Questions for OCTers and observations about inductive vs deductive thinking on 9/11

[HamdenRice]

<I posted something like this in a thread where it is likely not to be read, so I am resposting a modified version of it as a new thread. Also, although the subject line asks this of OCTers, I of course welcome any observations by those who are suspicious of the OCT.>

It seems to me that there is a fundamental difference in the ways that some people think, epistemologically, about 9/11. That is, some people can only think about it deductively, and others are capable of both deductive and inductive thinking.

Generally deductive reasoning begins with certain principles such as postulates and already proven theorems, asserts a theory, and moves logically using only the already established principles to prove the theory.

Inductive reasoning begins with observation, looks for patterns and correlations and suggests theories based on observations.

Both are valid methods of both science and social science. For example, the harm caused by smoking was proven inductively long before it could be proven deductively. In other words, public health researchers were able to show there was a strong statistical correlation between smoking and lung cancer before they were able to show how the chemicals in smoke caused the cell mutations that caused cancer.

I remember many years ago sitting in on an autopsy, by a pathologist I know, just for fun. The elderly decedent had died of pneumonia. But during the autopsy, the pathologist examined every organ, took samples of many kinds tissue, slit open the entire intestinal track to look for polyps, sliced brain sections, etc. I asked why she was doing this, and she said all this information goes into a data base with all the information gathered from all the other autopsies and then pathologists do "meta" research to look for patterns of disease. This is classic inductive research.

Many hard core OCTers seem to be incapable of inductive thinking. They seem also to be unable to look at a particular fact in the context of other facts. If you look at the Skeptics/Science forum for example, where some OCTers hang out, you can come across threads in which the participants actually don't believe in certain public health problems because they were proven inductively rather than deductively. In other words, many people who think they are scientific actually are incapable of many kinds of scientific thought. The same pathologist whose autopsy I watched once told me that she thought that many engineers she had met in particular were nearly incapable of inductive reasoning.

Here's a law school-like exercise in inductive reasoning and context. The police arrive at the trailer park where Slick and Joe live. They are directed to a baseball field where Joe is laying on the ground dead, bleeding from his skull. Slick is holding a baseball bat. (Do you think Slick intentionally killed Joe now?) However, there are about a dozen other people there, all dressed in baseball uniforms, as is Slick. Slick explains that they were playing baseball, and while taking a wild swing at a pitch as batter, the bat slipped from his hands and struck Joe who was playing catcher. All the uniformed baseball players confirm Slick's story. (Do you think Slick intentionally killed Joe, now?) Later, however, detectives discovered that Joe was sleeping with Slick's wife and the two had had heated public arguments about it in which death threats were made; that the baseball team is actually a club activity of a Hell's Angels chapter that deals meth throughout the county, and several members of the chapter have been convicted and are serving time for murder for hire; that several of the baseball players have fled the state and others refuse to talk when brought in for interviewing by the police; that Joe was caught by the other members stealing from the chapter's cash stashed at the club house just last week. (Do you believe Slick intentionally killed Joe, now?) Did your view of Slick's guilt change depending on the context?

It seems to me that many arguments about the events of 9/11 are discussed either in context or out of context. Arguments degenerate into the technical specifications of the steel in the towers or the exact amount of time it takes a jet fighter to respond to a hijacking under various protocols.

So this is my question: Is your view of various LIHOP/MIHOP or "inside job" theories affected by the context? Do you ever look at particular allegations within the big picture? Do you think the following anomalies raise your suspicions:

the 30 year business connections between the Bush and bin Laden families;

the many years of official support by the US of al Qaeda-linked terrorists;

the evacuation of the bin Laden family;

the pre-Bush administration PNAC war mongering;

the criminal records of many bush administration officials as a result of former acts of US sponsored terrorism and near treason (Iran-contra);

the refusal of Bush and Cheney to be interviewed separately (perfect example of game theory's prisoner's dilemma);

the inability of the air force to respond to the hijackings;

the utterly bizarre 9/11 behavior and statements of Rumsfeld, the official charged with defending the country;

the confusing exercises;

the anthrax attacks;

the ignored urgent warnings of the CIA and Israeli, Russian, German, Egyptian, Jordanian and other intelligence services;

the meetings between alleged hijacking funder, Lt. Gen. Mahmoud Ahmad and intelligence and defense figures in the days and weeks before 9/11;

the obviously planted evidence after 9/11;

the truly unprecedented degree of administration obstruction of investigations;

the disclosure after the 9/11 Commission completed its work that it was lied to;

the unprecedented collapse of three buildings within hours;

the extremely difficult maneuvers of the plane that hit the Pentagon by a pilot who demonstrated just weeks before that he could not fly a Cessna;

the visceral experience in the US of a coup-like, martial-law like environment in New York after 9/11, with National Guardsmen armed with automatic weapons on many subway trains, stations and street corners for almost a year after 9/11 for the first time in US history -- a militarization worse than during WWII, Korea, Vietnam;

the evidence that has developed about the un-Islamic behavior of the hijackers in Florida and their connection to drug runners and intelligence figures;

the stupifying decision to pull back from Tora Bora allowing bin Laden to escape;

the Patriot Act;

the abolition of habeas corpus;

the illegal, unconstitutional NSA wiretapping program;

the massive lying that led to the war in Iraq;

the Bush administration's now publicly demonstrated callousness toward human life in Iraq and in New Orleans after Katrina.

[MervinFerd]

1. Hamden, buddy, this is nonsense.

The problem isn't that 'some of us' cannot do Inductive reasoning.

The problem is that the 911 Truthers have not (in 5 years) come up with a coherent theory that is supported by -either- inductive or deductive logic.

The very long list you provide amounts to exactly nothing. The items have either been individually refuted, or they are consistent with multiple interpretations.

As we have been over before, there are many disturbing connections between the Bush family and American oil interests and the Saudis and bin Laden, etc. Almost certainly there are many stories the Bush admin does not want told. But the method of getting to those stories is the ancient method of rational though, not the novel constructions of conspiracism.

