View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

A Challenge to Scepcop

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Re: A Challenge to Scepcop

Postby NinjaPuppy » 15 Nov 2009, 22:03

ProfWag wrote:My bad Ninja, I was specifically referring to 9/11 conspiracy theories. Of course there have been conspiracies that turned out to be true (though not all that many, really).

Well now.... that's a unicorn of a different color now, isn't it?

As much as I'd like to spend the next two weeks of my life going back over each and every post on the 9/11 topics on this forum, it ain't gonna happen. May I just say that in regard to all of this CT controversy talk: "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" - S. Freud. They are exactly as explained,"Conspiricy Theories" posted in the CT topic thread.

Wikipedia wrote:SCIENTIFIC THEORY - In science, generally, theories are constructed from elementary theorems that consist in empirical data about observable phenomena. A scientific theory is used as a plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon.[4]

A scientific theory is a deductive theory, in that, its content is based on some formal system of logic and that some of its elementary theorems are taken as axioms. In a deductive theory, any sentence which is a logical consequence of one or more of the axioms is also a sentence of that theory.[3]

A major concern in construction of scientific theories is the problem of demarcation, i.e., distinguishing those ideas that are properly studied by the sciences and those that are not.

Theories are intended to be an accurate, predictive description of the natural world.

In the scientific or empirical tradition, the term "theory" is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains. These requirements vary across different scientific fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Scientific_theories

THEORY - Theories are abstract and conceptual, and to this end they are never considered right or wrong. Instead, they are supported or challenged by observations in the world. They are 'rigorously tentative', meaning that they are proposed as true but expected to satisfy careful examination to account for the possibility of faulty inference or incorrect observation. Sometimes theories are falsified, meaning that an explicit set of observations contradicts some fundamental assumption of the theory, but more often theories are revised to conform to new observations, by restricting the class of phenomena the theory applies to or changing the assertions made. Sometimes a theory is set aside by scholars because there is no way to examine its assertions analytically; these may continue on in the popular imagination until some means of examination is found which either refutes or lends credence to the theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

CONSPIRACY THEORY - Conspiracy theory is a term that originally was a neutral descriptor for any conspiracy claim. However, it has come almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning.[1][2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

Conspiracy theories are viewed with skepticism and often ridiculed because they are seldom supported by any conclusive evidence and contrast with institutional analysis, which focuses on people's collective behavior in publicly known institutions, as recorded in scholarly material and mainstream media reports, to explain historical or current events, rather than speculate on the motives and actions of secretive coalitions of individuals.[3]

The term is therefore often used dismissively in an attempt to characterize a belief as outlandishly false and held by a person judged to be a crank or a group confined to the lunatic fringe. Such characterization is often the subject of dispute due to its possible unfairness and inaccuracy.[4]
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44






Re: A Challenge to Scepcop

Postby NinjaPuppy » 15 Nov 2009, 22:06

I am sure that you can probably quote these definitions better than Wikipedia but for those who are reading along at home (lurkers) I wanted to make sure that we had the actual descriptions and definitions spelled out.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: A Challenge to Scepcop

Postby Nostradamus » 16 Nov 2009, 08:19

I would point out that the link has an obvious fallacy:
The Mafia was essentially completely unknown to outsiders until Joe Valachi revealed them in 1963.


This is not true. The criminal groups were being investigated by law enforcement. Valachi told more about the internals of the group such as how people became a part of the group. Their crimes and external actions were well known. Also, Valachi reported the use of the name Cosa Nostra to refer to the criminal organizations.

I have an appointment right now or I'd take a closer look at the posting.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: A Challenge to Scepcop

Postby ProfWag » 16 Nov 2009, 19:26

Oh my goodness. A simple statement typed in response to my anger about this whole 9/11 thing is starting to take on a different course than I had intended. Bottom line for me to clarify, I believe that virtually every post Sceopcop has presented as evidence of a conspiracy on 9/11 was not fact-checked prior to posting. I believe that his sources are not valid and many of the people that he uses as a source of information are not experts and probably have an agenda or reason for spreading misinformation. That's really all I meant my my previous post. It's one thing to question something, which I encourage, but once the answer is shown, then one should move on to something else rather than twist and turn it to fit a belief.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: A Challenge to Scepcop

Postby NinjaPuppy » 16 Nov 2009, 21:20

ProfWag wrote:Oh my goodness. A simple statement typed in response to my anger about this whole 9/11 thing is starting to take on a different course than I had intended. Bottom line for me to clarify, I believe that virtually every post Sceopcop has presented as evidence of a conspiracy on 9/11 was not fact-checked prior to posting. I believe that his sources are not valid and many of the people that he uses as a source of information are not experts and probably have an agenda or reason for spreading misinformation. That's really all I meant my my previous post.

I do hope that I didn't offend. It was not my intent at all. I wanted to clarify by definition the difference between scientific theory, theory and conspiracy theory for those members here who read but never post. We seem to have many of them and they may not be able to follow the flow or over flow of topics related to 9/11. If I can't keep the topic threads straight, then I'm sure that those people who come around daily to 'read only' must be confused as all get out.

ProfWag wrote:I believe that virtually every post Sceopcop has presented as evidence of a conspiracy on 9/11 was not fact-checked prior to posting. I believe that his sources are not valid and many of the people that he uses as a source of information are not experts and probably have an agenda or reason for spreading misinformation.

You will get no arguement from me on this. I have an adversion to 'YouTube' videos on so many levels and just because someone with an agenda can create a website, also doesn't mean that one word on it is accurate. Hence my clarification of the word 'theory'.

ProfWag wrote:It's one thing to question something, which I encourage, but once the answer is shown, then one should move on to something else rather than twist and turn it to fit a belief.

