven't asked the details of what exactly is being claimed by the presumably reliable source), you can't be uncertain both before and after that.

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 25 December 2009 09:11:25AM 0 points [-]

I think we might have slightly different definitions for "undecided". I might consider a subjective belief of .95 for something not having happened as "undecided", if the associated weight of evidence isn't large.

Still, upon consideration, you're right. I've revised my estimate from "undecided" to "don't think there was a (malicious) conspiracy".

continue this thread »

Comment author: roland comment score below threshold [+] (5 children)

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 24 December 2009 08:52:43PM 2 points [-]

You operate under the assumption that there is a scientific explanation

Sigh.

I got the assumption that there is a scientific explanation from you saying that there is a study which explains (or at least claims to explain) the collapse. From the context, one could deduce that it was written by people with a science background - presumably, if it was completely unscientific and obviously written by people with no background in engineering, you wouldn't have bothered mentioning it at all. Therefore it was presumably a scientific study.

When I say "scientific study", I don't mean that it would have to be correct. Obviously there is, and has always been, lots of scientific research that is outright wrong. Being scientific doesn't mean you're always correct, it means you employ the tools of science and therefore hopefully minimize your chances of being wrong. But if a layman says there is a study and the context implies that the study was made by people trained in the field, then that study has a higher prior probability of being correct than that same layman when he says the same study is wrong (because the layman cannot employ the scientific tools of the field that the experts are trained in). Especially if the layman in question supports his own case only by a video of an implosion and nothing else.

I see a contradiction. You cannot claim to be undecided and at the same time write "The official story is supported by science."

The official story seems to be supported by a scientific study, but I do not have the expertise to determine whether the science in that study is actually correct.

What are you sorry about?

The fact that you seem to have spent some effort digging up material in an effort to convince me of the conspiracy point of view, but I probably won't give most of it the attention it might deserve.

Comment author: roland comment score below threshold [+] (3 children)

Comment author: roland comment score below threshold [+] (0 children)

Comment author: Zack_M_Davis 24 December 2009 04:16:35AM 1 point [-]

About the Jaynes reference, I'll have to find it again.

You're probably thinking of Chapter 5 of Logic of Science. If I'm reading him correctly, Jaynes is arguing that while reports of ESP are evidence for ESP, they're even stronger evidence that the reports are somehow mistaken.

But the thing about ESP is, we already have strong theoretical reasons for thinking that it doesn't exist. Whereas the prior probability of a secret implosion of WTC7 is very low, and structural engineering is difficult enough that we can't expect naive physical intuition to be able to tell what really happened from a nine-second YouTube clip.

Before dismissing a study as unscientific, you should be able to point to specific sections of the report and explain why you think they're mistaken.

Comment author: Peter_de_Blanc 24 December 2009 05:55:32AM 3 points [-]

If I'm reading him correctly, Jaynes is arguing that while reports of ESP are evidence for ESP, they're even stronger evidence that the reports are somehow mistaken.

I don't have my copy of PT:LOS right here, but this doesn't sound right to me. I would think that your prior probability for the reports being mistaken is greater than your prior for ESP. The reports provide strong evidence for a mistake, and even stronger evidence for ESP, but not strong enough to make ESP look more probable than a mistake.

roland comments on The 9/11 Meta-Truther Conspiracy Theory - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (178)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (178)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login