[HamdenRice]

2. Your refutation seems to be simply ...

a illustration of the point of the post. Your first assertion is just that -- a bald assertion that there is no inductive logic in the list of items.

Your assertion that all of the items are capable of multiple interpretations should demonstrate to any reasonable person exactly the point of how induction works.

For example, sometimes public health officials find a cluster of certain kinds of cancer -- let's say intestinal cancers -- in a neighborhood.

There may initially many interpretations -- for example that the neighborhood is ethnically uniform and it is something in that group's diet; or that there is a nearby factory emiting a certain kind of pollution. But eventually the researchers accumulate facts that point to a specific water source as the cause of the cancers. This is common in mass tort actions.

The items listed individually may have various amiguous interpretations. But taken together over time focus on more narrow interpretations.

The fact that bin Laden escaped from Tora Bora might have had any of a number of interpretations -- eg the initial explanation was the DOD's unwillingness to risk the lives of US troops. But taken in the context of the administration's willingness to fruitless sacrifice lives in Iraq and the close connections between the Bush and bin Laden families, the explanations of the fact of Tora Bora takes on different probabilities.

Your inability to see that principal is astounding, and confirms my epistemological observations in the OP.

[wildbilln864]

3. Yes you've nailed him, Hamden!

Once again!
:hi:

I've noticed a stepped up effort to refute any speculation of 911 by the believers.

[HamdenRice]

4. I really think it is how some people process information

Thanks!

I've been thinking about this for a while, and I really think it comes down to that basic difference -- the ability to use both deduction and induction, and the ability only to use deduction.

It really hit me when I was reading a thread in the Skepticism forum, in which all the members basically did not believe in fundamental methods of public health research. It was really remarkable, and we see a lot of it here.

[petgoat]

6. Don't forget those who for one reason or another only use induction. nt

[MervinFerd]

5. The methods of epidemiological research are well-established and valid.

But, you have to follow those methods. The fact that there is a cluster of cancers -might- be significant. But it -might- also just be bad luck. The only way to find out is to conduct the statistical studies properly. It is tragic if a local factory is causing cancer; it is also tragic if the local plant is closed because of unfounded fears.

This has nothing whatever to do with bin Laden escaping Tora Bora. FWIW, it is entirely reasonable to wonder whether Bush was quite as keen to catch OBL as he should have been. But any accusation still needs to be proved by actual evidence. And has nothing to do with "Controlled Demolition" or holographic airplanes.

[HamdenRice]

7. There is no "one" method of induction

I use mass tort/public health as an example because it is the most "scientific," but there are other forms of inductive reasoning.

For example, police departments, prosecutors, courts and juries base their decisions on inductive reasoning -- gathering as many facts as possible, looking for patterns and making judgments.

Historians use induction by gathering massive amounts of primary documents and then making broad judgments about various actors motives and behaviors.

9/11 was a political act and a crime, not a public health problem (aside from the contamination issue) and it is social-science/legal type inductive reasoning that is most appropriate to solving it.

[MervinFerd]

12. "Legal Logic"? OK, but the Truther evidence is invalid there, too.

There are not separate kinds of logic. There are different situations. To prove a crime you have to nail a particular individual. So, statistics aren't of much use. Otherwise, valid reasoning is still the same.

By what "Legal Logic" have you shown -anything-? A list of selected coincidences is as invalid in a criminal trial as in a scientific paper.

[Grateful for Hope]

8. Excellent analysis, HR

Also, excellent questions. This thread needs to be kept kicked to the top.

[LARED]

9. Very articulate

pile of steaming horse puckey

[HamdenRice]

10. I knew you would show up name calling

and adding nothing whatsoever to the discussion.

[greyl]

56. You have to know that wasn't name calling. You're making it up. nt

[MervinFerd]

13. You have greatly improved on my responses. nt

[Bolo Boffin]

14. And by inductive reasoning, I deduce...

That somewhere there must be a pony!

I haven't even looked at that list yet, but I would induce two things about it right now.

One, most of those things have been debunked.

Two, what's actually true isn't probative of anything.

You can't gather up a whole bunch of random facts and disproved assertations, bind them together into an unholy army, and run off to sack Minas Tirith with it. That's not inductive reasoning.

When you prove MIHOP or LIHOP statistically the way smoking was shown to have a causal relationship with lung cancer, then you get back to me. OK?

[RedSock]

27. debunked????

I haven't even looked at that list yet, but ... most of those things have been debunked.

Really?

Would you mind presenting evidence of the debunking of the following six items:

1. the refusal of Bush and Cheney to be interviewed separately;

2. the anthrax attacks;

3. the disclosure after the 9/11 Commission completed its work that it was lied to;

4. the Patriot Act;

5. the illegal, unconstitutional NSA wiretapping program;

6. the massive lying that led to the war in Iraq;


I am eager to discover that the existence of the anthrax attacks and the Patriot Act have been "debunked".

Thank you.

[HamdenRice]

29. I hadn't even caught that -- it perfectly represents the attitude

I haven't even looked, don't even know what the claim is, but I know it's untrue.

Wow. Just wow.

[Bolo Boffin]

39. I repeat.

When YOU, HamdenRice, prove an ACT with the same kind of statistical certainty as the causal linking of smoking to lung cancer, THEN you get back to me.

OK? I accept your example of smoking causing lung cancer as the benchmark for proving your theories. Get cracking.

[AZCat]

30. Are you giving up on the rest of the items in the list?

There were 25 items by my count in the list. What is your opinion of the other 19?

[Bolo Boffin]

38. Debunked is not the only option I offered.

How nice of you to seize upon one of my two and assume which items I filed under which option. That was inductive reasoning at work, I presume?

[RedSock]

46. which have been debunked?

I haven't even looked at that list yet, but I would induce two things about it right now.

One, most of those things have been debunked.

Two, what's actually true isn't probative of anything.

You made the two claims about the entire list. Not a part of it.

You did not separate the list into things that have been debunked and things which are not probative.

"I would induce two things about (the list)."

