Science Deniers are Everywhere

@farmerman,

Quote:

even with 85 to 90% of structural strength of the beam was removed by thermal "softening"??

Wild, unscientific claims, never any sources. No wonder you are putting Glennn on ignore. He shows you for the fool you are.

farmerman never denied the molten/vaporized steel described by FEMA, he just refused to discuss it, as he knew it was fatal to the US government conspiracy theory. He KNOWS that this one thing sinks the US government narrative.

That is farmerman the scientist, hiding away from reality. Why would anyone support such a fraud, a guy who brags about what a scientist he is but he can't discuss the science with non-scientists.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

The most significant achievement of Popper, Khun and later the "French theory" (late structuralism and postmodernism, eg Barthe, Derrida, Foucault, 1960s-70s) is to have stated that science itself is of course not "the truth" but a discourse, or a discussion, about the truth, made by men with all their personal foibles and subjectivity. A discourse that can be "deconstructed", as they say, that can be colored by ideology, and that offers no certainty ever. Science can historically be "wrong" (aka later superseeded by better theories).

Exactly right.

It can lead to "science is hooey" but it need not. It can also lead to clearer thought and decisions if people don't reject the notion as denialism.

3 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Therefore we boil wverything down to your group assertion that things were initiated by explosives??

No, we boil everything down to your group assertion that the upper block of the North Tower descended through the lower intact core structure as if it weren't there, when in fact, it was still there.

You believe that when the upper block started to descend and made contact with the lower block, the lower block just gave way and began falling at the same rate as the upper block. But we know that that's impossible. So you really need to explain the mechanism by which such an impossibility could occur.

And this is to say nothing of the fact that the more damaged upper block would have been equally crushed as it met with the lower intact core. Also, the lateral ejection of steel and concrete reduces the mass. Plus, the force of material ejection must be accounted for as an energy sink. Also, the pulverization of said steel and concrete is yet another energy sink. But in your mind, there was enough energy left over to cause a virtually freefall descent. Not even a jolt was observed as the antenna descended. Where did the energy to accomplish all that come from?

Anyone??

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

It can lead to "science is hooey" but it need not. It can also lead to clearer thought and decisions if people don't reject the notion as denialism.

Yet you do just that, Finn. As does farmerman, olivier, max, and many others, in complete defiance of reality.

Why?

Do you not see your own hypocrisy? You clamor for your "science", asking people to respect that there is a real, an honest discussion being put forward about climate change, but you side with others in ridiculing real solid science that has been put forward by scientists on 911.

I must remind you, possibly you don't know at all. A two year study at the Univ of Alaska, Fairbanks, by a top forensic engineer, says that the NIST study of the collapse of WTC7 has a ZERO [his word] chance of being true.

Yet you describe and support others describing a man like this, this top forensic engineer, as a science denier. It just doesn't show your position as one with any sense to it.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Glennn, in a post right after this one of yours, describes beautifully, an issue of science, one that is within the realm of everyone. Read it. Comment on it.

Isn't that all that you asking for your particular position on a science issue, look and discuss?

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

It can lead to "science is hooey" but it need not. It can also lead to clearer thought and decisions if people don't reject the notion as denialism.

What notion?

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Address Glennn's post, the fourth one up including yours here.

You are denying science by not addressing it, just as you are denying science by supporting the other deniers of science - farmerman, finn, max, roger, ... .

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

I think of it as hysteria, a word that has varied meanings, colloquial or medical: I consider it medical in the JTT/camlok situation.

1 Reply

@ossobucotemp,

Quote:

I think of it as hysteria, a word that has varied meanings, colloquial or medical: I consider it medical in the JTT/camlok situation.

Why do you all, you rank science deniers, engage in such transparent lies, Osso?

How can me repeating what a top engineering forensic scientist says be sign of a medical problem?

"2017 WTC7 study being conducted at University of Alaska Fairbanks, says the chance of the NIST's report on the collapse of WTC7 being accurate and realistic is zero."

How can me repeating what top scientists, engineers, architects, physicists, ... from the US and around the world say be sign of a medical problem?

You guys make no sense whatsoever. You keep self-maligning yourselves with this idiocy.

You know what Lash says, don't you, Osso?

"Not knowing the truth isn't what makes you ignorant. It's not wanting to know the truth that makes you ignorant."

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

The notion expressed in the quote, that science is not truth and scientists are subject to human foibles. Hell, you originally posted it.

3 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

The notion expressed in the quote, that science is not truth and scientists are subject to human foibles. Hell, you originally posted it.

I see that you are also having troubles with Olivier's duplicity, Finn.

What do you think of Lash's advice to A2Kers?

"Not knowing the truth isn't what makes you ignorant. It's not wanting to know the truth that makes you ignorant."

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

The notion expressed in the quote, that science is not truth and scientists are subject to human foibles. Hell, you originally posted it.

That notion was developed in the mid 20th century as i explained, and is now totally mainstream among the scientific community. It is even translated into greater accountability and scrutiny of the research process and results, through strong peer reviews, large teams from different labs, and the likes. There is no scientist nowadays who confuses his theory with The Absolute Truth. So that's not the problem.

The problem is linked to a wholesale distrust of scientists, e.g. all climatologists. In the belief that most e.g. climatologists manipulate their data and findings because they are bad people, Democrats, tree huggers or Eurotrash. THAT's science denial. Because most climatologists are smart and honest people, working hard to understand the **** we're in, and we should thank them for their work, not try to undermine it for ideological reasons.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

It's all a matter of perspective and opinion.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

It's all a matter of perspective and opinion.

=It's all a matter of partisanship and uninformed opinion.

Olivier too, on the science he denies, which also happens to be the science you deny, as does farmerman.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

I strongly agree. I actually worked in science, never first author, as it wasn't my idea.. this was in the late sixties and seventies, basically in immunology. One of our best findings was a complete surprise, so much that we thought it must be a mistake. Wasn't.

I'd aver that scientists worry about it first.

1 Reply

@ossobucotemp,

Folks who believe in science don't deny science.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

vidence , many times is developed to explain something that works in the real world. Do we ever say that this is the final word?? NOT HARDLY. Most explanations serve thir purpose for a brif slic of time. I recall, when I first started in my career, Dontinental Drift had been only started to be accepted as a workeable hypothesis. It grew into a theory when ALL THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE HYPOTHESIS AND NO EVIDENCE REFUTED IT.

Thats the biggest problem with the "truther worldview". They do not even accept the scads of evidence that refute their beliefs.

Theirs is not science, its mythopoeia that is easily found false in a Popperian means(I have no idea what we would call something that would be ala Popper).

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

French postmodernists adopted a more pessimistic posture, and IMO their work (amply tought in US universities in the 80s and 90s) laid the ground for the current post-truth BS.

True dat!. Im fqmiliar only with Popper and Derrida. Its interesting that, in applications of say, moleculr biology v paleo, the entire world of the workers in these disciplenes that arent purely "Applied" (As is my use of them) are going back an forth twixt several end members that quickly bcomeobsolete as one or two problem areas arise in the applications (ay things like telomeres as a tool to "map" a genome of parent and daughter species and reserved epigenetics v Punctuated Equilibrium).

Quote:

I happen to agree that history is a science, because it fits the faslifiability criteria of Popper: historic narratives can very well be contradicted, revised, updated and modified based on newly discovered facts

My only problem at A2k is that we seem to have a profound "take no prisoners" style of debate rather than collegial discussions. (Im as guilty as the next guy ) If I start bcoming the focus of discussion by someone ho wishes to criticize my woreth as a scientist, I usually just put that prson on ignore because they usually dont have any idea about the science I represent . I find that , very few of us are able to stop n reconsider what weve been believing or accepting as evidence.
recenty Edgar put up some information about how some fossils of early hominims (post separation from Pongidae) were discovered in Pliocene EUROPE, not AFrica. Im skeptical, I think it a conclusion jumped to waay too soon. BUT, its an interesting concept that more study nd evidence may support or not.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

I find that , very few of us are able to stop n reconsider what weve been believing or accepting as evidence.

Would you be willing to help me to stop and reconsider what we've been believing or accepting as evidence, farmerman?

Quote:

Thats the biggest problem with the "truther worldview". They do not even accept the scads of evidence that refute their beliefs.

Presenting that evidence in a scientific fashion could go some distance towards us, all of us, stopping and reconsidering what we've been believing or accepting as evidence.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Thats the biggest problem with the "truther worldview".

The biggest problem of the "truther" is that self-proclaimed scientists like yourself actually believe that the upper block of the North Tower descended through the lower intact core structure as if it weren't there, when in fact, it was still there.

That's right. They believe that when the upper block started to descend and made contact with the lower block, the lower block just gave way and began falling at the same rate as the upper block. But we know that that's impossible. You would think that rather than hide, they would be happy to explain the mechanism by which such an impossibility could occur. But no.

It's all psychological, really. They actually do understand that the more damaged upper block would have been equally crushed as it met with the lower intact core, and that the lateral ejection of steel and concrete would reduce the energy of the mass even more, and that the pulverization of steel and concrete is yet another energy sink. But rather than admit that there was certainly not enough energy left over to cause a virtually freefall descent, they instead decide to simply ignore the question. And that's okay. I'm not here to judge another's coping skills . . . although I guess I just did. I'll have to work on that.

0 Replies

Science Deniers are Everywhere

Quick Links

My Account

able2know