= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid comments on What is missing from rationality? - 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 (260)
Eliezer managed to write much more eloquently what I'm trying to say:
In the art of rationality there is a discipline of closeness-to-the-issue - trying to observe evidence that is as near to the original question as possible, so that it screens off as many other arguments as possible.
The question in this case is: "Were explosives planted in WTC7?".
Aside from the fact that ata is right and WTC7 was actually brought down from fires and structural damage caused by the falling tower, not the airplanes themselves, this strikes me as a reasonable response to persistent and uncorrectable wrongness. Do people disagree? If so, what is the appropriate response?
WTC7 was not one of the buildings that got hit by a plane.
(Lest anyone misinterpret my motives... I'm just correcting a statement of fact. I am absolutely not defending the claim that any of them were brought down by explosives, which I do not believe.)