So ... which of the items have been debunked? You claim "most".

There are 25 items. By your statement, you believe at least 13 of them have been debunked.

Which ones?

[Bolo Boffin]

49. LOLOLOLOLOLOL

Oh, go soak your head. I'm not your little dancing monkey.

[RedSock]

why not back up your claim?

So you think providing some (any?) evidence to back up what you say makes you a "little dancing monkey"?

Interesting.

I always thought having some facts to back up your claims in a discussion was an essential part of participating in an honest debate.

Then again, you passed judgment on the list right after you admitted you hadn't even looked at it.

That reminds me of people who loudly demand a movie or book be boycotted, but admit they don't know the first thing about the movie or the book.

[Bolo Boffin]

60. Honest debate? Bwha!

HR just cobbled together a long list of whatever and compared it to the statistical, causal connection between smoking and lung cancer. That's not honest debate, it's sheer sophistry.

I don't have the slightest intention of parsing his list, at your demands or at his. I direct you to YouTube where you can find a dancing monkey to suit your needs.

[RedSock]

64. forget HR then

So forget HR then. I don't care.

I'm hoping that you'll provide some basis for what YOU said.

[rman]

81. - the refusal of Bush and Cheney to testify under oath

- the fact that initially none of the testimony before the commission was under oath
- the fact that many documents were accessible only to a select few commission members and had to be screened by the WH.
- the fact that the WH initially did not want an investigative commission on 9/11

just a few that come to mind.

[HamdenRice]

18. OCTer modus operandi: 1. Post irrelevant name calling

2. PM each other to pile on

3. attempt to hijack thread by creating long, irrelevant subthread that contributes nothing to the discussion except more namecalling.

so predictable.

[LARED]

21. Not really

You posted what amounts to nonsense. You would see this if you could disengage your bias' toward how you frame 9/11.

Basically you have observed information you believe is relevant to your theory that the government did "it." Almost everything on the list you posted is not material to this theory. Even if they were material, you still have not tied all of your observations in any way that makes sense, into a Bush did "it" theory after five years of "research"

Seemingly your lack of ability to inductively develop a coherent theory about 9/11 is now the OCT'er fault of failing to see things your way.

[petgoat]

25. "Almost everything on the list you posted is not material "

Huh? The 30 year business connections between the Bush and bin Laden families, official
US support of al Qaeda-linked terrorists, and the evacuation of the bin Laden family
without proper questioning after 9/11 are not material to the question of whether the
government was complicit in attacks allegedly orchestrated by a member of the bin Laden
family?

I can just go down the list. Maybe you should point out which ones specifically, you
feel are immaterial.


PNAC war mongering is not material to the question of whether the government was
complicit in attacks that were used as an excuse to launch a war long desired by PNAC?

Bush officials' former acts of US sponsored terrorism and near treason (Iran-contra) are
not material to the question of whether the government was complicit in attacks that
benefited them greatly?

Bush and Cheney's refusal to be interviewed separately is not material to the question
of the veracity of their accounts?

The inability of the air force to respond to the hijackings is not material to the
case that the government did it when that inability may be explained by the disruption
caused by war games over which Cheney presided, and when Rummy's 9/11 behavior and
statements were bizarre?

The anthrax attacks are not material when it appears they were perpetrated by government
researchers and their effect was to inhibit calls for an investigation of 9/11?

[HamdenRice]

26. It's breathtaking, isn't it?

I'm not sure whether to think of it as an inability to look at circumstantial evidence in context or an utter dearth of curiosity, but it really is startling.

[LARED]

36. What's really breathtaking is the

inability of the CT'er to develop a coherent theory about 9/11 with all of the circumstantial evidence claimed.

It is much easier to imply an intellectual fault on the OCT'er for failing to see things your way.

[petgoat]

65. So now the criticism that "the movement" can not formulate a

cohesive 9/11 theory that integrates Manhattan holograms with
remote piloting, FBI stand-downs, war games, and lack of a
Pentagon defense has morphed into the claim that no individual
9/11 Truthist can formulate a coherent theory.

[LARED]

66. How about a coherent

hypothesis to start the fun? Not having that is a perfectly valid criticism if there there was one. After that try working on a the theory.

[Bryan Sacks]

11. Like this approach, Hamden, but one question

I teach critical reasoning, and while I think you've given a very good synopsis of the issue, I wonder about this statement regarding indcutive and deductive reasoning:

Both are valid methods of both science and social science. For example, the harm caused by smoking was proven inductively long before it could be proven deductively

I don't think the harm smoking does has, or ever could be, deductively rendered. It's always an inductive argument, because it's a matter of movement from empirical observation to likely causation. How is it now a matter of deductive reasoning?

To be clear, I understand one can construct a syllogism like:

P1: Regular moking is harmful
P2: I smoke regularly
Therefore, I am exposing myself to harm

But the first premise is not axiomatic , it's the product of empirical research.


thanks

[HamdenRice]

17. The deductive part of the smoking issue ...

I think that the science being done at the cell level is a deductive model -- ie the research about how certain substances present in cigarette smoke have caused cancer in mouse models. It's a little bit of a stretch to compare biology to math, but I think that biologists who work on causation mechanisms consider their research to be deductive.

So the statistical correlation between smoking and cancer is inductive.

The deductive "proof" side of it is that a particular substance that causes cancer in mice tissue is present in smoke and causes cancer in humans -- plus the biochemistry that shows how those molecules damage DNA and produces a cancer mutation.

[mirandapriestly]

15. "Many hard core OCTers seem to be incapable of inductive thinking"

That is what I have noticed, but couldn't put into words. That is why it is like posting to senior citizens who are set in their ways and refuse to give into "new fangled" ideas. It also explains the "right wing" accusations because it is very similar to the way right wing people think.

But then, it could be that they don't really believe what they are saying....

[dailykoff]

16. Personally I suspect it's the latter.

Their hidden agendae are a lot less hidden than they think.

[mirandapriestly]

77. me too, especially after a recent discovery....eom

[Bolo Boffin]

78. Oh, do tell.

I hate it when you play coy.