Now this particular statement is a different ball of wax that separates the skeptics from the believers. Once again, I don't want to come off as harsh or play a game of semantics but let's look at the wording that a believer might feel intimidated by: "but once the answer is shown". In many cases the obvious or logical answer is easily applied and accepted but who is to say it is THE answer? 9/11 was investigated to the best of the ability of a committee chosen by the government and their finding were published for the general public. That is a fact. I'm also sure that the facts presented in that report will stand up to scientific logic (sorry, I don't know the proper terminology to use here) and prove accurate to those in the know. Does that make it 100% true and accurate beyond a shadow of a doubt? Obviously not to those who still have questions and a YouTube account.

Many questionable videos have been bought here for discussion. I must give the skeptics kudos for their time and effort put into debunking much of the erroneous information in these videos. Jones and his thermite claim is probably the one that impressed me the most. I believe that you (ProfWag) who made the most logical and believable statement to this subject. I know that your comments certainly convinced me that Jones may be grasping at straws with his claims, yet before that I had wondered if he (Jones) might be on to something here.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: A Challenge to Scepcop

Postby Nostradamus » 16 Nov 2009, 22:09

9/11 was investigated to the best of the ability of a committee chosen by the government and their finding were published for the general public. That is a fact.


That is a fact. But it is also a fact that MIT and other universities have also done failure analyses of the WTC buildings and independently verified the findings of the WTC commission. The ASCE did its own study. They are not a government agency or run by the government.

in that report will stand up to scientific logic

That sounds good to me. Another phrase might be scientific scrutiny.

What appalled me at first was the use of the term pyroclastic cloud. A pyroclastic cloud is a hot and I mean hot cloud. A cold pyroclastic cloud has temperatures of 450 degrees. Paper autoignites at 450. So here we see videos showing paper, unscorched paper, drifting along while the narrator says pyroclastic cloud. So I challenged someone on a science forum to explain why they labeled this a pyroclastic cloud. The answer was that it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, and walks like a duck so its a duck. I countered that it did not sound, or walk like a duck, and that it superficially looked like a duck because all birds had feathers.

So what I said was that it was a debris avalanche and that all debris avalanches and their ilk have this cauliflower look. The other person denied this so I posted photos of rock falls, sow avalanches, and turbidity currents. Then they claimed extreme heat. I asked why their was unscorched paper in photos from the CT websites? They posted a comment by someone that a wave of heat hit them. I asked if the person was still alive. Oh yes they said. So I asked them how the person survived the onslaught of a 750 degree heat wave without a single burn.

It was over 200 posts to tell this person that the use of pyroclastic flow was wrong. Over 200 times I told this person to switch to the term debris avalanche. That is the accepted geological term for this event, not pyroclastic flow.

There was a good reason to use the term pyroclastic flow. The person needed that lie to support even more outrageous lies.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: A Challenge to Scepcop

Postby ProfWag » 16 Nov 2009, 22:47

No offense taken Ninja. How could I get upset with you?
It's these other posts that people may stumble upon and with just one side of a topic shown, wouldn't be aware of the rest of the story. On a topic like 9/11, it's vitally important that people look at all sides of a story, and not just a youtube video from a potentially unreliable source, and make up their own minds to answer any questions they may have.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: A Challenge to Scepcop

Postby ciscop » 18 Nov 2009, 02:39

so is there´s gonna be a time limit for this?

i wonder how scescop plans to battle shermer (or anyone) at dragoncon
is his plan just to say a lot of random $%·"· and quote his own antiskepticism manifesto?

thats gonna be uglier than the Texas chainsaw massacre...
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: A Challenge to Scepcop

Postby ProfWag » 18 Nov 2009, 02:52

ciscop wrote:so is there´s gonna be a time limit for this?

i wonder how scescop plans to battle shermer (or anyone) at dragoncon
is his plan just to say a lot of random $%·"· and quote his own antiskepticism manifesto?

thats gonna be uglier than the Texas chainsaw massacre...

Naw, I don't think so. I've quite holding my breath, but I'll still keep an eye out for his posts and remind him of this every time he posts something he didn't look into first.
But you're exactly right. One can't even begin to think about going into a debate if they aren't familiar with all sides of an issue. If they only look at one side as Scepcop does with 9/11, well, that's debate suicide.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: A Challenge to Scepcop

Postby NinjaPuppy » 18 Nov 2009, 06:13

Not to derail this topic but I recently heard an interview with Shermer on 'Ghost Divas' and that man is really good on his feet. I was going to post a link but the first 20+ minutes of this show has nothing to do with Shermer and I never got to listen all the way through, so it wasn't fully tested for accuracy. :lol:
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: A Challenge to Scepcop

Postby ProfWag » 19 Nov 2009, 05:33

Since Scepcop's back in this thread again (but who knows for how long), I thought I should bump this up in case he missed it. Still waiting and we're on day 10 for him to counter my claim that he posts false and misleading information.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: A Challenge to Scepcop

Postby ciscop » 19 Nov 2009, 05:56

scescop???? scescooooop???
are you a chicken mcfly???
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: A Challenge to Scepcop

Postby ProfWag » 19 Nov 2009, 19:38

ciscop wrote:scescop???? scescooooop???
are you a chicken mcfly???

And like a fart in the wind, he was gone again...
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: A Challenge to Scepcop

Postby Nostradamus » 23 Nov 2009, 06:39

ciscop you constantly crack me up. thanks
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: A Challenge to Scepcop

Postby ciscop » 24 Nov 2009, 06:09

Nostradamus wrote:ciscop you constantly crack me up. thanks


awesome!
thank you!

(bumping this back to the top)
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron