Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 5 votes

O.D.D. obsessive debunking disorder


  • Please log in to reply
246 replies to this topic

#226    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,378 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 05 May 2013 - 12:56 PM

Mikko

I agree with you completely on these points. :tu:


#227    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,047 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 05 May 2013 - 12:57 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 05 May 2013 - 12:44 PM, said:

Yes, and for the longest time, the 'experts' also believed the earth was the center of the universe.
Actually that particular belief was pretty much limited to Western Christendom and its churches.  Most of the world's people have had other ideas


#228    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,378 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 05 May 2013 - 01:12 PM

Precisely the point Frank--Western Civilization's "experts" believed and promulgated the error that earth was the center of the universe.

Rather like today's experts promulgate all manner of error and misconception and untruth.


#229    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,047 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 05 May 2013 - 01:22 PM

I suspect there are things you once believed but do not believe any longer.  Using your reasoning here, this would imply that nothing you believe now could be true.

I think some people would like to believe things that the advance of knowledge has debunked, and so they resort to thinking like you just exhibited to believe what they want to believe.


#230    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,378 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 05 May 2013 - 01:39 PM

That's a strange line of reasoning Frank.  Yes, I've changed my mind and my position many times in my life, and I suspect I will again before it's all over.

But going from that simple fact to "nothing you believe now could be true" is so bizarre.  I cannot follow your reasoning, I do not see your point.


#231    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,047 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 05 May 2013 - 01:44 PM

That people were wrong about something in the past is not proof that they are wrong now.  Bring up past errors is just simply a logical fallacy -- something that will get points taken away in formal debate contests.


#232    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,047 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 05 May 2013 - 01:49 PM

I am so tempted that I can no longer resist that these errors about the place of the earth in the universe and the short time the universe has existed were Christian teachings, not scientific findings, and that Asian religions like those of China and Hinduism and Buddhism never taught such things.

Aristotle was mislead from the fact that he could not detect parallax to conclude that the earth was the center of things, and the Christians churches for a long time took anything Aristotle said as being infallible.  This was a mistake of a great scientist, but not usable with regard to modern science as he had no access to modern equipment.


#233    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,378 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 05 May 2013 - 01:50 PM

I did not say it was "proof" of anything Frank.

What I'm saying is that it is part of the human condition and experience and history that self-proclaimed experts are frequently wrong, as they are only human.

However as long as you've introduced the term "proof", the historical record is "proof" that human experts are frequently in error.  Knowledge and science are ALWAYS evolving.

What we knew, or thought we knew, 11 years ago could be very different today, as new facts become apparent.


#234    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,047 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 05 May 2013 - 02:01 PM

Yes, the word "proof" is a bad word.  I slap my wrists.  "Persuasive evidence" is a better approach.  The fact that people can and have been wrong about anything in the past is not persuasive evidence that any particular conspiracy theory is true.  There, now more clearly stated.

The so-called "evolution" of knowledge and science is not quite the way you describe it.  It is not an edifice that periodically must be torn down and rebuilt.  It is instead an edifice that occasionally needs a little remodeling but for the most part is constantly being enlarged.

The press so often has it that this or that knowledge has been "overthrown," as part of their standard exaggerative fare, when the reality is that this or that knowledge has been expanded.


#235    Mikko-kun

Mikko-kun

    New life

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,475 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amniotic fluid of consfious life

  • Observation, individual resourcefulness... what would we be without them?

Posted 05 May 2013 - 02:51 PM

View PostFrank Merton, on 05 May 2013 - 12:56 PM, said:

I'm talking about rational debate, not what the ancients may or may not have believed.  It is what is called a logical fallacy.  Maybe you should look up the term.

And I'm talking about it too, because they connect, rational discussion and history. In the light of history, it's just rational to be able to think yourself as a possibly not know-it-all. Rational mind wants to know and be sure, but there's just many things in the world about which you can't be sure with. It's just whether you want to keep looking at the other direction or not. Where you look at there, your point of observation in mental level, is what matters, especially that you can turn it from one point to another. From rational to hypothetical to hunch, and vice versa.

Frank, before you ask me to look at anything in the dictionary, maybe you should look at "pragmatism" first.

Quote

That people were wrong about something in the past is not proof that they are wrong now.

I didn't say it was proof either, but that letting yourself think that there'd be nothing left for us to discover about any subject of interest, like nothing to discover about a conspiracy theory or about why universe works the way it seems to work... that. I took history because it has shown and even the modern science seems to show, that there's still things for us to discover in all fields and many subjects. Thinking outside the "I know" -box.

I've been born again 31,8,2014 approximately 21:35 local time. A moment free of clutter in the mind, emancipating myself like an escapist, allowing myself to breathe life in a stronger, less physical level... though it does resonate to physical world. It's the oomph.

#236    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,047 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 05 May 2013 - 03:02 PM

You seem to be using past error as an excuse for things you would like to believe.  That just does not follow.  At any rate that is the best I can make of what you say.

Please however drop the straw man that I think there's nothing left to discover.


#237    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,378 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 05 May 2013 - 06:57 PM

Welcome aboard Mikko! :clap:


#238    Mikko-kun

Mikko-kun

    New life

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,475 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amniotic fluid of consfious life

  • Observation, individual resourcefulness... what would we be without them?

Posted 05 May 2013 - 07:07 PM

Thanks Babe :D

Strawman -.- it's just a simple truth as far as I'm concerned, something that seems to be ignored at times, less and less so though in here.

I'm just saying there's other thought processes than the logical-deductive one and that they too can provide. Maybe they dont provide solid things like the more worldly rationalism does so much, but they can be good roadsigns. Listening your hunch, how you feel about things and all that. And sharing them. We're not just bloody calculators.

I've been born again 31,8,2014 approximately 21:35 local time. A moment free of clutter in the mind, emancipating myself like an escapist, allowing myself to breathe life in a stronger, less physical level... though it does resonate to physical world. It's the oomph.

#239    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 07 May 2013 - 08:05 AM

View Postflyingswan, on 04 May 2013 - 06:48 PM, said:

You obviously miss the objection I have to this argument.  Perhaps I can try an analogy.  Young-Earth creationists argue that the world is only a few thousand years old.  However, there is plenty of evidence for an older earth.  They could get around this by saying that God cunningly created the world with this evidence in place, in other words a covert young earth made to look like an old one.  Thus, any features that do not resemble a young earth are simply congruent with the expectations of a cunning creator.

This argument is obviously impossible to refute, it is unfalsifiable, but that does not mean that it is true.  It merely means that the person who puts it forward has a different idea of what is plausible than the average geologist.  You have to believe in such a cunning creator before you can argue that fossils are evidence for a covert young earth. In the same way, you have to believe that a covert demolition took place before you can argue that the evidence against a controlled demolition is simply evidence of how cunning the perpetrators of the covert demolition were.  Keeping this thread clear of the specifics, lets just say that you are free to believe this if it makes you happy, but that doesn't make you right. You have a different idea of what is plausible than the average engineer.

Your supposed analogy is not relevant to the 9/11 case one bit.

1.    There is no evidence specific to a fire based collapse.

2.    Demolition theories are not “cunningly created” but inherent in the covert nature of the operation.

3.    Why would God be “a cunning creator” anyway?  A covert creation theory is entirely fantasy to begin.  In other words, again it is not an analogy for 9/11 where solid precedent, motive and evidence exist.

4.    The demolition is absolutely possible to refute in theory, I even told you how.  It’s simply that the evidence is not available to do so.  I wonder why.

5.    There is no evidence against the covert demolition.


In all you continue to show the lack of understanding which explains your overall views.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 04 May 2013 - 11:22 PM, said:

Q, I agree with what swan says here; I understand full well your point here but as swan said, it's essentially unfalsifiable.

