tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post4470495093730218329..comments2024-03-28T21:43:44.433-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Epstein on conspiraciesEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger209125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-81928230163985272862017-01-19T10:02:09.772-08:002017-01-19T10:02:09.772-08:00Here's a summary of the entire article and com...Here's a summary of the entire article and comments. Sorry you didn't get to read this first.<br /><br />"Conspiracies are BS. Someone would have said something."<br /><br />"This person, those people and these guys all said something and provided evidence."<br /><br />"Those people are crazy and believe in conspiracy theories."<br /><br />Are you not now smarter having read that? Yeah me neither.dutchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-88264671606485218202013-11-29T19:01:38.130-08:002013-11-29T19:01:38.130-08:00Lisa:
Thanks for linking Paul Craig Roberts, the ...Lisa:<br /><br />Thanks for linking Paul Craig Roberts, the best living political commentator, truth teller extraordinaire:<br /><br />Not that I should need to do this, but because of certain slanderous attacks on my person on this website's combox, I would like to make a public statement. <br /><br />I, of course, and again, this should go without saying based upon my life, family, writings, and good reputation with those who know me, my life, and my work, reject all forms of antisemitism as a grave sin, especially the willful and malicious denial of the evident historical record of premeditated, systematic violence against Jews on account of their race. It is only because of a certain person's slanderous and unprovoked attack on me that I have to state the obvious.<br /><br />Let me also say that I wholeheartedly reject "conspiracy theories," if this means those theories that are the result of imposing one's psychological problems and delusions and unexamined prejudices onto reality and calling what such a superimposition looks like to you and other likeminded nuts, the truth. These are the real "holocaust deniers," and I repudiate this as a betrayal of Truth and as the gravest of intellectual sins. I have spent my whole professional career as a philosopher attacking such theories.<br /><br />I do not, however, reject any honest inquiry into the details and overall truth of any official, publicly authorized narrative, no mater how "sacred" to governments, mainstream media, and the "beast" (Plato's term) of uninformed public opinion, and the sheepleish "academic community"--inquiries that are good-willed, use well vetted evidence and logic, and are motivated by the desire for truth, love of the good and of neighbor, and the exposing of propaganda. <br /><br />Those who reject such inquiry and slander those who defend or participate in it are themselves betrayers of Truth and offensive to God. Disparaging truth-tellers like Paul Craig Roberts and James Corbett as "truthers" is nothing but hatred of truth and, hence, of God.<br /><br />This should also go without saying, but defending manifestly immoral behaviors and justifications of those behaviors, such as NAMBLA and neo-Nazi groups, is disgusting and not worthy of rational debate. Censorship, condemnation, ridicule, and perhaps prison are alone worthy of such subverters of the common good and enemies of truth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-51638704615628702312013-06-07T09:15:36.414-07:002013-06-07T09:15:36.414-07:00Just to mix things up a bit, here's my take on...Just to mix things up a bit, here's my take on conspiracy theories:<br /><br />I think some of them are definitely more plausible than others, and sometimes the theories themselves are way more compelling than the official statements released about the incidents. <br /><br />As for 9/11, I tend more towards the traditional side, namely that jihadists were involved and it wasn't an inside job. That being said, given the nature of human beings, if we were to discover that it was in fact an inside job, it wouldn't surprise me in any way, shape or form.<br /><br />Why? Because when we look back throughout history, humanity is chock-full of power-hungry, selfish assholes. When Hitler came to power, if someone were to write a conspiracy theory claiming that "6 million Jews would be murdered in camps," people would have seen him as a lunatic. "No, no, that can't be true. Come on! You, an otherwise intelligent and altogether brilliant person, can't actually believe that!"<br /><br />Or in North Korea today. The people legitimately think they are one of the world's superpowers. George Orwell's 1984 comes to mind. And given that throughout history the powerful have always manipulated the powerless, it simply wouldn't surprise me if we were to find out that some clowns have been conspiring all along in their quest for world domination.<br /><br />Think about it:<br /><br />When the entire known world was essentially Mesopotamia, certain people groups, (like the Babylonians) weren't just trying to expand their influence, but take over the entire world. To them, the 'entire world' was Mesopotamia. Or with the Roman Empire. They weren't going for merely expanding their influence. If they had gotten it their way, they would have taken over then entire world. And they basically did, save Asia and parts of Africa. But they did control almost the entire known world.<br /><br />Thus, knowing what we human beings are like, I think it would be naïve to think that we are "done" with the quest for world domination. BS. Every society is "modern," and I'll bet you they say the same exact things. Those under Roman rule in the 1st century AD were probably thinking what we think today: "No, come on. We're modern. We won't have any more wars. We know better than that."<br /><br />If there's one lesson to be learned from history, it's this:<br /><br />HUMAN BEINGS ARE F****** ASSHOLES.<br /><br />And we're no different now than 10, 100, 1000, or even 5000 years ago. The only difference, I suppose, is that world domination is in fact EASIER given developments in technology and weaponry.<br /><br />But was 9/11 an inside job? I don't know. I tend to think that, no, it wasn't.<br /><br />But it really, REALLY wouldn't surprise me if it were.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-42169711137989720372013-05-16T16:21:43.042-07:002013-05-16T16:21:43.042-07:00Operations Northwoods Documents
On the Website of ...Operations Northwoods Documents<br />On the Website of the<br /> US National Archives and Records Administration<br /><br /> According to ABC News and government documents on Operation Northwoods, America's top military leaders drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in US cities to trick the public into supporting a war against Cuba in the early 1960s. Approved in writing by the Pentagon Joint Chiefs, Operation Northwoods even proposed blowing up a US ship and hijacking planes as a false pretext for war.<br /><br />http://www.wanttoknow.info/operationnorthwoodsLisanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-68250111431552537172013-05-16T15:44:51.132-07:002013-05-16T15:44:51.132-07:00Everything Is Rigged: European Commission Raids Oi...Everything Is Rigged: European Commission Raids Oil Companies in Price-Fixing Probe<br /><br />By Matt Taibbi<br /><br />May 16, 2013 -"Rolling Stone"- We're going to get into this more at a later date, but there was some interesting late-breaking news yesterday.<br /><br />According to numerous reports, the European Commission regulators yesterday raided the offices of oil companies in London, the Netherlands and Norway as part of an investigation into possible price-rigging in the oil markets. The targeted companies include BP, Shell and the Norweigan company Statoil. The Guardian explains that officials believe that oil companies colluded to manipulate pricing data:<br /><br /> The commission said the alleged price collusion, which may have been going on since 2002, could have had a "huge impact" on the price of petrol at the pumps "potentially harming final consumers".<br /><br /> Lord Oakeshott, former Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman, said the alleged rigging of oil prices was "as serious as rigging Libor" – which led to banks being fined hundreds of millions of pounds.<br /><br />The rest:<br />http://goo.gl/M9qy6Kevinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-12300685902680003392013-05-15T13:27:04.410-07:002013-05-15T13:27:04.410-07:00Very interesting--Zbigniew Brzezinski:
"The...Very interesting--Zbigniew Brzezinski:<br /><br /><br />"The nation state as a fundamental unit of man's organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state."<br /><br />Brzezinski, Zbigniew, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era (New York: Viking Press, 1973), p. 246.<br /><br />============<br /><br />“We have a large public that is very ignorant about public affairs and very susceptible to simplistic slogans by candidates who appear out of nowhere, have no track record, but mouth appealing slogans”<br /><br />“Most Americans are close to total ignorance about the world. They are ignorant. That is an unhealthy condition in a country in which foreign policy has to be endorsed by the people if it is to be pursued. And it makes it much more difficult for any president to pursue an intelligent policy that does justice to the complexity of the world.”<br /><br />“[American exceptionalism] is a reaction to the inability of people to understand global complexity or important issues like American energy dependency. Therefore, they search for simplistic sources of comfort and clarity. And the people that they are now selecting to be, so to speak, the spokespersons of their anxieties are, in most cases, stunningly ignorant.”<br /><br />“The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities. ”<br /><br />“In the technotronic society the trend would seem to be towards the aggregation of the individual support of millions of uncoordinated citizens, easily within the reach of magnetic and attractive personalities exploiting the latest communications techniques to manipulate emotions and control reason.”<br /><br />“This regionalization is in keeping with the Tri-Lateral Plan which calls for a gradual convergence of East and West, ultimately leading toward the goal of one world government. National sovereignty is no longer a viable concept.”<br /><br />… Persisting social crisis, the emergence of a charismatic personality, and the exploitation of mass media to obtain public confidence would be the steppingstones in the piecemeal transformation of the United States into a highly controlled society.”<br /><br />Lisanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2421120314431035162013-05-15T11:49:38.819-07:002013-05-15T11:49:38.819-07:00@Ryan Ashton:
"That is, standard (c) need no...@Ryan Ashton:<br /><br />"That is, standard (c) need not apply to my epistemic justifications for inferring the falsehood of the official story. As such, (c) is not a standard I need meet in order to deem my dissent from the official story objectively <i>warranted</i>."<br /><br />That depends whether you're taking rejection of the "official story" to include rejection of the claim that 9/11 was not an inside job.<br /><br />If so, then yes, you need to meet standard (c) in order to be epistemically justified in inferring that the "official story" is wrong (<i>i.e.</i> that 9/11 <i>was</i> an inside job).<br /><br />If not, then of course you can reasonably doubt this or that detail of the "official story" without meeting standard (c).Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-86644980720218609142013-05-15T11:40:02.553-07:002013-05-15T11:40:02.553-07:00@Ryan Ashton:
"I think you're saying tha...@Ryan Ashton:<br /><br />"I think you're saying that persuading a person is a different exercise than justifying a given proposition."<br /><br />No, I'm not; although that's no doubt true as well, I don't know why you think it's what I'm saying. I'm saying that Feser is proposing (c) as a strategy <i>specifically in this instance</i> because of special circumstances that don't extend to all reasoning generally.<br /><br />Specifically, he's saying that in this instance we're being offered (and here I'm quoting what I said in my previous reply to you) "an alternative hypothesis that appears on the face of it to require more, and less plausible, explanation than the original hypothesis to which it's being offered as an alternative." Under <i>those</i> circumstances, he says, interlocutors are justified in demanding that condition (c) be met, for if it were not met, it would be <i>unreasonable</i> to prefer the second explanation to the first.<br /><br />In general, I'd say (and I have said) that it seems senseless to me to doubt a proposition unless we at least have in mind that some alternative to it is possible or conceivable. But that doesn't mean that every time we want to doubt a proposition, we have to know what the real truth is; nor does Feser say we do, and I really don't see why some participants in this discussion have taken him to mean that.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-44558935316984461922013-05-15T10:44:09.401-07:002013-05-15T10:44:09.401-07:00Scott writes:
"And for some reason we're...Scott writes:<br /><br />"<i>And for some reason we're still treating Feser's suggestion specifically about argumentative strategy for Truthers as though it was intended as a fundamental requirement of all reasoning whatsoever.</i>"<br /><br />This is interesting. I think you're saying that persuading a person is a different exercise than justifying a given proposition. For example, we may say the role of a prosecuting attorney is to convince a jury that a person is guilty and vice versa for a defending attorney; however, to convince a jury one way or the other is not necessarily the same thing as proving the person objectively guilty or innocent. To best accomplish their respective goals, the attorneys ought to willfully suppress information damaging to their cases and amplify information helpful to their cases. Although the true guilt of a defendant may in the end be reached by the jury, this process is not designed to ensure this. Instead, the verdict of the accused reflects the rhetorical skills of the attorneys and dispositions of the jury members; any congruence between verdict and actual guilt is coincidental--it's just a matter of the right lawyer getting assigned to the right side and jury members with the right dispositions getting selected for the trial.<br /><br />In the same manner, you (and, if you're right, Feser) are saying that (c) is a rhetorical standard, not a reasoning standard. For individuals with dispositions such as yours and Feser's, (c) is a standard that happens to apply to you with respect to your beliefs about 9/11. Should a "Truther" wish to revise your beliefs about 9/11, he or she must meet a standard that may or may not apply to reasoning in general. That is, standard (c) need not apply to my epistemic justifications for inferring the falsehood of the official story. As such, (c) is not a standard I need meet in order to deem my dissent from the official story objectively <i>warranted</i>.