The vulnerability of the Truth Movement.

[ref]

I have previously commented on the desperation of the truth movement. Now some truther posts have gotten me considering their vulnerability.

I have read several times a line that has been stated by a truther in the LC forum. That line in a simple form goes something like "They have a leader, we need a leader as well". "They" is referring to JREF and the leader in their minds is most probably Gravy.

But I think things are quite to the contrary. It is true that JREF has been very very fortunate to have people like Gravy around, but not to take any credit away from anybody, we are standing on a very strong ground. We are not dependant on one single person to keep our story alive. We are not lead by one single person to tell us what to do and what to believe. We have all come to our own conclusions and we all share a similar view of the events in 9/11.

That means the following. If we had our three top guns retired, so that they would quit doing their important work debunking the CT, we would still be standing strong as ever. We have resources, we have evidence, we have experts, we have the laws of physics on our side, we have our own personal knowledge and most important of all, we all share the same basic agenda. That means we are not vulnerable and dependant on a couple of people.

But think about the Truth Movement. They are exactly the opposite. They claim they have no leader, but in reality they are very much lead by only a handful of people.

Unlike us, they don't have the resources, they have no evidence, they have no real experts, they don't have the laws of physics on their side and most important of all, they don't share the same basic agenda. That means they are extremely vulnerable and dependant on a very few people.

What if the Truth Movement had their three top guns retired? Let's say Dylan Avery, Alex Jones and Steven Jones quit doing their CT work.

That would mean devastation to the Truth Movement. That would kill the whole Loose Change Phenomenan. That would kill the LC board, where people are lead by Avery and expecting the world from him and his new film. That would kill a bunch of theories, kill new surprise letters from surprise witnesses and so on.

Alex Jones retiring would kill their biggest resources of everyday CT, that would end prisonplanet, infowars, the radio shows and the bullhorning.

Steven Jones retiring would kill their only guy that has had anything to do with any research. That would kill thermite. That would kill a bunch of controlled demolition theories.

So on reality, The Truth Movement is extremely vulnerable and hangs on the shoulders of only a couple of people who feed the whole CT world. Without them the whole movement would shrink to a hardly noticed branch with outlandish speculations. Speculations that would not raise interest.

[jhunter1163]

I broadly agree.

The "Twoof" movement is already splintering under the weight of ridiculous theories and sheer stupidity. Its "leaders", when not sniping at each other, are devoting a great deal of time to JREF and its debunking of each of their pet theories. Meanwhile, the debunking is convincing fence-sitters and the sniping is driving away loyalists. You need only look at the page-view numbers to see that the movement is in the dumper and circling the drain.

The only way that the "Twoof" movement could gain any kind of traction would be for them to come up with one, and only one, theory with regards to the tragic events of that day and, probably more importantly, the run-up to it; who knew what, when did they know it, and so on.

But, you then have 20 "theorists" competing to promote the ONE TRUE TWOOF THEORY. So, the movement becomes even more fragmented than it was before as each "theorist" competes for a share of the ever-diminishing pie.

Soon, "each theorist" will have his hard core of adherents, and that'll be about all.

[TjW]

I broadly agree.

<snippage by TjW>

The only way that the "Twoof" movement could gain any kind of traction would be for them to come up with one, and only one, theory with regards to the tragic events of that day and, probably more importantly, the run-up to it; who knew what, when did they know it, and so on.

But, you then have 20 "theorists" competing to promote the ONE TRUE TWOOF THEORY. So, the movement becomes even more fragmented than it was before as each "theorist" competes for a share of the ever-diminishing pie.

Soon, "each theorist" will have his hard core of adherents, and that'll be about all.

And worse, if a single theorist wins, with any "ONE TWOO TWOOF THEORY", the debunking becomes trivial. No longer could a twoofer dodge and weave from one JAQ-off to another, finally taking refuge in: "Well, I dunno what actually happened, but you're a fool if you think it was what THEY said it was".

[Gravy]

Their leaders and rank-and-file should focus on evidence that refutes the facts put forth in the public reports. It's 2007. What are they waiting for?

[Oliver]

Who the heck is Gravy? :D

But kidding aside: They already have a leader ... Dr. Jim Fetzer. :D
You gotta love this guy for his great work.

[Totovader]

I have previously commented on the desperation of the truth movement. Now some truther posts have gotten me considering their vulnerability.

I have read several times a line that has been stated by a truther in the LC forum. That line in a simple form goes something like "They have a leader, we need a leader as well". "They" is referring to JREF and the leader in their minds is most probably Gravy.

But I think things are quite to the contrary. It is true that JREF has been very very fortunate to have people like Gravy around, but not to take any credit away from anybody, we are standing on a very strong ground. We are not dependant on one single person to keep our story alive. We are not lead by one single person to tell us what to do and what to believe. We have all come to our own conclusions and we all share a similar view of the events in 9/11.

That means the following. If we had our three top guns retired, so that they would quit doing their important work debunking the CT, we would still be standing strong as ever. We have resources, we have evidence, we have experts, we have the laws of physics on our side, we have our own personal knowledge and most important of all, we all share the same basic agenda. That means we are not vulnerable and dependant on a couple of people.

But think about the Truth Movement. They are exactly the opposite. They claim they have no leader, but in reality they are very much lead by only a handful of people.

Unlike us, they don't have the resources, they have no evidence, they have no real experts, they don't have the laws of physics on their side and most important of all, they don't share the same basic agenda. That means they are extremely vulnerable and dependant on a very few people.

What if the Truth Movement had their three top guns retired? Let's say Dylan Avery, Alex Jones and Steven Jones quit doing their CT work.

That would mean devastation to the Truth Movement. That would kill the whole Loose Change Phenomenan. That would kill the LC board, where people are lead by Avery and expecting the world from him and his new film. That would kill a bunch of theories, kill new surprise letters from surprise witnesses and so on.

Alex Jones retiring would kill their biggest resources of everyday CT, that would end prisonplanet, infowars, the radio shows and the bullhorning.

Steven Jones retiring would kill their only guy that has had anything to do with any research. That would kill thermite. That would kill a bunch of controlled demolition theories.

So on reality, The Truth Movement is extremely vulnerable and hangs on the shoulders of only a couple of people who feed the whole CT world. Without them the whole movement would shrink to a hardly noticed branch with outlandish speculations. Speculations that would not raise interest.

The reason they feel that they need a leader- despite that vulnerability and the contradiction having a leader poses to their "think for yourself" "down with the nwo" "fight the Grand Conspiracy" mantras- is because they know that without someone telling them what is right from wrong, they appear (and very much are) quite disorganized.

This is the problem with trying to have a faith-based movement arbitrarily injected with reason. It consistently contradicts itself, and each of the different members claim that they know the truth, but because of the fact that there is no rational basis by which to judge the validity of their claims, one person within the movement can easily contradict the other and both have equal basis for their claims... (meaning none, of course)

It causes cannibalism. One day a theory is embraced because it appears to confirm their wishes- and the next it's been embarrassingly debunked and they have to reject the individual for claiming it- calling them a disinfo agent or a nutjob, etc.

From their point of view- to maintain any sort of order, they need someone to tell them what to think. The problem obviously is not solved by a leader- because the leaders can't keep it straight: they commit the same errors.

Ultimately, this is what will destroy the conspiracists- self-contradicting theories which are all based on the same "facts", and continue to increase in outright absurdity. We can continue to debunk their claims over and over- but they will ultimately be their own undoing.

We've already seen their world fall apart because of such problems- and no amount of leadership will fix it. The problem is their rejection of logic and reason, which they cannot fix with simple leadership.

[Nick Terry]

It's the same phenomenon as in other fields of woo. A small number of CTers publish or present 'original arguments' while a fluctuating core of a few thousand reprise these 'arguments' online, occasionally adding in their own 'creative' twists. Very rarely, one of the consumers graduates to becoming a producer of whatever brand of tripe is being sold.

The result is to make any CT extraordinarily vulnerable, just as ref said, to the retirement of even just a few proponents.

Some gauge of how CTs reproduce themselves across generations can be found by examining the manner in which older CTs have been propagated or updated. Generally speaking, the pattern seems to be that authors discover a particular piece of usually politicised woo published in say, 1951 (for Pearl Harbor conspiracies) or 1966 (for JFK insinuations), and then either have to treat the older work as Gospel, or simply lift pieces without acknowledgement. The usual result is, either way, the CT is exposed as woefully and wilfully ignorant of any subsequent research which might contradict the original conspiracist proposition. In the latter instance, debunkers get the joy of seeing the CT rewrite its own history and write out any embarrassing elements. The classic case would be JFK conspiracies, which while ten-a-penny, generally ignore the early contributions of lunatics such as Revilo P Oliver in favour of more 'neutral' sounding sources.

Thus, what we currently observe in 9/11 Trutherdom is a sped-up version of all CT life-cycles. They have already ditched many a 'name' theorist because of inconvenient arguments. The natural life-span of the CT has been reached. Any reproduction into a second phase runs up against... reality.

[Nick Terry]

The reason they feel that they need a leader- despite that vulnerability and the contradiction having a leader poses to their "think for yourself" "down with the nwo" "fight the Grand Conspiracy" mantras- is because they know that without someone telling them what is right from wrong, they appear (and very much are) quite disorganized.

This is the problem with trying to have a faith-based movement arbitrarily injected with reason. It consistently contradicts itself, and each of the different members claim that they know the truth, but because of the fact that there is no rational basis by which to judge the validity of their claims, one person within the movement can easily contradict the other and both have equal basis for their claims... (meaning none, of course)

It causes cannibalism. One day a theory is embraced because it appears to confirm their wishes- and the next it's been embarrassingly debunked and they have to reject the individual for claiming it- calling them a disinfo agent or a nutjob, etc.

From their point of view- to maintain any sort of order, they need someone to tell them what to think. The problem obviously is not solved by a leader- because the leaders can't keep it straight: they commit the same errors.

Ultimately, this is what will destroy the conspiracists- self-contradicting theories which are all based on the same "facts", and continue to increase in outright absurdity. We can continue to debunk their claims over and over- but they will ultimately be their own undoing.

We've already seen their world fall apart because of such problems- and no amount of leadership will fix it. The problem is their rejection of logic and reason, which they cannot fix with simple leadership.

I disagree that leadership would not 'fix' their problems. The history of cults and religions shows firmly that you can easily persuade thousands of people to believe in utter nonsense that defies all logic and reason, indeed in some cases over thousands of years; even more recently birthed creeds have seen themselves survive for 20-30-40-50 years.

The problem for such a route is that by removing themselves into a cult-like compound, the 9/11 Truthers concede one of their primary claims, namely that "everybody is waking up" and their ideas are spreading.

To some extent, this has happened already. The embarrassing consequence is, however, to expose Dylan Avery, Alex Jones and the other monkeys as complete muppets. They have no leadership presence and precious little charisma. They command zero respect.

[Alt+F4]

The only way that the "Twoof" movement could gain any kind of traction would be for them to come up with one, and only one, theory with regards to the tragic events of that day

I agree. If they could come up with one unifying theory then they could distance themselves from the uber-crazys: the star wars beam people and the no planers.

Dylan and his fellow controlled demolition nuts won't however state a unified theory because any CD theory that names names MUST involve the FDNY and the PAPD.

[ref]

Their leaders and rank-and-file should focus on evidence that refutes the facts put forth in the public reports. It's 2007. What are they waiting for?

They are waiting for the LC Final Cut. They have nothing else coming. Nobody is saying anything new. They repeat themselves and watch their support diminish. They can not refute any facts on any reports, so they must wait for another fiction movie to feed their CT needs. My guess is, that film contains a couple of new never-researched claims, that will become a part of the new mantra they repeat. That is, if the film is ever completed.

[ref]

The only way that the "Twoof" movement could gain any kind of traction would be for them to come up with one, and only one, theory with regards to the tragic events of that day and, probably more importantly, the run-up to it; who knew what, when did they know it, and so on.

The problem is the amount of theories. There can never be only one theory. Different people have invented these theories and admitting something you have created yourself being wrong is both extremely hard and embarassing. They don't want to lose their face. And they lose by sticking to the very same theories.

Some people might be ready to revise some of their views. But not everybody to the same extent. Some not at all. Those are the very creators of the whole movement. They are gone if their theories are gone. And so comes the guy with a bullhorn yelling "Inside Job".

[PerryLogan]

The exposure they desired so much has been the worst thing for them. Nothing I ever said about Alex Jones affected people so much as my compendium of his own bizarre statements and beliefs.

Heaven forbid, but a catastrophe of some sort is the one thing that would obviously jump-start these bozos. Again, Heaven forbid.

[Totovader]

The exposure they desired so much has been the worst thing for them. Nothing I ever said about Alex Jones affected people so much as my compendium of his own bizarre statements and beliefs.

Heaven forbid, but a catastrophe of some sort is the one thing that would obviously jump-start these bozos. Again, Heaven forbid.

You mean... something like a new Pearl Harbor?

*dun dun dun*

[MG1962]

I think the fatal weakness the truth movement has, is its anti-productive mindset. In my experience 99% simply repeat information they have garnered from specialist websites, without understanding the information or where it came from.

I believe a basic requirement, and one shared by many on these forums. Is not just knowing the data, but understanding the data, and understanding how it was arrived at.

NIST says - XXX occured. My first question is how did they work that out. Not a CT mindset, but no matter the topic, I like to follow the logic that got the answer.

Sometimes that process is so complex, my eyes glaze over and I step back and rely on the persons authority to make the claims they do. Other times the process is basic enough I can follow the reasoning and methodology, and hence broaden my knowledge of some element of a physical science

I dont see this in CTers. They get hold of a fact, and treat it like a newborn baby. They dont challenge themselves to understand the fact, or the authority of the person supplying it. The ideal that the information exists is a means to an end.

[ref]

I think the fatal weakness the truth movement has, is its anti-productive mindset. In my experience 99% simply repeat information they have garnered from specialist websites, without understanding the information or where it came from.

Exactly. Take away those couple of specialists and they have nothing to repeat. Unfortunately those specialist keep on producing. And followers keep on repeating. How many of them even understand a single figure from their precious Steven Jones paper? How many of them have even read it? But they still repeat it. Just one example. :rolleyes:

[ConspiRaider]

Episode IV

AN UNCONNECTED TWOOF

It is a
dark time
for the 9/11
Twoofers. Even
as nearly 86% of
Americans give their
unquestioning support
to sinister Inside Jobbers,
rebel forces surrounding the
Movement threaten to utterly
collapse it into its own footprint.
Harried by negative energy beams,
buffeted by savvy Hardfire Troopers
and bracketed by shocking non-release
of promised films dealing destructive doom
to the stalwart Official Theory, Twoofers are
melting into formless holograms, projected upon
structured landscapes of towering reality. Twoofer
claims of a New World Order illuminate not one block
of masonry awry in a top-down scan of the rock-solid
Evidential Pyramid. In the Movement's gloried early times,
loquacious Jonesy the Hutt held hypnotic sway over millions
as electronically amplified distortions and lies spewed from his
bulbous lips and flapping gums. Terrifyingly treacherous Change
of facts were Loosed upon a vast interconnected network by the
dreaded Three Stoogents. Horridly crude experiments revealed the
steely stubbornness of Thermiters For Twoof as, with molten temper,
they demolished all hopes of discovering fusion between flash and fact.
While the Skeptical Force at Ground Zero swirls and expands outward in
an ever-widening maelstrom of acceptance, weary but omni-vigilant JREF
Keepers are confident that a great deal of the battle has been won. From
here on out they are tempted to think that maybe the rest is Gravy. Or not...

[Oliver]

It is a dark time for the
9/11 Twoofers. Even as nearly 86% of Americans
give their unquestioning support to sinister Inside Jobbers, rebel forces
surrounding the Movement threaten to utterly collapse it into its own footprint. Harried
by negative energy beams, buffeted by savvy Hardfire Troopers and bracketed by shocking
non-release of promised films dealing destructive doom to the stalwart Official Theory,
Twoofers are melting into formless holograms, projected upon structured landscapes
of towering reality. Twoofer claims of a New World Order illuminate
not one blockof masonry awry in a top-down scan of the
rock-solid Evidential Pyramid.
In the Movement's
gloried early
times,
loquacious
Jonesy the
Hutt held
hypnotic sway
over millions
as electronically
amplified distortions and lies
spewed from his bulbous lips and flapping
gums. Terrifyingly treacherous Change of facts were
Loosed upon a vast interconnected network by
the dreaded Three Stoogents. Horridly crude
experiments revealed the steely
stubbornness of Thermiters
ForTwoof as, with
molten temper,
they demo-
lished all
hopes
of dis-
covering
fusion
between
flash and
fact. While
the Skeptical
Force at Ground
Zero swirls and expands outward in an ever-widening
maelstrom of acceptance, weary but omni-vigilant JREF Keepers are confident that a great deal
of the battle has been won. From here on out they are tempted to think that maybe the rest is Gravy. Or not...

It's not nice to take other people's work and not credit them.

[ConspiRaider]

Want to explain what you're doing, Oliver? Seems a bit plagiaristic, no?

[beachnut]

Want to explain what you're doing, Oliver? Seems a bit plagiaristic, no?

He made a base for your post.

[ConspiRaider]

He made a base for your post.
Ah Hah.

Well, I'll give him about another 2 minutes or so to remove it, and then I'll report it. He didn't even quote my post. It's plagiarism.

ETA: Time's up, report to mods upcoming.

[valis]

The problem is the amount of theories. There can never be only one theory.

The reason for that of course is that there is no way to test the theories. If someone presents a fact based analysis rooted in physics, science, math or rational rules of evidence everyone can examine it and look for flaws.

The CT theories are all based on "such and such doesn't look right to me" or "I have imagined a scenario and you must disprove it or admit it actually happened".

You should be able to have a different theory a day working that way.

[ref]

Nice pyramid CR :)

[ConspiRaider]

Nice pyramid CR :)
Thank you sir! :)

Instead of a pyramid, it's actually supposed to simulate the Star Wars crawl of receding words that kicked off those flicks (incidentally not a Lucas original, that had been done before).

But I guess a pyramid works too, good eyes. The NWO all-seeing pyramid and all...

[JAStewart]

Nominated CR!

[LashL]

Nominated CR!

Seconded. :)

Nicely done, ConspiRaider.

[MarkyX]

I dont see this in CTers. They get hold of a fact, and treat it like a newborn baby. They dont challenge themselves to understand the fact, or the authority of the person supplying it. The ideal that the information exists is a means to an end.


I couldn't agree more. Any information that comes to them, as long as it supports their pre-fabricated conclusions, they treat it with the utmost "respect" without question. You can look at past examples like Steven Jones, American Free Press, Kevin Ryan, the "EMT", and "I was never deployed overseas" Chavez.

They are so desperate for any new information that they force themselves to set the standards into an all time low, because they know they have nothing.

[MaGZ]

You guys think you are winning.

Take a look at the poll numbers and tell me what percent of the American public believe the truth about 9/11 has been told by the government in the infamous 9/11 Commission Report.

For the record I don’t consider myself apart of the 9/11Truth Movement. I am in disagreement with most of their positions. Once the Bush Administration has run its course, people from the media and various government agencies will come forward and "spill the beans".

[kookbreaker]

Thank you sir! :)

Instead of a pyramid, it's actually supposed to simulate the Star Wars crawl of receding words that kicked off those flicks


Well I got the pattern and what it was supposed to be, CR. :)


(incidentally not a Lucas original, that had been done before).


Flash Gordon on Line 2 Mr. Lucas.

[Kiwiwriter]

You guys think you are winning.

Take a look at the poll numbers and tell me what percent of the American public believe the truth about 9/11 has been told by the government in the infamous 9/11 Commission Report.

For the record I don’t consider myself apart of the 9/11Truth Movement. I am in disagreement with most of their positions. Once the Bush Administration has run its course, people from the media and various government agencies will come forward and "spill the beans".

...Because you're a neo-Nazi, an anti-Semite, a Holocaust denier, and a racist! And none of those theories have a droplet of truth in them!

For once you said something accurate! Bravo! :D

[Myriad]

A few weeks ago, on the SLC forum, I summed up what I see as the vulnerability of the Truth Movement in a different, and much simpler, way:

They are in the entertainment business.

And they have no way to create new material.

It's as simple as that.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Totovader]

You guys think you are winning.

Take a look at the poll numbers and tell me what percent of the American public believe the truth about 9/11 has been told by the government in the infamous 9/11 Commission Report.

For the record I don’t consider myself apart of the 9/11Truth Movement. I am in disagreement with most of their positions. Once the Bush Administration has run its course, people from the media and various government agencies will come forward and "spill the beans".

Even if you try an argumentum ad populum, we're still winning. That's not why we're winning though- we're winning because we have a monopoly on truth and logic.

[PerryLogan]

In addition to citing the poll numbers only the Truthers know about, MaGZ has made an interesting prediction for us. He said it's all going to come out in the wash when George W. Bush is out of office. I've never heard that one before.

The conspiracy guy about whom I know the most, Alex Jones, emphasizes that it won't make a lick of difference when the Dems take over. They're all members of the Black Brotherhood, yatta-yatta-yatta.

So there is another disagreement among Truthers. I'm sure no two of them believe exactly the same thing, which is really funny.

[Expression_man]

Even if you try an argumentum ad populum, we're still winning. That's not why we're winning though- we're winning because we have a monopoly on truth and logic.

What?

I don't take any particular side when it comes to these topics but how do you have a monopoly on "truth and logic"?

:boggled:

[JimBenArm]

You guys think you are winning.

Take a look at the poll numbers and tell me what percent of the American public believe the truth about 9/11 has been told by the government in the infamous 9/11 Commission Report.

For the record I don’t consider myself apart of the 9/11Truth Movement. I am in disagreement with most of their positions. Once the Bush Administration has run its course, people from the media and various government agencies will come forward and "spill the beans".
Winning? Poll numbers?
None of that matters, you dolt.
And as far as the twoof movement goes, the only thing you disagree about is that the "Jooos!" did it. Must be so nice to be able to blame all bad happenings on them, huh? Got a hangnail? Dirty Jews at it again!

[JimBenArm]

What?

I don't take any particular side when it comes to these topics but how do you have a monopoly on "truth and logic"?

:boggled:
We cornered the market back in '87, and control the supply.

[MaGZ]

Even if you try an argumentum ad populum, we're still winning. That's not why we're winning though- we're winning because we have a monopoly on truth and logic.

"a monopoly on truth and logic"

Do you believe the 9/11 Commission Report represents truth and logic?

Test your theory on page 20, last paragraph.

[MaGZ]

Winning? Poll numbers?
None of that matters, you dolt.
And as far as the twoof movement goes, the only thing you disagree about is that the "Jooos!" did it. Must be so nice to be able to blame all bad happenings on them, huh? Got a hangnail? Dirty Jews at it again!

AQ and OBL did 9/11.

I guess you just weren't paying attention.

[boloboffin]

Of course it's not "going to come out in the wash" when Bush leaves office. Who's going to replace him? Hillary (USH*)! The Clinton conspiracy machine will take over in full force without missing a beat. Hillary's protecting her husband! Bill and 41 are in cahoots! Washington can't let the truth come out!

Because the truth is, these conspiracies theories are not left-specific or right-specific, they are anti-government-specific. Not all libertarians think this way, but I'd bet a greater percentage of them do than either of the Democratic left or the Republican right. This is Lyndon LaRouche territory, this is John Bircher paranoia, and it all feeds on a undercurrent of government distrust that has existed in this revolution-born country from the beginning. We built our government on the principles of gridlock, and then added ten amendments to the Constitution that told the government to go [rule8] itself!

It is a tidal force. The 9/11 conspiracy theories only appear rightwing because they happened on Bush's watch. The groundwork has already been laid to swing them back against the left when Hillary (USH) wins in 2008. The point is not how bad the right wing is, the point is not how bad the left wing is, the point is how bad government is. It's the New World Order that must be fought, and Demo-Rep is just the flava of the month as far as the conspiracists view it.

*Unless Something Happens (yes! bolo coined that phrase! must credit bolo!)

[JimBenArm]

AQ and OBL did 9/11.

I guess you just weren't paying attention.
You're correct. I wasn't. But then I don't pay much attention to the ramblings of anti-semites or racists.

[T.A.M.]

"a monopoly on truth and logic"

Do you believe the 9/11 Commission Report represents truth and logic?

Test your theory on page 20, last paragraph.

Here is the paragraph you question:


Radar data show the Otis fighters were airborne at 8:53. Lacking a target, they were vectored toward military-controlled airspace off the Long Island coast. To avoid New York area air traffic and uncertain about what to do, the fighters were brought down to military airspace to "hold as needed". From 9:09 to 9:13 the Otis fighters stayed in this holding pattern. (footnote 120)


Please state, and back up with legitimate evidence, what part of the above paragraph is false, and why. Thanks.

TAM:)

[MaGZ]

Here is the paragraph you question:



Please state, and back up with legitimate evidence, what part of the above paragraph is false, and why. Thanks.

TAM:)

It is simply not believable the Otis fighters did not know to go to New York City.

Profile: Otis Air National Guard Base," cooperativeresearch.org
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity....onal_guard_base (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=otis_air_national_guard_base)
"Otis Fighters Scramble to New York; Conflicting Accounts of Urgency and Destination," cooperativeresearch.org
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context...a852otistakeoff (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a852otistakeoff)

[T.A.M.]

That paragraph does not state they did not know to go to NYC. This is what you can deduce from the paragraph.

1. They lacked a target (ie. had not officially been given one)
2. As a result they were sent to an area off Long Island and to "hold as needed"
3. They were uncertain what to do, because they had not been fully informed of the situation, and had been given no other orders than to head toward Long Island.
4. From 9:09 until 9:13 they remained in the holding pattern.

Anything else you say about the paragraph is pure speculation and conjecture, which is far from evidence.

Try again.

TAM:)

Edit: Oh, and by the way, your "not believing" something does not make it untrue.

TAM

[ConspiRaider]

What?

I don't take any particular side when it comes to these topics but how do you have a monopoly on "truth and logic"?

:boggled:
We own Boardwalk and Park Place, Pennsylvania Avenue and all 4 Railroads.

[MaGZ]

That paragraph does not state they did not know to go to NYC. This is what you can deduce from the paragraph.

1. They lacked a target (ie. had not officially been given one)
2. As a result they were sent to an area off Long Island and to "hold as needed"
3. They were uncertain what to do, because they had not been fully informed of the situation, and had been given no other orders than to head toward Long Island.
4. From 9:09 until 9:13 they remained in the holding pattern.

Anything else you say about the paragraph is pure speculation and conjecture, which is far from evidence.

Try again.

TAM:)

Edit: Oh, and by the way, your "not believing" something does not make it untrue.

TAM

If you read the links provided you can see the conflict in the reporting. Going supersonic speed to a holding pattern does not make sense. They flew directly to NYC because they knew flight 11 was heading in that direction. They arrived moments after 9:03 too late to shoot down the second plane. In a word, the paragraph on page 20 is a lie.

[T.A.M.]

1. Your links are to a site with a clear "truth" agenda.
2. Your links make their points based purely on other journal articles.
3. the 9/11 Commission Report paragraph you question was created based on the NORAD/FAA/NEADS audio recordings from that day.

Now I think I know which I'm gonna believe.

TAM:)

Edit: Page 459 - Notes on Chapter 1: Note 120. FAA Audio File Boston center....

TAM

[ConspiRaider]

If you read the links provided you can see the conflict in the reporting. Going supersonic speed to a holding pattern does not make sense. They flew directly to NYC because they knew flight 11 was heading in that direction. They arrived moments after 9:03 too late to shoot down the second plane. In a word, the paragraph on page 20 is a lie.
(bolding mine)

That's 8 words.

You mentioned NORAD. Our own gumboot has really done some fine work in this area, please have a good long look:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70300&highlight=norad

[negativ]

I'm sort of puzzled that the conspiracy theories get more and more bizarre as time goes on. I would think that True Believers would weed out the plain-crazy stuff for things that are ever so slightly more plausible. For example, a very loose LIHOP scenario based on the intelligence apparatus' apparent incompetence and failure to act. They might posit that United 93 was shot down.

But over 5 years later we have death rays, cartoon/holographic planes, fires that were barely hot enough to cook a turkey, and planted lightpoles at the pentagon.

It's almost as bad as if the majority of JFK conspiracy theorists asserted that Jackie was the shooter, or that JFK committed suicide by holding his mouth and nose closed while sneezing.

[MaGZ]

1. Your links are to a site with a clear "truth" agenda.
2. Your links make their points based purely on other journal articles.
3. the 9/11 Commission Report paragraph you question was created based on the NORAD/FAA/NEADS audio recordings from that day.

Now I think I know which I'm gonna believe.

TAM:)

Edit: Page 459 - Notes on Chapter 1: Note 120. FAA Audio File Boston center....

TAM


Newark NJ air traffic controller, Bob Varcapade, said the fighters were over New York City moments after the second plane crashed in to WTC 2.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14754701/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14754701/)

The paragraph on page 20 of the 9/11 Report is a lie.

[T.A.M.]

So are you saying:

1. The commission lied about what was on the tapes
2. the commission misinterpreted what was on the tapes.
3. The tapes were fabricated.

Like I said, your not believing the paragraph does not make it untrue, so you should be saying:

"In my opinion, the paragraph is a lie." as it is only your opinion, and you have proven nothing more.

TAM

[Totovader]

What?

I don't take any particular side when it comes to these topics but how do you have a monopoly on "truth and logic"?

:boggled:

The fact that you "don't take any particular side" shows why you don't understand.

Truth is not decided by poll numbers. Reason is the only way we can understand truth- and your peeps don't got it. We've got the keys, and friends don't let conspiracists drive... ever.

[Totovader]

I'm sort of puzzled that the conspiracy theories get more and more bizarre as time goes on. I would think that True Believers would weed out the plain-crazy stuff for things that are ever so slightly more plausible. For example, a very loose LIHOP scenario based on the intelligence apparatus' apparent incompetence and failure to act. They might posit that United 93 was shot down.

But over 5 years later we have death rays, cartoon/holographic planes, fires that were barely hot enough to cook a turkey, and planted lightpoles at the pentagon.

It's almost as bad as if the majority of JFK conspiracy theorists asserted that Jackie was the shooter, or that JFK committed suicide by holding his mouth and nose closed while sneezing.

They have to enter the realm of the "unknowable"- the utterly bizarre, because no one will follow them there. The scientists who have been vocal against the "Truth Movement" won't waste their time on death rays from outer space- and even skeptics will just giggle and turn their backs.

Hopefully- the general public will do the same. That grey stuff in the middle that they considered an argument has been cleaned up with some simple soap and water. When the general public looks for a conspiracy, they'll be happy to find simple truth in its place or complete wackjobs of the tinfoil hat brand.

[SkepticGuy]

So on reality, The Truth Movement is extremely vulnerable and hangs on the shoulders of only a couple of people who feed the whole CT world. Without them the whole movement would shrink to a hardly noticed branch with outlandish speculations. Speculations that would not raise interest.

I say again... "truthers" are not "CT's" (conspiracy theorists). They are activists who have latched onto popularized conspiracy mythology as a catalyst for their anger, and excuse for their divisive behavior. If not for 9/11, they'd be trowing eggs at GAP storefronts or choking tear-gas fumes at world bank protests.

The "movement" is a dysfunctional leaderless mess. They aspire to Vietnam-era greatness, but there's absolutely no cultural resonance they can rely upon.

Any small glimmer of hope of exposing lies, corruption, malfeasance, or cover-ups related to 9/11 has been sabotaged by their own inability to control their ranks, moderate their language, and manage laughable theories.

If there are conspiracies related to the events of 9/11 (which I think there are), the "Truth Movement" has successfully sabotaged the investigation better than any "infiltration" or "COINTELPRO" could ever do.

There. Oh, man... am I ever in trouble now! :p

[shuize]

I think the die-hard CTists will never give up but the movement itself is flaming out.

I spoke to a "truther" a few weeks back and asked him the standard, "If you really believe all of this stuff, why are you just sitting back on your computer posting to message boards" line. His response was that the first step was "education" but "we're really not doing a very good job."

Of all my possible responses, I settled for "So much for everybody 'waking up' then, huh?"

[gumboot]

The Otis fighters thing...

Some things to consider. At 0844, when NEADS decided to launch the Otis F-15s, they had not been given a position for AA11 from Boston Centre.

08:44:59
FOX: M.C.C. [Mission Crew Commander], I don’t know where I’m scrambling these guys to. I need a direction, a destination—
NASYPANY: O.K., I’m gonna give you the Z point [coordinate]. It’s just north of—New York City.
FOX: I got this lat long, 41-15, 74-36, or 73-46.
NASYPANY: Head ‘em in that direction.
FOX: Copy that.

We can have a quick look at these coordinates to determine where they actually are.

The first (41°15’0.00”N 74°36’0.00”W) is just north of Sussex NJ, 48 miles from the WTC due NW. The second (41°15’0.00”N 73°46’0.00”W) is just south of Yorktown Heights NY, 39 miles from the WTC due NNE.

So far so good. Except of course, the fighters don't just fly there in a straight line. You can't have a couple of F-15's just barrelling their way through civilian airspace at 1000MPH+, over urban areas. So they head east, out over the Atlantic, and follow the coast, flying through the ADIZ which is military controlled airspace.

Once they reached the coast of Long Island, to pass through to the Z-Point they then have to get FAA permission. Which they weren't given. The FAA didn't want two F-15's flying smack through the middle of New York, potentially colliding with airliners in the tightly packed airspace. It was the FAA controllers that put the F-15s in a holding pattern over Long Island. That was at 0907. And then, at 0921, the phantom A11 report came in, and the Otis fighters were directed towards Washington DC.

Bear in mind, the FAA control airspace over the USA, not the military. For NORAD to take command, first the government would need to declare an Air Defense Emergency. This would activate the Security Control of Air Traffic and Air Navigation Aids (SCATANA) Plan and give NORAD total control of airspace.

-Gumboot

[Stellafane]

You guys think you are winning...

Actually, I don't think we're "winning," for the simple reason that I never considered this a contest or game. It's about countering the lies and slander and nonsense of those who proclaim themselves "truthers." It's more a moral obligation, a responsibility to 9/11 victims, their families, and ultimately the truth itself. I've never derived a scintilla of pleasure or satisfaction from dealing with you guys. It's like an unpleasant chore, something that unfortunately has to be done by someone.

The whole 9/11 CT thing has basically devolved along the lines of the UFO and Bigfoot movements. It had its brief little heyday, but now no one takes it very seriously anymore, except the hard-core few who believe because it fulfills some personal inner need. And like the UFO movement, you're sustained by the belief that you're always right on the verge of that long-awaited breakthrough, the watershed event that will finally make the rest of us see the light and proclaim you as visionary heroes. But it never comes.

[ref]

Thank you sir! :)

Instead of a pyramid, it's actually supposed to simulate the Star Wars crawl of receding words that kicked off those flicks (incidentally not a Lucas original, that had been done before).

But I guess a pyramid works too, good eyes. The NWO all-seeing pyramid and all...

Oh, stupid me. All I see is NWO pyramids :D Star Wars is better.

And in any case, the text was very good :)

[MaGZ]

So are you saying:

1. The commission lied about what was on the tapes
2. the commission misinterpreted what was on the tapes.
3. The tapes were fabricated.

Like I said, your not believing the paragraph does not make it untrue, so you should be saying:

"In my opinion, the paragraph is a lie." as it is only your opinion, and you have proven nothing more.

TAM

The different accounts don’t seem to bother you.

What have you proven other than your blind faith in the Commission?

[MaGZ]

The fact that you "don't take any particular side" shows why you don't understand.

Truth is not decided by poll numbers. Reason is the only way we can understand truth- and your peeps don't got it. We've got the keys, and friends don't let conspiracists drive... ever.

What is true today may not be true tomorrow. New facts and information brings about new truth.

The conventional thinkers here in this forum (note, not critical thinkers) base their truth on authority and not reason, example the 9/11 Commission Report.

I have presented many examples which conflicts with the known truth in this forum: i.e. The Missiles at Ground Zero. Conventional thinkers find it easier to rely upon authority than reason. To reconcile conflicting information requires a person to actually think. It appears that most people here find that a bit difficult.

The Missiles at Ground Zero
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/printer.php?id=10058

[MaGZ]

I say again... "truthers" are not "CT's" (conspiracy theorists). They are activists who have latched onto popularized conspiracy mythology as a catalyst for their anger, and excuse for their divisive behavior. If not for 9/11, they'd be trowing eggs at GAP storefronts or choking tear-gas fumes at world bank protests.

The "movement" is a dysfunctional leaderless mess. They aspire to Vietnam-era greatness, but there's absolutely no cultural resonance they can rely upon.

Any small glimmer of hope of exposing lies, corruption, malfeasance, or cover-ups related to 9/11 has been sabotaged by their own inability to control their ranks, moderate their language, and manage laughable theories.

If there are conspiracies related to the events of 9/11 (which I think there are), the "Truth Movement" has successfully sabotaged the investigation better than any "infiltration" or "COINTELPRO" could ever do.

There. Oh, man... am I ever in trouble now! :p

Not at all, well said.

[JimBenArm]

What is true today may not be true tomorrow. New facts and information brings about new truth.
Really, Mr. Wizard? (or is that Grand Wizard? I can't keep up with you guys)
Our understanding of what facts are may change, but the truth remains the truth regardless. Even when we "knew" the Earth was flat didn't change the truth that it is a sphere.
You need to go back to grade school. Obviously didn't take the first time.

[MaGZ]

The Otis fighters thing...

Some things to consider. At 0844, when NEADS decided to launch the Otis F-15s, they had not been given a position for AA11 from Boston Centre.



We can have a quick look at these coordinates to determine where they actually are.

The first (41°15’0.00”N 74°36’0.00”W) is just north of Sussex NJ, 48 miles from the WTC due NW. The second (41°15’0.00”N 73°46’0.00”W) is just south of Yorktown Heights NY, 39 miles from the WTC due NNE.

So far so good. Except of course, the fighters don't just fly there in a straight line. You can't have a couple of F-15's just barrelling their way through civilian airspace at 1000MPH+, over urban areas. So they head east, out over the Atlantic, and follow the coast, flying through the ADIZ which is military controlled airspace.

Once they reached the coast of Long Island, to pass through to the Z-Point they then have to get FAA permission. Which they weren't given. The FAA didn't want two F-15's flying smack through the middle of New York, potentially colliding with airliners in the tightly packed airspace. It was the FAA controllers that put the F-15s in a holding pattern over Long Island. That was at 0907. And then, at 0921, the phantom A11 report came in, and the Otis fighters were directed towards Washington DC.

Bear in mind, the FAA control airspace over the USA, not the military. For NORAD to take command, first the government would need to declare an Air Defense Emergency. This would activate the Security Control of Air Traffic and Air Navigation Aids (SCATANA) Plan and give NORAD total control of airspace.

-Gumboot

Boston contacted Otis directly bypassing NORAD. Boston knew Flight 11 had turned and was heading toward NYC, therefor Otis knew. In this emergency, I find it doubtful they followed the book. (Yes, my reasonable opinion)

They flew directly to NYC at supersonic speed. After their attempt to intercept the second hijack plane (9:03am) it is entirely possible they were directed to the holding pattern off Long Island. A decision had been made to land all approaching planes to NYC and clear the air space. After the inbound passenger planes landed, the fighters resumed patrol over NYC.

[MaGZ]

Actually, I don't think we're "winning," for the simple reason that I never considered this a contest or game. It's about countering the lies and slander and nonsense of those who proclaim themselves "truthers." It's more a moral obligation, a responsibility to 9/11 victims, their families, and ultimately the truth itself. I've never derived a scintilla of pleasure or satisfaction from dealing with you guys. It's like an unpleasant chore, something that unfortunately has to be done by someone.

The whole 9/11 CT thing has basically devolved along the lines of the UFO and Bigfoot movements. It had its brief little heyday, but now no one takes it very seriously anymore, except the hard-core few who believe because it fulfills some personal inner need. And like the UFO movement, you're sustained by the belief that you're always right on the verge of that long-awaited breakthrough, the watershed event that will finally make the rest of us see the light and proclaim you as visionary heroes. But it never comes.

I will repeat.
I don’t consider myself part of the "Truth Movement." There are only few points of agreement.

[MRC_Hans]

Sorry, I haven't read the entire thread, so this is in response to the opening post. The "Troother" movement may have its weaknesses, but it has one enourmous strength: A lot of people just want to believe in conspiracies, whatever the arguments against. "Our side", if such a side exists, can never really win, because there will always be people who say: "Well, whatever you say, I'm sure something is afoot".

Just look at our friend Einsteen. He has understood and implicitly accepted practically every argument from our side, but he hasn't budged one inch, nevertheless.

ETA: What we must remember, however, is that it is not our loss, it is theirs.

Hans

[SkepticGuy]

There. Oh, man... am I ever in trouble now!
Not at all, well said.
-heh-
You don't understand... I run a big conspiracy theory website... that rant's gonna haunt me! :p

Seriously, any "conspiracy theorist" who was involved in conspiracy theories before 9/11 wants nothing to do with Truthers... except for popular conspiracy profiteers.

[Gravy]

-heh-
You don't understand... I run a big conspiracy theory website... that rant's gonna haunt me! :p

Seriously, any "conspiracy theorist" who was involved in conspiracy theories before 9/11 wants nothing to do with Truthers... except for popular conspiracy profiteers.Yes, Alex Jones seems to be having a fine time with the truthers. 9/11 was a windfall for him.

[Totovader]

What is true today may not be true tomorrow. New facts and information brings about new truth.

No, truth does not simply change upon your whim. Additionally- this is not how the "Truth Movement" operates. They ignore facts, invent their own "evidence", lie, manipulate, and otherwise create ridiculous and backwards theories to support a predetermined conclusion.

If you honestly believe that truth is decided by reality- and you'd better believe that- then your conspiracy theories will never be true. The science is in.

The conventional thinkers here in this forum (note, not critical thinkers) base their truth on authority and not reason, example the 9/11 Commission Report.

To agree with the Commission report is not the same as relying on it as the basis for truth. I don't think conspiracists understand the difference. I have never come across a single debunker who simply relies on the position that "the government said it, so it's true". Fact of the matter is- I think most skeptics could give a crap about what "the government says".

I have presented many examples which conflicts with the known truth in this forum: i.e. The Missiles at Ground Zero. Conventional thinkers find it easier to rely upon authority than reason. To reconcile conflicting information requires a person to actually think. It appears that most people here find that a bit difficult.

Yet these claims have been thoroughly debunked. The fact that you continue to hold on to them after this has been shown- indicates that you're not interested in truth, but rather fantasy. That's exactly how conspiracism works.[/QUOTE]

[MaGZ]

No, truth does not simply change upon your whim. Additionally- this is not how the "Truth Movement" operates. They ignore facts, invent their own "evidence", lie, manipulate, and otherwise create ridiculous and backwards theories to support a predetermined conclusion.

If you honestly believe that truth is decided by reality- and you'd better believe that- then your conspiracy theories will never be true. The science is in.



To agree with the Commission report is not the same as relying on it as the basis for truth. I don't think conspiracists understand the difference. I have never come across a single debunker who simply relies on the position that "the government said it, so it's true". Fact of the matter is- I think most skeptics could give a crap about what "the government says".



Yet these claims have been thoroughly debunked. The fact that you continue to hold on to them after this has been shown- indicates that you're not interested in truth, but rather fantasy. That's exactly how conspiracism works.[/quote]

" thoroughly debunked" I don’t think so.

Take the white cloud exhibit.
http://911studies.com/911photostudies119.htm

In this link we see two different events. The first CNN photo shows the white cloud of smoke that appeared at 9:04 after the missile struck WTC7. The second photo taken about an hour later shows the collapse of WTC2.

The debunkers will say it is the same event. In this case they are the ones having a problem with logic and reason. (hint: the wind is blowing in opposite directions)

Jack White is wrong in his analysis suggesting the white cloud is from an explosion in WTC 6.

[MRC_Hans]

" thoroughly debunked" I don’t think so.

Take the white cloud exhibit.
http://911studies.com/911photostudies119.htm

In this link we see two different events. The first CNN photo shows the white cloud of smoke that appeared at 9:04 after the missile struck WTC7. The second photo taken about an hour later shows the collapse of WTC2.

The debunkers will say it is the same event. In this case they are the ones having a problem with logic and reason. (hint: the wind is blowing in opposite directions)

Can you produce any eye withness reprts of a cloud the zize of a 47 story building appearing at WTC7 an hour before the collapse of WTC7?

Because methinks some of the thousands of people in the vicinity ought to have noticed it.

As for the wind, plenty of footage and pictures show that the dust clouds from the collapses were able to spread against the wind for several blocks (hint: they were driven by the air expelled from the buildings and the down-draft from the collapse).

Hans

[JimTheBrit]

Take the white cloud exhibit.
http://911studies.com/911photostudies119.htm

In this link we see two different events. The first CNN photo shows the white cloud of smoke that appeared at 9:04 after the missile struck WTC7. The second photo taken about an hour later shows the collapse of WTC2.

Those alleged times in a big blue font beneath the pics - the ones uncorroborated by any similar timestamps on the actual screen captures - you're not expecting us to accept them as accurate purely on the authority of the web page author, are you?

[MaGZ]

Can you produce any eye withness reprts of a cloud the zize of a 47 story building appearing at WTC7 an hour before the collapse of WTC7?

Because methinks some of the thousands of people in the vicinity ought to have noticed it.

As for the wind, plenty of footage and pictures show that the dust clouds from the collapses were able to spread against the wind for several blocks (hint: they were driven by the air expelled from the buildings and the down-draft from the collapse).

Hans

If you have a copy of the Naudets 9/11 documentary you will see the white cloud.

In the film, on the corner of Church and Vesey a cameraman (not Gedeon Naudet) is filming WTC 1 on fire. He catches the second plane crashing into WTC 2 then there is an abrupt cut in the film (when the missile hit WTC 7). The unknown cameraman runs in a panic north on Church and later cowards against a tall building. He aims his camera south and you see the large white cloud from the missile explosion pass west to east along Vesey across Church.

Also in the 9/11 documentary Jules Naudet is in the lobby of WTC 1 with the firemen. The second plane hits WTC 2 and Jules aims his camera to the east side of WTC 1 catching the debris falling from WTC 2. A few seconds later we see the white cloud from the explosion at WTC 7 drift toward WTC 2.

The Missiles at Ground Zero
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/printer.php?id=10058

[MaGZ]

Those alleged times in a big blue font beneath the pics - the ones uncorroborated by any similar timestamps on the actual screen captures - you're not expecting us to accept them as accurate purely on the authority of the web page author, are you?

It was confirmed by CNN; the white cloud appeared at 9:04.

http://www.thepowerhour.com/911_analysis/wtc6-explosion.htm


CNN’s Public Affairs Department confirmed that the explosion shown in the footage occurred immediately after the second plane had crashed into the South Tower. When asked if the footage was taken at 9:04 a.m., the CNN archivist said “that’s correct.”

When asked if CNN could offer any explanation about what might have caused the blast that soared higher than the 47-story WTC 7 in the foreground, the archivist said: “We can’t figure it out.”

[Gravy]

" thoroughly debunked" I don’t think so.

Take the white cloud exhibit.
http://911studies.com/911photostudies119.htm

In this link we see two different events. The first CNN photo shows the white cloud of smoke that appeared at 9:04 after the missile struck WTC7. The second photo taken about an hour later shows the collapse of WTC2.

The debunkers will say it is the same event. In this case they are the ones having a problem with logic and reason. (hint: the wind is blowing in opposite directions)

Jack White is wrong in his analysis suggesting the white cloud is from an explosion in WTC 6.The title of this thread is "The vulnerability of the Truth Movement." You, MaGZ, are the poster child for that concept.

Keep up the good work! You couldn't possibly make our job any easier.

p.s. You still obviously haven't watched the video I asked you to see. What seems to be the problem, M?

[SkepticGuy]

The title of this thread is "The vulnerability of the Truth Movement." You, MaGZ, are the poster child for that concept.
As a long-term student of conspiracy theory (well before 9/11), and operator of a large conspiracy-focused board... I vigorously agree with that statement.


Keep up the good work! You couldn't possibly make our job any easier.
Please stop or acquire critical thinking skills. You (and similar) couldn't possible make the jobs of those trying to find the actual conspiracies any harder.


We've seen these poorly constructed photo-montages for more than four years. That first screen-capture is clearly right after the collapse of the south tower. There's plenty of online video to confirm this.

[Gravy]

For the FOURTH time, here's the video, Ma Grand Zed.

http://wtcbpc.blogspot.com/

Show us all the "white cloud" that towers above WTC 7 at 9:04. Show us all the missile strikes. Show us all the missile damage to the parking lot at West & Vesey.

Well, what are you afraid of? Show us.

[Kiwiwriter]

The Missiles at Ground Zero
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/printer.php?id=10058

Which is the site of the NATIONAL ALLIANCE, which used to be the nation's leading neo-Nazi party, until its leadership started feuding amongst themselves and started splitting up. Now its boss, Kevin Strom, is going inside for downloading child pornography and witness tampering.

So this is information from a NAZI WEB SITE, which has a considerable penknife to grind.

Which tells me more about the veracity of your claims than anything else.

So what I really want to know, MaGZ, is not your silly theories about who did 9/11, I want to know what you think of Hitler, and what your "Final Solution to the Jewish Question" is. I want to know if you think the Holocaust happened, and if it did, the Jews got what they deserved. I want to know if you've actually read "Mein Kampf" cover to cover, and how you got into neo-Nazism.

But because you're an anonymous coward, you can't and won't answer.

So I'll keep asking, mostly so that everyone who reads your drivel knows that it comes straight from Dr. Goebbels' mouth.

[Totovader]

" thoroughly debunked" I don’t think so.

Take the white cloud exhibit.
http://911studies.com/911photostudies119.htm

In this link we see two different events. The first CNN photo shows the white cloud of smoke that appeared at 9:04 after the missile struck WTC7. The second photo taken about an hour later shows the collapse of WTC2.

The debunkers will say it is the same event. In this case they are the ones having a problem with logic and reason. (hint: the wind is blowing in opposite directions)

Jack White is wrong in his analysis suggesting the white cloud is from an explosion in WTC 6.

In the time it's taken me to get to your response, many people have already answered it.

So, do you still consider this a "fact"? Do you still believe that the skeptic/scientific movement abandons logic- or is it you that is actually allowing bias to interfere with your investigation?

[MaGZ]

In the time it's taken me to get to your response, many people have already answered it.

So, do you still consider this a "fact"? Do you still believe that the skeptic/scientific movement abandons logic- or is it you that is actually allowing bias to interfere with your investigation?

These are clearly two different events.

[MaGZ]

For the FOURTH time, here's the video, Ma Grand Zed.

http://wtcbpc.blogspot.com/

Show us all the "white cloud" that towers above WTC 7 at 9:04. Show us all the missile strikes. Show us all the missile damage to the parking lot at West & Vesey.

Well, what are you afraid of? Show us.

Missile damage in the parking lot at West & Vesey.
http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image8.jpg

The "smoking crater" where the missile hit.
http://img431.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc00105gh0.jpg

[beachnut]

These are clearly two different events.

I am not the first to think you are a perfect example of why the truth movement is and never was built on facts.

You are the prime evidence for this Thread. You are now just an exhibit for this thread - proving this thread.

[Totovader]

These are clearly two different events.

Ok... let's try it another way:

Do you consider the possibility that you could be wrong? I mean, it's possible, right?

If your answer is yes, you do consider it a possibility that you're wrong- then what would indicate that you're wrong? The facts that have been presented to you already show that your version of the events is not true.

So your refusal to accept that means you're answering "no" to the question above. You refuse to accept the possibility that you're wrong. In other words, you're unscientific in your research.

[babazaroni]

So, MaGZ, it seems you no longer claim the missile hit WTC 7, but hit the parking lot instead.

Was WTC 7 involved?

Remember, you were so sure it hit WTC 7.

[Totovader]

Missile damage in the parking lot at West & Vesey.
http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image8.jpg

The "smoking crater" where the missile hit.
http://img431.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc00105gh0.jpg

Good lord...

What is it that is contained in these pictures that is specifically related to "missile damage" and "missile damage alone"?

It's easy to show that you're wrong, here. Nothing in these pictures is a characteristic of missile damage- but quite characteristic of the events of that day: that burning debris fell upon these vehicles.

[MaGZ]

Ok... let's try it another way:

Do you consider the possibility that you could be wrong? I mean, it's possible, right?

If your answer is yes, you do consider it a possibility that you're wrong- then what would indicate that you're wrong? The facts that have been presented to you already show that your version of the events is not true.

So your refusal to accept that means you're answering "no" to the question above. You refuse to accept the possibility that you're wrong. In other words, you're unscientific in your research.

No, I am not wrong.

If these were photos of the same event then the wind would be blowing in the same direction. Please tell me how it is possible this can be the same event (the collapse of WTC 2).

http://911studies.com/911photostudies119.htm

[babazaroni]

No, I am not wrong.

If these were photos of the same event then the wind would be blowing in the same direction. Please tell me how it is possible this can be the same event (the collapse of WTC 2).

http://911studies.com/911photostudies119.htm

How can a 5 mph wind keep debris from falling upwind?

[MaGZ]

So, MaGZ, it seems you no longer claim the missile hit WTC 7, but hit the parking lot instead.

Was WTC 7 involved?

Remember, you were so sure it hit WTC 7.

Two missiles were fired in an attempt to shoot down the second hijacked plane. One missile hit WTC 7 on the 14th floor and the other missile hit in the open parking area.

The Missiles at Ground Zero
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/printer.php?id=10058

[SkepticGuy]

If these were photos of the same event then the wind would be blowing in the same direction.
The breeze that day was slight... wonderful morning, I was there.

If you look at the angle of sunlight...
Left picture -- camera from the west
Right picture -- camera from north, north-east

You can easily see that these are two different camera angles by comparing the surrounding buildings.

[Gravy]

Missile damage in the parking lot at West & Vesey.
http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image8.jpg

The "smoking crater" where the missile hit.
http://img431.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc00105gh0.jpgFIFTH TIME, MAGZ:

Here's the video

http://wtcbpc.blogspot.com/

Show us all the "white cloud" that towers above WTC 7 at 9:04. Show us all the missile strikes. Show us all the missile damage to the parking lot at West & Vesey.

The video shows closeups of the parking lot AFTER you say a missile hit it and before the tower collapses.

Show us the missile damage in this video.

What are you afraid of? The truth won't hurt you.

[babazaroni]

Two missiles were fired in an attempt to shoot down the second hijacked plane. One missile hit WTC 7 on the 14th floor and the other missile hit in the open parking area.

The Missiles at Ground Zero
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/printer.php?id=10058

Then please point out the damage to the 14th floor in the image below:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1025245ca632de9d98.jpg

[MaGZ]

Good lord...

What is it that is contained in these pictures that is specifically related to "missile damage" and "missile damage alone"?

It's easy to show that you're wrong, here. Nothing in these pictures is a characteristic of missile damage- but quite characteristic of the events of that day: that burning debris fell upon these vehicles.

I call and raise.

Here is the CBS video clip of the second white smoke cloud coming from the open parking area. (lower right)

http://911studies.com/911photostudies117a.htm

[Totovader]

No, I am not wrong.

If these were photos of the same event then the wind would be blowing in the same direction. Please tell me how it is possible this can be the same event (the collapse of WTC 2).

http://911studies.com/911photostudies119.htm

Eh... how about "holy bucket of overflowing nonsense"...

To claim that the wind needs to blow in a certain direction, and to then ignore the forces that were at work which would simulate wind- is to commit the error that many others- including myself- have outlined.

You did not answer my question.

Please do that now.

[Totovader]

I call and raise.

Here is the CBS video clip of the second white smoke cloud coming from the open parking area. (lower right)

http://911studies.com/911photostudies117a.htm

This also is not an answer to my question. Call it whatever you want- I need an answer, not more red herrings.

[SkepticGuy]

I call and raise
Here is the CBS video clip of the second white smoke cloud coming from the open parking area. (lower right)
http://911studies.com/911photostudies117a.htm
Please go "all in" then loose and leave. You and that site are giving "conspiracy thoerists" a horrible reputation. The photo you just linked is showing sunlight on a light colored building... not the first-ever straight-edged stair-stepped smoke cloud anyone ever saw.



oh the horror

[babazaroni]

I call and raise.


To call means you have to answer our questions about no visible damage to WTC 7 and the parking lot and no rising dust cloud above WTC 7 when the south tower was hit.

Look at the video Gravy posted:

http://wtcbpc.blogspot.com/

[Totovader]

I call and raise.

By the way, not only is this not demonstrated by your statements- but it's also not demonstrated in poker.

You do not call then raise- that's called string betting. You call or raise, or you see and raise.

The dealer would laugh at you much like the rest of us are right now.

[Kiwiwriter]

Two missiles were fired in an attempt to shoot down the second hijacked plane. One missile hit WTC 7 on the 14th floor and the other missile hit in the open parking area.

The Missiles at Ground Zero
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/printer.php?id=10058

This is a NEO-NAZI WEB SITE. They have as much interest in putting out the truth as you do in buying a Bond for Israel.

[MaGZ]

Eh... how about "holy bucket of overflowing nonsense"...

To claim that the wind needs to blow in a certain direction, and to then ignore the forces that were at work which would simulate wind- is to commit the error that many others- including myself- have outlined.

You did not answer my question.

Please do that now.

To say the collapse of the Twin Towers caused the change in direction of the winds shows how desperate you are. If you can not debate me intelligently then you will be ignored. You had your chance.

[MaGZ]

This is a NEO-NAZI WEB SITE. They have as much interest in putting out the truth as you do in buying a Bond for Israel.

No need to get excited.

[Kiwiwriter]

No need to get excited.

Good, you don't have me on your "ignore" button after all!

Now maybe you'll answer my numerous questions about your views on Jews, the Holocaust, the Nazis, and what you think should be the "Final Solution to the Jewish Question." :D

[Totovader]

To say the collapse of the Twin Towers caused the change in direction of the winds shows how desperate you are. If you can not debate me intelligently then you will be ignored. You had your chance.

A strawman wrapped up in an ad baculum with a taste of ad hominem- all served on a hot plate of red herring.

Let me tell you- this has got to be the most filling dish I've had in a long time...


:bwall

[Kiwiwriter]

To say the collapse of the Twin Towers caused the change in direction of the winds shows how desperate you are. If you can not debate me intelligently then you will be ignored. You had your chance.

So in addition to your role in the Geheime Staatspolizei and the Reich Sicherheitsdienst, you're also head of the "intelligence police?"

So, MaGZ, what is the purpose of the Zionist/Jewish conspiracy to destroy the World Trade Center, thus targeting thousands of Jews in a city with 3 million Jews, most of which support Zionism? Isn't that killing the goose that lays golden eggs?

And more on this line...since you've obviously gained no adherents here, what is your purpose in continuing to troll us?

[Dave Rogers]

Here is the CBS video clip of the second white smoke cloud coming from the open parking area. (lower right)

http://911studies.com/911photostudies117a.htm

Just as an aside, MaGZ, thanks for directing me to the above website. It appears to be a comical spoof of CT photo-interpretation, characterised by such obvious errors (in the Pentagon photos) as the inability to understand that:
(a) Objects behind other objects can't be seen because of the objects in front of them (the "vanishing sidewalk");
(b) Objects behind the camera in one shot and in front of it in another shot can only be seen in the second shot (the mysterious second railing);
(c) Not all areas of grass are exactly the same colour, and
(d) Temporary fences aren't visible before they've been put up.
I'm sure the particular picture you refer to is genuine, although I have no information about when it was taken; but the website, overall, is hilarious.

Dave

[Expression_man]

The fact that you "don't take any particular side" shows why you don't understand.

Truth is not decided by poll numbers. Reason is the only way we can understand truth- and your peeps don't got it. We've got the keys, and friends don't let conspiracists drive... ever.

Erm, yes you are correct in one sense. Truth isn't about poll numbers which is why no one can ever have a monopoly on the "truth". "Reasoning" is subjective, whatever it is you base it on and my "peeps" understand you very well. You have an opinion and are trying to BS your way into having some sort of standing so as to back it.

A strawman wrapped up in an ad baculum with a taste of ad hominem- all served on a hot plate of red herring.

Gimme those damn keys before you get someone killed...

[Totovader]

Erm, yes you are correct in one sense. Truth isn't about poll numbers which is why no one can ever have a monopoly on the "truth". "Reasoning" is subjective, whatever it is you base it on and my "peeps" understand you very well. You have an opinion and are trying to BS your way into having some sort of standing so as to back it.

Gimme those damn keys before you get someone killed...

Monopolies aren't about polls.

Correct reasoning is not subjective.

My opinion is not the issue. And science is not a BS way of supporting an opinion.

You do not deserve the keys.

[Expression_man]

Monopolies aren't about polls.

Why did you mention polls in the first place then?!?!?!

Correct reasoning is not subjective.

I'm afraid that your notion of what "correct reasoning" entails is also subjective, no matter how many people agree with it or how often it's used.

My opinion is not the issue.

From what I see here, all you have is your opinion.

And science is not a BS way of supporting an opinion.

Right, and you are a scientist?
If so, what are you doing on the JREF boards?
If not, why bring what you're saying into the context of science?

You do not deserve the keys.

I took them while you were eating your side order of ad-hominem...

[Totovader]

Why did you mention polls in the first place then?!?!?!

Go back and read my post. We have a monopoly on truth because we are rational, logical, scientific individuals- not because we're the majority.

I'm afraid that your notion of what "correct reasoning" entails is also subjective, no matter how many people agree with it or how often it's used.

I never said that how many people agree with me matter- nor how often it's used... in fact I said the opposite.

But look at what you're saying. You're saying that correct reasoning is subjective... at the same time you're trying to tell me I'm wrong... (while injecting a strawman). How can these two statements be true? If reasoning is subjective, then you can't possibly be right- and I can't possibly be wrong- according to you.

From what I see here, all you have is your opinion.

One wouldn't expect you to see anything else. Science, however, doesn't care about what you claim to see.

Right, and you are a scientist?
If so, what are you doing on the JREF boards?
If not, why bring what you're saying into the context of science?

Have I not?

I took them while you were eating your side order of ad-hominem...

Where?

[JimBenArm]

Right, and you are a scientist?
If so, what are you doing on the JREF boards?


What are these two questions supposed to imply, O Wise One? Only scientists are allowed to use the scientific method? If I am a scientist, I'm banned from JREF? Sound like a couple of ridiculous questions to me, but I'm just a layman, so what do I know, compared to your radiant knowledge!

[Expression_man]

Go back and read my post. We have a monopoly on truth because we are rational, logical, scientific individuals- not because we're the majority.

I never said that how many people agree with me matter- nor how often it's used... in fact I said the opposite.

But why bring polls into it?
I never insinuated that it had anything to do with statistics...

But look at what you're saying. You're saying that correct reasoning is subjective... at the same time you're trying to tell me I'm wrong... (while injecting a strawman). How can these two statements be true? If reasoning is subjective, then you can't possibly be right- and I can't possibly be wrong- according to you.

Correct reasoning gave credence to the idea that the Sun orbited the earth in the old days yet it is now determined to be false reasoning thanks to a bunch of other variables. I'm not saying I'm right or that you are wrong, I'm saying that I don't know!

One wouldn't expect you to see anything else. Science, however, doesn't care about what you claim to see.

Good science, yes. Bad science, no. Science, in general, is not above false reasoning however. It's just a process designed to refine it.

What are these two questions supposed to imply, O Wise One? Only scientists are allowed to use the scientific method?

Not many people are using the scientific method on the JREF forums, it's emotionally high-strung for the most part.

If I am a scientist, I'm banned from JREF?

What?

Sound like a couple of ridiculous questions to me, but I'm just a layman, so what do I know, compared to your radiant knowledge!

What?

[Totovader]

But why bring polls into it?
I never insinuated that it had anything to do with statistics...

But the post I was responding to did. You then tried to say that a monopoly was about polls. It is not. I was simply correcting your statement.

Correct reasoning gave credence to the idea that the Sun orbited the earth in the old days yet it is now determined to be false reasoning thanks to a bunch of other variables. I'm not saying I'm right or that you are wrong, I'm saying that I don't know!

Saying you don't know is different than saying no one can know. And no, it was not correct reasoning that arrived at the conclusion that the Sun orbited the Earth... it was religion- which is as far away from reasoning as one can get.

Good science, yes. Bad science, no. Science, in general, is not above false reasoning however. It's just a process designed to refine it.

Care to define "bad science" without mentioning failed reasoning?

Not many people are using the scientific method on the JREF forums, it's emotionally high-strung for the most part.

Emotionally high-strung does not mean that people are not using the scientific method. This, again, is simply a claim you cannot support (especially if you want to continue to claim that reasoning is subjective... by your logic we shouldn't believe you).

What?
What?

Exactly.

[Expression_man]

But the post I was responding to did. You then tried to say that a monopoly was about polls. It is not. I was simply correcting your statement.

Well you managed to quote me in your response which implied that you were addressing my statement regarding the absurdity of having a monopoly on the truth. Such a thing is called religion.

Saying you don't know is different than saying no one can know. And no, it was not correct reasoning that arrived at the conclusion that the Sun orbited the Earth... it was religion- which is as far away from reasoning as one can get.

This is being subjective again, religion is based on limited reasoning. As I said, the moment other variables come into it we get a different picture.

Care to define "bad science" without mentioning failed reasoning?

Hmm, falsifying data would qualify I suppose. Not that I'm insinuating anything, just directly answering your question.

Emotionally high-strung does not mean that people are not using the scientific method. This, again, is simply a claim you cannot support (especially if you want to continue to claim that reasoning is subjective... by your logic we shouldn't believe you).

If you can't remain balanced mentally/emotionally while evaluating something then the integrity of your mental critique becomes questionable. But if reasoning is subjective why would I care what people outside my own subjective thought processes thought? : p

I'm just pointing out variables.


Exactly.

Damn right!

[Lucas]

" thoroughly debunked" I don’t think so.

The first CNN photo shows the white cloud of smoke that appeared at 9:04 after the missile struck WTC7. The second photo taken about an hour later shows the collapse of WTC2.



Actually, I do think that you've been debunked. You just dissapeared when you were, on SLC. Proof:
http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showtopic=1531

And your original post there:
http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showtopic=1451

If you look at the following picture:
http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc40_small.JPG

You will see that the WTC7 south face is almost completely intact just as the south tower collapses. Thus, reducing your stupid theory about missiles on WTC7 to the rubble it belongs in.

[Totovader]

Well you managed to quote me in your response which implied that you were addressing my statement regarding the absurdity of having a monopoly on the truth. Such a thing is called religion.

No, it's the opposite of religion- which is why it's funny to call it a monopoly.

This is being subjective again, religion is based on limited reasoning. As I said, the moment other variables come into it we get a different picture.

No, religion is the antithesis of reasoning- it's the rejection of it, not a "limited form of it". The fact that other variables "come into it" and thus it produces a different picture shows emphatically that reason is objective. The fact that religion denied (and in some places still does) the facts about the universe shows that it is not reason.

Hmm, falsifying data would qualify I suppose. Not that I'm insinuating anything, just directly answering your question.

Which would be failed reasoning. If you are falsifying data- you have a predetermined conclusion. This is a rejection of the scientific method ie reasoning.

If you can't remain balanced mentally/emotionally while evaluating something then the integrity of your mental critique becomes questionable.

If- and only if- that emotion influences your hypothesis- instead of being a reaction to it. Question it all you want- you were saying that people were being emotional instead of being rational. The two are not mutually exclusive. You have now admitted that- but only in direct contradiction to your previous statement:

Not many people are using the scientific method on the JREF forums, it's emotionally high-strung for the most part.

But if reasoning is subjective why would I care what people outside my own subjective thought processes thought? : p

And hence why you have no argument whatsoever- you have neither the position nor the power to call anyone right or wrong. To do so would contradict what you see as a subjective truth, only to then turn around and have nothing to base it on because reality is simply subjective.

It makes no sense. And it's wrong. We prove that every day with science- with technology- with getting up and brushing our teeth.

I'm just pointing out variables.

No, you're trying to claim there's a preponderance of emotion instead of scientific reasoning, here. You have no basis for this claim, and have had to reduce it to nothing more than a "variable" or "questionable". You make no mention of what is questionable about it, or why it's wrong- you just plaster on ad hominem in an attempt to sneak in a claim of argument from emotion without actually saying so. Fact is, you can't support it. Apparently, though, you don't think you need to- because truth doesn't exist?

[Expression_man]

Totovader, we could go on forever like the above but it's as simple as this.

By your thinking, the reason I am unable to understand the validity of having "a monopoly on truth and reasoning", as a concept, is because I don't take sides.

So now you have a monopoly on truth and reasoning because of the side you have taken?

That is surely subjective reasoning at its best. If you want to take this further I'll be back later today, and please don't come up with "it's because my side is truth and reason".

[Redtail]

Two missiles were fired in an attempt to shoot down the second hijacked plane. One missile hit WTC 7 on the 14th floor and the other missile hit in the open parking area.

The Missiles at Ground Zero
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/printer.php?id=10058

From above site

ILLUSTRATION: Damage to WTC7 is evident in this official photograph taken before the "pulling" of the building.)

In addition to the missile hit, WTC 7 suffered severe damage to its southwest corner on floors 8 thru 18 from the falling debris of the North Tower (WTC 1). Being unstable, WTC 7 might have collapsed on its own without any assistance. However, the fall would have been toward its weakest point: the southwest corner. In order to prevent such a collapse and to save lives in the ongoing search and rescue efforts, a decision was made to "pull" the building.

Well that's all the debunking I need.

[Totovader]

Totovader, we could go on forever like the above but it's as simple as this.

No- eventually someone has to admit that they are not paying attention.

By your thinking, the reason I am unable to understand the validity of having "a monopoly on truth and reasoning", as a concept, is because I don't take sides.

Holy strawman. Not even close to what I said. You don't understand the validity of objective truth because you choose to believe that subjectivity is more valid, neglecting the fact that this thought requires an objective view of reality.

Apparently, we need to have a discussion on what science is. Twice, now, you've attempted to bastardize it as simply subjective and religious. That is the reason you can't comprehend a science based on objective reality.

So now you have a monopoly on truth and reasoning because of the side you have taken?

No, the side I go with is the one that has a monopoly on truth and reasoning. Again, you try a strawman.

That is surely subjective reasoning at its best. If you want to take this further I'll be back later today, and please don't come up with "it's because my side is truth and reason".

Why would you reject that statement? Because you don't like it? You gave no reason to reject it- yet you knew it was coming... I wonder why that is.

What do you think science is? A vote?

[Expression_man]

Why would you reject that statement? Because you don't like it? You gave no reason to reject it- yet you knew it was coming... I wonder why that is.

It is because everything I have said stands and that you are utterly predictable in your thinking to the point that I knew when to break away from your circular reasoning so as to avoid further long-winded dispute.

You think that truth and reasoning involves having some sort of faction which, incidentally, is no different from religion.

You say I bastardized science?

If that's the case then you're about to turn this place into a cult.

Ok, I really am off now. BBL

[Totovader]

It is because everything I have said stands

How does it stand? You haven't even explained it- let alone proved it. I've shown that your statements are contradictory- self-defeating. What has your response been to that? Nothing.

and that you are utterly predictable in your thinking to the point that I knew when to break away from your circular reasoning so as to avoid further long-winded dispute.

Circular reasoning? Back that one up, too...

Utterly predictable != wrong.

You think that truth and reasoning involves having some sort of faction which, incidentally, is no different from religion.

Yet another strawman. I do not believe it has anything to do with labels, or what "group" you belong to. I've stated the opposite. The fact that you keep comparing a group which utilizes the faculties of reason to religion shows that you're far away from any semblance of understanding.

You say I bastardized science?

If that's the case then you're about to turn this place into a cult.

Ok, I really am off now. BBL

How can a cult be based on science? No, seriously- answer that question. Scientific inquiry is the exact opposite of the very definition of a cult.

I understand your need to reject everything you see as scientific and rigid- but claiming it's a cult or a religion won't work. All we need to do is maintain the scientific position, and then your claims fall on their face. Any quick perusal of the threads will show this to be case.

[Expression_man]

Yet another strawman. I do not believe it has anything to do with labels, or what "group" you belong to. I've stated the opposite. The fact that you keep comparing a group which utilizes the faculties of reason to religion shows that you're far away from any semblance of understanding.

The fact that you don't take any particular side shows why you don't understand.

So I need to take sides in order to understand?

Truth is not decided by poll numbers. Reason is the only way we can understand truth- and your peeps don't got it. We've got the keys, and friends don't let conspiracists drive... ever.

Who is "we"?

How can a cult be based on science? No, seriously- answer that question. Scientific inquiry is the exact opposite of the very definition of a cult.

What you are saying has nothing to do with science. Good science is impartial, you are not. What are you representing? The truth? Yikes, there's certainly a lot of contention in regards to that...

I understand your need to reject everything you see as scientific and rigid- but claiming it's a cult or a religion won't work. All we need to do is maintain the scientific position, and then your claims fall on their face. Any quick perusal of the threads will show this to be case.

The JREF forum is not the scientific community you make it out to be. Your notion of a scientific position became compromised when you started believing you have a monopoly on the truth.

Science as a cult, yes it's possible. It's the same reason why taboos exist in the scientific community and that even things like hypnosis and electrosensitivity are laughed at due to a lack of understanding and general unwillingness to accept the research. All due to how many failures it exposes.

we have a monopoly on truth and logic

The claim I've made is that you cannot have a monopoly on the truth. The moment you think you do, your ego comes into full play. Truth does not belong to you, nor are you the sole proprietor of reason. It is completely ridiculous to suppose that the truth can be owned or that it can be denied to someone. It's always there, waiting to be discovered by those who seek it, you cannot deny people their thoughts.

I don't care about 911, I'm just addressing this strange idea that you have. It's far more disturbing than any conspiracy theory I've ever heard.

Don't get confused, the JREF forum contains a lot of over-intellectualizing and people may believe they know "the truth" about certain things but that's all it is, a belief based on a conclusion drawn from a set of variables. A fact is unlikely to be disputed to the extent that 911 has which is why I remain undecided on the subject. I am willing to suspend my disbelief so as to consider the unthinkable.

I come to the CT boards to read about the subjects in question, not to hear someone say that they have "a monopoly on the truth". That's CT material in and of itself, start a new thread.

[PerryLogan]

Nothing is true. Everything is permitted.

[Totovader]

So I need to take sides in order to understand?

Only if you take the comment out of context. Back then we were talking about the "monopoly on truth".

Who is "we"?

Scientists, skeptics, and anyone else who wants to call themselves critical thinkers.

What you are saying has nothing to do with science. Good science is impartial, you are not.

Right now- demonstrate how I am not impartial.

Do it, I dare you.

What are you representing? The truth? Yikes, there's certainly a lot of contention in regards to that...

Disagreement does not mean that truth is not found. AGAIN, polls != truth.

The JREF forum is not the scientific community you make it out to be. Your notion of a scientific position became compromised when you started believing you have a monopoly on the truth.

Says who?

Science as a cult, yes it's possible. It's the same reason why taboos exist in the scientific community and that even things like hypnosis and electrosensitivity are laughed at due to a lack of understanding and general unwillingness to accept the research. All due to how many failures it exposes.

*giggle*

The claim I've made is that you cannot have a monopoly on the truth.

And you have not spent any energy on providing evidence for such a claim.

If I make the claim that I am rational- that I am logical- that I exist in an objective reality... then why bother challenge that by saying "no you're not"- as if that doesn't demonstrate precisely what I'm talking about.

The moment you think you do, your ego comes into full play.

Only if you allow your ego to influence your research. I don't- because I'm too egotistical to subvert scientific study. That's where my ego takes me. It plays along with science nicely- because it's primary concern is becoming educated.

Truth does not belong to you, nor are you the sole proprietor of reason.

Holy strawman.

It is completely ridiculous to suppose that the truth can be owned or that it can be denied to someone.

Another strawman.

It's always there, waiting to be discovered by those who seek it, you cannot deny people their thoughts.

And still another strawman!

I am amazed.

I don't care about 911, I'm just addressing this strange idea that you have. It's far more disturbing than any conspiracy theory I've ever heard.

And a poisoning of the well.

Magnificent.

Don't get confused, the JREF forum contains a lot of over-intellectualizing and people may believe they know "the truth" about certain things but that's all it is, a belief based on a conclusion drawn from a set of variables.

*giggle*

Um, what is the truth? And, do you really think I give a crap about what people think or say? If they want to be "over-intellectual" then "they have a right to think what they want", right? If truth is truth- then all they need to do is make sure their variables are in the right order- and people like you can only resort to personal attacks in response.

A fact is unlikely to be disputed to the extent that 911 has which is why I remain undecided on the subject.

This makes no sense whatsoever.

I am willing to suspend my disbelief so as to consider the unthinkable.

Are you sure you're suspending your disbelief? It doesn't appear that this is the case... and really, that's a contradiction in terms.

I come to the CT boards to read about the subjects in question, not to hear someone say that they have "a monopoly on the truth". That's CT material in and of itself, start a new thread.

Throw some more poison in that well. If you don't come here to read it- then don't. But I don't pretend to be something I'm not.

None of us here are infallible. We all make mistakes- either by poor reasoning, or jumping to conclusions, or not having all the information, or by loyalty- whatever. And to sum it up: who really gives a crap. In the end, the skeptics/scientists/debunkers will be the ones holding the keys in their hand- and the deniers will remain where they have always been. To claim there's some sort of middle ground is ludicrous- the scientists go with the science, and the skeptics and debunkers follow. We adapt, we concede, we discover, and we move on. Deniers... they're still eating their young over whether it was a death ray from outer space or a mini-nuke, or a controlled demolition. They cut each others throats at the mere mention of the slightest possibility they could be wrong. They viciously attack each other and everyone else for daring to question what they supposedly dared to question.

That's not science- that's not truth.

So, I'm not saying we're always right. I'm not even saying we're right in everything we're saying right now. Hell, I've been wrong in the last couple days on major items- but that doesn't stop me. It doesn't even discourage me. I shrug my shoulders and submit to reality- because that's what we do. THAT is why we have a monopoly on reality.

[Expression_man]

They cut each others throats at the mere mention of the slightest possibility they could be wrong. They viciously attack each other and everyone else for daring to question what they supposedly dared to question.

That's not science- that's not truth.

Many would argue that the scientific community is somewhat divided. This is especially true when it comes down to competing theories. Yes, scientists have been known to visciously attack one another for daring to question each other. So, as science currently exists, what you have described is indeed a part of the practical application science. While "a truth" will bring contention to people whose truth differs, attacking one another viciously has no association with the virtue of truth itself. So no, science is not truth. It is a process designed to find agreeable conclusions but not one that is infallible.

To claim that the above concept of science has any monopoly on the truth is stark raving mad.

How can you be impartial when you claim to have a monopoly on truth?

we have a monopoly on reality

How can you claim to be impartial when you claim to have a monopoly on reality?

How, in the name of all things sacred, can you now have a monopoly on reality?

How can you have a monopoly on something without involving a commodity or having exclusive possession and control of that same commodity?

The only thing you have a monopoly on is your own thoughts, it's the same with everyone else. Reality is subjective but certain things are permitted in the sense that they are agreed on to a large extent.

The moment you start thinking only you know the truth is the exact time when your ego breaks loose and wreaks havoc on your psyche. If you don't know where you stand in regards to what an opinion is worth then you have no foundation on which to make an argument.

You have a monopoly on the truth?
You have a monopoly on reality?

You seem to be doing a damn poor job of maintaining its cohesion if that's the case.

And, do you really think I give a crap about what people think or say?

Heck no!

[zeppy_gorrila]

Episode IV

AN UNCONNECTED TWOOF

It is a
dark time
for the 9/11
Twoofers. Even
as nearly 86% of
Americans give their
unquestioning support
to sinister Inside Jobbers,
rebel forces surrounding the
Movement threaten to utterly
collapse it into its own footprint.
Harried by negative energy beams,
buffeted by savvy Hardfire Troopers
and bracketed by shocking non-release
of promised films dealing destructive doom
to the stalwart Official Theory, Twoofers are
melting into formless holograms, projected upon
structured landscapes of towering reality. Twoofer
claims of a New World Order illuminate not one block
of masonry awry in a top-down scan of the rock-solid
Evidential Pyramid. In the Movement's gloried early times,
loquacious Jonesy the Hutt held hypnotic sway over millions
as electronically amplified distortions and lies spewed from his
bulbous lips and flapping gums. Terrifyingly treacherous Change
of facts were Loosed upon a vast interconnected network by the
dreaded Three Stoogents. Horridly crude experiments revealed the
steely stubbornness of Thermiters For Twoof as, with molten temper,
they demolished all hopes of discovering fusion between flash and fact.
While the Skeptical Force at Ground Zero swirls and expands outward in
an ever-widening maelstrom of acceptance, weary but omni-vigilant JREF
Keepers are confident that a great deal of the battle has been won. From
here on out they are tempted to think that maybe the rest is Gravy. Or not...

Reccomended opening to the SLC debunking LC:final

[aggle-rithm]

Erm, yes you are correct in one sense. Truth isn't about poll numbers which is why no one can ever have a monopoly on the "truth". "Reasoning" is subjective, whatever it is you base it on and my "peeps" understand you very well.

Take a look at these two statements. Using reasoning, we can determine that one is true and one is false, given that our terms are properly defined.

1. The cross-section of a sphere is a circle.
2. The cross-section of a sphere is a square.

Could you explain where subjectivity enters into this?

[Totovader]

Many would argue that the scientific community is somewhat divided.

Reality- however- is not. Nor does the fact that "many would argue" have any relevance to reality.

This is especially true when it comes down to competing theories. Yes, scientists have been known to visciously attack one another for daring to question each other.

I wasn't talking about scientists... I was talking about "Truthers". I don't see many scientists viciously attacking each other- at least not to the degree that the conspiracists do.

So, as science currently exists, what you have described is indeed a part of the practical application science. While "a truth" will bring contention to people whose truth differs, attacking one another viciously has no association with the virtue of truth itself. So no, science is not truth. It is a process designed to find agreeable conclusions but not one that is infallible.

Agreeable to whom?

To claim that the above concept of science has any monopoly on the truth is stark raving mad.

Which is why strawmans are so silly. Your above concept of "agreeable" is ambiguous. Science is not about truth via compromise or by vote. Truth exists independent of that agreement- it exists in dependant of the observer, so to claim that it has anything to do with an individual or group is- in fact- stark raving mad.

How can you be impartial when you claim to have a monopoly on truth?

Because the two are not mutually exclusive.

How can you claim to be impartial when you claim to have a monopoly on reality?

Same as above. Although I should clarify that statement- I don't believe in a "monopoly on reality"- at least in the sense that you have taken it. As I have said, reality exists independant of the observer- so to have a monopoly on reality was really just saying that through rationality- through science we better understand reality. I was simply being climactic. I clearly do not believe that anyone "owns reality" (nor do I believe that anyone "owns truth" but you don't seem to be getting my allusion).

How, in the name of all things sacred, can you now have a monopoly on reality?

See above.

How can you have a monopoly on something without involving a commodity or having exclusive possession and control of that same commodity?

Because you are not understanding what I'm saying. Scientists (and subsequently skeptics, critical thinkers, etc) use the tools of scientific inquiry, rationality, and reason to arrive at truth. This is not religion, it's not faith or hopes or whims or luck or majority or minority or anything else- it is conscious, willful, determined effort towards understanding reality. This is exclusive to the scientific realm. Randi demonstrates this every single day. I mean... if you have a shot- there's a big reward...

The only thing you have a monopoly on is your own thoughts, it's the same with everyone else.

If everyone owns the same thing, then it's not a monopoly, really- but your point doesn't make much sense anyway.

Reality is subjective but certain things are permitted in the sense that they are agreed on to a large extent.

Absolutely, irrefutably, 100%, undeniably, unequivocally, dead wrong.

The moment you start thinking only you know the truth is the exact time when your ego breaks loose and wreaks havoc on your psyche.

Holy whopping strawman- seems to be a favorite of yours.

Please answer the following question (note: you've avoided all the other questions I've presented to you): AT WHAT POINT DID I SPECIFICALLY STATE OR EVEN IMPLY THAT ONLY I KNOW THE TRUTH?

If you can't answer- retract this time, instead of just ignoring it.

If you don't know where you stand in regards to what an opinion is worth then you have no foundation on which to make an argument.

This doesn't even make any sense.

You have a monopoly on the truth?
You have a monopoly on reality?

You seem to be doing a damn poor job of maintaining its cohesion if that's the case.

Says you, fortunately you do not decide truth. (And- according to you, truth is just subjective, anyway. So if I could get a bunch of people to disagree with you- maybe even pay them off to do so- then I would be right, and you would be wrong.)

[Expression_man]

Take a look at these two statements. Using reasoning, we can determine that one is true and one is false, given that our terms are properly defined.

1. The cross-section of a sphere is a circle.
2. The cross-section of a sphere is a square.

Could you explain where subjectivity enters into this?

In that case it would come down to the interpretation of language and how one observes shapes. People who have been blind since birth/early age and regain their site later in life have great difficulty recognizing shapes. The point here is that just because a majority sees the same thing, it does not mean that there's nothing more to be discovered. Which senses are being used to determine its shape are also important.

How many dimensions are we viewing these objects in?

Most likely three, in such a case (based on my perception) I would agree that the cross-section of a sphere is circular. But again, that's not entirely accurate. You are assuming that the sphere is being viewed from an angle by which a consistent two-dimensional interpretation of a circle can be drawn. A sphere is a three-dimensional object. All we're doing here, in order to obtain a cross section, is intersecting a plane. It certainly seems to be circular but we can give it more definition than something so vague as "it looks round".

Do you mean a perfect circle or a general circular shape (to the limited degree of accuracy you are able to perceive it)?

There are too many variables we take for granted regarding such things. How much information you have to verify something makes all the difference. Of equal importance is where information comes from.

[Expression_man]

Agreeable to whom?

The scientific community or the group involved.

Which is why strawmans are so silly. Your above concept of "agreeable" is ambiguous. Science is not about truth via compromise or by vote. Truth exists independent of that agreement- it exists in dependant of the observer, so to claim that it has anything to do with an individual or group is- in fact- stark raving mad.

Nay, there is much compromise in science. Some researches will make an attempt to explain something within a familiar context so as to make sense of it. In the case of Olaf Blanke, regarding out of body experiences, he attempts to bring elements of shizophrenia into his explanations so as to make them seem more understandable/plausible yet most psychologists are in general disagreement regarding his conclusions.


Because the two are not mutually exclusive.

Are you now going to say that truth involves having an impartial monopoly?

Same as above. Although I should clarify that statement- I don't believe in a "monopoly on reality"- at least in the sense that you have taken it. As I have said, reality exists independant of the observer- so to have a monopoly on reality was really just saying that through rationality- through science we better understand reality. I was simply being climactic. I clearly do not believe that anyone "owns reality" (nor do I believe that anyone "owns truth" but you don't seem to be getting my allusion).

You are hell bent on competing for a position of authority due to your belief that once you get there you will have some sort of exclusive truth by which you can justify this strange idea of having a monopoly over. What good is rational thinking when it operates within a limited understanding?

Because you are not understanding what I'm saying. Scientists (and subsequently skeptics, critical thinkers, etc) use the tools of scientific inquiry, rationality, and reason to arrive at truth.

I hate to break it to you but many religious people also have the ability to be skeptical and interpret truth via rational reasoning. You're presenting them in such a light that your notion of their psyche is all encompassing of their way of thinking. In this sense you are just being vague, generalizing to the extent that you become arrogant in your thinking.

This is not religion, it's not faith or hopes or whims or luck or majority or minority or anything else- it is conscious, willful, determined effort towards understanding reality. This is exclusive to the scientific realm. Randi demonstrates this every single day. I mean... if you have a shot- there's a big reward...

Randi's ego interferes too much with the work he does. If you are looking for a leader or someone to hail as being a hero of critical thinking then you are looking for a way by which you can surrender your own judgement. Of course its faith, people have faith in their theories be it the notion of god or superstrings. People have faith in Randi's ability to do the right thing. Faith comes into just about everything in human existence.

If everyone owns the same thing, then it's not a monopoly, really- but your point doesn't make much sense anyway.

My point is that "it's not a monopoly, really" because it doens't exist.

Absolutely, irrefutably, 100%, undeniably, unequivocally, dead wrong.

Hardly, that's the only truth there is, for me. ;)

Holy whopping strawman- seems to be a favorite of yours.

You repeat yourself just as often as I do in this case. The only difference is that you look for an opporntunity to insert the word "strawman".

Please answer the following question (note: you've avoided all the other questions I've presented to you): AT WHAT POINT DID I SPECIFICALLY STATE OR EVEN IMPLY THAT ONLY I KNOW THE TRUTH?

The moment you claimed to be one of the people who had a monopoly on it.

This doesn't even make any sense.

I think you are already aware of what claiming to have a monopoly on the truth sounds like to someone who is balanced in their thinking.

Says you, fortunately you do not decide truth. (And- according to you, truth is just subjective, anyway. So if I could get a bunch of people to disagree with you- maybe even pay them off to do so- then I would be right, and you would be wrong.)

If truth is subjective and unqiue to an individual's perception, how does paying people off to think differently from that individual affect his/her own concept of truth?

Answer: It doesn't

Now, if you're talking about propaganda, then that certainly would be capable of influencing an individual's opinion/his own truth.

[Totovader]

In that case it would come down to the interpretation of language and how one observes shapes.

No, these things can all be clarified. "One observes shapes" as they are.

People who have been blind since birth/early age and regain their site later in life have great difficulty recognizing shapes.

Which is why it's called an abnormality.

The point here is that just because a majority sees the same thing, it does not mean that there's nothing more to be discovered. Which senses are being used to determine its shape are also important.

Actually, the point is that having an abnormality can be recognized and overcome. The fact that people who have had disabilities have trouble recognizing shapes proves that the shapes are objective.

How many dimensions are we viewing these objects in?

It doesn't matter. Your claim has been that reality is subjective. If you wish to maintain this argument, asking for clarification is self-defeating.



[cut out obfuscations]

Do you mean a perfect circle or a general circular shape (to the limited degree of accuracy you are able to perceive it)?

Do you see what you're doing here? Besides attempting to change the context, you're trying to make it seem as if it's indescribable. Since ALL of your challenges can be clarified, you've only served in defeating your own argument.

There are too many variables we take for granted regarding such things.

If there's any trouble, clarification and further focus is required. That's called context. It doesn't make it impossible to understand reality- and it certainly doesn't make it subjective.

How much information you have to verify something makes all the difference. Of equal importance is where information comes from.

As you have demonstrated- this cannot possibly be the case.

[Totovader]

The scientific community or the group involved.

...

The moment you claimed to be one of the people who had a monopoly on it.

...



There's nothing for me to respond to, here- you simply dodged my questions and refused to support your position by going off on tangents (red herring) and completely avoiding the discussion.

I've chosen to instead focus on your other reply- which demonstrates quite clearly how your argument is self-defeating.

[TheGrunion]

So on reality, The Truth Movement is extremely vulnerable and hangs on the shoulders of only a couple of people who feed the whole CT world. Without them the whole movement would shrink to a hardly noticed branch with outlandish speculations. Speculations that would not raise interest.

I've been thinking about this for close to a week now. The leaders of the Truth Movement are nothing more than salesmen, pushing a product based on lies and false accusations.

They all seemed to play nice with each other (for the most part) for quite some time. The mantra was "just asking questions"; and this mantra was combined with a generous amount of baseless speculation.

There was a lot of different flavors out there for the troofer market; ranging from the vanilla theories such as LIHOP and controlled demolition to exotic ones including death rays and holographs. There was a little something for everyone, and the salesmen knew that the best way to increase their sales was to increase the market itself. Everyone got along. Everyone cross promoted. Everyone (that mattered) got paid.

But then the market started shrinking. Why? I don't know. I would like to think that the hard work put in by the many people that frequent this board and others had something to do with it. I think a lot of it just had to do with the fact that five years is too long to sit in the "just asking questions" phase.

For people who set out to make money selling troof, the shrinking troof market was very bad. It meant that those accustomed to profiting off of lies had to increase market share just to break even. The troof peddlers had to develop a "superior" product to increase their market share. But how does one improve a product based on lies? By becoming more assertive in your statements (say goodbye to "just asking questions") and by discrediting those that are, well, telling different lies than you are. This seems like a good recipe for meltdown.

So at the end of the day, I think what we are witnessing are the salesmen of the movement attacking each others' market share; because the market has shrunk to the point where it can no longer support all of them.

Pentacon could not have picked a worse time to roll out their lies for sale.

[Expression_man]

No, these things can all be clarified. "One observes shapes" as they are.

Nay, one oberserves shapes as their brain is able to interpret them. It's as simple as that my friend.

Which is why it's called an abnormality.

Which implies what? (Regarding your concept of truth and statistics)

Actually, the point is that having an abnormality can be recognized and overcome. The fact that people who have had disabilities have trouble recognizing shapes proves that the shapes are objective.

It's not so simple. Again, it comes down to how we think shapes should be perceived by our limited means of perception.

Your claim has been that reality is subjective. If you wish to maintain this argument, asking for clarification is self-defeating.

The point of it being subjective is that in order to understand someone else's thoughts, as best one can, communication is required. We are not always privy to each other's thoughts.

Do you see what you're doing here? Besides attempting to change the context, you're trying to make it seem as if it's indescribable. Since ALL of your challenges can be clarified, you've only served in defeating your own argument.

It's all about context. It's certainly describable but the accuracy will vary with the context. The idea of context is in itself a means of perception.

If there's any trouble, clarification and further focus is required. That's called context. It doesn't make it impossible to understand reality- and it certainly doesn't make it subjective.

As far as you are able to perceive the the context of something, it is subjective in that sense.

You see what appears to be a circle, what is it made up of?

If you demand that something be viewed from a limited point of view then you cannot ever grasp a full understanding of it thus your idea of truth is shattered.

As you have demonstrated- this cannot possibly be the case.

Elaborate.

In regards to me avoiding discussion, hardly. I've only ever focussed on the idea of debating against the idea of "truth as a monopoly". I haven't gone off-topic at all. You seem to enjoy implying the existence of "strawmen" and "red herrings" rather than answering the simple question of how you can ever have a monopoly on the truth. You've doged that since I first replied.

There's nothing for me to respond to, here- you simply dodged my questions and refused to support your position by going off on tangents (red herring) and completely avoiding the discussion.

Nay, I answered you directly. The only way it would not apply is if you are unable to perceive what it is you claim to have a monopoly over. If you cannot know what it is, in this case truth, you cannot ever reliably believe to have a monopoly over it.

Dare you say that you reserve the truth?

[Totovader]

Nay, one oberserves shapes as their brain is able to interpret them. It's as simple as that my friend.

Wrong! Here is the crux of your lack of understanding. Everything we know about the mind shows that you're wrong, here. The senses "observe" (if you will) the shapes (perception), the brain translates those observations into concepts: ie, circle, round, red, etc.

This is important for you to understand, because this is the reason that you continue to make the mistake of thinking that reality is subjective and contradicting yourself: reality is not made by the brain- reality is conceptualized by the brain. The degree to which we correctly make those concepts and connect them to be consistent with reality is the degree to which we find truth.

Which implies what? (Regarding your concept of truth and statistics)

Which implies that it's not normal. You try to claim that people with a disability who have a hard time (not an impossible time) recognizing shapes mean that reality is subjective. This completely contradicts itself. If they had an easy time, they wouldn't be abnormal- and if they were normal, they would recognize shapes easily... thus, reality is objective, and although some people have a harder time properly conceptualizing different truths about reality (HELLO, what forum is this?) it doesn't make reality any less consistent- only us less consistent.

It's not so simple. Again, it comes down to how we think shapes should be perceived by our limited means of perception.

A few words ago it was "just that simple..." in your words...

Anyway- what you said here again makes no sense. How can we have a should in place of a does when you claim that reality is subjective anyway? If my reality is different than yours- then how can you possibly tell me how I "should perceive" [sic] a shape? You continue to contradict yourself, here.

The truth is- how we should recognize and form concepts about that shape is how reality is. It is that simple... And you continue to talk about "perceptual limits"- but this is ambiguous and nonsensical. As we have seen with abnormalities, science is not simply a sense- it is a rigorous and tested set of observations.

The point of it being subjective is that in order to understand someone else's thoughts, as best one can, communication is required. We are not always privy to each other's thoughts.

But what does that have to do with reality? Thoughts are just as easily communicated as they are stored. Our language continues to get more and more complex to allow us to do that. I mean... we are on the mother-loving INTERNET for chrissake.

It's all about context. It's certainly describable but the accuracy will vary with the context. The idea of context is in itself a means of perception.

Let's get something straight: all knowledge comes in context to claim that certain knowledge or certain accuracy vary within the context is to state the obvious. Likewise, to claim that it is impossible to communicate these concepts because they all have context is to ignore the FACT that context allows us TO COMMUNICATE.

Want an example?

Ok, imagine a circle 10cm in diameter, completely filled red, with no border. The shape is two-dimensional.

Now- try as hard as you can to conceptualize that shape other than what I have intended without adding, subtracting, or changing what I said...

There goes your precious subjectivity.

As far as you are able to perceive the the context of something, it is subjective in that sense.

You see what appears to be a circle, what is it made up of?

Holy mother of crap.

Do you understand how quickly this statement contradicts itself? The QUESTION of "what is it made of" is solvable- do you get that? Furthermore, we can solve it and arrive at the same conclusion without ever having discussed it together. That is not subjectivity- that is objectivity... pure, unadulterated, raw, objectivity.

If you demand that something be viewed from a limited point of view then you cannot ever grasp a full understanding of it thus your idea of truth is shattered.

Who's making such demands?

Elaborate.

See above. Abnormalities, contradictions about shapes- etc.

In regards to me avoiding discussion, hardly. I've only ever focussed on the idea of debating against the idea of "truth as a monopoly".

Yet your last response failed to answer my question, and instead talked about Olaf Blanke...

I haven't gone off-topic at all.

You have avoided my rebuttal. You haven't even touched on the contradictions I have exposed in your argument.

You seem to enjoy implying the existence of "strawmen" and "red herrings" rather than answering the simple question of how you can ever have a monopoly on the truth.

You seem to enjoy claiming it's an implication, instead of an unchallenged fact. I have repeatedly answered this question- and have continued to clarify when you injected your own version of my argument.

You've doged that since I first replied.

The unedited comments of this discussion show otherwise.

Nay, I answered you directly. The only way it would not apply is if you are unable to perceive what it is you claim to have a monopoly over. If you cannot know what it is, in this case truth, you cannot ever reliably believe to have a monopoly over it.

Again, this makes no sense. Give me an example of how one cannot perceive something without directly contradicting yourself.

Dare you say that you reserve the truth?

Do you own a farm of nothing but strawmen?

[Expression_man]

Wrong! Here is the crux of your lack of understanding. Everything we know about the mind shows that you're wrong, here. The senses "observe" (if you will) the shapes (perception), the brain translates those observations into concepts: ie, circle, round, red, etc.

You're going in circles here. I already said that the brain interprets the shape (based on current understanding). You're point is non-existant and you are now talking for the sake of it. You are wasting my time and your effort. The sensory nerves take in raw information, or are you now going to try convincing me that they process more than that?

If you're trying to make a point, make it clear.

This is important for you to understand, because this is the reason that you continue to make the mistake of thinking that reality is subjective and contradicting yourself: reality is not made by the brain- reality is conceptualized by the brain. The degree to which we correctly make those concepts and connect them to be consistent with reality is the degree to which we find truth.

You seem to have trouble getting your head around the idea. Reality certainly seems to exist outside us but what we experience of it is made subjective by our own interpretation. Any reality you would be able to speak of would, in that case, be a subjective interpretation of what you are able to perceive of it (mentally or otherwise) and nothing more.


Which implies that it's not normal. You try to claim that people with a disability who have a hard time (not an impossible time) recognizing shapes mean that reality is subjective. This completely contradicts itself.

Their notion of the "reality of sight" would be very different from yours. Most of them expect to see something wonderful but in many cases they prefered being blind, something they are familiar with (and you are not). In any case, reality is certainly subjective as their personal experience is yet another part of it.

If they had an easy time, they wouldn't be abnormal- and if they were normal, they would recognize shapes easily... thus, reality is objective, and although some people have a harder time properly conceptualizing different truths about reality (HELLO, what forum is this?) it doesn't make reality any less consistent- only us less consistent.

If we are not consistent and the concept of reality is based on (or influenced by) our inconsistencies, that would make the notion anything but objective.

A few words ago it was "just that simple..." in your words...

The concept is indeed beautifully simple. Your intellectualization complicates a simple idea so as to make it suit your own ends (your "monopoly"). You're using subjective reasoning but trying to make it out to be something more.

Anyway- what you said here again makes no sense. How can we have a should in place of a does when you claim that reality is subjective anyway? If my reality is different than yours- then how can you possibly tell me how I "should perceive" [sic] a shape? You continue to contradict yourself, here.

The answer's easy, it's called standardization (the basis of comparison). Without it we'd be all over the place. That only makes it agreeable as there's really no such thing as an objective standard, just "accuracy" within a certain degree.

The truth is- how we should recognize and form concepts about that shape is how reality is. It is that simple... And you continue to talk about "perceptual limits"- but this is ambiguous and nonsensical. As we have seen with abnormalities, science is not simply a sense- it is a rigorous and tested set of observations.

Observations made using what?

But what does that have to do with reality? Thoughts are just as easily communicated as they are stored.

Rubbish, there'd be no need for diplomacy were that the case.

Our language continues to get more and more complex to allow us to do that. I mean... we are on the mother-loving INTERNET for chrissake.

Yes, we are on the internet, bbl ttyl asl? lol wtf h4x0r etc...

Let's get something straight: all knowledge comes in context to claim that certain knowledge or certain accuracy vary within the context is to state the obvious.

Yes, that's why we have words like "phenomenon" and why interpretations are made. Even if an understandable context is non-existent we tend to make something up to suit our beliefs/truths.

Likewise, to claim that it is impossible to communicate these concepts because they all have context is to ignore the FACT that context allows us TO COMMUNICATE.

It's possible to communicate information but not to override someone's thoughts. That's why anything you communicate will have to pass through another subjective thought process before it is discussed. There's no way to tell if the level of belief or understanding is precisely equal.

Want an example?

: (

Ok, imagine a circle 10cm in diameter, completely filled red, with no border. The shape is two-dimensional.

Now- try as hard as you can to conceptualize that shape other than what I have intended without adding, subtracting, or changing what I said...

There goes your precious subjectivity.

Hardly, what you said makes little sense and is based on limited thinking.

I just added a background color in order to perceive it. In my case it was white and made the red appear dull in comparison, what shade of red did you have in mind? I have nothing to compare the measurement of 10cm with so I also imagined a ruler. For the sake of making it appear as 10cm I also added an object I perceived to be roughly 1cm by the side of it. Come to mention it, it does look odd, being a 2D object in a 3D world. What am I supposed to be seeing here other than my own subjective interpretation of a red circle about 10cm accross?

Heck, you even used the word "imagine".

That's hardly objective, it's still subjective. You applied some sort of standard to it but so what, now I'm perceiving the standard in my own way.

Holy mother of crap.

: / I suppose it's better than giving me another strawman, or a fish.

Do you understand how quickly this statement contradicts itself? The QUESTION of "what is it made of" is solvable- do you get that? Furthermore, we can solve it and arrive at the same conclusion without ever having discussed it together. That is not subjectivity- that is objectivity... pure, unadulterated, raw, objectivity.

Hmm, we agreed that it was circular and formed, as best we could, a shared opinion of it in that we stated the same conclusions. As for universal objectivity, meh that's impossible to verify. You'd need to have a monopoly on truth for something like that. ;)

Who's making such demands?

I'm asking you to elaborate.

Yet your last response failed to answer my question, and instead talked about Olaf Blanke...

He was used as an example. You like to talk about strawmen and red herrings, I talk about something more interesting. : p

You have avoided my rebuttal. You haven't even touched on the contradictions I have exposed in your argument.

If you say so.

You seem to enjoy claiming it's an implication, instead of an unchallenged fact. I have repeatedly answered this question- and have continued to clarify when you injected your own version of my argument.

Summarize in less than 30 words how you can have a monopoly on the truth, let's get it over with.

Again, this makes no sense. Give me an example of how one cannot perceive something without directly contradicting yourself.

Hmm? You "do not perceive something" by giving your attention to something else. It's not a conscious process.

Do you own a farm of nothing but strawmen?

Your the one providing me with strawmen, I think you are mistaking me for one of your regular clients?

While we're at it, take this fish too (since you've decided to give them a literal interpretation instead of using them as metaphors). Now that's a waste of energy. ;)

[beachnut]

What does this have to do with a fact less truth movement?

[ref]

I've been thinking about this for close to a week now. The leaders of the Truth Movement are nothing more than salesmen, pushing a product based on lies and false accusations.

That is very true. For example Dylan Avery can not have any differing views on his board. That would eat his sales. He bans people with any other view than his own in an instant.

There was a lot of different flavors out there for the troofer market; ranging from the vanilla theories such as LIHOP and controlled demolition to exotic ones including death rays and holographs. There was a little something for everyone, and the salesmen knew that the best way to increase their sales was to increase the market itself. Everyone got along. Everyone cross promoted. Everyone (that mattered) got paid.

This expansion really worked as long as their following grew.

But then the market started shrinking. Why? I don't know. I would like to think that the hard work put in by the many people that frequent this board and others had something to do with it. I think a lot of it just had to do with the fact that five years is too long to sit in the "just asking questions" phase.

I think it has to do with many things combined. Truthers have not presented anything new for a while. Older claims have been thoroughly debunked and there is more and more debunking material available. Before there was only the truther films and claims without a serious question of their reliability. Time has done it's part, interest has diminished. They have been revealed as cheaters. And so on.

For people who set out to make money selling troof, the shrinking troof market was very bad. It meant that those accustomed to profiting off of lies had to increase market share just to break even. The troof peddlers had to develop a "superior" product to increase their market share. But how does one improve a product based on lies? By becoming more assertive in your statements (say goodbye to "just asking questions") and by discrediting those that are, well, telling different lies than you are. This seems like a good recipe for meltdown.

That is their problem. Improving on anything that is based on lies brings only more and more lies. And lies don't carry you forever.

So at the end of the day, I think what we are witnessing are the salesmen of the movement attacking each others' market share; because the market has shrunk to the point where it can no longer support all of them.

This has been the trend as of late. Some are still fighting, but more and more desperately.

Pentacon could not have picked a worse time to roll out their lies for sale.

I can't wait to see this one. How many errors must that film have.

[Totovader]

You're going in circles here. I already said that the brain interprets the shape (based on current understanding). You're point is non-existant and you are now talking for the sake of it. You are wasting my time and your effort. The sensory nerves take in raw information, or are you now going to try convincing me that they process more than that?

If you're trying to make a point, make it clear.

Have I been inconsistent? Have my statements at all contradicted each other? Have I been unclear?

Let's stipulate- for a moment- that you were not saying the opposite of what you're saying now. How- then- can your statements about a subjective reality be true?

Can you explain that? Just try.

You seem to have trouble getting your head around the idea. Reality certainly seems to exist outside us but what we experience of it is made subjective by our own interpretation. Any reality you would be able to speak of would, in that case, be a subjective interpretation of what you are able to perceive of it (mentally or otherwise) and nothing more.

What makes you think I'm the one having trouble?

Now reality does exist independent of the observer? Or it seems?

What we experience is not made subjective by our own interpretation- that is the exact opposite of what you just said above- and whined about because I was somehow "going in circles" at the same time I was pointing out what you apparently agreed with.

So which is it- is reality subjective or objective? If it's objective you cannot then turn around and say it's made by our observations. It's a direct contradiction to your previous statement.

Their notion of the "reality of sight" would be very different from yours.

And here again you contradict your first statement. This is why I emphasized just how important it was that you understood. You're now trying to slip back into a view of subjective reality at the same time you're claiming it's objective. It makes no sense... at all.

Most of them expect to see something wonderful but in many cases they prefered being blind, something they are familiar with (and you are not).

Huh? I'm familiar with not seeing. But the state of being blind- in that I have lost the ability of vision- no, I have not had that loss of ability. And what that has to do with the argument has really stumped me.

In any case, reality is certainly subjective as their personal experience is yet another part of it.

And here you directly contradict your first statement.

If we are not consistent and the concept of reality is based on (or influenced by) our inconsistencies, that would make the notion anything but objective.

Because as you stated in your first comment, reality is not subjective. Reality exists independent of our observations, wishes, whims, or desires- so how can you then turn around and say that it is after you claimed that the eyes and other senses only take sensory input from reality (which, by the way is absolutely 100% correct).

It's a direct contradiction.

The concept is indeed beautifully simple. Your intellectualization complicates a simple idea so as to make it suit your own ends (your "monopoly"). You're using subjective reasoning but trying to make it out to be something more.

Please- define "subjective reasoning", and then address your contradictions. That is the only way we will find a conclusion here: is if you stay consistent and clear in your accusations. I have done exactly that- and yet you continue to have trouble.

The answer's easy, it's called standardization (the basis of comparison). Without it we'd be all over the place. That only makes it agreeable as there's really no such thing as an objective standard, just "accuracy" within a certain degree.

Answer this: ACCURATE TO WHAT? Hmmm?

Observations made using what?

The senses. I don't know what you observe with- but senses work just fine.

Rubbish, there'd be no need for diplomacy were that the case.

Only if you believe that everyone is omniscient... Which would sort of rule out your existence in a Conspiracy Forum...

Yes, we are on the internet, bbl ttyl asl? lol wtf h4x0r etc...

And... don't forget to ignore what I said. If this is relevant to the discussion, please explain why. Otherwise you're picking out sentences for "the sake of talking" (in your words).

Yes, that's why we have words like "phenomenon" and why interpretations are made. Even if an understandable context is non-existent we tend to make something up to suit our beliefs/truths.

"Make up"- meaning being inconsistent with reality- a reality that is objective?

So when people are being inconsistent with reality, they are being irrational- making up things to suit their beliefs. How is this any different from what I've been saying- AND how is it consistent with your contradictions above? You have stated time and time again that reality is subjective. If reality is subjective, then stating that people "make up" stuff is redundant.

It's possible to communicate information but not to override someone's thoughts. That's why anything you communicate will have to pass through another subjective thought process before it is discussed. There's no way to tell if the level of belief or understanding is precisely equal.

Nor is it relevant. You aren't debating "thoughts". You aren't discussing "brain matter" (well, unless you are discussing brain matter). You are discussing your interpretation of reality- and to be correct, you have to be consistent with reality. This is the entire basis for science and understanding. Having an "equal understanding" doesn't even enter into the picture.

Hardly, what you said makes little sense and is based on limited thinking.

You did not support this claim.

I just added a background color in order to perceive it.

Which is exactly what I said you could not do. You do not need a "background color" in order to "perceive something" [sic].

In my case it was white and made the red appear dull in comparison, what shade of red did you have in mind? I have nothing to compare the measurement of 10cm with so I also imagined a ruler.

Which- again- is adding something, but the standard of measurement is further proof of objectivity. To make a measurement is to be consistent with reality.

For the sake of making it appear as 10cm I also added an object I perceived to be roughly 1cm by the side of it. Come to mention it, it does look odd, being a 2D object in a 3D world. What am I supposed to be seeing here other than my own subjective interpretation of a red circle about 10cm accross?

Besides all the stuff you added, a concept of a circle that is consistent with my communication- and thus is easy to compare to reality.

Heck, you even used the word "imagine".

Because I am asking you to conceptualize an entity which does not exist in front of you- but which is based on previous observations and concepts. It's not a perception, because it's not there.

That's hardly objective, it's still subjective. You applied some sort of standard to it but so what, now I'm perceiving the standard in my own way.

How do you perceive [sic] a standard in your own way? And if reality was subjective, how could you even have a standard?

Since you broke all the rules- take out a piece of paper. Take a ruler and draw a line 10cm long.

Now how long is that line?

I really can't make it any easier than that...

Hmm, we agreed that it was circular and formed, as best we could, a shared opinion of it in that we stated the same conclusions. As for universal objectivity, meh that's impossible to verify. You'd need to have a monopoly on truth for something like that. ;)

So yet again- you're claiming that reality is objective, but it's not?

Science is... meaningless?

I'm asking you to elaborate.

And you said: "If you demand that something be viewed from a limited point of view then you cannot ever grasp a full understanding of it thus your idea of truth is shattered."

No one has made such demands. Your argument is entirely a strawman. The "and thus your entire view of truth is shattered" should have been your first indication that you had built a man of straw.

He was used as an example. You like to talk about strawmen and red herrings, I talk about something more interesting. : p

I'm talking about your strawmans and red herrings. You continue to enter them into this discussion instead of addressing the issues. I have repeatedly pointed out inconsistencies and contradictions in your claims, and I'm left with repeating myself until you address them. You are left with attempting to defeat my claims via strawmens which you fail to elaborate on and which cannot stand up to any scrutiny.

If you say so.

The discussion thus far clearly makes my case for me. If you have any challenge to the contradictions I have pointed out in your statements- then please post it. Otherwise, this is useless. I'm simply going to continue to point out how and why you're wrong- and you're going to continue to manufacture strawmen.

Summarize in less than 30 words how you can have a monopoly on the truth, let's get it over with.

I already have. You have rebutted it with strawmen and inconsistent claims. To repeat myself will get us nowhere. If you have trouble with any portion of my argument- you can point it out and I will address it.

Hmm? You "do not perceive something" by giving your attention to something else. It's not a conscious process.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with what you were talking about. Your statement was: "The only way it would not apply is if you are unable to perceive what it is you claim to have a monopoly over. If you cannot know what it is, in this case truth, you cannot ever reliably believe to have a monopoly over it."

So I ask you again- how can one perceive something without directly contradicting yourself?

Example: "I do not see that red apple right there on the table."

What you're doing is dropping the context of the statement. Clearly- if one does not perceive something, they do not perceive it- but that's not what I was asking- because that's not what you said.

Your the one providing me with strawmen, I think you are mistaking me for one of your regular clients?

Give me one example of where my arguments have been a strawman.

[Expression_man]

Let's stipulate- for a moment- that you were not saying the opposite of what you're saying now. How- then- can your statements about a subjective reality be true?

Can you explain that? Just try.

Try explaining that one again. Unless subjective interpretation of meaning comes into it I'm not sure what you're saying.

What makes you think I'm the one having trouble?

Because you think that you're one of the people who "have a monopoly on the truth".

Now reality does exist independent of the observer? Or it seems?

It seems to but it's a clever illusion as whatever is there is certainly not objectively verifiable to the point of being an absolute truth.

What we experience is not made subjective by our own interpretation- that is the exact opposite of what you just said above- and whined about because I was somehow "going in circles" at the same time I was pointing out what you apparently agreed with.

Eh?

So which is it- is reality subjective or objective? If it's objective you cannot then turn around and say it's made by our observations. It's a direct contradiction to your previous statement.

Any reality you experience is made subjective by your own interpretation of it. Therefore, you could never know what it is you are experiencing in an objective sense because there is no reliable control reality. The moment you conceptualize it you go further into subjectvity.

And here again you contradict your first statement. This is why I emphasized just how important it was that you understood. You're now trying to slip back into a view of subjective reality at the same time you're claiming it's objective. It makes no sense... at all.

You misunderstand me : p

Huh? I'm familiar with not seeing. But the state of being blind- in that I have lost the ability of vision- no, I have not had that loss of ability. And what that has to do with the argument has really stumped me.

They cope with a loss, or lack, of sight in their own way and perceive what may be around them by using other means. It's subjective interpretation.

And here you directly contradict your first statement.

Hardly, emotional experience is a part of reality that is subjective in nature.

Because as you stated in your first comment, reality is not subjective. Reality exists independent of our observations, wishes, whims, or desires- so how can you then turn around and say that it is after you claimed that the eyes and other senses only take sensory input from reality (which, by the way is absolutely 100% correct).

Sensory input is not 100% correct, that's just silly. In that case we wouldn't be creating machines, based on our own interpretations of reality, to do sensing for us.


Please- define "subjective reasoning", and then address your contradictions. That is the only way we will find a conclusion here: is if you stay consistent and clear in your accusations. I have done exactly that- and yet you continue to have trouble.

Subjective reasoning is called reasoning.

Answer this: ACCURATE TO WHAT? Hmmm?

The perception of a measurement.

The senses. I don't know what you observe with- but senses work just fine.

So people are interpreting their senses subjectively, I already know this.

Only if you believe that everyone is omniscient... Which would sort of rule out your existence in a Conspiracy Forum...

Er, what?

And... don't forget to ignore what I said. If this is relevant to the discussion, please explain why. Otherwise you're picking out sentences for "the sake of talking" (in your words).

You were talking about the internet and how we use new words to describe new concepts : ) Like being away from the keyboard?

Hehe, you're going to have to be more specific than that.

"Make up"- meaning being inconsistent with reality- a reality that is objective?

Nay, a reality that is made subjective by how we interpret it. Thus, we "make up" stuff so as to avoid disastrous confusion. There are degrees of subjectivity. How absorbed one is by their own thoughts plays a large role when it comes to communication.

So when people are being inconsistent with reality, they are being irrational- making up things to suit their beliefs. How is this any different from what I've been saying- AND how is it consistent with your contradictions above? You have stated time and time again that reality is subjective. If reality is subjective, then stating that people "make up" stuff is redundant.

That's the whole point. The fact that people "make up" stuff is what makes it subjective. It's quite rational to make up stuff, like the concept of a measurement for instance.

Nor is it relevant. You aren't debating "thoughts". You aren't discussing "brain matter" (well, unless you are discussing brain matter). You are discussing your interpretation of reality- and to be correct, you have to be consistent with reality. This is the entire basis for science and understanding. Having an "equal understanding" doesn't even enter into the picture.

I can be consistent with my own interpretation of reality, certainly. As for science, it's all about coming to an agreement based on the interpretation of findings, even the reasoning itself is made from a limited understanding (based only on findings).

Which is exactly what I said you could not do. You do not need a "background color" in order to "perceive something" [sic].

Actually it depends. You really can't perceive a coloured shape without having something to compare it against, in this case a background colour.

Which- again- is adding something, but the standard of measurement is further proof of objectivity. To make a measurement is to be consistent with reality.

Measurements allow for an understanding of a perceived reality.

Besides all the stuff you added, a concept of a circle that is consistent with my communication- and thus is easy to compare to reality.

Your communication, in this sense, was not sufficient to warrant the same kind of perception on my part. That's why I had to do my own thinking and make up my own context, which is subjective.

Because I am asking you to conceptualize an entity which does not exist in front of you- but which is based on previous observations and concepts. It's not a perception, because it's not there.

Based on the previous obersvations of whom? Me? My subjective observations?

How do you perceive [sic] a standard in your own way? And if reality was subjective, how could you even have a standard?

Easy, I just created a standard to make sense of my subjectivity.

Since you broke all the rules- take out a piece of paper. Take a ruler and draw a line 10cm long.

Now how long is that line?

I really can't make it any easier than that...

No, which is why it fails. The goal is to create a line 10cm long but all that proves is that there's some sort of comparison going on. That doesn't prove an objective measurement exists, that's especially true when the theory of relativity comes into play. By my perception it would appear to be 10cm, we now have an agreement that it is roughly 10cm as measured by a particular ruler. I wouldn't agree that it is 10cm to the greatest possible accuracy there is but as far as I'm able to perceive the notion of 10cm (with the aid of a ruler) and draw a line that long, it appears to be 10cm. It's not objective in the truest sense.

Science is... meaningless?

Hardly. It looks for consistencies which we term as being "objective" but the word itself has so many degrees of accuracy that it's not actually "objective". ; p

The word "objective" is not objective because it is being understood by means of subjective interpretation through language and ideas.

And you said: "If you demand that something be viewed from a limited point of view then you cannot ever grasp a full understanding of it thus your idea of truth is shattered."

No one has made such demands. Your argument is entirely a strawman. The "and thus your entire view of truth is shattered" should have been your first indication that you had built a man of straw.

Your view of truth is not my view of truth, which is why I believe truth and reality are subjective.

I'm talking about your strawmans and red herrings. You continue to enter them into this discussion instead of addressing the issues. I have repeatedly pointed out inconsistencies and contradictions in your claims, and I'm left with repeating myself until you address them. You are left with attempting to defeat my claims via strawmens which you fail to elaborate on and which cannot stand up to any scrutiny.

You've spent more time talking about strawmen and red herrings rather than describing your monpoly.

The discussion thus far clearly makes my case for me. If you have any challenge to the contradictions I have pointed out in your statements- then please post it. Otherwise, this is useless. I'm simply going to continue to point out how and why you're wrong- and you're going to continue to manufacture strawmen.

Or rather you will continue to see them as being strawmen because that's how you subjectively interpret the context.

I already have.

You have done no such thing. : D

Which has absolutely nothing to do with what you were talking about. Your statement was: "The only way it would not apply is if you are unable to perceive what it is you claim to have a monopoly over. If you cannot know what it is, in this case truth, you cannot ever reliably believe to have a monopoly over it."

So I ask you again- how can one perceive something without directly contradicting yourself?

Ah, so if this is about context then you would have surely realised that we're talking about defining the concept of truth. Or rather you should be, by your own reasoning, but are not. Again, where is your monopoly on the truth? You don't even know what the truth is so you can't reliably claim to have a monopoly on it. I don't believe you.

Example: "I do not see that red apple right there on the table."

That's because you're not looking at it. You assume it's there though. If you were looking at it and did not see an apple then that's perfectly acceptable. What do you perceive it as being?

What you're doing is dropping the context of the statement. Clearly- if one does not perceive something, they do not perceive it- but that's not what I was asking- because that's not what you said.

I see. In that case please describe your concept of having a monopoly on the truth at least once so we can get an idea of the context.

Give me one example of where my arguments have been a strawman.

The moment you associated "monopoly" with "truth".

[Totovader]

Ok, Expression_man, back to basics:

You claim that reality is subjective, correct?

Your evidence for this claim is that people disagree, correct?

Now please understand the difference between perception and conception:

Perception = the act of observation using the senses. You have gone back and forth between understanding this, and then contradicting it. Perception is not interpretation of observations- it is only an observation.

Conception = the act of taking particulars about an observation (abstraction) and forming concepts based on those particulars.

Agree, or disagree? Why or why not?

I would reply to your statement above- but you continue to go back and forth between your first statement- and then contradictions of your first statement, so we really need to clarify this before we can move on.

[Myriad]

Wow. This thread is giving me better evidence than I ever expected to see for my "9/11 as Performance Art" hypothesis. Totovader and Expression_man, you might both be interested in that thread, which is here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=75003.

One relevant point from that thread, which is being amply confirmed here by Expression_man:

It makes me suspect that their [Truthers'] main cause for displeasure with skeptics is not that skeptics reach conclusions opposing the truthers', but that they spoil the game by coming to any definitive conclusion at all.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Totovader]

Wow. This thread is giving me better evidence than I ever expected to see for my "9/11 as Performance Art" hypothesis. Totovader and Expression_man, you might both be interested in that thread, which is here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=75003.

One relevant point from that thread, which is being amply confirmed here by Expression_man:

Respectfully,
Myriad

I would tend to agree with you, here- although I see it as slightly more offensive. I see it more as an attack on reasoning itself- as a denial of reality and logic.

I briefly touch on that in my blog (Corrected By Reality (http://www.correctedbyreality.com/cbr/2007/02/18/the-war-for-reality/)), but I will be making a series of videos on this issue within the next few days, after I collect some of my thoughts.

[Expression_man]

You claim that reality is subjective, correct?

I claim that what we perceive of reality is subjective. There is no way to address the concept of reality in such a way that we can speak of, with any degree of certainty, its workings and whether or not it is objective.

Your evidence for this claim is that people disagree, correct?

It's not that simple. The main evidence is that we are constantly learning and being proven wrong in our assumptions of how reality works. This is why we pursue endeavors such as the atlas experiment which, while giving the impression of being objective, is only able to detect "stuff" within the scope of its engineering and operational limitations. It only provides insight. We "see", within our means of perception, what is detectable and we try to theorize how it occurs naturally.

If evolutionary "theory" is described as being a part of reality but is debunked at some later stage, we will be forced to conclude that our notion of reality is pathetic to the extent of it being fickle. Some want to call it a "law", that's when the desperation to create a standard comes into it and people start to "make up" reality in the subjective sense via the concept of group consciousness.

Agree, or disagree? Why or why not?

The reality you are familiar with is the conception of your own perception. This makes it impossible for you to determine what an "objective reality" is made up of at its core levels. In fact, the notion of an "objective reality" is so elusive that trying to define it in words, of all things, is an exercise in futility.

I don't suppose you're going to want to talk about your little monopoly on reality now are you? ;)

[Totovader]

I claim that what we perceive of reality is subjective.

Which makes no sense. Again, refer to the definition of perception.

There is no way to address the concept of reality in such a way that we can speak of, with any degree of certainty, its workings and whether or not it is objective.

If your statement were true, then I would be forced to not understand it. You are pointing to the apple on the table and saying "there is no way to describe that red apple".

It's not that simple. The main evidence is that we are constantly learning and being proven wrong in our assumptions of how reality works.

Here's what you have consistently avoided: if reality is subjective- then how can one be wrong or right? The closes you have come to answering this is to say there is a consensus, but a consensus based on what? You then say it's based on the perception- but this contradicts a claim that reality is subjective!

This is why we pursue endeavors such as the atlas experiment which, while giving the impression of being objective, is only able to detect "stuff" within the scope of its engineering and operational limitations. It only provides insight. We "see", within our means of perception, what is detectable and we try to theorize how it occurs naturally.

Again- theorize based on what? If your claim is that reality is subjective- and our senses are subjective- and everything is subjective... then there can be no such thing as truth. It's that simple.

You have avoided my question here. Instead, you are trying to skirt around it.

I'll ask again: You claim that reality is subjective. Your evidence for this has been that people disagree- yet you claim that truth only occurs through consensus. What you have failed to address is how consensus is reached if reality is subjective. What are they agreeing on- how, through what method?

If evolutionary "theory" is described as being a part of reality but is debunked at some later stage, we will be forced to conclude that our notion of reality is pathetic to the extent of it being fickle.

Besides that being a big if- that only shows that reality is objective.

Some want to call it a "law", that's when the desperation to create a standard comes into it and people start to "make up" reality in the subjective sense via the concept of group consciousness.

According to your definition- these laws are truth, since the vast majority of scientists agree with them.

Now you're getting into another ridiculous realm: group consciousness?

Hold on, I'm getting a message from the stones. They're telling me to read my horoscope...

The reality you are familiar with is the conception of your own perception.

But if we're at Conjunction Junction, what's your function?

Beyond the fact that this is what I have been saying repeatedly- this is the very thing you deny in your first paragraph. You seem to love to do that: start out with one statement, and then completely deny it in your following paragraphs.

This- however- does not address the fact that my perception is not flawed. My perception does not tell me that black is white- I may have an improper concept of black or white, but that's testable- because reality is objective.

So- yet again- you're defeating your own argument, here.

This makes it impossible for you to determine what an "objective reality" is made up of at its core levels.

Core levels? Whatever that means...

And, no- as a matter of fact, it does not.

True or false, A = B. Well, quite easily: false. My eyes see (perception) the points of the "A", the dash across the middle- my brain then recognizes it (conception) as the letter "A". My eyes also see the rounded breasts of the "B" (perception), and my brain then recognizes it as the letter "B" (conception). It concludes that A is not B, because A is A, and B is B. B is not A.

Not that hard to grasp.

In fact, the notion of an "objective reality" is so elusive that trying to define it in words, of all things, is an exercise in futility.

Or an exercise in science... eh, poh-tate-oh, po-toh-to.

I don't suppose you're going to want to talk about your little monopoly on reality now are you? ;)

That's all I've been doing. I've still got all my real estate- and you're losing yours. But let's stick to the topic for now before you use up all your get out of jail free cards...

[Expression_man]

If your statement were true, then I would be forced to not understand it. You are pointing to the apple on the table and saying "there is no way to describe that red apple".

You can describe the apple but have no guarantee that it is thought of in the same way by someone else, even if they use the same words to describe it.

Here's what you have consistently avoided: if reality is subjective- then how can one be wrong or right? The closes you have come to answering this is to say there is a consensus, but a consensus based on what? You then say it's based on the perception- but this contradicts a claim that reality is subjective!

All it comes down to is "identifying" stuff which seems to be elusive, for whatever reason. How much more of it we're missing is anyone's guess which is especially true when things like the double slit experiment are taken into account (interfering with something we can't study objectively due to the very act of measurement having a consequence).

Again- theorize based on what? If your claim is that reality is subjective- and our senses are subjective- and everything is subjective... then there can be no such thing as truth. It's that simple.

Which is just one of the reasons why you have no monopoly on it. It's far too elusive.

I'll ask again: You claim that reality is subjective. Your evidence for this has been that people disagree- yet you claim that truth only occurs through consensus. What you have failed to address is how consensus is reached if reality is subjective. What are they agreeing on- how, through what method?

Comparisons based on the varying degrees of perceived similarities of concepts.

Besides that being a big if- that only shows that reality is objective.

It shows only that something else would have come to our attention.

According to your definition- these laws are truth, since the vast majority of scientists agree with them.

No, law is just the categorization of particular regulations certain entities are expected to follow. Truth, as you understand it, isn't involved.

Now you're getting into another ridiculous realm: group consciousness?

Hold on, I'm getting a message from the stones. They're telling me to read my horoscope...

Hmm? It's a simple concept, I suppose you can think of it in terms of "memes" if it's too much for you but that would certainly limit the idea. As for horoscopes, I don't buy into that sort of stuff but you're welcome to.

But if we're at Conjunction Junction, what's your function?

To present the contention.

Beyond the fact that this is what I have been saying repeatedly- this is the very thing you deny in your first paragraph. You seem to love to do that: start out with one statement, and then completely deny it in your following paragraphs.

Some confusion in your thinking there.

My perception does not tell me that black is white- I may have an improper concept of black or white, but that's testable- because reality is objective.

It's testable because there's an agreement as to what makes up colour based on the acceptance of a majority. There is no completely objective truth regarding it.

Core levels? Whatever that means...

The only fundamental truth, if it even exists.

True or false, A = B. Well, quite easily: false. My eyes see (perception) the points of the "A", the dash across the middle- my brain then recognizes it (conception) as the letter "A". My eyes also see the rounded breasts of the "B" (perception), and my brain then recognizes it as the letter "B" (conception). It concludes that A is not B, because A is A, and B is B. B is not A.

Based on my current understanding I would agree with you regarding your conclusion of A not being equal to B. I wouldn't say it's objective as I doubt that everyone else would see or even think same thing. We seem to be agreeing on the description of a particular set of shapes.

Not that hard to grasp.

Not if you have familiarized yourself with it to the extent that you take it for granted.

That's all I've been doing. I've still got all my real estate- and you're losing yours. But let's stick to the topic for now before you use up all your get out of jail free cards...

About this monopoly of yours, how did you come about the possession of it again?

[Totovader]

You can describe the apple but have no guarantee that it is thought of in the same way by someone else, even if they use the same words to describe it.

If they are describing it accurately, I can be. Furthermore, if I turn and then look at the apple, I can be 100% sure.

All it comes down to is "identifying" stuff which seems to be elusive, for whatever reason.

It only seems to be elusive because you want to pretend that reality is subjective.

How much more of it we're missing is anyone's guess which is especially true when things like the double slit experiment are taken into account (interfering with something we can't study objectively due to the very act of measurement having a consequence).

How does the double-slit have anything to do with what we're talking about? Furthermore, the Uncertainty Principle is a fact of the consequences of observation... A FACT WE ARE AWARE OF- which only brings us back to context and the objective nature of reality.

Which is just one of the reasons why you have no monopoly on it. It's far too elusive.

But it's not elusive- you just continue to contradict yourself. You must have mistaken my pointing this out with me being confused. I am not.

Comparisons based on the varying degrees of perceived similarities of concepts.

This- for the last time- is not an answer. This is simply saying that people agree. What basis do they have to agree? If measurement is subjective, reality is subjective, concepts have no basis in reality- and truth is unattainable. How- then- do people find agreement? Out of thin air? Do they just pick random numbers and then when they match they call it reality?

No. Your claim that reality is subjective is self-defeating.

It shows only that something else would have come to our attention.

"Something" else? Of what? To you, reality is subjective... so whatever you perceive would be what you created... so... HOW COULD YOUR ASSERTION THAT "SOMETHING ELSE WOULD COME TO OUR ATTENTION" have any basis?

You continue to dodge this point. How to people agree? How is there consistency? It's not "agreement on varying degrees of similarity"- it's consistency with reality. Any attempt to deny that defeats itself- because you cannot claim that reality is subjective- and then turn around and claim that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. "WRONG" is a judgement call based on reality. If you really believed that reality was subjective- you would have no basis for your claim that I am wrong.

No, law is just the categorization of particular regulations certain entities are expected to follow.

Bahahaha. Based on reality. You again avoided the question.

You claimed that truth is only a consensus. To then deny that axioms are not truth because people agree is to directly contradict yourself. Which- no doubt- you are fond of doing.

Truth, as you understand it, isn't involved.

This doesn't even make sense.

Hmm? It's a simple concept, I suppose you can think of it in terms of "memes" if it's too much for you but that would certainly limit the idea. As for horoscopes, I don't buy into that sort of stuff but you're welcome to.

To present the contention.

Some confusion in your thinking there.

Junk.

It's testable because there's an agreement as to what makes up colour based on the acceptance of a majority. There is no completely objective truth regarding it.

Dead wrong. First of all- how can there be agreement? If reality is subjective, no such agreement could exist. Furthermore, your regression back to the claim that the majority simply makes up reality again contradicts your earlier statement where you tried to deny laws.

And lastly- if you want to tie it all back: we have a monopoly on truth simply because we're the majority- if you believe in subjectivity.

Of course- that's total crap- but I want to see you try and back out of your own failed reasoning, here.

The only fundamental truth, if it even exists.

If you were any more ambiguous, your head would be a button.

Based on my current understanding I would agree with you regarding your conclusion of A not being equal to B. I wouldn't say it's objective as I doubt that everyone else would see or even think same thing. We seem to be agreeing on the description of a particular set of shapes.

:eek:

Not if you have familiarized yourself with it to the extent that you take it for granted.

Well this certainly makes no sense.

About this monopoly of yours, how did you come about the possession of it again?

Only after you answer my questions do you get any ice cream.

[Totovader]

Ok, Expression_man, back to basics:

You claim that reality is subjective, correct?

Your evidence for this claim is that people disagree, correct?

Now please understand the difference between perception and conception:

Perception = the act of observation using the senses. You have gone back and forth between understanding this, and then contradicting it. Perception is not interpretation of observations- it is only an observation.

Conception = the act of taking particulars about an observation (abstraction) and forming concepts based on those particulars.

Agree, or disagree? Why or why not?

I would reply to your statement above- but you continue to go back and forth between your first statement- and then contradictions of your first statement, so we really need to clarify this before we can move on.

Expression_man:

You're wondering off into ambiguous mumbo jumbo again- so let's get back to this. Try and answer it again- the answer you gave before obviously got us nowhere, and you just continue to dodge my rebuttal. This really is the core of your failure, so let's get it worked out.

Quickly- please. No more parisology.

[JimBenArm]

Expression_man:

You're wondering off into ambiguous mumbo jumbo again- so let's get back to this. Try and answer it again- the answer you gave before obviously got us nowhere, and you just continue to dodge my rebuttal. This really is the core of your failure, so let's get it worked out.

Quickly- please. No more parisology.
Oh, please. All he can do is throw up a rhetorical smoke screen to try to make it look like he has an actual point. But once you cut through all the words, you realize all he's trying to say is "you're a big mean man, trying to force your viewpoint onto others!" Typical whining, just using big words to try to hide it.

[Expression_man]

Oh, please. All he can do is throw up a rhetorical smoke screen to try to make it look like he has an actual point. But once you cut through all the words, you realize all he's trying to say is "you're a big mean man, trying to force your viewpoint onto others!" Typical whining, just using big words to try to hide it.

The point is that nothing can be verified objectively, it's clear that such a concept is found to be disturbing by some people. : )

We agree in order to avoid confusion, few people have ever questioned everything they believe to know.

Hehehe, these are not big words.

It's no more complex than that. Were a real truth ever observable it would be so blatant that it would most likely end up explaining itself.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Totovader

I think you understand how you can't have a monopoly on reality and truth now. Since you have refused to explain how you have a monopoly on these concepts after all this time it is obvious that you are incapable of doing so. You have played for far too much time without bringing anything to the dicussion regarding your claimed affiliation with a monopoly on truth and reality. I'm sure that you're aware of how I could go on answering your questions forever but I think that I've over-indulged you. It's also getting boring.

How can you have a monopoly on the truth and reality?

And I mean all realities and all truths. Subjective truth and objective truth. Not only that, you will also have to define how you can define an objective truth.

We might use the words "truth" and "reality" in certain contexts but when you bring in the concept of having a monopoly on them you must then address every interpretation in existence otherwise you do not have a reliable monopoly on the concepts of reality and truth.

This is not made any easier for you by your belief in perceived absolutes that are subject to change.

Good luck.

[Axiom_Blade]

The point is that nothing can be verified objectively, it's clear that such a concept is found to be disturbing by some people. : )


Oh, good grief. So, 9/11 "Truth" is only truth once we throw out any previous definitions of truth, and adopt the imaginary definition of truth used by Expression_man.

Of course, in MY version of reality, Expression_man doesn't exist, I'm a multi-billionaire secret agent married to a beautiful supermodel, and the President of the US isn't Bush, it's Michael J. Fox. 9/11 didn't occur, it was thwarted by magical, time-travelling leprechauns...however, Osama bin Laden is still a menace to civilization, since he's an enormous, 30-foot tall demon who shoots lazers out of his eye sockets. Me and President Fox regularly battle him in a DeLorean that transforms into a giant robot.

[Totovader]

The point is that nothing can be verified objectively, it's clear that such a concept is found to be disturbing by some people. : )

Quick question for you (although you may need to think about it for a while).

Is what you're saying TRUE?

*cough*...

We agree in order to avoid confusion, few people have ever questioned everything they believe to know.

So truth doesn't really exist, and consensus is just a "confusion avoider"? Tell me, what is confusion if not inconsistency in reality?

It's no more complex than that. Were a real truth ever observable it would be so blatant that it would most likely end up explaining itself.

:boggled: Again, is this TRUE?

Yet again- the contradiction you present here is so blatantly obvious, I'm left wondering how you can continue to try and maintain it without laughing at yourself.

:busted

Totovader

I think you understand how you can't have a monopoly on reality and truth now.

I think you're pretending to think that so you can run away and not defend your position. I have given no indication whatsoever that my position has changed.

Since you have refused to explain how you have a monopoly on these concepts after all this time it is obvious that you are incapable of doing so.

I've repeatedly explained it in several comments- you just keep demanding that I re-explain it so you can escape your contradictions. You haven't even said what was inconsistent about my explanations.

You have played for far too much time without bringing anything to the dicussion regarding your claimed affiliation with a monopoly on truth and reality. I'm sure that you're aware of how I could go on answering your questions forever but I think that I've over-indulged you. It's also getting boring.

Uh huh. I'm betting you would continue to dodge the questions- as you have.

How can you have a monopoly on the truth and reality?

Explained- in great detail- already:
See post #50, #103, #105, #108, #111, #114, #116, #119, #123, #126, #130, #134, #140, and #142.

And I mean all realities and all truths.

Realities? How many realities are there, Expression_Man?

Subjective truth and objective truth. Not only that, you will also have to define how you can define an objective truth.

"Objective truth" is your word, but I would simply define it as that which is consistent with reality.

We might use the words "truth" and "reality" in certain contexts but when you bring in the concept of having a monopoly on them you must then address every interpretation in existence otherwise you do not have a reliable monopoly on the concepts of reality and truth.

I don't see why that would be a requirement.

This is not made any easier for you by your belief in perceived absolutes that are subject to change.

This also makes no sense.

Good luck.

You can have luck- I'll stick with science.

[jhunter1163]

This thread is making my brain hurt. I'm going to go have some Coca-Cola (after all, IT'S THE REAL THING) liberally mixed with Jack Daniels' Old No. 7 REAL Sippin' Whiskey.

[ConspiRaider]

This thread is making my brain hurt. I'm going to go have some Coca-Cola (after all, IT'S THE REAL THING) liberally mixed with Jack Daniels' Old No. 7 REAL Sippin' Whiskey.
I hear ya. Once "objective truth" (a redundancy) crept into the thread, I leapt for the cocoon of comfort that can only be found within the contents of a crystal container of cognac.

[ref]

Never knew this would develope into something like this. I have no booze here. Maybe a glass of juice. Mmgh. I hate a flu.

[Expression_man]

Quick question for you (although you may need to think about it for a while).

Is what you're saying TRUE?

*cough*...

For me : )

So truth doesn't really exist, and consensus is just a "confusion avoider"? Tell me, what is confusion if not inconsistency in reality?



:boggled: Again, is this TRUE?

Why do you think the world is in confusion?

Too many perceived realities with no way of knowing which is worth more in terms of what there is to gain, subjectively. It's very confusing : p

Yet again- the contradiction you present here is so blatantly obvious, I'm left wondering how you can continue to try and maintain it without laughing at yourself.

:busted



You're not thinking simply enough.

The only way anything could ever be true is if it could explain itself without requiring interpretation on our part. That's not something we're capable of perceiving and so you're still a long way off here.


I think you're pretending to think that so you can run away and not defend your position. I have given no indication whatsoever that my position has changed.

No, it's much simpler than that. It's that this has gone on for a long time and I'm the only one answering questions here. This is because you are already aware that there is no foundation for the idea of having a monopoly on truth and reality.

I've repeatedly explained it in several comments- you just keep demanding that I re-explain it so you can escape your contradictions. You haven't even said what was inconsistent about my explanations.

You haven't explained it even once. :p

Uh huh. I'm betting you would continue to dodge the questions- as you have.

Come on, put or shutup.

Where's this monopoly?
Who is in posession of it?

Explained- in great detail- already:
See post #50, #103, #105, #108, #111, #114, #116, #119, #123, #126, #130, #134, #140, and #142.

No, it must be simple. A monopoly is not a complex idea, it does not require the over intellectualization you have applied to the concept. In less than 30 words and no more, state it now. Where is your argument?

Realities? How many realities are there, Expression_Man?

Beyond the generalized human perception of reality? I'd have no way of knowing.

"Objective truth" is your word, but I would simply define it as that which is consistent with reality.

Which reality? Human reality is not objective reality : p

I don't see why that would be a requirement.

So now you're saying that the concept of all truth doesn't come into the idea of having a monopoly on it?

This also makes no sense.

Laws are broken at different stages in there realization until they are no longer laws and the realization of it not being one has come about. Gravity is not objective as its laws do not apply to all perceptions of reality(ies). It is not a law of all reality.

You can have luck- I'll stick with science.

You think that luck doesn't come into science, would you dare suggest such a thing? : p

-------------------------------------------

Axiom Blade

Of course, in MY version of reality, Expression_man doesn't exist, I'm a multi-billionaire secret agent married to a beautiful supermodel, and the President of the US isn't Bush, it's Michael J. Fox. 9/11 didn't occur, it was thwarted by magical, time-travelling leprechauns...however, Osama bin Laden is still a menace to civilization, since he's an enormous, 30-foot tall demon who shoots lazers out of his eye sockets. Me and President Fox regularly battle him in a DeLorean that transforms into a giant robot.

But if Expression_Man doesn't exist in your reality, be it as your perceived version of objectvity or as a perceived idea (those 2 concepts being intertwined), why would you reference him?

[Totovader]

For me : )

Based on what...

Why do you think the world is in confusion?

This isn't an answer to my question.

Too many perceived realities with no way of knowing which is worth more in terms of what there is to gain, subjectively. It's very confusing : p

Only because you choose to make it confusing, and refuse to answer my questions.

You're not thinking simply enough.

I couldn't make it any easier for you. If you're saying it's TRUE that nothing can be verified objectively- you're directly contradicting yourself. It's a fallacy known as the stolen concept. In order for something to have TRUTH, it must be verifiable. So if you're claiming that it's true that truth doesn't exist- you're mocking yourself, and according to you we shouldn't believe you.

The only way anything could ever be true is if it could explain itself without requiring interpretation on our part. That's not something we're capable of perceiving and so you're still a long way off here.

So here again you're referring to an objective reality- that truth exists independent of our observations. Then, you turn around and claim that none of our observations can be true, simple because we are observing.

Again- if this is your claim- we can't believe you based on what you've said. You debunk yourself.

No, it's much simpler than that. It's that this has gone on for a long time and I'm the only one answering questions here.

Wrong. You have avoided every question I have presented. I have repeatedly clarified, corrected, and directly answered yours. The history of this very thread shows you to be inconsistent in your statements.

This is because you are already aware that there is no foundation for the idea of having a monopoly on truth and reality.

You should know by now not to make my statements for me- because you're dead wrong.

You haven't explained it even once. :p

I linked you to several posts where I did. Cupping your ears and screaming "NO NO NO NO" is not a valid debate technique.

Come on, put or shutup.

Where's this monopoly?
Who is in posession of it?

These questions have already been answered- you know because we only got this far because of my answers.

No, it must be simple. A monopoly is not a complex idea, it does not require the over intellectualization you have applied to the concept.

Wrong. This is an ad hominem (style over substance fallacy). There is no rational basis to claim it must be "easy". "Complex" is a completely ambiguous term as you have applied it, and you're simply trying to get me to fetch further quotes for you from statements I've already made and linked to. You've done this in order to avoid the consequences of the discussion that's already taken place. We are arguing about your nonsensical definition of reality because of the misunderstanding you have on the statements I have made in regards to belonging to the group of individuals who have a monopoly on truth. The statements I have made have been painfully clear, and are readily available- I even cataloged them for you.

You're demanding that I repost it as a red herring.

In less than 30 words and no more, state it now. Where is your argument?

AGAIN: Explained- in great detail- already:
See post #50, #103, #105, #108, #111, #114, #116, #119, #123, #126, #130, #134, #140, and #142.

Beyond the generalized human perception of reality? I'd have no way of knowing.

You indicated there were multiple realities. I would like for you to provide evidence of this claim, or at the very least understand that it demands to be retracted (and since it is obviously the basis for the majority of your thinking- you will need to rethink your entire position).

If you have no way of knowing a statement you just made- perhaps you shouldn't make it?

Which reality? Human reality is not objective reality : p

Again... Is that true? *COUGH*

So now you're saying that the concept of all truth doesn't come into the idea of having a monopoly on it?

That has absolutely nothing to do with what you're saying. You said I must address every interpretation of "monopoly" in order to make my case. I said- as a matter-of-fact, no I do not. Now you're confusing yourself- by taking my statements one sentence at a time and refusing to answer my questions, you can't even remember what you were saying.

Laws are broken at different stages in there realization until they are no longer laws and the realization of it not being one has come about. Gravity is not objective as its laws do not apply to all perceptions of reality(ies). It is not a law of all reality.

:jaw-dropp

Provide evidence for your statement.

You think that luck doesn't come into science, would you dare suggest such a thing? : p

Holy mother of all strawmen. Look again at what I said, nincompoop.

[Expression_man]

Based on what...

Experience.

This isn't an answer to my question.

Right, then the answer's yes. Truth doesn't really exist (in fact I can't even say that as there's no way of knowing for sure), and consensus is just a "confusion avoider". Confusion comes about due to being unable to understand things at a desired level of detail. You can be confused by any number of concepts but that's all they are. It's incredibly cool that we can perceive the notion of existence at all.

Only because you choose to make it confusing, and refuse to answer my questions.

Hehe, the idea is to find a concept simple enough to explain everything. Unfortunately, the moment you concentrate exclusively on materialist perception you limit yourself to a single point of view. Trying to understand everything form that perspective is confusing.

I couldn't make it any easier for you. If you're saying it's TRUE that nothing can be verified objectively- you're directly contradicting yourself. It's a fallacy known as the stolen concept. In order for something to have TRUTH, it must be verifiable. So if you're claiming that it's true that truth doesn't exist- you're mocking yourself, and according to you we shouldn't believe you.

But you're missing the point that truth is just an idea that we, as humans, made up. Again, we're trying to understand an all-encompassing concept from an extremely limited point of view. The ideas of "objectivity" and "truth" mock themselves. That's why we invented ideas like agreement so as to avoid addressing the problems they present. It's not even condensed, it's just generalized.


So here again you're referring to an objective reality- that truth exists independent of our observations. Then, you turn around and claim that none of our observations can be true, simple because we are observing.

It may or it may not. It may even exist as part of our observations. That's extremely hard to grasp though as, were that the case, there would be no way of knowing for sure. Even if it did exist as a part of our observations that wouldn't make it objective as it brings in an entirely new concept. It would mean that reality comes about due to being imagined, not observed objectively, by consciousness. Since we don't know what consciousness entails we're left in the dark, again. If consciousness were a major factor then we'd have to consider the idea of group consciousness and determining whether that in itself can be made out to be a single entity with it's own subjective interpretations being shared throughout the other entities comprising it. It's a simple concept which scales upwards and can seem very confusing at first but is beautifully simple at its core.


Again- if this is your claim- we can't believe you based on what you've said. You debunk yourself.

Or rather, we debunk ourselves.

Wrong. You have avoided every question I have presented. I have repeatedly clarified, corrected, and directly answered yours. The history of this very thread shows you to be inconsistent in your statements.

Nay, you just don't understand the beautiful simplicity because of your over-inellectualization.

You should know by now not to make my statements for me- because you're dead wrong.

Or rather, it's because you won't make any statements regarding your idea of having a monopoly on reality. Is it so fickle that you won't talk about it now?

I linked you to several posts where I did. Cupping your ears and screaming "NO NO NO NO" is not a valid debate technique.

I agree, I don't know why you do it. : p

These questions have already been answered- you know because we only got this far because of my answers.

Hahahaha! I'm the one answering questions here. That's what has fuelled this entire conversation. It's horribly unbalanced as far as being a debate goes.

Wrong. This is an ad hominem (style over substance fallacy). There is no rational basis to claim it must be "easy". "Complex" is a completely ambiguous term as you have applied it, and you're simply trying to get me to fetch further quotes for you from statements I've already made and linked to. You've done this in order to avoid the consequences of the discussion that's already taken place. We are arguing about your nonsensical definition of reality because of the misunderstanding you have on the statements I have made in regards to belonging to the group of individuals who have a monopoly on truth. The statements I have made have been painfully clear, and are readily available- I even cataloged them for you.

A monopoly is not a complex idea. You are doing your best to make it seem as though it is so as to avoid addressing your claim directly.

You're demanding that I repost it as a red herring.

You mean that you would rather not talk about it. ; p

You indicated there were multiple realities. I would like for you to provide evidence of this claim, or at the very least understand that it demands to be retracted (and since it is obviously the basis for the majority of your thinking- you will need to rethink your entire position).

Reality is something that exists independently of ideas concerning it. That in itself is a concept in need of an impossible level of verification based on other ideas I have presented here. Reality is just a concept you see, it's very definition kills itself. Now, the key point here is that you claim to have a monopoly on reality. If you take reality to be an absolute that would mean you are claiming to be some sort of omnipotent entity. If you are not, which I suspect is the case, you are obviously choosing which realities you have a monopoly over. In this case it would be you who needs to provide evidence of the claim of multiple realities.

If you have no way of knowing a statement you just made- perhaps you shouldn't make it?

But then we'd get nowhere. ; p

All knowing is at the end of the day is just a very high level of belief.

Again... Is that true? *COUGH*

I think this has been addressed multiple times.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what you're saying. You said I must address every interpretation of "monopoly" in order to make my case. I said- as a matter-of-fact, no I do not. Now you're confusing yourself- by taking my statements one sentence at a time and refusing to answer my questions, you can't even remember what you were saying.

Not quite, you must define which truth and which reality you claim to have a monopoly over otherwise you would be claiming to be god.


Provide evidence for your statement.

Think in terms of "quantum reality".


Holy mother of all strawmen. Look again at what I said, nincompoop.

You suggested that they have no relation and that by siding with one you would theoretically remove the other. : p

It's also evident, from your remark here, that the mental torment is kicking in.

[Totovader]

Expression_Man

Your intent is obvious. At this point you're unable to support your statements, and have had to regress into murky vagueness and various unclear statements. You've repeatedly dodged my questions- and you refuse to respond to the contradictions in your claims.

I've pointed out quite clearly that the statement that "Truth does not exist" is a self-defeating statement: it's contradictory- known as a fallacy of the stolen concept.

You haven't answered to this- you haven't responded to the contradictions in your claims. You are instead picking apart sentences at a time in order to go "nah uh" and avoid the discussion. It's also clear that you would rather cause "mental torment" than be clear and concise in your argument. Such is the way for people who think like you do- because if you were to be clear, your contradictions would become more obvious- and indeed every time you've been forced to explain yourself better, that's exactly what's happened.

Unless you have some response or rebuttal to the fact that your statements are contradictory- there's not much more I can say to you, and anything I do say gets ignored or replaced with a strawman, anyway.

I never claimed to be God, I never claimed to be the only one who knows truth, I never claimed to have omniscience, I never claimed that I "now understand you're right", I never claimed science is defined as "being in agreement", I never claimed that impartiality means you cannot assert that you're right, and many other things you've tried to insert into the discussion in order to avoid what I'm actually saying- because you cannot deny it.

And then we arrive at why thinking like you do is so utterly ridiculous. If we are to believe you that it is true that truth does not exist then we are not to believe you. These statements are of no use to the scientific community- and they serve no other purpose but to make you feel inculpable for failed thinking and poor investigative skills. Wherever you claim to sit on the fence of "9/11 Truth"- you aren't an ally to the scientific movement, that much is clear.

Your posts have demonstrated quite clearly what I was talking about- why those in the scientific/skeptic/debunking community have a monopoly on truth. You have proven my point for me quite effectively- if only people didn't have to drudge through all your useless parsimony to get to it.

[Expression_man]

You've repeatedly dodged my questions

I have answered you repeatedly. You continue to dodge the only question I have asked of you since the discussion started. : )

and you refuse to respond to the contradictions in your claims.

If you say so. ; )

I've pointed out quite clearly that the statement that "Truth does not exist" is a self-defeating statement: it's contradictory- known as a fallacy of the stolen concept.

You fail to understand what is meant by "truth". Your idea of having a monopoly over it defeats itself. Your argument goes something like "nonono, you can't argue with me because I own it and that means I'm correct".

You haven't answered to this

This is meaningless superfluous repetition on your part.

you haven't responded to the contradictions in your claims.

Yet another redundancy from you. I can only respond to them in so many ways before you have nowhere left to hide.

You are instead picking apart sentences at a time in order to go "nah uh" and avoid the discussion.

Hypocritical.

It's also clear that you would rather cause "mental torment" than be clear and concise in your argument.

Hahahaha! I only mentioned "mental torment" once in the entire thread. Clearly it's the only point you seem able to relate to.

Such is the way for people who think like you do- because if you were to be clear, your contradictions would become more obvious- and indeed every time you've been forced to explain yourself better, that's exactly what's happened.

You are unable to comprehend your own argument. Again, try to prove me wrong if you like, where is this monopoly on reality and truth?

Unless you have some response or rebuttal to the fact that your statements are contradictory- there's not much more I can say to you, and anything I do say gets ignored or replaced with a strawman, anyway.

The only question I ask of you continues to be left unanswered by your attempts to discuss strawmen.

I never claimed to be God, I never claimed to be the only one who knows truth, I never claimed to have omniscience, I never claimed that I "now understand you're right", I never claimed science is defined as "being in agreement", I never claimed that impartiality means you cannot assert that you're right, and many other things you've tried to insert into the discussion in order to avoid what I'm actually saying- because you cannot deny it.

Where is your monopoly on truth and reality mortal. ; p

And then we arrive at why thinking like you do is so utterly ridiculous. If we are to believe you that it is true that truth does not exist then we are not to believe you.

Proving me right. : )

These statements are of no use to the scientific community- and they serve no other purpose but to make you feel inculpable for failed thinking and poor investigative skills.

You use your failed attempts to address your original claim in any meaningful way to make you feel inculpable for failed thinking and poor investigative skills.

Wherever you claim to sit on the fence of "9/11 Truth"- you aren't an ally to the scientific movement, that much is clear.

Bias.

Your posts have demonstrated quite clearly what I was talking about- why those in the scientific/skeptic/debunking community have a monopoly on truth. You have proven my point for me quite effectively- if only people didn't have to drudge through all your useless parsimony to get to it.

Your posts have demonstrated quite clearly what I was talking about- why those in the scientific/skeptic/debunking community have no monopoly on truth. You have proven my point for me quite effectively- if only people didn't have to drudge through all your useless parsimony to get to it.

;)

[Totovader]

How do you expect me to respond to this? It's just more of you cupping your ears and screaming "nah uh"...

[Expression_man]

You could always answer the question.

Who decides what is true and how do you have a monopoly on truth and reality?

If you stick by your original claim then you should define what you mean by it.

If you were to say...

"I am part of the majority of people who believe they are correct"

...then that would be different. That would contradict your original statement of your notion of truth not involving statistics though. So what do you mean by your claim to having a monopoly on truth and reality?

[TjW]

Oh. Well, I'm in the minority that tries to use consistent, reproducible evidence to decide what things make up reality.

[Totovader]

You could always answer the question.

Who decides what is true and how do you have a monopoly on truth and reality?

If you stick by your original claim then you should define what you mean by it.

If you were to say...

"I am part of the majority of people who believe they are correct"

...then that would be different. That would contradict your original statement of your notion of truth not involving statistics though. So what do you mean by your claim to having a monopoly on truth and reality?

I see- so you avoided all the questions and the contradictions- and completely ignored my repeated explanations and clarifications- just so you could end up here and repeat the question?

No way. You have your answer already- it's been repeated to you far too many times. You refused to answer my questions, so I am not going to repost it for you. If you have any challenges to anything I said, then you can certainly respond to those aspects of my statements- but I am not going to repeat myself just so you can avoid your own contradictions. I've linked to my responses, and you were present back when that was the discussion, so unless you need clarification on specific statements I have made- there's no reason for me to repeat myself (except to allow you an escape from your contradictions, which I am not going to do).

[Brainache]

Well this has been a very informative thread. I'd like to ask Expression Man if he can prove that truth is subjective.(I'm guessing that might be impossible)

I'm kind of convinced by Totovader's position regarding the objective nature of reality. Mostly because I'm not arrogant enough to think that the world will end when I die, nor do I believe that the universe didn't exist before I was born.

I also think that if there was no objective reality, I'd just be talking to myself right now and what would be the point of that? Especially seeing as how I would be disagreeing with myself about whether or not I exist.

Sorry I appear to have confused myself. Carry on...or not...umm whatever.

[R.Mackey]

The point is that nothing can be verified objectively, it's clear that such a concept is found to be disturbing by some people. : )

We agree in order to avoid confusion, few people have ever questioned everything they believe to know.

Hehehe, these are not big words.

It's no more complex than that. Were a real truth ever observable it would be so blatant that it would most likely end up explaining itself.
oh, look, sophistry. Relativism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism), to be specific.

How trite.

here's a news flash, pal. Your personal disbelief in the universe has no bearing on Sept. 11th, no more than your assertion that Newton's Law of Gravitation is "unproven" makes it possible for you to walk on water.

Philosophy class is that way. Come back when you get your bearings.

[Oliver]

Ah Hah.

Well, I'll give him about another 2 minutes or so to remove it, and then I'll report it. He didn't even quote my post. It's plagiarism.

ETA: Time's up, report to mods upcoming.

Was this some kind of joke? :D

[Expression_man]

Brainache

Well this has been a very informative thread. I'd like to ask Expression Man if he can prove that truth is subjective.(I'm guessing that might be impossible)

That's the idea, I have explained this to the best of my abilities. : )

I'm kind of convinced by Totovader's position regarding the objective nature of reality. Mostly because I'm not arrogant enough to think that the world will end when I die, nor do I believe that the universe didn't exist before I was born.

I don't believe it will cease to exist in my absence either. There's a lot to take into account. Conception via consciousness is just an idea but seems to be how human life works. As for all reality being created by consciousness, that's a fun idea to discuss. It might be something else, the engine of reality is in place but accepts input via consciousness. The mystery is "why does stuff exist?"

It seems absurd that existence is in place.

We're going to be asking "why" forever. That doesn't mean that such a process of inquiry is not without limits.

I also think that if there was no objective reality, I'd just be talking to myself right now and what would be the point of that? Especially seeing as how I would be disagreeing with myself about whether or not I exist.

Actually it would serve a huge purpose. Not to bring schizophrenia into it but one way of understanding how we think is to fragment our personalities so as to enage in conversation and discover any contention that could exist. It's a process of self-perfection or fine tuning.


Sorry I appear to have confused myself. Carry on...or not...umm whatever.

: D

----------------------------------------------------------------------
R.Mackey

How trite.

here's a news flash, pal. Your personal disbelief in the universe has no bearing on Sept. 11th, no more than your assertion that Newton's Law of Gravitation is "unproven" makes it possible for you to walk on water.

Philosophy class is that way. Come back when you get your bearings.

Hehe, are you of the mind that you can have a monopoly on the truth as well?

If so, perhaps you can continue where Toto left off. In discussing it perhaps you can bring some bearings to light. ; )

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Totovader
Only after you answer my questions do you get any ice cream.
No way.

That's your response to being asked to explain your position regarding monopolizing the truth. I answered your questions but you were upset that they didn't support your own point of view and so it shattered your original claim. You did your best to make your personalization of it objective but found out that it wasn't getting anywhere. Without your personalization of the truth your monopoly could not exist. If you did manage to succeed in it you would only have a monopoly on your own thought process(es).

Discussion end.

[Totovader]

Totovader
That's your response to being asked to explain your position regarding monopolizing the truth.

Now you're resorting to flat out lies.

No way. You have your answer already- it's been repeated to you far too many times. You refused to answer my questions, so I am not going to repost it for you.

I was saying "no way" to you demanding that I "summarize" or repost my position for you, which is simply a stall tactic so you can avoid answering to the contradictions in your statements.

I answered your questions

No- as a matter of fact- you did not. I have clearly documented my contention, and reposted my questions to the extent that I think it's necessary. I'm not going to continue to hound you on questions you obviously aren't capable of answering, but I will continue to point out your negligence and culpability in refusing to answer them. Especially since you are demanding- without reason- that I repost my statements for you.

but you were upset that they didn't support your own point of view and so it shattered your original claim.

I don't know if I can make this any more clear: I don't give a crap if you don't support my view. The great thing about an objective reality is that it doesn't matter if you support my view. It only matters that I take the correct view, and your view will be destroyed on its face.

You did your best to make your personalization of it objective but found out that it wasn't getting anywhere. Without your personalization of the truth your monopoly could not exist. If you did manage to succeed in it you would only have a monopoly on your own thought process(es).

This statement is entirely unsupported- and really doesn't make much sense, anyway.

Discussion end.

Computation incomplete. User error. Replace user.

[Expression_man]

Totovader, just answer the question. ; )

It's evident that the only one answering questions here is me. Read back and look if you like. You haven't answered any questions due to your realization that the only answers you could give would demerit your precious little monopoly.

Answer at least one question, the only question you have been asked.

Who decides what is true and how do you have a monopoly on truth and reality?

Let's make this exciting, your excuses are boring and meaningless given the direct answers you have received.

[negativ]

The point is that nothing can be verified objectively, it's clear that such a concept is found to be disturbing by some people. : )

We agree in order to avoid confusion, few people have ever questioned everything they believe to know.

Hehehe, these are not big words.

It's no more complex than that. Were a real truth ever observable it would be so blatant that it would most likely end up explaining itself.

When the Tesshu, a master of Zen, calligraphy and swordsmanship, was a young man he called on the Zen master Dokuon. Wishing to impress Dokuon he said, “The mind, the Buddha, and all sentient beings after all do not exist. The true nature of phenomenon is emptiness. There is no realisation, no delusion, no sagacity, no mediocrity, nothing to give and nothing to receive.

Dokuon promptly hit him with a bamboo stick. Tesshu became quite furious.

Dokuon said quietly: “If nothing exists, where did this anger come from?”

[Expression_man]

When the Tesshu, a master of Zen, calligraphy and swordsmanship, was a young man he called on the Zen master Dokuon. Wishing to impress Dokuon he said, “The mind, the Buddha, and all sentient beings after all do not exist. The true nature of phenomenon is emptiness. There is no realisation, no delusion, no sagacity, no mediocrity, nothing to give and nothing to receive.

Dokuon promptly hit him with a bamboo stick. Tesshu became quite furious.

Dokuon said quietly: “If nothing exists, where did this anger come from?”

