PDA

View Full Version : Are CT'ers the worst junk scientists?


TellyKNeasuss
26th January 2007, 07:15 PM
A 9/11 CT'er and compulsive liar that I've been debating on a newspaper forum has recently been ending his posts with the question (approximately) "Why are you so anxious to defend the claims of the Bush Administration, which has killed tens of thousands of people in an illegal war?". The simple answer is that I'm not defending the Bush Administration (I've participated in as many anti-war protests as anyone) but that I'm defending science, a field that I've worked in for more than 25 years, against 9/11 CT junk science. I also debate creationists and global warming deniers for this reason.

This afternoon, I got to thinking about which of these folks are the worst. Well, of the three groups, creationists bother me the least. Creationism is an idea that was for centuries thought by essentially everybody to be the way things are. While some of the leaders engage in unethical distortions of scientific claims, the majority are sincerely clinging to a belief that was once taught as an established fact, even if continuing to do so requires ignoring the evidence.

Next come the global warming deniers. Global warming is a recent theory, still with unanswered questions. Even the proponents are split as to whether it is already occurring or a danger for the future. Again, many of the leaders are engaged in unethical mis-representations of science (mainly for the benefit of the organizations that fund them), but it isn't realistic to expect consensus support of a new and incompletely understood theory.

That leaves 9/11 CT'ers. This a group whose leaders seem to be exclusively motivated by political and/or racial motivations and whose followers are typically arrogant folks who like to think that they are much smarter than non-believers. They are, IMHO, the least likely to be sincere about their beliefs (while I can believe that someone could sincerely believe that something as complex as an eye couldn't have evolved by chance, I haven't seen any 9/11 CT claims that equivalently seem to be "common sense") and are certainly the least likely to engage in debates honestly (my opponent continually charges me with lying and distorting what he says, but despite my constant requests refuses to cite even a single example). They are also the most dangerous, with the potential to ruin the lives of, or even instigate violence against, ordinary people who happened to be working at jobs that the 9/11 CT theories require to have been participants in the plot.

(Moderators: I am unfamiliar with tags. Please feel free to add any that you feel are appropriate.)

T.A.M.
26th January 2007, 07:21 PM
Creationists...ya, I can handle them. I am not an atheist, so my idea of God, while pretty nebulous, is still there...as a belief.

Global Warming Deniers...As you said, still a new theory, and only time will tell us the true story.

CTers...I am hard pressed to even put them in a category of "scientific theory" as I do not think they have any legitimate scientific theories worth talking about. I liken it to calling snake oil salesmen as pharmacists or physicians...

TAM

apathoid
26th January 2007, 07:26 PM
CTers...I am hard pressed to even put them in a category of "scientific theory" as I do not think they have any legitimate scientific theories worth talking about. I liken it to calling snake oil salesmen as pharmacists or physicians...

TAM

I agree with TAM, typical CTer arguments fall short of qualifying as junk science....it's more like an absense of science(junk or other).

Anti-sophist
26th January 2007, 07:44 PM
Ha. Bow before the master....
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ (http://www.iw.net/%7Ea_plutonium/)

On that page he basically outlines, in summary, his solutions to every single problem facing modern science. Cosmology, Unifification of physics, superconductivity, global warming, evolution, xenobiology, nuclear annihiliation, overpopulation, the stock market, and of course every single major unsolved problem of mathematics.


Also, of relative fame is James Harris of sci.math, althought pseudomathematics isn't quite junk science.

T.A.M.
26th January 2007, 07:47 PM
Ha. Bow before the master....
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ (http://www.iw.net/%7Ea_plutonium/)

Also, of relative fame is James Harris of sci.math, althought pseudomathematics isn't quite junk science.

So does that make me a quark on the arse of plutonium ATOM...lol

What a f&*king kook...king of the kooks.

TAM

Quad4_72
26th January 2007, 07:58 PM
"Why are you so anxious to defend the claims of the Bush Administration, which has killed tens of thousands of people in an illegal war?". This is key. That just goes to show that his belief in the conspiracy is strictly based on his bias towards Bush.

kevin
26th January 2007, 07:58 PM
"Why are you so anxious to defend the claims of the Bush Administration, which has killed tens of thousands of people in an illegal war?"

I'm not defending the claims of the Bush Administration, I'm defending the claims of hundreds of engineers, architects and scientists. The people responsible for researching, designing, and building the very buildings you live and work in. If they're willing to lie about this then there isn't a single building, bridge, car, road you can trust to live in or travel on.

Gravy
26th January 2007, 08:09 PM
So does that make me a quark on the arse of plutonium ATOM...lol

What a f&*king kook...king of the kooks.

TAMWhatever do you mean? This doesn't make perfect sense to you?

(6) For Geology: Planets are electric motors theory where they grow by Dirac radioactivity accruing cosmic rays from the nucleus of the Atom Totatlity (debunking the Nebular Dust Cloud theory) and where Plate Tectonics is missing the important term of lightning-bolt strikes which adds a direction component to the drift of continents. The continents basically look like this | | | on one semisphere of Earth and the other semisphere is the Pacific Ocean.

T.A.M.
26th January 2007, 08:14 PM
No, in non medical terms we refer to it as "word salad", and it is one of the hallmarks of schizophrenia...lol

TAM:)

Anti-sophist
26th January 2007, 08:37 PM
I actually "met" this guy though his attempted proofs of the 4-color theorem on sci.math. Basically, like alot of kooks, he knows nothing about advanced mathematics so his "ground-breaking" ideas are either wrong/flawed or rehashed ideas from centuries ago.

The thing about it is, if you slice away all the craziness and innane logical leaps (sound familiar yet?), sometimes they actually say things that are worth discussing. Although, typically, the discussion never happens with them because they are too stuck in their psychotic cycles (closer?).


(7) For Anthropology: Stonethrowing theory. This theory states that every planet that has intelligent life all came through one and the same channel of events where a creature began throwing of rocks and stones and that throwing behaviour will catapult that species to intelligence and civilization. The likelihood is that every alien intelligent lifeform had ancestors that lived in trees because treeclimbing bone anatomy is a short distance in change to bone anatomy of stonethrowing. And Stonethrowing theory says that throwing created bipedalism, so throwing came first and created bipedalism. This theory states that the difference between apes and humans resulted some 8 to 10 million years ago from a solo quadruped ape that "started throwing rocks overarm and overhead". This activity gave the ape advantages in getting food and more females for mating purposes by killing other rivals using throwing.


Now, this theory is obviously fundamentally flawed (ie, who is to say that alien-worlds have throwable rocks and/or trees to climb), but it can raise some interesting questions about exactly what is required to foster intelligence and what alien intelligence would likely share in common with us.

A W Smith
26th January 2007, 08:43 PM
and that stone throwing ape began to take steroids and walk upright? And landed a multi million dollar baseball contract?

fuelair
26th January 2007, 09:30 PM
Are CT'ers the worst junk scientists?

No, they can't be because they have no understanding of the methods, functions or results of science. They are not scientists (at least not as science is understand by normal rational people. They use words from science - almost always incorrectly. They cite scientific experiments - incorrectly and worse. They do not begin to understand the science they pretend to value. They do present bad science, ridiculous science, insane science in pursuit of their paranoid dreams! But, bad scientist - no. They are no scientists at all. They are nothing but faint flatulance wafting away from little brain farts of miniscule brains.

Mince
26th January 2007, 09:37 PM
Junk scientists? What ever do you speak of?

Just look how they have mastered basic physics.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2346

Basic, mind you. I mean, concepts you learn the first day of your freshman semester in Physics 101.

TellyKNeasuss
26th January 2007, 10:13 PM
I'm not defending the claims of the Bush Administration, I'm defending the claims of hundreds of engineers, architects and scientists. The people responsible for researching, designing, and building the very buildings you live and work in. If they're willing to lie about this then there isn't a single building, bridge, car, road you can trust to live in or travel on.

There's a great idea for my next post. I'll ask him how he manages to cope with the knowledge that the next building he goes into might be the one that the Shrub Administration has targeted for the next false-flag terrorist attack (got to build up support for 21,000 more troops in Iraq somehow). Maybe he lives in a tent and does all his business online.

MG1962
26th January 2007, 11:17 PM
I will vote for creationists as the worst. Why? Because certain individuals within the cause have taken to alterning and fixing legitimate scientific papers to support their arguements

Jono
26th January 2007, 11:20 PM
Whatever do you mean? This doesn't make perfect sense to you?

"(6) For Geology: Planets are electric motors theory where they grow by Dirac radioactivity accruing cosmic rays from the nucleus of the Atom Totatlity (debunking the Nebular Dust Cloud theory) and where Plate Tectonics is missing the important term of lightning-bolt strikes which adds a direction component to the drift of continents. The continents basically look like this | | | on one semisphere of Earth and the other semisphere is the Pacific Ocean."


Hmmm, cosmic rays from the nucleus of the Atom Totality and the lightning-bolt factor adding direction to the tectonic-plates...
Interesting, me thinks he forgot to factor in the Poincaré Conjecture and global-warming aspects in the continental drift aligned with the Atom Totality of the nucleus... for the simple reason that this doesn't make any sense either. :crowded:

Jono
26th January 2007, 11:28 PM
"Why are you so anxious to defend the claims of the Bush Administration, which has killed tens of thousands of people in an illegal war?".

Yes that's a classic piece of rethoric. The CT'ers over at the 9/11-thread on Stormfront usually pursue with such lines as initial inquiry to people who are "naive" enough not to believe t'was all a hoax.

That thread is, however, off-limits to anyone who's not a WN (White Nationalist) so I do not have access to it in terms of adding my comments therein, I do however PM a few posters now and then.
Another line that they like to hurl at you is "why do support the version of Chertoff and Jewish Supremicism??". :eye-poppi
Somehow these articles of faith renders a lot of them incapable of adapting to views that are not essentially anti-semitic or anti-governmental... leaving them with just having a "mental" view so to speak ;)

Oy Vey.

The Silver Shadow
26th January 2007, 11:46 PM
I don't mind creationists so much because I do have a bit of religion in me, although it's not very apparent, and I'm also friends with a Catholic priest at the university.

Global Warming deniers present some interesting theories, but the ones I know couldn't qualify for deniers rather than liberal environmentalists (The Earth is changing and evolving)

CTer's present interesting theories, but lack the backing. It would make for a very interesting story to tell, but it's not fact in the end.