[HamdenRice]

19. It's quite a limitation and you see it on display here

It's really quite remarkable. They simply can't see how a series of indicative, related facts can add up to a near conclusive criminal conviction. It is like talking to people who have a cognitive problem with certain kinds of reasoning.

[LARED]

22. Good thing you have taken the high

ground and decided not to engage in name calling. :sarcasm:

[HamdenRice]

24. This is why you are impossible to take seriously

Do you really consider pointing out cognitive deficits in reasoning on par with "pile of steaming horse pukey" as name-calling?

This is so hypocritical that it calls into question whether you are capable of engaging in an argument.

[LARED]

28. Actually I am now questioning your

cognitive ability.

You pointing out a supposed cognitive deficit is a direct attack upon an individual. While me pointing to a steaming pile of horse pucky is a direct attack on an idea.

[AZCat]

31. Several individuals actually, but I get your point. n/t

[HamdenRice]

32. Did you read the OP?

I don't mean cognitive as in mentally disabled; if you read the OP it's more about cognitive as a result of intellectual training. As the OP says, the pathologist I mentioned believes that engineers are particularly prone to be unable to think inductively, and she should know she is a professor of medicine and has had several interns and residents who used engineering as a pre-med major.

She says that kind of thinking simply can't prepare those students to do things like look at a patient's overall health, medical history, social background and make a "most likely" diagnosis. Those who majored in biology tend to able to think that way.

That's a cognitive deficit as a result of narrow training.

Pointing that out is completely different from calling something horse shit.

But why am I arguing with you? You're not participating in this thread in good faith, anyway.

[AZCat]

33. So let me get this straight...

You're basing your theory on what evidence - the opinion of one pathologist?

[HamdenRice]

35. Did you read the OP?

It is based on the well known epistemological difference between inductive and deductive reasoning. The doctor's opinion was illustrative because she was engaged in pure inductive research.

I could site my own teaching experience, however, to confirm that many engineers and even micro-economists are terrible at certain social sciences because their training has been limited to deductive reasoning.

Do you see the difference between the main argument and these examples?

[LARED]

34. Your OP was about OCT'ers not engineers

Perhaps it's my narrow training (BTW, I am educated, not trained), or perhaps your lack of, or narrow training causes you to have a cognitive deficit regarding deductive reasoning.

It could be the entire problem. As if you have a bias toward inductive reasoning, you are prone to over generalize observations to fit a particular pet theory. You could make a far stronger inductive argument if you actually had a hypothesis about how all of the disparate observations you deem important fit into a theory

[HamdenRice]

37. That's just the point about inductive method

You gather data without having a hypothesis -- you just a problem to be investigated. It reminds me of a very inductive historian I know who says that good historical research starts with the address of an archive, not a hypothesis.

Most of us who identify as truthers don't know what happened on 9/11, but want further investigations in order to gather facts that were denied to the 9/11 Commission and the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.

You seem to think that induction requires a hypothesis ab initio. It doesn't. The pathologist snipping pieces of intestine of a guy who died of pneumonia does not have a hyposthesis about intestinal polyps.

Of course I don't have a grand theory. That's the entire point and the fact that over and over you are unable to grasp that is illustrative of limited deductive cognition.

That's the main difference between truthers and OCTers on these boards -- we don't know what happened and the OCTers purport to know exactly what happened.

[hack89]

40. A very self serving idea ..

Don't need a theory, don't need hard evidence, don't need a basic understanding of engineering fundamentals. A simple list of unanswered (in your mind) questions equals absolute certainty. How elegant, how convenient.

[HamdenRice]

42. Well you've confirmed the OP -- thanks

The OP asks whether there is something in the mindset of the OCTers that makes them unable to understand or accept inductive research. I guess you are saying you can't.

As far as not having an initial theory while collecting facts, you can dismiss it, but this is in fact the way important research is done in many fields, from public health, to pathology, to the empirical social sciences, history, anthropology, and many fields of jurisprudence. I guess these are not valid fields to you.

All we can say for now is that the official theory is not consistent with many known facts, and that more research and more collation of facts is needed. For you, that is not a valid research method.

You also don't seem to understand that inductive research is the collection of hard facts -- in a way that does not allow preconceived theories to shape which facts are accepted and which are disgarded a priori as not fitting into the theory.

Once again, however, rather than engage, you set up straw men. Many of us do not engage in engineering questions, because the trail of financial and intelligence connections is more fruitful.

What we have is not certainty, it's questions. It's the OCTers who are certain of the official conspiracy theory.

[William Seger]

87. WTF is this babble, Hamden?

Above, you said:

> It's quite a limitation and you see it on display here. It's really quite remarkable. They simply can't see how a series of indicative, related facts can add up to a near conclusive criminal conviction. It is like talking to people who have a cognitive problem with certain kinds of reasoning.

And now you're saying you don't even have any hypothesis? Just what "kinds of reasoning" are we talking about, then? Now you're claiming that you're just doing "inductive research" and it must be some sort of "mindset of the OCTers that makes them unable to understand or accept inductive research." WTF is that supposed to mean -- WTF is it we're so "unable" to "accept?" Just WTF do you get off claiming "they simply can't see how a series of indicative, related facts can add up to a near conclusive criminal conviction" when you can't even tell us what the crime is? You've got a "near conclusive criminal conviction" of something or other, and you'll let us know what that is when you finish your "inductive research?"

Well, yeah, Hamden, I admit I do "have a cognitive problem with certain kinds of reasoning": the invisible, imaginary kind! Ah, but you do have an inductive hypothesis that "OCTers" must have some sort of cognitive problems if that can't accept that your non-hypothesis is probably true, huh? Okay, but I do believe you'll need to work a bit on the deductive proof that it's the "OCTers" who have the cognitive problems. Oh, sorry, my "limitation"; you don't need to bother with that. :eyes: But wake me up when you get that "inductive research" wrapped up.

The irony is, I think this thread really has shed some light on how CTers "think."