Conflicting ideas is your answer. : )

He chose to be angry. If he reacted then we could argue he was emotionally unstable. One person presents a point of view and the other beats him over the head with a stick.

All that means is that there's anger and confusion present.

[Brainache]

So what happens to reality when there are no people left at all? If a big comet or whatever crashes into the Earth and wipes us all out leaving no conscious minds behind, does reality go on without observers? (for the sake of argument let's leave out ETs).

[Brainache]

Oops double post.

[pagan]

I have previously commented on the desperation of the truth movement. Now some truther posts have gotten me considering their vulnerability.

I have read several times a line that has been stated by a truther in the LC forum. That line in a simple form goes something like "They have a leader, we need a leader as well". "They" is referring to JREF and the leader in their minds is most probably Gravy.

But I think things are quite to the contrary. It is true that JREF has been very very fortunate to have people like Gravy around, but not to take any credit away from anybody, we are standing on a very strong ground. We are not dependant on one single person to keep our story alive. We are not lead by one single person to tell us what to do and what to believe. We have all come to our own conclusions and we all share a similar view of the events in 9/11.

That means the following. If we had our three top guns retired, so that they would quit doing their important work debunking the CT, we would still be standing strong as ever. We have resources, we have evidence, we have experts, we have the laws of physics on our side, we have our own personal knowledge and most important of all, we all share the same basic agenda. That means we are not vulnerable and dependant on a couple of people.

But think about the Truth Movement. They are exactly the opposite. They claim they have no leader, but in reality they are very much lead by only a handful of people.

Unlike us, they don't have the resources, they have no evidence, they have no real experts, they don't have the laws of physics on their side and most important of all, they don't share the same basic agenda. That means they are extremely vulnerable and dependant on a very few people.

What if the Truth Movement had their three top guns retired? Let's say Dylan Avery, Alex Jones and Steven Jones quit doing their CT work.

That would mean devastation to the Truth Movement. That would kill the whole Loose Change Phenomenan. That would kill the LC board, where people are lead by Avery and expecting the world from him and his new film. That would kill a bunch of theories, kill new surprise letters from surprise witnesses and so on.

Alex Jones retiring would kill their biggest resources of everyday CT, that would end prisonplanet, infowars, the radio shows and the bullhorning.

Steven Jones retiring would kill their only guy that has had anything to do with any research. That would kill thermite. That would kill a bunch of controlled demolition theories.

So on reality, The Truth Movement is extremely vulnerable and hangs on the shoulders of only a couple of people who feed the whole CT world. Without them the whole movement would shrink to a hardly noticed branch with outlandish speculations. Speculations that would not raise interest.


Not at all. The 911 truth movement don't have any leaders. When it comes to organisation we act like a bunch of headless chickens. This must become better.

I agree with you that if Steven Jones retired it would be a serious blow. But,he is certainly not a leader in an adm. sort of way. And there are many more capable scholars like Kevin Ryan, Jim Hoffman etc.

[Gravy]

And there are many more capable scholars like Kevin Ryan, Jim Hoffman etc.:dl:

[pomeroo]

[=pagan;2384129]Not at all. The 911 truth movement don't have any leaders. When it comes to organisation we act like a bunch of headless chickens. This must become better.

I agree with you that if Steven Jones retired it would be a serious blow. But,he is certainly not a leader in an adm. sort of way. And there are many more capable scholars like Kevin Ryan, Jim Hoffman etc.


Kevin Ryan is not a scholar by any stretch of the imagination. Jim Hoffman was scheduled to appear on Hardfire. Someone tipped him off, or so I strongly suspect, that I was prepared to use Dr. Greening's paper to refute his faulty calculations. He pulled a no-show at the last minute. Another profile in courage.

[Totovader]

Expression_Man
:bowl:

Even if you try an argumentum ad populum, we're still winning. That's not why we're winning though- we're winning because we have a monopoly on truth and logic.

My statement was clarified throughout the thread, which lead to your denial of reality. This is what has lead us here- so to claim I have not answered it is (much like your denial of reality) to contradict yourself.

I also provided links to where the above statement was clarified, explained, and supported.


Explained- in great detail- already:
See post #50, #103, #105, #108, #111, #114, #116, #119, #123, #126, #130, #134, #140, and #142.

I also posted it again, because you claimed it wasn't there.


AGAIN: Explained- in great detail- already:
See post #50, #103, #105, #108, #111, #114, #116, #119, #123, #126, #130, #134, #140, and #142.

In addition, throughout your argument, you have ignored the following:
:whistling
Strawmen and other fallacies:

I'm afraid that your notion of what "correct reasoning" entails is also subjective, no matter how many people agree with it or how often it's used.

Well you managed to quote me in your response which implied that you were addressing my statement regarding the absurdity of having a monopoly on the truth. Such a thing is called religion.

By your thinking, the reason I am unable to understand the validity of having "a monopoly on truth and reasoning", as a concept, is because I don't take sides.

So now you have a monopoly on truth and reasoning because of the side you have taken? That is surely subjective reasoning at its best.

You think that truth and reasoning involves having some sort of faction which, incidentally, is no different from religion.

So I need to take sides in order to understand?

Truth does not belong to you, nor are you the sole proprietor of reason.

It is completely ridiculous to suppose that the truth can be owned or that it can be denied to someone.

It's always there, waiting to be discovered by those who seek it, you cannot deny people their thoughts.

I don't care about 911, I'm just addressing this strange idea that you have. It's far more disturbing than any conspiracy theory I've ever heard.

To claim that the above concept of science has any monopoly on the truth is stark raving mad.

The moment you start thinking only you know the truth is the exact time when your ego breaks loose and wreaks havoc on your psyche.

If you demand that something be viewed from a limited point of view then you cannot ever grasp a full understanding of it thus your idea of truth is shattered.

Dare you say that you reserve the truth?

No, it's much simpler than that. It's that this has gone on for a long time and I'm the only one answering questions here. This is because you are already aware that there is no foundation for the idea of having a monopoly on truth and reality.

No, it must be simple. A monopoly is not a complex idea, it does not require the over intellectualization you have applied to the concept. In less than 30 words and no more, state it now. Where is your argument?

This is because you are already aware that there is no foundation for the idea of having a monopoly on truth and reality.

:pythonfoot:
48 questions Expression_Man never answered:

1) How can these two statements be true? If reasoning is subjective, then you can't possibly be right- and I can't possibly be wrong- according to you.

2) Have I not brought what I have said into the context of science?

3) What ad-hominems have I committed?

4) Care to define "bad science" without mentioning failed reasoning?

5) Failed to address any statements in regards to religion being the antithesis of reason. Instead chose to move to further strawmans.

6) What evidence do you have that there is a preponderance of emotion, here- instead of scientific inquiry, critical thinking, and truth?

7) What is wrong or questionable about the statement that:

Emotionally high-strung does not mean that people are not using the scientific method. This, again, is simply a claim you cannot support (especially if you want to continue to claim that reasoning is subjective... by your logic we shouldn't believe you).

8) What reason do you have to reject the statement that science is truth and reason applied?

9) Where have I made a statement of circular reasoning?

10) What is your response to the various statements I have pointed out that are self-defeating and contradictory? If I am wrong in that assertion, please explain why.

11) How can a cult be based on science; scientific inquiry is the exact opposite of a very definition of a cult.

12) How am I not impartial?

13) How does a belief that you are correct compromise scientific inquiry?

14) You have repeatedly made statements that science is simply a process designed to make people agreeable: How then does that agreement occur, by flipping a coin? How can it NOT be objective?

15) And, you imply that it is selective in it's "agreeability" (but apparently, not to you). How is "who knows the truth" decided?

16) At what point did I specifically state or even imply that only I know the truth?

17) Your attempt to change the definitions of the object I asked you to conceptualize shows that reality is objective. Your attempt to deny this was a direct contradiction, which was never resolved by you.

18) The fact that this statement: Nay, one oberserves shapes as their brain is able to interpret them. It's as simple as that my friend. is a demonstration of an objective reality (although poorly worded). This statement contradicts everything else you have said about a subjective reality. This contradiction was never resolved.

19) What does communication have to do with reality?

20) Where have I dodged the question- or more appropriately, which question has not been answered?

21) Where have my statements been inconsistent, in contradiction, or unclear?

22) How can your statements about a subjective reality be true if you are asking for clarification? (The very act of asking for clarification demands an objective reality)

23) Due to these contradictions, it is not entirely clear what you position is- although you have attempted to state that you believe in a subjective reality, your statements actually contradict this. So, which is it?

24) What is "subjective reasoning"?

25) What is "standardization" if not being accurate to a measurement- and then having that measurement being a consequence of an objective reality?

26) Is the Internet not an example of an ever-increasing detailed language and communication medium which allows people to more quickly, accurately, and broadly explain concepts?

27) How can one "make up" a context if reality is subjective?

28) Give me one example of where my argument has been a strawman.

29) Please define "perception" and "conception" and the differences between them.

30) You attempted to use the Uncertainty Principle to claim that reality is subjective- and then quickly abandoned that position without reason. Can you explain how the UP is evidence of a subjective reality, and not an objective one?

31) How does the concept of "focus"- meaning that "something else comes to our attention"- consistent with a subjective reality. By its very definition, this is evidence of an objective and consistent reality.

32) Please clarify the statement: "Truth, as you understand it, isn't involved."

33) How can agreement exist if reality is subjective?

34) Please clarify the statement: "Not if you have familiarized yourself with it to the extent that you take it for granted."

35) Is it true that nothing can be verified objectively?

36) What is confusion if not an inconsistency to reality?

37) How many realities are there?

38) And how do you know?

39) Why would an agreement require that every interpretation in existence be defined? This ignores a subjective reality and an objective reality and replaces it simply with language.

40) If something can be true for you, and not for someone else- how is it possible to communicate?

41) Please define the concept of "human reality".

42) Is it true that "human reality" is not "objective reality"?

43) What role does "luck" play in scientific study?

44) What is your basis for the claim that what is true can be true for one person, and false for another?

45) Please provide evidence for the statement: "Gravity is not objective as its laws do not apply to all perceptions of reality(ies)."

46) How can your experience define a subjective reality?

47) How have I been hypocritical?

48) Prove that reality is subjective.



:bricks:

[tsig]

Not at all. The 911 truth movement don't have any leaders. When it comes to organisation we act like a bunch of headless chickens. This must become better.

I agree with you that if Steven Jones retired it would be a serious blow. But,he is certainly not a leader in an adm. sort of way. And there are many more capable scholars like Kevin Ryan, Jim Hoffman etc.

Why do you have to call yourselves scholars?

That's a title that is not usally self-selected.

[Expression_man]

So what happens to reality when there are no people left at all? If a big comet or whatever crashes into the Earth and wipes us all out leaving no conscious minds behind, does reality go on without observers? (for the sake of argument let's leave out ETs).

Well, it wouldn't really matter but for the sake of argument we could say that it might. Then again, we don't know what consciousness entails so it's somewhat unprovable at this point in time. The idea of creating reality via consciousness it just another idea at the end of the day.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To Totovader

I'm surprised you're still at it to be honest. I've answered about 95% of your questions while you have answered 0% of mine.

Who decides what is true and how do you have a monopoly on truth and reality?

Again Totovader, don't be afraid. If you want this to continue state your answer now. You're so desperate that you have chosen to disregard/ignore everything I've said as though it never happened.

Hehehe, it's not so simple Tot, my posts are still there and they reference your questions. I have provided you with answers despite your pathetic cynicism and name calling.


I dare you to answer the one question I have ever asked of you.

Who decides what is true and how do you have a monopoly on truth and reality?

If you do not answer that then you have no argument. If you claim to have already stated your answer then get to the point and don't reference your numerous fragmented statements. Get to the point, if you can.

Who decides what is true and how do you have a monopoly on truth and reality?

Answer that and then we will begin trading questions.

[Totovader]

To Totovader

I'm surprised you're still at it to be honest. I've answered about 95% of your questions while you have answered 0% of mine.

Well, the above post actually shows just how much you're lying on both counts, here.

Who decides what is true and how do you have a monopoly on truth and reality?

Clever slip of a new statement in there, eh?

I've answered both of these questions (although this is the first time you've phrased them together- as if to change the topic of discussion). You will find those answers in the thread- where I have posted them repeatedly.

You can find this claim referenced in the top portion of the previous post. That section- actually that entire post- has been ignored by you.

If you have any problems with what I've stated so far, then you can post a response quoting those statements.

Again Totovader, don't be afraid.

Ad baculum.

If you want this to continue state your answer now.

I wanted it to end- that's why I answered it a long time ago.

See previous post on where you can find that information (as if you suddenly entered the thread.)

You're so desperate that you have chosen to disregard/ignore everything I've said as though it never happened.

Prove it.

Ok, I'm having a laugh. If you try and prove it, you will be submitting to an objective reality. So, it'll be fun to watch...

If you claim that it is true that you've answered these questions (95% my aching crap hole)- then show me. And in doing so, contradict everything you have said in regards to a subjective reality.

Gotcha.

Hehehe, it's not so simple Tot, my posts are still there and they reference your questions.

He he he... You just shot yourself in the foot.

I have provided you with answers despite your pathetic cynicism and name calling.

Cynicism? Name calling?

Oh brother. I listed at least 3 times you called me something and then couldn't back it up. I think I called you a nincompoop once. If your feelings are that hurt, then you obviously believe in an objective reality- and thus your feelings shouldn't be hurt, because I'm helping you.


I dare you to answer the one question I have ever asked of you.

And what do I get for completing this dare in the past?

See previous post on where to find this information.

If you do not answer that then you have no argument.

And if I have answered it, then you are doing what- exactly?

See previous post on where to find this information.

If you claim to have already stated your answer then get to the point and don't reference your numerous fragmented statements. Get to the point, if you can.

Oh, the points already been gotten.

See previous post on where to find this information.

Answer that and then we will begin trading questions.

Already answered. See previous post regarding this information. Your turn.

And, check mate.

[Totovader]

Observations made using what?

Is this the "one question you've ever asked of me"?

Or maybe it's the 30 or more you have asked?

The ones I answered- and then you responded to, and then in order to ignore my questions, simply re-asked the ones you already had answers to.

Your claim that I "haven't answered" is completely destroyed when I point EXACTLY to where I have answered it.

What you are engaging in is known as the complex question fallacy. You simply re-ask the same question in order to claim it was never answered, though you raised no specific challenge to it when it was asked. In order to avoid the contradictions in your statements- the only thing you can do is divert the attention away from your failures, and try to make it look like I'm doing the exact thing that you're doing.

Boy is this getting silly.

The fact of the matter is- you can't claim I've never answered the question without denying that we are in the point in the discussion which is a direct result of me answering that question. This answer lead you to go off about subjective reality and your silly contradictions. When you confused conception and perception it further complicated the discussion- and as a result of my answer, I've been repeatedly trying to get you to fix your errors.

Anyone can see that you're dying for an out. You need to pretend that you're not culpable- that you have an escape route. My post above doesn't let you escape cleanly. You've avoided many points- including the very obvious contradictions in your statements. And since there is no benefit to me repeating myself- I don't see any reason why me generously linking to my previous comments would not be satisfactory.

Especially since restating my position would only allow you to go off on another round and create another endless loop. It's a red herring which will cause the discussion to go nowhere (exactly where you subjectivists often have to take it).

It ends now. You either begin to answer to the contradictions above and drop the act, or you remove yourself from the discussion.

Oh, I'm just holding my breath... :rolleyes:

[Expression_man]

the only thing you can do is divert the attention away from your failures, and try to make it look like I'm doing the exact thing that you're doing.Oh, you mean to imply that you’re not trying to divert attention away from answering the question of who decides what is true and how you have a monopoly on it?Right, let’s get down to business. You keep running away from this simple question despite the attention I have given you and you seem to enjoy talking about fallacies. So far you’ve set yourself up in the perfect position to receive the label of “hypocrite”. So, just to make you happy, I will present your argument in a fallacious way (I admit I am doing this for the single section) but it brings to light so many of your ideas. We have a monopoly on truth and logic. I'm not saying we're always right. we have a monopoly on reality I don't believe in a "monopoly on reality” If you have no way of knowing a statement you just made- perhaps you shouldn't make it? the side I go with is the one that has a monopoly on truth and reasoning The fact that you "don't take any particular side" shows why you don't understand. I do not believe it has anything to do with labels, or what "group" you belong to. My opinion is not the issue. Yet again- the contradiction you present here is so blatantly obvious, I'm left wondering how you can continue to try and maintain it without laughing at yourself. My opinion is not the issue. It makes no sense. And it's wrong. You have neither the position nor the power to call anyone right or wrong. We have a monopoly on truth because we are rational, logical, scientific individuals Emotionally high-strung does not mean that people are not using the scientific method. Have I been inconsistent? Have my statements at all contradicted each other? Have I been unclear? The discussion thus far clearly makes my case for me. If you have any challenge to the contradictions I have pointed out in your statements- then please post it.Ok, BS aside, I will attempt to answer your questions (again).1) How can these two statements be true? If reasoning is subjective, then you can't possibly be right- and I can't possibly be wrong- according to you.That being the case, it comes down to your acceptance of the idea(s).2) Have I not brought what I have said into the context of science?No, your idea of having a monopoly on truth and reality has nothing to do with science.3) What ad-hominems have I committed?Claiming that I do not understand because I do not take sides.Claiming that those who are religiously inclined are incapable of reasoning.4) Care to define "bad science" without mentioning failed reasoning?Falsifying research data is as close as you can get, even if it’s not completely separate. 5) Failed to address any statements in regards to religion being the antithesis of reason. Instead chose to move to further strawmans.I said that those of a religious inclination are fully capable of making decisions by way of reasoning. I’m not sure why this is relevant.6) What evidence do you have that there is a preponderance of emotion, here- instead of scientific inquiry, critical thinking, and truth?I’m not sure what you’re referring to.7) What is wrong or questionable about the statement that:Emotionally high-strung does not mean that people are not using the scientific method. This, again, is simply a claim you cannot support (especially if you want to continue to claim that reasoning is subjective... by your logic we shouldn't believe you). The questionability arises due to emotion having being present in the first place. It is not a part of the scientific method and can only be a hindrance. Since humans lack the ability to become emotionless when it comes to putting an emotional investment into their work the scientific method, in practice, remains questionable. 8) What reason do you have to reject the statement that science is truth and reason applied?That it is based on the belief that it is true and reasonable.9) Where have I made a statement of circular reasoning?Indecisiveness regarding whether or not you have a monopoly on truth and reality.10) What is your response to the various statements I have pointed out that are self-defeating and contradictory? If I am wrong in that assertion, please explain why.My response is that you are selfish to continue to demand answers before answering one simple question that I have continued to present to you over the course of the discussion. We can certainly go into this but it will require time to explain. I will gladly give you my opinions regarding it should you answer my single question.11) How can a cult be based on science; scientific inquiry is the exact opposite of a very definition of a cult.It’s not the definition of scientific inquiry; it’s the practice of it. Groups of scientists can become dogmatic in their thinking to the point that the behaviour they exhibit is indeed cult-like.12) How am I not impartial?You believe that you are in a position of authority in that you are one of the people claiming to have a monopoly on truth and reality. You have also stated that skeptics and debunkers (assuming you belong to one of these groups) follow science which has proven (via practice) in many cases, to be anything but impartial. This is especially true concerning theories discussing the origin of life and how much anger the discussions provoke.13) How does a belief that you are correct compromise scientific inquiry?It presupposes the conclusion and affects judgments.14) You have repeatedly made statements that science is simply a process designed to make people agreeable: How then does that agreement occur, by flipping a coin? How can it NOT be objective?You asked two questions. My answers are…i.) The agreement occurs through discussion based on observations.ii.) It is only objective in the sense that people are seeing things from a limited point of view. It is not true objectivity, which is impossible to attain. 15) And, you imply that it is selective in it's "agreeability" (but apparently, not to you). How is "who knows the truth" decided?I don’t believe anyone knows the truth. It is the same question I have asked you, multiple times, for an answer.16) At what point did I specifically state or even imply that only I know the truth?The moment you gave yourself the “we have a monopoly on reality” and “we have a monopoly on truth” badges. If it’s not just you, where are the other members of this club? 17) Your attempt to change the definitions of the object I asked you to conceptualize shows that reality is objective. Your attempt to deny this was a direct contradiction, which was never resolved by you.I disagree with your reasoning. My response was very detailed.18) The fact that this statement: Quote: Nay, one oberserves shapes as their brain is able to interpret them. It's as simple as that my friend. is a demonstration of an objective reality (although poorly worded). This statement contradicts everything else you have said about a subjective reality. This contradiction was never resolved.I would disagree with this on the grounds of there being no way to tell how a shape is supposed to look and whether it is different for every person. A machine wouldn’t prove anything as we would still be examining the findings ourselves.19) What does communication have to do with reality?I thought you weren’t being serious. This is a detailed subject which involves not only human communication but particle physics to explain in full detail. Communication is an underlying principal of the reality we experience. This however is not relevant to the discussion. Again, I continue to ask a question of you.Who decides what is true and how do you have a monopoly on truth and reality? 20) Where have I dodged the question- or more appropriately, which question has not been answered?Who decides what is true and how do you have a monopoly on truth and reality?21) Where have my statements been inconsistent, in contradiction, or unclear?Claiming that you have a monopoly on reality and then stating that you don’t believe one can have a monopoly on reality. You did this without explaining what you meant by your idea of reality or having a monopoly on it and you continue to avoid the question every time I ask it.Who decides what is true and how do you have a monopoly on truth and reality?22) How can your statements about a subjective reality be true if you are asking for clarification? (The very act of asking for clarification demands an objective reality)It means only that I am attempting to understand you.23) Due to these contradictions, it is not entirely clear what you position is- although you have attempted to state that you believe in a subjective reality, your statements actually contradict this. So, which is it?For me to believe that reality is subjective and that no truth is immediately accessible I would have to deny myself the luxury speaking of it in terms of fact. I tend to believe that what we experience of reality is subjective and that no further claims regarding the nature of an objective reality can be made because of it.24) What is "subjective reasoning"?All reasoning is, the idea is almost a redundancy. To avoid confusion a context might need to be given but, as I said earlier, that is unlikely to change the situation much.25) What is "standardization" if not being accurate to a measurement- and then having that measurement being a consequence of an objective reality?To make this easier to answer I will refute the last part of the statement by claiming that there is no way to identify an objective reality as what we experience of it is relative to ourselves. It is because of this that we cannot move further into the idea of reality being objective.26) Is the Internet not an example of an ever-increasing detailed language and communication medium which allows people to more quickly, accurately, and broadly explain concepts?I’m sorry but the reason you had for asking this question is non-existent. I believe that what you claim, in this instance, is true and that I never made an attempt to refute it. The question I implied regarding it in your original statement was of the unidentifiable relevance it had to the conversation.Who decides what is true and how do you have a monopoly on truth and reality?27) How can one "make up" a context if reality is subjective?To avoid confusion of thought.28) Give me one example of where my argument has been a strawman.I hate straw men. You love to talk about them, I don’t know what your affiliation with them is but it’s obvious, due to one reason or another, that your personal experience seems to warrant you inserting the concept at every available opportunity. To answer this I will refer to your original claim of having a monopoly on truth and reality. I believe that is the “strawest” man that ever was.29) Please define "perception" and "conception" and the differences between them.Go look in a dictionary.30) You attempted to use the Uncertainty Principle to claim that reality is subjective- and then quickly abandoned that position without reason. Can you explain how the UP is evidence of a subjective reality, and not an objective one?It is evidence of a subjective interpretation of reality.31) How does the concept of "focus"- meaning that "something else comes to our attention"- consistent with a subjective reality. By its very definition, this is evidence of an objective and consistent reality.It depends on a single concept and question. What is our involvement with reality?32) Please clarify the statement: "Truth, as you understand it, isn't involved."You enjoy to throw the word “truth” about to such an extent that your portrayal of it is fickle. It is because of that that I disagree with your notion of truth.33) How can agreement exist if reality is subjective?It stops headaches.34) Please clarify the statement: "Not if you have familiarized yourself with it to the extent that you take it for granted."I mean that you become overly familiar with a concept to the point that you do not ever question the validity of it in detail.35) Is it true that nothing can be verified objectively?Who knows?36) What is confusion if not an inconsistency to reality?Conflicting ideas of perceived reality.37) How many realities are there?I don’t know, Totovader.38) And how do you know?…39) Why would an agreement require that every interpretation in existence be defined? This ignores a subjective reality and an objective reality and replaces it simply with language.Anything we perceive of this argument will be based on the interpretation of language. In regards to your claim of having a monopoly on truth and reality, I would expect you to at least answer the questions of who decides what is true and how you might have a monopoly on truth and reality or else you are forced to define every truth and reality it is that you have jurisdiction over.40) If something can be true for you, and not for someone else- how is it possible to communicate?By acknowledging the presence of two or more individuals.41) Please define the concept of "human reality".Perceived reality.42) Is it true that "human reality" is not "objective reality"?That’s a reasonable assumption.43) What role does "luck" play in scientific study?Some of these questions you never actually asked but decided to claim that you did so as to give a false impression of the situation. I will answer this question if you answer mine.Who decides what is true and how do you have a monopoly on truth and reality?44) What is your basis for the claim that what is true can be true for one person, and false for another?Personal experience.45) Please provide evidence for the statement: "Gravity is not objective as its laws do not apply to all perceptions of reality(ies)."Refer to the idea of a unified theory.46) How can your experience define a subjective reality?By experiencing it, that's the whole point.47) How have I been hypocritical?See above section.48) Prove that reality is subjective.Which reality? : p

Edit: Who decides what is true and how you have a monopoly on truth and reality?

[Totovader]

So, you go quote mining- admit it's fallacious, but then do it anyway?

You have to lie in order to try and make a case...

Much like you are QUOTING SECTIONS WHERE I HAVE ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION and then claim it was never answered?

Your answers to the 48 questions then become single sentence ambiguous fluffy crap. I can't say I expected anything more. I could respond to your bs answers and continue to point out your contradictions, but it obviously won't get us anywhere- you don't have a problem with making false accusations, using fallacious arguments, and ignoring statements you don't like, so I'm assuming we're done, here?

[Expression_man]

Who decides what is true and how you have a monopoly on truth and reality?

If you continue to avoid this question then we are done here.

It's obvious that you are in retreat now.

I have indulged you for far too long. All I ask is that you answer a single question.

Who decides what is true and how you have a monopoly on truth and reality?

Stop ignoring the questions you don't like.

[Totovader]

Who decides what is true and how you have a monopoly on truth and reality?

If you continue to avoid this question then we are done here.

It's obvious that you are in retreat now.

I have indulged you for far too long. All I ask is that you answer a single question.

Who decides what is true and how you have a monopoly on truth and reality?

Stop ignoring the questions you don't like.

Fine, have it your way.

Your question was answered repeatedly. In addition to the post above- the one you responded to- there have been several links provided for you which give my responses to these questions the first time you posted them.

#50, #103, #105, #108, #111, #114, #116, #119, #123, #126, #130, #134, #140, and #142.

Answer why these responses were insufficient.

Because this is what is happening:

You: "You never answered this question"
Me: "Yes I did and here was my response"
You: "You never answered this question"
Me: "Yes I did and here was my response"
ad nauseum

I will continue to repost the links until you recognize that you are simply doing EXACTLY what you claim I am doing: ignoring it. Problem is- you can't continue to claim that because I have answered that question repeatedly.

And as for your comments about "retreating", you asked for it:

[Totovader]

Oh, you mean to imply that you’re not trying to divert attention away from answering the question of who decides what is true and how you have a monopoly on it?