<br /><br />If this is right, then the obvious response from me will be, so what? Why should I care to meet a rhetorical standard that is independent of standards of warranted belief? My position is not analogous to those of the lawyers; instead, my position is analogous to that of a judge. I wish to discern what most likely happened on 9/11, not how best to persuade others to believe it was some conspiracy. So far, standard (c) is in need of justification if it is to affect the warrant of my dissent from the official story.Ryan S Ashtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03152076078903650949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-53907928587415016772013-05-14T23:22:44.262-07:002013-05-14T23:22:44.262-07:00Very good video:
DT Guest Lecture Series - Dr. Pa...Very good video:<br /><br />DT Guest Lecture Series - Dr. Paul Craig Roberts on Media, 9/11 and the Police State<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDt44UjlKlALisanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-61921309420399901342013-05-14T22:22:16.260-07:002013-05-14T22:22:16.260-07:00Video of James Corbett interviewing Paul Craig Rob...Video of James Corbett interviewing Paul Craig Roberts on the tenth anniversary of 9-11. <br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hBOMSj0uNmwLisanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-79940458770486254992013-05-14T21:47:42.134-07:002013-05-14T21:47:42.134-07:00
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_the_...<br /><br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_the_9/11_Commission_Report<br /><br />9/11 After A Decade: Have We Learned Anything? <br />by Paul Craig RobertsLisanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-49472244389557446762013-05-14T21:25:31.827-07:002013-05-14T21:25:31.827-07:00Found another excellent resource for those interes...Found another excellent resource for those interested:<br /><br />http://www.wanttoknow.info/911informationLisanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-76608417657944162852013-05-14T20:19:48.226-07:002013-05-14T20:19:48.226-07:00Scott wrote:
"... the typically proffered a...Scott wrote: <br /><br />"...<i> the typically proffered alternative ("9/11 was an inside job") faces difficulties that appear insurmountable and seems to require a degree of skepticism that undermines the position itself.</i>"<br /><br />Poppycock. Bilbohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06231440026059820600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-48856947769930492892013-05-14T19:02:33.908-07:002013-05-14T19:02:33.908-07:00@Daniel Smith:
"I would hope they use indepe...@Daniel Smith:<br /><br />"I would hope they use independant evidence evaluation to gauge the truth of the government/media stories. That's what I would do."<br /><br />Yup. And Feser's point is that that's what the Truthers need to show that <i>they're</i> doing, and he's (to put it mildly) skeptical that they can do so. I think his skepticism is justified—which doesn't, of course, mean I'm committed to the view that the official story is the unmitigated, unvarnished, final truth, but I agree that the typically proffered alternative ("9/11 was an inside job") faces difficulties that appear insurmountable and seems to require a degree of skepticism that undermines the position itself.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-12524250720027330252013-05-14T17:00:04.750-07:002013-05-14T17:00:04.750-07:00Scott: He's not saying the Truthers need to ex...Scott: <i>He's not saying the Truthers need to explain why, in general, some government information can be trusted and some can't; he's saying they need to explain why the specific information they trust is in fact trustworthy and the specific information they distrust isn't. They need, that is, an independent criterion that rules out the sources they don't trust and rules in the sources they do.</i><br /><br />OK well then I got nuthin'. I'm not a truther so I don't know which sources they trust and why. I would hope they use independant evidence evaluation to gauge the truth of the government/media stories. That's what I would do.<br />Liberteurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17878796551917615050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-68924684175678940492013-05-14T16:43:10.002-07:002013-05-14T16:43:10.002-07:00@BenSix:
"Are 'truthers' defined by ...@BenSix:<br /><br />"Are 'truthers' defined by their rejection of official explanations of events or their proposal of interpretations to replace them? I had assumed that Mr. Ashton was arguing that people making the former case were not obliged to fulfill Professor Feser's latter standard, and such a person might have no explanation of their own."<br /><br />Here's what Feser wrote: "If I were a Truther, my strategy would be . . . finally, (c) don't say 'I don't know' when asked what exactly did happen if the 'official story' is wrong (as in 'I don't know how WTC7 could have been rigged with explosives with nobody noticing,' 'I don't know what could have happened to the plane if it isn't really what hit the Pentagon even though lots of people said they saw it hit it,' etc.)"<br /><br />I really don't see how he could have made his meaning more clear. It doesn't make a bit of difference how Truthers are "defined"; the point is that to whatever extent they expect to be taken seriously <i>in proposing an alternative account of 9/11</i>, they need to show positively that it presents fewer problems than the "official" account.<br /><br />The usual alternative they present, whether or not they're "defined" by it, is that "9/11 was an inside job," and that's why they're newsworthy. But if some of them just want to suggest that the official story may not get every last detail precisely right even though it's correct in broad outline, I don't expect Feser to have any particular issue with that.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1545581415424611102013-05-14T14:36:38.079-07:002013-05-14T14:36:38.079-07:00Brandon,
CT:I simply disagree that this is a comp...Brandon,<br /><br />CT:<b><i>I simply disagree that this is a comparison game. If it was then one could reasonable question how well we understand the physics and engineering in question here. Are you saying that one could not ask the relevant experts, "Could the type of fire in question, bring down the type of building in question, in the fashion in question?" Or that they would have to say, "I cannot tell you an answer to that question until you give what alternative scenarios you have in mind."<br /><br />Even in doing a comparison, such presupposing a vast amount of detailed information on how a fire, demolition etc would proceed under the conditions in question. Given all that information, why would one only be able to answer comparatively?<br /></i></b><br /><br />B: <i>I don't know what you mean by a 'comparison game'; if we're talking about what the best explanation of evidence is, 'best explanation' is a comparative term, and so can only be established comparatively. You seem to be forgetting that this is a dispute with experts on both sides, and thus the only question is whether the experts on either side are doing what they are logically and rationally required to do to establish their case, and which has the best argument in this light. But even if this weren't the case, it's still a logically comparative situation: the experts have established their own case only to the extent that they have established that things could have happened the way they claim in light of all the relevant evidence. Otherwise, they are simply drawing provisional conclusions on the basis of clearly incomplete evidence, not reasonably definitive ones, as you seem to assume.<br /></i><br /><br />In this situation, we are not talking about the best explanation of the evidence. Before comparing which scenario is the best explanation of the evidence, one first must ask of each alternative, if it is consistent with the evidence. If the answer to that question is ever, "no", then that alternative is taken off the table. At the end, you look at all the alternatives that are consistent with the evidence, and then do a comparison, over what you think happened. If you are familiar with Popper and other Philosophers of Science, then one will be familiar with the claim that it is easier to declare a claim to be false, then to determine that a claim is true.<br /><br />Yes, there is a dispute with experts on both sides, but such does not make it a comparison or best explanation case, at least not at this level of inquiry. One could (conceivable, probably not practically) be completely ignorant of Controlled Demolition, and yet be able to say that it is possible or impossible for the type of fire in question could do what is seen on the video clips.<br /><br />B:<i>Consider canals on Mars: here we had experts clearly insisting on their existence, on the basis of genuine experience and competent scientific procedure; but this conclusion required establishing that the appearance of canals was not an artifact of the instruments used to discover them. That requires comparative argument. Or consider the Cottingley fairies incident: we have genuine photographic experts arguing that there is no way for the photographic evidence to be merely apparent or faked. But the actual case of the fairies couldn't reduce down to 'just ask the experts, look at the physical evidence', because the human factor had to be properly addressed, and the evidence had to be placed in its proper context. In both cases the conclusion turned out to be false, despite having in each case some very good arguments from physical evidence (especially in the Cottingley fairies incident, since it was provably true that the photographs could not have been faked by any form of strictly photographic fakery): there are no crucial experiments, and nothing ever stands or falls on a single argument in a complex matter. Even when dealing with experts.</i><br /><br />I don't have a problem with any of this, but it simply does not strike at my argument.ChristianTraderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11996055597249229702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-51866183285085295612013-05-14T14:35:45.742-07:002013-05-14T14:35:45.742-07:00Brandon,