[hack89]

41. Does that mean then ..

you would accept the idea the towers were not brought down by explosives? Isn't CD just a hypothesis?

[HamdenRice]

43. CD is just a hypothesis, of course

But the best case against the Bush administration is not CD. It's the totality of anomalies that are not consistent with the official story and that create a strong case based on circumstantial evidence of some form of complicity.

[hack89]

44. You realize, don't you ..

that your position is exactly what myself and Lared among others have always maintained - we know Bush committed impeachable crimes that led to 911 happening. The reason we fight you tooth and nail over CD, phantom planes and the other esoteric theories is we feel you are muddying the waters. By giving the Freepers a chance to label us moonbats, you are undermining any chance for a real investigation.

[HamdenRice]

45. That's just not correct

Lared in particular, but others as well, have said on many, many occasions that the 9/11 Commission Report is precisely what happened.

The 9/11 Commission Report does not conclude that Bush committed impeachable offenses. It says that the attacks were the result of intelligence failures, and structural institutional problems having to do with the relationship between domestic and foreign intelligence gathering.

Second, in immediately focusing on "CD, phantom planes and the other esoteric theories" you are doing what OCTers repeatedly do -- create a straw man argument and knock it down. As Petgoat wrote in response to Taxloss in another thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=128763&mesg_id=129053

<Petgoat quoting Taxloss>

"The mechanics of how the towers fell is the absolute fundamental basis of any theory about 9/11. "

<quoting Petgoat>

HamdenRice's comment on this bears repeating. TaxLoss's idea on this
is widespread (I've even seen it in a Rocky Mountain News column about
9/11) but it's not true. A number of 9/11 researchers (Hopsicker, for one) are quite hostile to the CD theories, and many, acknowledging their own lack of experience in structural and chemical matters, simply choose to work elsewhere.

The claim that CD is central to 9/11 Truth is a belief central to maintaining complacency. "CD central to 9/11 Truth, I don't believe in CD because it would take miles of det cord and hundreds of invisible jewish elves to install the millions of pounds of explosives, and therefore I needn't concern my beautiful mind with 9/11 truth.

<end quote>

What you are "fighting tooth and nail" is your own false image of what the 9/11 truth movement is about. Look at your own comments on this thread.

I am not aware that any of you has ever argued that Bush committed impeachable offenses. Most of you argue that Bush was incompetent.

[LARED]

48. Absolute utter bull

Lared in particular, but others as well, have said on many, many occasions that the 9/11 Commission Report is precisely what happened.

I have always maintain the 9/11 commission report was largely factual, but was written in a way to cover the collective butts of those responsible to protect America through omissions and small embellishments.

[dailykoff]

53. Right. Try to get a conviction on "the totality of anomalies."

Didn't work so well last time, did it?

[LARED]

47. Over generalization is a symptom of a bias toward

inductive reasoning. Can't you see it?

You are generalizing I believe inductive reasoning requires a hypothesis ab initio? No where have I indicated that. In fact I have repeatedly asked if the CT crowd could produce a simple hypothesis as a step to creating a theory. I think it points to a deficit of deductive reasoning having missed the point that if I'm asking for an inductively found hypotheses found I am not expecting a theory. No one said you had or needed a theory, grand or not, but after five plus years I'd love to see at least a simple actual hypothesis based on the evidence from the CT'er crowd. Once anyone can establish that then, you can start working on a theory. Without developing a hypothesis you are simply engaged in idle speculation at some point. IMHO the CT'er reached that point a lng time ago.

Your over generalization again shows itself in your last comment

That's the main difference between truthers and OCTers on these boards -- we don't know what happened and the OCTers purport to know exactly what happened.

Many CT'er (truther sounds so much less loony, I don't blame you for humping it)say they know exactly what happened. Many are sure the WTC was demolished as one example. On the other hand OCT'er do not all think they know what happened. Many simply know the WTC was not demolished, but would love to find out how our institutions failed so miserably that day. If criminal activity is present then punish the guilty, if incompetence was at work then fix the problem.

[greyl]

108. It sure is. nt

[MervinFerd]

20. Could you convince a jury?

Forget the name-calling and the Sophomoric philosophy.

Do you have a case a jury would buy? Use any kind or reasoning you want.

The fact is that -all- the substantive evidence you cite has been definitively disembowelled -many- times. And your list of "coincidences" is consistent with many hypotheses that are far more probable than a massive plot involving a cast of thousands.

Real, actual proof -compels- belief. The Truther Theories have been around more than 5 years. There is absolutely nothing compelling even mild curiosity.

The Jury would vote to hang the prosecutor.

[HamdenRice]

23. Please point out which ones have been disproven

[MervinFerd]

54. Good Grief! Point out the claims that have NOT been demolished right here.

Controlled Demolition? Long dead.

Pentagon missile?--How idiotic?

No planes? Good God!

Just tell me what -you- think is still valid. You are the prosecutor, after all.

[Grateful for Hope]

55. Funny. I didn't see these three items on the OP's list. n/t

[MervinFerd]

68. You're partly right.

No Holographic planes.


These are all pretty much standard Secret Shadow Government Crap:

"the unprecedented collapse of three buildings within hours;" <Controlled Demolition>

"the obviously planted evidence after 9/11;" <No not obvious>

"the extremely difficult maneuvers of the plane that hit the Pentagon by a pilot who demonstrated just weeks before that he could not fly a Cessna;"
<Remote controlled planes; Highly trained CIA suicide pilots?>

So, he avoided -much- of the completely crazy stuff. But he came close enough to get tarred with the same brush.

The rest adds up to......what?

[HamdenRice]

83. You have added your own gloss to each point

There is no question that three buildings collapsed. I did not say they collapsed because of CD; you did. I'm just noting that this is an anomaly given the history of building collapses.

There is no question that the maneuver of the plane that hit the Pentagon was difficult and that the pilot failed trying to fly a cessna; it is your interpretation that this means "no planes" or "remote control". It could be a matter of mistaken identity of the pilot, which would suggest that the 9/11 Commission was incorrect in identifying the hijackers.

So can you see why we believe that you are erecting strawmen representations to do battle with?

[MervinFerd]

84. No gloss, just a deduction.

You create the Sinister Insinuation that there is something mysterious about the building collapse or the airplane trajectories, but never actually say -what- is sinister. The reader is supposed to feel the Sinisterness, but not reason out the actual meaning, which is ridiculous on its face.

Mysterious Collapse => Controlled Demolition => Secret Sinister Shadow Government

Impossible Airplane Maneuvers
=> (Skilled Military Pilots OR Remote Control OR Missile Attack on Pentagon)
=> Secret Sinister Shadow Government.

If you have a different interpretation, then---
STATE YOUR HYPOTHESES CLEARLY.

Otherwise, I am going to figure things out the best I can.

[Grateful for Hope]

50. This thread is becoming more and more interesting

I think you are really onto something.

[dailykoff]

51. The closer it comes to the official story?

[Grateful for Hope]

57. I don't see that at all

From my understanding, Hamden is simply stating that we do not know what happened (and this applies to CD as well -- we do not have the proof required to state beyond a doubt that CD occurred), and that other avenues of research may be more fruitful:

"Many of us do not engage in engineering questions, because the trail of financial and intelligence connections is more fruitful."

Inductive research does not require a hypothesis, and this includes the hypothesis that the towers were demolished.

[dailykoff]

58. Hamden is basically defending the OCT, and it's already been investigated.

Remember the 9/11 commission? Leave out the demolitions and that's what's left. Rehashing the same bogus facts will just produce the same bogus recommendations, if that much.

[Grateful for Hope]

59. I disagree

the 9/11 Commission concentrated largely on intelligence failures. Look at the list in the OP. It appears to me that Hamden is interested in a whole lot more than the 9/11 commission was.

I also disagree that proving CD is the only way to disprove the OCT. If this were true, we would be in big trouble as the evidence needed to prove CD is no longer available.

[dailykoff]

61. Oh I know, Hope

and I'm not faulting you. But I happen to have a little training and experience in this area and I can tell that even without the blueprints it's a sure thing, and with those and a few other documents it would be a very short walk indeed from the White House to the big house. :)

[Grateful for Hope]

62. There is nothing I would like to see more than this.

For sure!

[AZCat]

79. ..."I happen to have a little training and experience in this area..."

What area would that be, and what kind of training and experience?


Or are you going to play coy again?

[LARED]

98. I think

"little" as in small or meager is the point.

[AZCat]

99. I have yet to see...

evidence suggesting otherwise, but perhaps someone is hiding his/her light under a bushel?

[dailykoff]

52. Hamden, does it ever occur to you that Hopsicker et al. are wrong?

That for reasons of their own they're lying, or they just plain don't understand how highrises are designed and built?

All this "maybe the terrasts really did it!" crap is really counterproductive.

If you want to come out for the OCT, fine, just say so, but please stop casting veiled aspersions against those who actually understand what happened to the towers, okay?

[wildbilln864]

63. Praytell....

please tell us your understanding of what happened to the towers. Do you have a hypothesis?

[dailykoff]

69. LOL, I would have thought it was obvious by now!

You can read all about it here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=127965&mesg_id=127965

p.s. you probably meant something more along the lines of "how did they rig the buildings and what happened to the planes," and I can tell you my theories on all that, but right now I have to check out for the evening so it'll have to wait til tomorrow, cheers :)

[William Seger]

71. I'll tell you what's obvious

Oh, never mind, I already did. :banghead:

[William Seger]

70. Jeeezz! Here we go again

:banghead:

[William Seger]

67. HamdenBaloney

Your post doesn't really make much sense. It's like you read a description of inductive and deductive reasoning somewhere and you only understood half of it. Specifically, I don't see much evidence that you understand what "logic" means.

Scientists and detectives frequently (but not necessarily) use inductive reasoning to form hypotheses. Problem is, inductive inference is frequently wrong! That's why scientists and detectives both have to then use deductive reasoning to support the hypotheses, to have any confidence that it's correct: The detective looks for clues and the scientist designs experiments. It's usually an iterative process, too; sometimes the hypothesis has to be changed and you have to start over.

Now, you claim that the problem with OCTers is that they aren't capable of inductive reasoning; I claim that the problem with CTers is that they don't understand what I just said above, and get really angry when their inductive inferences aren't accepted.

But why bother with all that. Here's where your trolley really jumps the tracks, Hamden: It doesn't matter how you solved the crime, because any logical argument can be stated either inductively or deductively.

All I see in your post about 9/11 is a lot of circumstantial evidence (mostly either of questionable validity or dubious applicability to your "inside job" hypothesis) and a lot of innuendo in which you seem to do nothing more than invite others to make some inductive inferences. What I don't see is any logical argument. But let's just see if I underestimate your understanding of "logic." State your "inside job" case as a logical argument, either inductive or deductive -- stop simply implying that you have an argument somewhere -- and let's examine it.

[greyl]

74. "stop simply implying that you have an argument somewhere" lol :) nt

[greyl]

72. You're mistaking hasty conclusions for solid reasoning, while

misunderstanding what inductive reasoning is capable of, and blaming debunkers for the CTist's lack of compelling evidence. Ad hominem, iow.

Hasty conclusion = leap of inductive reasoning

What sort of reasoning do you think so-called OCTers use to support the argument that bin laden is analogue to the Slick in your example?

Generalisation: In scientific explanation, the act of deriving a causal rule from a sample of cases (see induction) and then applying it to a wider population. Done properly, this has the intellectual purity of a law of nature; done carelessly or with malicious intent it makes for false analogy or hasty generalisation. Generalizations are not always bad things in research, providing they are adequately defended (Weston, 2000).