You didn’t read my last post either?  Where I stated how the demolition theory is falsifiable?

One example of evidence that would falsify the theory:  steelwork from the collapse zone exhibiting exposure to fire temperatures in the 600-1,000oC range.  Then again, evidence that fire weakened the steelwork at all would do.  Here’s what NIST found from their analysis of the steel: -
  • “no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure.”
  • “Most perimeter panels (157 of 160 locations mapped) saw no temperature T > 250 °C”
  • “Paint analyses indicate both [core] columns < 250 °C”
I can come up with more examples that would in theory falsify the demolition if you like?

It’s not my fault that evidence to support the flimsy official theory, and in doing so falsify other theories, is unavailable or, never existed [wink wink].  And that’s an area official theorists really should think about more, lack of evidence to their own theory.  Anyhow, this does not mean the demolition theory is unfalsifiable theoretically speaking, you got that wrong, it’s just that you guys, for one reason or another, fail to produce the necessary evidence that would do so.  Which in fact, along with other supportive evidence, puts the demolition theory in a very strong position for consideration.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#240    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,404 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 07 May 2013 - 08:28 AM

View PostQ24, on 07 May 2013 - 08:05 AM, said:

Your supposed analogy is not relevant to the 9/11 case one bit.

1.    There is no evidence specific to a fire based collapse.

Why of course fire was responsible, which explains why after more than 11 years, 911 Truthers have failed to provide a shred of evidence that explosives were used.

Quote


2.    Demolition theories are not “cunningly created” but inherent in the covert nature of the operation.

Are you implying that secret agents place mufflers on bombs so no one could hear the explosions? There were no bomb explosions seen, nor heard, nor detected by seismic monitors nor was evidence of explosives found on the steel columns or even within the rubble at ground zero.

Quote


The demolition is absolutely possible to refute in theory, I even told you how.

Actually, what you told and proved to us is that you have no working knowledge of explosives and the proof is what you've posted.

Quote

There is no evidence against the covert demolition.

There is no evidence of explosives of any kind, and that, after more than 11 years since the 911 attacks.

Quote

One example of evidence that would falsify the theory:  steelwork from the collapse zone exhibiting exposure to fire temperatures in the 600-1,000oC range.  Then again, evidence that fire weakened the steelwork at all would do.  Here’s what NIST found from their analysis of the steel: -
  • “no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure.”
  • “Most perimeter panels (157 of 160 locations mapped) saw no temperature T > 250 °C”
  • “Paint analyses indicate both [core] columns < 250 °C”

Well, let's take do a review because I think you missed it before.

Quote

WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

Indications of the Imminent Collapse
of the World Trade Center Buildings
Disprove Explosives Theory


Scientists investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 collapse of the twin towers said, "the World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground." There would not be telltale signs if it was explosives (Controlled Demolition) that caused the buildings to collapse.

"In the case of the north tower, police chopper pilots reported seeing the warning signs - an inward bowing of the building facade - at least eight minutes before it collapsed at 10:29 a.m." New York Daily News reporter Paul Shin wrote in his June 19th, 2004 article 9/11 cops saw collapse coming.

"Federal engineering investigators studying the destruction of the World Trade Center's twin towers on Sept. 11 said New York Police Department aviation units reported an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed, a signal they were about to fall." - NYC Police Saw Sign of Tower Collapse, Study Says


Photographic evidence proves beyond a doubt that floors sagged, pulling perimeter columns in. An event some conspiracy sites suggest never happened.

With the fire proofing blown off, the fire only needed as little as 600 degrees C to deform the naked truss steel.

http://www.debunking911.com/sag.htm
                                    

WTC1 Inward Bowing of the S Perimeter
   Inward bowing (IB) of the perimeter was observed on WTC1 and WTC2.

http://www.sharpprin...osition=499:499

So once again, where is your evidence that explosives were used? Without such evidence, you have no case.

Edited by skyeagle409, 07 May 2013 - 08:36 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users