B:And, again, you have not established t...Brandon,<br /><br />B:<i>And, again, you have not established that. What you have done is simply posited (by your own admission) whatever is required to rule the defendant out without ever showing that my contention, that this 'whatever evidence' that rules the defendant out must include something that makes clear that someone other than the defendant could be the culprit, otherwise the defendant is not actually ruled out -- the most we have is some evidence that he could be, assuming someone else could have done it. As I've pointed out, this is something defense attorneys actually look into, whenever it is not already obvious that someone else could have done. You have not established that this is just icing on the cake; you keep saying it is, but whenever I give a reason why it shouldn't be considered such, you retreat to the claim that if the defense has established that the defendant is ruled out, the defendant is ruled out -- when the actual point in dispute is what is required actually to establish it in the first place. </i><br /><br />First off, I never said nor implied that directly answers the issue of the possibility of someone else doing it, was icing on the cake. I explicitly stated that not answering such makes the case harder. I reject that lacking a direct answer makes it impossible to rule the suspect out. All you have done is re-assert that no matter what evidence the defense produces that the defendant was not there, can never be enough, by itself to support the thesis that someone else could have done it. That is simple something that cannot be done apriori. Now one could say, that in a concrete scenario, the defense has not done enough to win the case, but that is not what you are doing.<br /><br />Let us examine in detail the prosecution claim that it is not possible for someone else other than the defendant committed the crime.<br />1)The underlying premise of the claim in question is: "The prosecution has/has presented all the relevant information"<br />2)Given all the relevant information, the defendant is the only person who could have committed the crime.<br />3)To overturn 2), the defense could proceed in various ways.<br />4)One way to proceed is to add items to the relevant information so that the conclusion of 2)"the defendant is the only person who could have committed the crime" is no longer warranted.<br />5)In our example here, the defense could put forward evidence that the defendant was not at the location of the crime when the crime was committed.<br />6)Given that addition to the set of relevant information, the conclusion, "the defendant is the only person who could have committed the crime", is no longer warranted and the prosecution can no longer claim that the relevant information set is complete.<br />7)At this point, there will be a battle over whether or not, 5) should be included in the relevant information or not, and the side that wins will win the case<br />8)Now the defense could also/or instead attack 2) by showing that given the relevant information, other people could have committed the crime.<br />9) 8)may be easier to do than 5) but is not the only way to skin this cat.ChristianTraderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11996055597249229702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-20136307523591614202013-05-14T13:41:22.777-07:002013-05-14T13:41:22.777-07:00Scott -
As I've said, and as I think Feser ha...<b>Scott</b> -<br /><br /><i>As I've said, and as I think Feser has made perfectly clear, his point has to do rather with the prima facie problems specific to the alternative hypothesis/explanation that Truthers are asking others to entertain...</i><br /><br />Are "truthers" defined by their rejection of official explanations of events or their proposal of interpretations to replace them? I had assumed that Mr. Ashton was arguing that people making the former case were not obliged to fulfill Professor Feser's latter standard, and such a person might have no explanation of their own.BenSixhttp://bensix.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-50183563512807504922013-05-14T13:21:26.426-07:002013-05-14T13:21:26.426-07:00@Ryan Ashton:
"But, more fundamentally, (c) ...@Ryan Ashton:<br /><br />"But, more fundamentally, (c) seems to suggest that one can only know a proposition to be false if and only if one also knows which alternative proposition is true."<br /><br />And for some reason we're still treating Feser's suggestion specifically about <i>argumentative strategy for Truthers</i> as though it was intended as a <i>fundamental requirement of all reasoning whatsoever</i> . . . ?<br /><br />I've already acknowledged that we can know 23 times 37 <i>isn't</i> 322 without knowing what it <i>is</i> (though not without knowing <i>that</i> it is something else, <i>i.e.</i> that alternative answers are available and one of them is correct). There's no disagreement here about that.<br /><br />As I've said, and as I think Feser has made perfectly clear, his point has to do rather with the <i>prima facie</i> problems specific to the alternative hypothesis/explanation that Truthers are asking others to entertain—and, by logical extension, to other such arguments that are analogous in relevant ways, notably in proposing an alternative hypothesis that appears on the face of it to require more, and less plausible, explanation than the original hypothesis to which it's being offered as an alternative.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-54092407652466969062013-05-14T11:11:59.333-07:002013-05-14T11:11:59.333-07:00Re: Conspiracy Theories are logical fallacies by a...<br />Re: Conspiracy Theories are logical fallacies by appealing to secret knowledge. Don't be fooled by the fact that once in a while a conspiracy is uncovered, because it proves conspiracy 'theories' are false.<br />-----------<br />A conspiracy theory is not a logical fallacy. Perhaps "hypothesis" would be a better word to use, rather than to go along with the mass media propaganda buzz word that tries to bully people into ignoring what looks suspicious. The proper meaning is "an agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act." The infamous Savings and Loan scandal was certainly a great example, and thousands were convicted and many were jailed, Keating was among those. GATA has shown how the gold price is government manipulated. That is a conspiracy. So was Enron. You can go to Catherine A. Fitts and read about more of these kinds of things in government. Politics is a realm where conspiracies of all kinds flourish. Read prosecutor William Black's book: "The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One." The entire financial debacle depended in part on a tremendous amount of covert criminality regarding the sale of garbage securities. Corporations engage in this all the time--hence the term "control fraud." Politics is a domain that lends itself to conspiracies--covert illegal action involving concerted action not just individual activity--because of the potential rewards and because one acts within frameworks wherein these things can be concealed rather well in many cases. There are all kinds of regulations that strive to prevent criminal collusion--because it is possible and because it happens. Even on a large scale it does not necessarily demand a large number of people "in the know", but just coordinated activity on the part of those who wield power and authority over others. So, a hypothesis of conspiracy in given situations can in principle at least be perfectly plausible and account for the facts. Later on, it may be necessary to revise or jettison that hypothesis, or it may be proven correct and arrests follow; or it may never be proven correct or falsified because the people involved have the power and influence to determine that essential information will not get revealed "for reasons of national security" and the like. The louder people of influence and power accuse people trying to get at the truth with the phrase "conspiracy theory" the more suspect I consider them. They are trying to turn brains off. I speak of reasonable people, not crazy people. Let's not forget "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."<br /><br /> Jamesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-40808257372424831432013-05-14T09:48:09.279-07:002013-05-14T09:48:09.279-07:00Scott,
For ease of reference, here's earlier ...Scott,<br /><br />For ease of reference, here's earlier commentary from Feser I will refer to:<br /><br />"<i>If I were a Truther, my strategy would be (a) to focus on some one very, very specific claim -- for example, the claim that WTC7 couldn't have come down the way the 'official story' says it did, and then (b) to defend this and only this claim without appealing to premises that presuppose the existence of a Truther-style conspiracy....And finally, (c) don't say 'I don't know' when asked what exactly did happen if the 'official story' is wrong (as in 'I don't know how WTC7 could have been rigged with explosives with nobody noticing,' 'I don't know what could have happened to the plane if it isn't really what hit the Pentagon even though lots of people said they saw it hit it,' etc.)