Hasty Generalisation: A type of fallacious argument in which a general conclusion is unsafely drawn from what upon fuller analysis would turn out to be one-sided data. This makes for incomplete reasoning, and creates a grossly oversimplified picture of the world. It is lazy thinking, and appeals to those who like their truths to be conveniently bite-sized, or, worse, to match their deeper prejudices. Hence racial and political prejudices are frequently justified by generalisations of this sort.

further study

[MervinFerd]

73. Yes. State your hypothesis. State your argument.

What you have presented is a long list of "anomalies". Many are well-known facts, consistent with the also well-known fact that there are deep connections between the Bush family, American oil, the CIA, the Saudis, bin Laden, the Pakistanis etc. We -all- understand that and understand that the public very much needs to understand these connections.

Other 'anomalies' are simply consequences of 911, a secretive, authoritarian administration and a compliant Congress and press--Patriot Act, NSA wiretapping, deception about Iraq, militarization, obstruction of investigations, etc. These are not independent data at all and don't add anything to the 'argument'.

Other 'anomalies' are just wrong, or at least are of very questionable authenticity and interpretation--"building collapse" (CD, IOW), 'planted evidence', un-Islamic hijackers, unskilled pilots (then who?), etc. These have all been refuted -many- times, many ways; right here on this board. Citing them just reduces your own credibility.

Other of your 'anomalies' are just irrelevant--Katrina response (?!), anthrax.



This has nothing whatever to do with "Inductive vs Deductive" or "Scientific vs Legal". It has -everything- to do with sound thinking and convincing arguments. If I am the Defense Counsel, I will be quite happy to go to the jury on this one.

SO--
here are the questions you must answer:

What is your specific accusation? What do -you- think this adds up to? Yes, "Inside Job". But, that covers a lot of territory. To deal with the issue --inductively or deductively-- we have to have a hypothesis sufficiently clear that it can be refuted or confirmed.

It's quite possible we are in substantial agreement, but I honestly don't know what you are claiming.

[MervinFerd]

75. The Clinton Lists---remember those?

The Right had these lists of people somehow vaguely associated with Bill Clinton who had died in somehow vaguely defined mysterious circumstances. There were similar lists related to the Kennedy assassination--people vaguely connected to the assassination dead in vaguely defined mysterious ways.

You can make these lists about absolutely anything. And they mean absolutely nothing.

A Logic that can prove anything, can prove NO THING.

[Bolo Boffin]

76. Thank you.

Thank you, thank you.

The perfect example of a scary conspiratorial list is the Clinton Death List.

[rman]

80. Conclusions/suspicions based on inductive reasoning

are usually less obvious than those based on deductive reasoning, so 'inductive conclusions' are easier to dismiss, leave more room for "plausible deniability".

I think it is analogous to circumstantial evidence versus physical evidence. Reality is that people are regularly convicted based solely on circumstantial evidence in combination with lying about the alibi - which is exactly the situation with W's neocon gang and cohorts. Their alibi - "we did not know, we received no warnings" - turned out to be a complete lie.

[MervinFerd]

82. Circumstantial evidence can be -very- convincing. Many a man....

has been hanged on circumstantial evidence.

But,

the prosecutor has to show that the defendant has no reasonable alternative explanation.

That's not been done in this list. In fact, many of the items do not even point toward any particular crime.

Even worse, the -charge- is extremely vague.

Acquittal with the jury out long enough for the free lunch.

[vincent_vega_lives]

85. HR's "Inductive" Reasoning in action

How can the flag be fluttering, when there is no wind on the atmosphere free Moon?

A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Landerlifting off the Moon. Who did the filming?

The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints.

Text from pictures in the article said that only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?

One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot?

How can the flag be brightly lit when its side is to the light? And where, in all of these shots, are the stars?

The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust. The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been fired.

:eyes:

[greyl]

86. Wow, just wow. That's absolutely breathtaking, isn't it? ;) nt

[HamdenRice]

88. OCTer bullshit in action -- but I don't have to make up Vincent's "liberal" beliefs

If you want to argue about the moon landing go ahead and do so, but obviously it has nothing to do with this thread.

But I don't have to make up VVL's beliefs; they're all over DU for everyone to see:

One-sidedly, pro-Israel in the I/P forum;

A pro-gun nut in the gun forum;

Anti-marriage rights in the GLBT forum;

Pro-death penalty;

Defends the Rumsfeld defense department against charges of corruption in Iraq in GD;

The rest, inane, incoherent ramblings in the 9/11 forum.

How progressive of you. A search of your posts gives lie to the idea that you OCTers are progressives who are concerned that 9/11 is a distraction.

[vincent_vega_lives]

89. Lets take it one by one, as I have obviously touched a nerve

Way to change the subject of your own thread when challenged BTW. Your post the definition definition of ad hominum?

1. It is the same FALSE LOGIC and PSEUDO SCIENCE argument that is applied to the 9-11 attacks that was used to question the Apollo missions. So you are WRONG.

2. Quite a few Democrats argue in support of the Israeli position. I am certainly more sympathetic to the Israelis, but hardly a "Zionist" or Anti-Palestinian. It just seems there are quite a few "Anti-Zionists" on DU and I feel obliged to take up the opposing view.

3. Don't recall any "gun nut" posts. I own firearms and have argued for strict controls of access to firearms, but don't believe outright banning will reduce crime. Hardly a "gun nut" opinion?

4. If you had the ability of critical analysis you would see my argument is hardly "Anti-marriage rights". You might see that is rather the opposite, just not limited to rights for any particular group.

5. PRO-Death penalty? Cant recall ever posting on this subject. I am infact anti-death penalty in most cases.

6. I have NEVER defended Rumsfield. Think he is an arrogant prick. I have certainly attempted to correct the MANY inaccuracies and outright LIES about the Military that is ignorantly spouted here.

7. Insane and incoherent ramblings to those completely ignorant of simple science.

IF that post is an example of your cogent abilities, it certainly exemplifies the reasoning of the "truth" movement as simplistic and lacking of facts.

IF your definition of progressive is the inability at critical thinking...then yes I am proudly NOT progressive.

[greyl]

90. Using inductive reasoning,

it would appear that a tactic of making outrageous baseless accusations against someone in order to poison the well and/or bait them into response is being used. As I said before here.