</i>"<br /><br />My posts thus far have been attempting to adhere to stipulations (a) and (b). I raised three features of WTC7 that appear to be incompatible with the official story: 1. symmetrical collapse, 2. rapid collapse speed, and 3. low visible exterior damage. This admittedly narrows the context of the 9/11 issue, but it does so for a reason--to show one accessible way in which the official story can confidently be falsified. This approach seems faithful to Feser's points (a) and (b).<br /><br />My contention is that point (c) is an unnecessarily demanding stipulation. In fact, on the face of it, (c) appears to conflict with (a): whereas (a) promotes "one very, very specific claim," (c) promotes a very broad claim (e.g. how explosives got in the building, who may have put them there, how they avoided detection, etc.). But, more fundamentally, (c) seems to suggest that one can only know a proposition to be false if and only if one also knows which alternative proposition is true. What would the justification for this be? For example, if I ask someone what 23 times 37 is, and he returns the answer "322," I can know that this answer is wrong without knowing the right answer. I know it is wrong because I know any odd number multiplied by another odd number is necessarily odd; but, 322 is even. Thus, it cannot be right. Furthermore, I know that 20 times 20 is 400, and both 23 and 37 are greater than 20, thus their product must be greater than 400. The process of eliminating alternatives appears to be valid in general, so it is not clear why it would fail to be valid with respect to 9/11.<br /><br />Coincidentally, I happened upon this video from the Weather Channel today. It shows a controlled demolition gone wrong. Notice that the building does not fall symmetrically into its own footprint, but asymmetrically; furthermore, the upper portion of the building remained intact as it hit the ground. If the official story were true, why wouldn't we expect WTC7 to behave similarly to this building?<br /><br />http://www.weather.com/video/demolition-gone-wrong-36712Ryan S Ashtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03152076078903650949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-86524909311700913952013-05-14T08:33:57.414-07:002013-05-14T08:33:57.414-07:00HI,
Again, this is not rocket science.
(1) You ...HI,<br /><br />Again, this is not rocket science. <br /><br />(1) You haven't actually presented any physical evidence; you just vaguely alluded to commonly discussed topics that you think you can establish your conclusion on, and did not say anything about how they function in your argument for your conclusion.<br /><br />(2) This post, and this comments thread, is about the structure of argument and inquiry required to establish certain kinds of conclusions, not about particular conclusions. This is quite clear from the post, and quite clear from how everyone except you has been arguing. The one and only relevant thing is to establish that you have an argument that can logically deliver what you claim. Since you have only vaguely alluded to your actual argument, and the only thing you've said that is relevant to whether your argument is of the right logical structure is your clumsy attempt at analogizing, you have not done this.<br /><br />(3) Of course we're talking about the a priori here -- the topic of the thread is not what happened at the towers but what kinds of conditions a truther argument would or would not need if it is to establish its conclusions. As I've pointed out before, you don't seem to have at any point grasped what the actual discussion is here. You're just nattering while other people, even those who agree with you, are contributing substantive arguments that are actually relevant to the discussion.<br /><br />(4) You will notice, if you go back and re-read my comments, that my complaint was not that you didn't present physical evidence, but that you didn't present the argument on the basis of physical evidence that you claim to have. You still haven't.Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06698839146562734910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-19232996203075861182013-05-14T08:16:20.808-07:002013-05-14T08:16:20.808-07:00Thanks Brandon,
I expected you wouldn't actua...Thanks Brandon,<br /><br />I expected you wouldn't actually deal with any of the physical evidence and would instead dance around the subject. You complain that I don't present any physical evidence, and then when I do, despite my strong misgiving that it is a waste of time, you then prove me right. The reason I presented a few topics in point form is to get to the heart of the matter, and to avoid your word games which has been your modus operandi from the very beginning. There is no point in laying out a lengthy argument of evidence when the other side has not demonstrated in any of their posts (whether in response to me or anyone else) that they are actually prepared to deal with the physical evidence. The evidence doesn't matter since you've already determined what is and is not possible a priori.HInoreply@blogger.com