[HamdenRice]

91. No raw nerve on my part

because this is about you and your pretenses, not about me. Oh and forgot to add:

Vehemently opposed to the Bolivarist movement in Venezuela.

<accusing Chavez of seeking permanent presidency, using Russian arms, and instituting socialism and "disappear" Venezuela's economy>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2639588#2642889

Chavez says he'll seek end to presidential term limits

Venezuela activates Fighter Air Group with Russian warplanes
one leader - one party - one ideology

In the next 14 years, Mr Chavez wants to turn Venezuela from a capitalist into a socialist society.

Most predict that Venezuela's private economy will disappear as we know it.


One-sidedly, pro-Israel in the I/P forum;

<defending Israeli bombing of and expulsion of UN peacekeepers in Lebanon>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=139750#139800

Peacekeepers
Peace wasn't being kept, unarmed, being used as shields. Irresponsible to leave them there.


A pro-gun nut in the gun forum;

<opposing banning of hand gun ownership>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=90726#90728


Anti-marriage rights in the GLBT forum;

<demonstrating profound ignorance of the law of marriage and the constitutional principal that the right to marry is the most funamental and unlimited right, such that convicts, the disabled, and all other heterosexual couples can marry without limitation>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=221&topic_id=45848#45879

If it were a legal right
then it would not require the state's permission.


Pro-death penalty;

<linking to an article mourning that it took too long to execute a death row prisoner>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=224&topic_id=1652


Defends the Rumsfeld defense department against charges of corruption in Iraq in GD;

<asserting that the missing money in Iraq is merely unaccounted for, rather than corruptly provided to administration cronies in the US, despite widely publicized federal convictions showing exactly the same>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2938482#2938510

Not missing
Unaccounted for. In other words, no receipts. In the early days payola cash flowed freely. Almost every ground commander had the ability to dispense funds as they saw fit.

Led to an accounting nightmare.

I seriously doubt any made it back to the States.


<I don't have to make stuff up about your views. They are all over DU.>

[greyl]

92. Do you understand what "ad hominem" means?

You aren't providing arguments in support of your OP, nor are you successfully arguing that vvl isn't a liberal. Your conclusions are hasty and dubious.
Are you aware that there are elected Democrats who disagree with you? Does that mean you aren't a Democrat? No, it doesn't.

Ad Hominem: (Latin = "at the man"). A type of fallacious argument in which the proposer of an argument is personally belittled, rather than the proposal itself (akin to playing the player rather than the ball on the sports field). The attack may be explicit, as in a direct personal insult (abusive ad hominem), or implicit, as with belittling phrases such as "that's what you'd expect him to say" (Curtis, 2004 online). Often used when attackers have little else of substance to offer to support their case.

[HamdenRice]

93. You obviously don't

ad hominem means attacking a person as a means of attacking his ideas.

My post simply cites vvl's own views.

Anyhooo, it's pretty bizarre for a hard core OCTer to throw around the accusation of ad hominem argumentation.

[greyl]

95. Totally wrong. It's not a means of attacking ideas at all.

It's the tactic of attacking a person instead of the veracity of their ideas.
In English it means "against the man". How can that not be clear?

Also, am I getting this right?: You think ad hominem is a valid means to rational ends?

[Anarcho-Socialist]

100. You ought to be ashamed of yourself

You've outright mischaracterised another poster's viewpoints in other threads.

1. VVL posted third-party articles in the first thread and did not accuse Chavez of anything.

2. There is nothing particularly wrong with a DUer holding a pro-Israeli interpretation of the Palestinian-Israel conflict. There are DUers who fall on both sides of the argument.

3. Opposing outright bans on gun ownership is hardly a "gun nut" position. Even the liberal wing of the Democratic Party would never support an outright ban on gun ownership anytime soon.

4. VVL was talking about the philosophical relationship between marriage and the state. He in fact expressed a desire for marriage rights for all. Your mischaracterisation of his position is shameful.

5. VVL did not defend any Republicans but simply argued for the distinction between 'missing' and 'unaccounted for.'

Shameful.

[vincent_vega_lives]

102. Holy Crap

Someone who actually reads AND comprehends! :toast:

[LARED]

107. Lets not be hasty

You've outright mischaracterised another poster's viewpoints in other threads.

Perhaps it's just a cognitive deficit?

[vincent_vega_lives]

101. This post is pretty telling about yourself

than it is about my views, which are pretty common amongst real members of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY, which you would realize if you got out into the real world from time to time.
Since you have put together a nice montage of my posts...tell me how they are "incoherent ramblings". All of them are legitimate issues that I feel should be discussed.

A little threatened by constructive debate apparently. Its because of people like YOU the Democratic party is fragmented and weaker than it should be. Hysterical in the face of real critique and debate.

I come here not to engage in mutual masturbation and backrubbing. I come to try to make people think. Apparently a lost cause with some.

[vincent_vega_lives]

105. I need to thank you BTW

for presenting all these threads in one place.

I am rather proud of the well though out postions I put forth. Hopefully a few here will read them and it will stimulate debate. :hi:

[William Seger]

94. After the pile of poo you've stepped in on this thread...

... I'd think you would have better things to do than "inductive research" on v_v_l? I mean, after starting a thread about the "cognitive problems" other people have... :wtf:

> That is, some people can only think about it deductively, and others are capable of both deductive and inductive thinking.

I'm begining to inductively reason that there must be more categories than that...

[greyl]

96. nobody's mentioned abductive reasoning yet, eh? ;)

[William Seger]

97. I think Hamden was trying distractive reasoning

Hijactive reasoning? :shrug:

[vincent_vega_lives]

103. Conductive Reasoning?

If touch hot stove I gits burnt. :dunce:

[William Seger]

104. I think he sat on it

[mhatrw]

106. Obstructive "reasoning"?

Dismissive riduling? Plenty on display in this subthread.

[Kingshakabobo]

109. WTF? Indeed. n/t

[Anarcho-Socialist]

110. Indeed sir