Imply nothing- I mean to specifically state- as clearly and loudly as possible- that I have already answered the question. That statement should be so unbelievable clear to you at this point that it would require you to literally be closing your eyes as you read my statements. I have linked- repeatedly- to the statements that answer your question when you first asked it.

I cannot make it any more clear for you than that- barring any challenge to my statements.

Right, let’s get down to business. You keep running away from this simple question...

So your definition of getting down to business is to continue to repeat lies?

How many times do I need to link you to the statements where I answered this question the first time?

How many times will it take?

...despite the attention I have given you and you seem to enjoy talking about fallacies. So far you’ve set yourself up in the perfect position to receive the label of "hypocrite". So, just to make you happy, I will present your argument in a fallacious way (I admit I am doing this for the single section) but it brings to light so many of your ideas.

Wrong!

Hypocrite is not having my quotes mashed up to say something I didn't say in order for you to claim I am of the label you clearly are.

Instead of answering the questions and moving on- you've felt it necessary to take all my comments out of context in order to try and call me a hypocrite. Again, you do this in order to try and avoid the debate itself- in order to divert attention away from your own hypocrisy- your own failures. You even admit as much in this statement. Just to make me happy you're going to take everything I say out of context- admittedly- in order to "bring light" to my ideas?

That's insane.

...

we have a monopoly on reality

I don't believe in a "monopoly on reality"

Look at how you had to take these quotes completely out of context in order to try to make your point.

Here's the original statement:

...I should clarify that statement- I don't believe in a "monopoly on reality"- at least in the sense that you have taken it. As I have said, reality exists independant of the observer- so to have a monopoly on reality was really just saying that through rationality- through science we better understand reality. I was simply being climactic. I clearly do not believe that anyone "owns reality" (nor do I believe that anyone "owns truth" but you don't seem to be getting my allusion).

So, let's see if we can understand this. You are presenting my "argument in a fallacious way (I admit I am doing this for the single section) but it brings to light so many of your ideas."

Does that make sense? You have to completely change what I'm saying in order to make light of my ideas?

Seems like you continue to shoot yourself in the foot. You're stumbling over your own contradictions at this point. In order to try and claim that I am incorrect or illogical, you have to change what I've said. Sort of self-defeating, don't you think?



[More statements taken out of context]


I snipped all these out because the above example is all I need to do in order to defend my character. You intentionally did not post links to those statements because you know you took them out of context- and even admitted as such. Taken in context, my statements make sense- and they do not say what you want them to. Any reader of this mess of a thread will be able to at least see that your statements admit you're a liar- and if they take the time to hunt down the quotes you were using, they will see that your efforts to impeach my character end up impeaching your own.


Ok, BS aside, I will attempt to answer your questions (again).

Let's get one thing straight: you didn't answer these questions before, that's why I had to repost them. You certainly responded to a large number of them, but an answer is not the same thing. In addition, all these questions sum up one undeniable fact: you have contradicted yourself on many occasions; instead of confronting that contradiction and resolving it, you've decided to try to rewind the debate. I'm not going to allow that to happen.

1) How can these two statements be true? If reasoning is subjective, then you can't possibly be right- and I can't possibly be wrong- according to you.

That being the case, it comes down to your acceptance of the idea(s).

Well, then all that matters is that I accept my own ideas. Then- according to your [failed] logic, I would have a monopoly on truth- because according to you truth is simply an acceptance of ideas.

Your answer makes no sense. Please try again.

2) Have I not brought what I have said into the context of science?

No, your idea of having a monopoly on truth and reality has nothing to do with science.

This is not an answer to the question. Please try again.

3) What ad-hominems have I committed?

Claiming that I do not understand because I do not take sides.Claiming that those who are religiously inclined are incapable of reasoning.

In addition to these not being ad hominems, they are indeed both strawmans. I never said you don't understand [this discussion] because you don't "take sides". I clarified that in post #114:

Holy strawman. Not even close to what I said. You don't understand the validity of objective truth because you choose to believe that subjectivity is more valid, neglecting the fact that this thought requires an objective view of reality.

Apparently, we need to have a discussion on what science is. Twice, now, you've attempted to bastardize it as simply subjective and religious. That is the reason you can't comprehend a science based on objective reality.

And what was your response to this? Nothing.

I also never said that people who are religious are incapable of reason. I said that faith is the antithesis of reason. So your statement- in addition to being another strawman attempt to change my statements- is wrong.

Retract the statement, or try again!

4) Care to define "bad science" without mentioning failed reasoning?

Falsifying research data is as close as you can get, even if it’s not completely separate.

Wrong!

It's not "completely separate", meaning your answer is invalid. I explained why it was insufficient already- it ignores the 2nd part of my rebuttal.

5) Failed to address any statements in regards to religion being the antithesis of reason. Instead chose to move to further strawmans.

I said that those of a religious inclination are fully capable of making decisions by way of reasoning. I’m not sure why this is relevant.

Quote needed!

I never said that religious people are incapable of reasoning. However, it's interesting to note that you had claimed that science was a religion- and indicated that it was therefore invalid and wrong. How does this make any sense when compared to your statement above? Yet again, you completely contradict yourself.

6) What evidence do you have that there is a preponderance of emotion, here- instead of scientific inquiry, critical thinking, and truth?

I’m not sure what you’re referring to.

You had said that the JREF forums were not made up of scientists and critical thinkers- but instead were just emotional people.

You were never able to support that statement.

Either retract the statement, or try again!

7) What is wrong or questionable about the statement that: Emotionally high-strung does not mean that people are not using the scientific method. This, again, is simply a claim you cannot support (especially if you want to continue to claim that reasoning is subjective... by your logic we shouldn't believe you).

The questionability arises due to emotion having being present in the first place. It is not a part of the scientific method and can only be a hindrance. Since humans lack the ability to become emotionless when it comes to putting an emotional investment into their work the scientific method, in practice, remains questionable.

This is not an answer to the question- and is in fact an ad hominem. Being emotional does not necessarily mean that a person is incapable of using the scientific method. You then use this failed reasoning to conclude that reasoning is therefore invalid because it's impossible to remove emotion from the human experience- again, contradicting yourself. You're reasoning that reasoning is necessarily invalid. Obviously this cannot be true.

This is not an answer to the question, try again!

8) What reason do you have to reject the statement that science is truth and reason applied?

That it is based on the belief that it is true and reasonable.

This is not an answer to the question. The belief that one is right is irrelevant to the fact of being right or wrong. This, again, is an ad hominem.

This is not an answer to the question, try again!

9) Where have I made a statement of circular reasoning?

Indecisiveness regarding whether or not you have a monopoly on truth and reality.

Not only is this a strawman- I have never been "indecisive" in my statements regarding "monopoly on truth"- but indecisiveness is not a synonym for circular reasoning.

This is not an answer to the question, try again!

10) What is your response to the various statements I have pointed out that are self-defeating and contradictory? If I am wrong in that assertion, please explain why.

My response is that you are selfish to continue to demand answers before answering one simple question that I have continued to present to you over the course of the discussion. We can certainly go into this but it will require time to explain. I will gladly give you my opinions regarding it should you answer my single question.

Again, a strawman- and again, not an answer to the question. Even if I were "selfish"- that has nothing to do with you repeatedly contradicting yourself. Additionally (of course) your question has been answered... repeatedly.

This is not an answer to the question, try again!

11) How can a cult be based on science; scientific inquiry is the exact opposite of a very definition of a cult.

It’s not the definition of scientific inquiry; it’s the practice of it. Groups of scientists can become dogmatic in their thinking to the point that the behaviour they exhibit is indeed cult-like.

This is not an answer to the question, try again!

This contradicts your other statements- additionally, it contradicts the original statement this question was based on.

You had said that stating you were bastardizing science (by claiming that it was subjective and religious) is turning this place into a cult.

So how does your response above address that line of thinking? (Hint: it doesn't.)

12) How am I not impartial?

You believe that you are in a position of authority in that you are one of the people claiming to have a monopoly on truth and reality. You have also stated that skeptics and debunkers (assuming you belong to one of these groups) follow science which has proven (via practice) in many cases, to be anything but impartial. This is especially true concerning theories discussing the origin of life and how much anger the discussions provoke.

Multiple strawman- I never said I was in a position of authority- I said, as a matter of fact- much to the opposite. Additionally, following science is not an example of not being impartial. You are committing the guilt by association fallacy, here: Since "science" has been wrong, all science and scientists are therefore not being impartial. Utter nonsense. Hitler was a German. Hitler was a Nazi. Therefore all Germans are Nazis...

Quit a large pile of steaming excrement, you have there.

This is not an answer to the question, try again!

13) How does a belief that you are correct compromise scientific inquiry?

It presupposes the conclusion and affects judgments.

Neglecting that you don't believe in truth- having a belief in validity does not affect judgement or scientific inquiry necessarily. That's what the scientific method is, so you really didn't answer my question. Again, you try and stuff fallacies into your argument in order to claim that some humans are fallible some of the time, therefore humans are always fallible.

If you were correct- we again could not agree with you according to your logic. You obviously believe that you're correct and that's obviously "affecting your judgement", so you're wrong...

This is not an answer to the question, try again!

14) You have repeatedly made statements that science is simply a process designed to make people agreeable: How then does that agreement occur, by flipping a coin? How can it NOT be objective?

You asked two questions. My answers are i.) The agreement occurs through discussion based on observations.ii.) It is only objective in the sense that people are seeing things from a limited point of view. It is not true objectivity, which is impossible to attain.

1) "Discussion based on observations" according to everything you have said is impossible. Not only because discussion is impossible, but because you believe that humans are wholly incapable of making observations without controlling those observations (in addition to your contradictory statements about subjective reality- you can't seem to make up your mind).

Either way... You're wrong! A "discussion based on observations" does not answer the question- and in fact attempts to circumvent it. How do these "discussions" occur, and are they necessary to the discovery of truth? If so, what "discussions" did you have presupposing that you were wrong- with whom, to now conclude that you're right, in your reality (because there are multiple realities) which you cannot confirm, but somehow know, but cannot explain?

You continue to neglect the difference between observation (perception) and conceptualization. More on that below.

15) And, you imply that it is selective in it's "agreeability" (but apparently, not to you). How is "who knows the truth" decided?

I don’t believe anyone knows the truth. It is the same question I have asked you, multiple times, for an answer.

And if we are to believe that you're right, then you're wrong. Your statement directly contradicts itself. Allow me to phrase it a different way: Is it true that there is no truth?

This is not an answer to the question, try again!

16) At what point did I specifically state or even imply that only I know the truth?

The moment you gave yourself the "we have a monopoly on reality" and "we have a monopoly on truth" badges. If it’s not just you, where are the other members of this club?

That question was answered already.

And this is not an answer to the question. You stated that I implied that ONLY I KNOW THE TRUTH. Your answer does not satisfy my challenge to your statement.

Either retract the statement, or try again!

17) Your attempt to change the definitions of the object I asked you to conceptualize shows that reality is objective. Your attempt to deny this was a direct contradiction, which was never resolved by you.

I disagree with your reasoning. My response was very detailed.

This is not an answer to the question, try again!

Your response was not an answer. I asked you to conceptualize an object based on a description I was giving in order to show that communication and objective reality were true. Part of the requirements of this test were that you did not add or subtract anything, or change my statements. In order to avoid the inevitable- that's exactly what you did. You did not give a suitable justifaction for this, and your claim that you "disagree with my reasoning" makes no sense whatsoever.

18) The fact that this statement: "Nay, one oberserves shapes as their brain is able to interpret them. It's as simple as that my friend." is a demonstration of an objective reality (although poorly worded). This statement contradicts everything else you have said about a subjective reality. This contradiction was never resolved.

I would disagree with this on the grounds of there being no way to tell how a shape is supposed to look and whether it is different for every person. A machine wouldn’t prove anything as we would still be examining the findings ourselves.

This is not an answer to the question, try again!

My example- the one where you changed everything you could- shows that this is not only possible, but it's relatively routine. You have directly avoided the fact that observation is the act of an observer on an reality. This statement is possible only through an objective reality. Instead of addressing that- you go into "there's no way to know" regression, which was demolished long ago, and sunk in my statements above.

19) What does communication have to do with reality?

I thought you weren’t being serious. This is a detailed subject which involves not only human communication but particle physics to explain in full detail. Communication is an underlying principal of the reality we experience. This however is not relevant to the discussion. Again, I continue to ask a question of you.Who decides what is true and how do you have a monopoly on truth and reality?

This is not an answer to the question, try again!

You've simply avoided the question by pretending it's far more complex than it needs to be. In order to combat that, I will rephrase the question, and you can attempt to avoid it again:

Does reality exist regardless of how we communicate about it?

You continually go back and forth between subjectivism, to relativism, to an objective reality. Each one of these views completely contradict the other- which is why you can't keep your story straight. This is a perfect example of that endless contradiction, which you are unable to resolve. You claim on the one hand that there is no such thing as truth, then you will turn around and state that truth is agreement- but you can't say how people agree because that would admit an objective view- but then you turn around and claim that reality cannot exist without communicating it.

My questions are specifically designed to point out these contradictions, and the fact that you continue to avoid them indicates that you are well aware of the contradictions, and simply cannot resolve them.

20) Where have I dodged the question- or more appropriately, which question has not been answered?
Who decides what is true and how do you have a monopoly on truth and reality?

Wrong!

The answer to this question was posted and then linked to several times already. You have presented rebuttals to these statements, which I have debunked, and that has brought us to where we are. You have not addressed the undeniable fact that the answer (and subsequent followup) has already been given in the following posts: #50, #103, #105, #108, #111, #114, #116, #119, #123, #126, #130, #134, #140, and #142.

21) Where have my statements been inconsistent, in contradiction, or unclear?

Claiming that you have a monopoly on reality and then stating that you don’t believe one can have a monopoly on reality. You did this without explaining what you meant by your idea of reality or having a monopoly on it and you continue to avoid the question every time I ask it.Who decides what is true and how do you have a monopoly on truth and reality?

And here we see exactly why you had to take the quote at the top of this post out of context in order to attempt to justify your accusations. I addressed this lie above. I've also addressed your accusation that I am "avoiding" your question.

How can I be avoiding it if I point to my response every single time you have asked for it?

Either retract the statement, or try again!

22) How can your statements about a subjective reality be true if you are asking for clarification? (The very act of asking for clarification demands an objective reality)

It means only that I am attempting to understand you.

Wrong!

You were trying to get clarification on things that were already said, as well as objects and statements already made. Trying to then flip that around and say you were merely trying to understand "me"- implying that I was unclear- is to avoid the question. The very act of scientific inquiry is a clarification it's asking the question and then finding the answer. You're committing the amphiboly fallacy by now changing the subject of the clarification (from reality to me).

23) Due to these contradictions, it is not entirely clear what you position is- although you have attempted to state that you believe in a subjective reality, your statements actually contradict this. So, which is it?

For me to believe that reality is subjective and that no truth is immediately accessible I would have to deny myself the luxury speaking of it in terms of fact. I tend to believe that what we experience of reality is subjective and that no further claims regarding the nature of an objective reality can be made because of it.

At least you can see that your answers make no sense. I don't expect any clarification from you on this point, because it's obvious you're incapable of giving it now: you realize it would be a direct contradiction- which for some reason you consider to be a "luxury"...

Not an answer to the question, try again!

24) What is "subjective reasoning"?

All reasoning is, the idea is almost a redundancy. To avoid confusion a context might need to be given but, as I said earlier, that is unlikely to change the situation much.

Much like your statements in regards to reality, this makes no sense at all. It's obvious, however, that you're again trying an amphiboly fallacy changing the usage of "subjective" to instead mean "personal" (which is not a proper definition). You believe that this will allow you to avoid the underlying question. Of course, I'm not going to allow that to happen.

What you are not saying here is that all reasoning is personal- it's done by humans. That doesn't mean that all reasoning is flawed, however, or that all reasoning is wrong. It does mean that reality is objective, though. Our observations and conclusions are based on that reality- and whether we're right or wrong has no bearing on reality whatsoever (you cannot claim that humans are always wrong, and then also claim that reality is also wrong). You're trying to switch out your previous statements in regards to a subjective reality to one which is now objective but patently unknowable. There are several (thousand) contradictions that arise when you attempt to do this: the first of which is the "is it true that truth does not exist" (stolen concept fallacy) which you're well aware of, and submitted to in your response to one of the questions above.

This is not an answer to the question, try again!

25) What is "standardization" if not being accurate to a measurement- and then having that measurement being a consequence of an objective reality?

To make this easier to answer I will refute the last part of the statement by claiming that there is no way to identify an objective reality as what we experience of it is relative to ourselves. It is because of this that we cannot move further into the idea of reality being objective.

The fact that you can't deny it without contradicting yourself is just the first step, kiddo. Considering the mountain of work required here to justify your statement- I'll settle for a retraction, for now.

26) Is the Internet not an example of an ever-increasing detailed language and communication medium which allows people to more quickly, accurately, and broadly explain concepts?

I’m sorry but the reason you had for asking this question is non-existent. I believe that what you claim, in this instance, is true and that I never made an attempt to refute it. The question I implied regarding it in your original statement was of the unidentifiable relevance it had to the conversation.Who decides what is true and how do you have a monopoly on truth and reality?

This is not an answer to the question, try again!

You're simply saying the question is irrelevant- neglecting of course that this is a list of questions you never answered.

27) How can one "make up" a context if reality is subjective?

To avoid confusion of thought.

This is not an answer to the question, please try again!

Your response here is completely ambiguous- and doesn't even address the question.

28) Give me one example of where my argument has been a strawman.

I hate straw men. You love to talk about them, I don’t know what your affiliation with them is but it’s obvious, due to one reason or another, that your personal experience seems to warrant you inserting the concept at every available opportunity. To answer this I will refer to your original claim of having a monopoly on truth and reality. I believe that is the "strawest" man that ever was.

Wrong!

That answer does not fit the defitnition of a strawman. I have already given you this response. You need to look up what a strawman is and retract your accusation.

29) Please define "perception" and "conception" and the differences between them.

Go look in a dictionary.

This is not an answer to the question, please try again!

I did- and I gave you that answer, and you continue to avoid it by inventing your own definitions. I am asking for your definitions because you are using them interchangibly, and they are two- very separate- concepts.

30) You attempted to use the Uncertainty Principle to claim that reality is subjective- and then quickly abandoned that position without reason. Can you explain how the UP is evidence of a subjective reality, and not an objective one?

It is evidence of a subjective interpretation of reality.

This is not an answer to the question, please try again!

You simply avoided the question, here. (ipse dixit)

31) How does the concept of "focus"- meaning that "something else comes to our attention"- consistent with a subjective reality. By its very definition, this is evidence of an objective and consistent reality.

It depends on a single concept and question. What is our involvement with reality?

This is not an answer to the question, please try again!

You simply avoided the question, here. (red herring)

32) Please clarify the statement: "Truth, as you understand it, isn't involved."

You enjoy to throw the word "truth" about to such an extent that your portrayal of it is fickle. It is because of that that I disagree with your notion of truth.

This is not an answer to the question, please try again!

You simply avoided the question here, and replaced it with another accusation- which is far too unspecific to mean anything.(ad hominem)

33) How can agreement exist if reality is subjective?

It stops headaches.

This is not an answer to the question, please try again!

You've simply avoided the question, here. (non-sequitur)

34) Please clarify the statement: "Not if you have familiarized yourself with it to the extent that you take it for granted."

I mean that you become overly familiar with a concept to the point that you do not ever question the validity of it in detail.

This is not an answer to the question, please try again!

You simply responded by giving me a defition of the term, instead of presenting your argument. (ambiguity)

35) Is it true that nothing can be verified objectively?

Who knows?

This is not an answer to the question, please try again!

You simply avoided the question, although it's safe to assume you cannot answer it- not because the (obvious) answer escapes you, but because answering it would contradict everything you have said.

You're simply avoiding the inevitable.

36) What is confusion if not an inconsistency to reality?

Conflicting ideas of perceived reality.

Wrong!

Again, refer to that dictionary. There is no such thing as a confusion of perceived reality- in that it makes no sense. Your answer is intentionally worded to avoid the obvious evidence of objective reality.

Conflicting ideas of conceptualized reality- or to put it more simply (considering all knowledge is contextual): conflicting ideas. The important thing to remember is that reality is objective, and the degree to which we have truth is the degree to which we are consistent with reality.

37) How many realities are there?

I don’t know, Totovader.

This is not an answer to the question, please try again!

Considering this is a list of questions you have not answered, "I don't know" is wholly insufficient- especially since your claim was that there are multiple realities. I'm simply demanding that you justify that statement, or retract it.

38) And how do you know?

You did not answer this question, please try again!

39) Why would an agreement require that every interpretation in existence be defined? This ignores a subjective reality and an objective reality and replaces it simply with language.

Anything we perceive of this argument will be based on the interpretation of language. In regards to your claim of having a monopoly on truth and reality, I would expect you to at least answer the questions of who decides what is true and how you might have a monopoly on truth and reality or else you are forced to define every truth and reality it is that you have jurisdiction over.

Your statement doesn't make any sense. Your "or" does not logically flow from your previous statement, regardless of what you expect. Additionally, we've already established above that language is irrelevant (although you avoid the question entirely).

This is not an answer to the question, please try again!

40) If something can be true for you, and not for someone else- how is it possible to communicate?

By acknowledging the presence of two or more individuals.

You did not answer this question, please try again!

You avoided the question by defining what more than one person is, instead of presenting an answer to the question. (Ignoratio elenchi)

41) Please define the concept of "human reality".

Perceived reality.

Followup question: why make a distinction between "reality" and "human reality/perceived reality" when you believe that "reality" itself does not exist independent of humans (and human communication)?

42) Is it true that "human reality" is not "objective reality"?

That’s a reasonable assumption.

And we end up at your core contradiction: you will claim that human reality is different than objective reality, so we can never have truth. By now, even you recognize the contradiction, here- though you cannot resolve it without submitting to an objective reality.

43) What role does "luck" play in scientific study?

Some of these questions you never actually asked but decided to claim that you did so as to give a false impression of the situation. I will answer this question if you answer mine.Who decides what is true and how do you have a monopoly on truth and reality?

You did not answer this question, please try again!

You said:
You think that luck doesn't come into science, would you dare suggest such a thing?

I would like you to justify this statement with an argument.

44) What is your basis for the claim that what is true can be true for one person, and false for another?

Personal experience.

You did not answer this question, please try again!

You have avoided the question, here. (ipse dixit)

45) Please provide evidence for the statement: "Gravity is not objective as its laws do not apply to all perceptions of reality(ies)."

Refer to the idea of a unified theory.

You did not answer this question, please try again!

You answered with an incomplete and ambiguous statement. (argument by proxy)

46) How can your experience define a subjective reality?

By experiencing it, that's the whole point.

You did not answer this question, please try again!

You have avoided the question by simply stating "it is". (ipse dixit) Furthermore, you attempt to define reality as experience (denying what it is that is being experienced) and then in the next sentence will claim that experience defines reality. Your answer- therefore- contradicts your previous statements.

47) How have I been hypocritical?

See above section.

You did not answer this question, please try again!

48) Prove that reality is subjective.

Which reality? : p

You did not answer this question, please try again!

You avoided the question by attempting to change the meaning of the statement (and negating previous statements in reference to "multiple realities" in the process).

[jhunter1163]

This thread is in dire need of some kittens. Or puppies.

[pagan]

Imply nothing- I mean to specifically state- as clearly and loudly as possible- that I have already answered the question. That statement should be so unbelievable clear to you at this point that it would require you to literally be closing your eyes as you read my statements. I have linked- repeatedly- to the statements that answer your question when you first asked it.

I cannot make it any more clear for you than that- barring any challenge to my statements.



So your definition of getting down to business is to continue to repeat lies?

How many times do I need to link you to the statements where I answered this question the first time?

How many times will it take?



Wrong!

Hypocrite is not having my quotes mashed up to say something I didn't say in order for you to claim I am of the label you clearly are.

Instead of answering the questions and moving on- you've felt it necessary to take all my comments out of context in order to try and call me a hypocrite. Again, you do this in order to try and avoid the debate itself- in order to divert attention away from your own hypocrisy- your own failures. You even admit as much in this statement. Just to make me happy you're going to take everything I say out of context- admittedly- in order to "bring light" to my ideas?

That's insane.



Look at how you had to take these quotes completely out of context in order to try to make your point.

Here's the original statement:



So, let's see if we can understand this. You are presenting my "argument in a fallacious way (I admit I am doing this for the single section) but it brings to light so many of your ideas."

Does that make sense? You have to completely change what I'm saying in order to make light of my ideas?

Seems like you continue to shoot yourself in the foot. You're stumbling over your own contradictions at this point. In order to try and claim that I am incorrect or illogical, you have to change what I've said. Sort of self-defeating, don't you think?




I snipped all these out because the above example is all I need to do in order to defend my character. You intentionally did not post links to those statements because you know you took them out of context- and even admitted as such. Taken in context, my statements make sense- and they do not say what you want them to. Any reader of this mess of a thread will be able to at least see that your statements admit you're a liar- and if they take the time to hunt down the quotes you were using, they will see that your efforts to impeach my character end up impeaching your own.




Let's get one thing straight: you didn't answer these questions before, that's why I had to repost them. You certainly responded to a large number of them, but an answer is not the same thing. In addition, all these questions sum up one undeniable fact: you have contradicted yourself on many occasions; instead of confronting that contradiction and resolving it, you've decided to try to rewind the debate. I'm not going to allow that to happen.



Well, then all that matters is that I accept my own ideas. Then- according to your [failed] logic, I would have a monopoly on truth- because according to you truth is simply an acceptance of ideas.

Your answer makes no sense. Please try again.



This is not an answer to the question. Please try again.



In addition to these not being ad hominems, they are indeed both strawmans. I never said you don't understand [this discussion] because you don't "take sides". I clarified that in post #114:



And what was your response to this? Nothing.

I also never said that people who are religious are incapable of reason. I said that faith is the antithesis of reason. So your statement- in addition to being another strawman attempt to change my statements- is wrong.

Retract the statement, or try again!



Wrong!

It's not "completely separate", meaning your answer is invalid. I explained why it was insufficient already- it ignores the 2nd part of my rebuttal.



Quote needed!

I never said that religious people are incapable of reasoning. However, it's interesting to note that you had claimed that science was a religion- and indicated that it was therefore invalid and wrong. How does this make any sense when compared to your statement above? Yet again, you completely contradict yourself.



You had said that the JREF forums were not made up of scientists and critical thinkers- but instead were just emotional people.

You were never able to support that statement.

Either retract the statement, or try again!



This is not an answer to the question- and is in fact an ad hominem. Being emotional does not necessarily mean that a person is incapable of using the scientific method. You then use this failed reasoning to conclude that reasoning is therefore invalid because it's impossible to remove emotion from the human experience- again, contradicting yourself. You're reasoning that reasoning is necessarily invalid. Obviously this cannot be true.

This is not an answer to the question, try again!



This is not an answer to the question. The belief that one is right is irrelevant to the fact of being right or wrong. This, again, is an ad hominem.

This is not an answer to the question, try again!



Not only is this a strawman- I have never been "indecisive" in my statements regarding "monopoly on truth"- but indecisiveness is not a synonym for circular reasoning.

This is not an answer to the question, try again!



Again, a strawman- and again, not an answer to the question. Even if I were "selfish"- that has nothing to do with you repeatedly contradicting yourself. Additionally (of course) your question has been answered... repeatedly.

This is not an answer to the question, try again!



This is not an answer to the question, try again!

This contradicts your other statements- additionally, it contradicts the original statement this question was based on.

You had said that stating you were bastardizing science (by claiming that it was subjective and religious) is turning this place into a cult.

So how does your response above address that line of thinking? (Hint: it doesn't.)



Multiple strawman- I never said I was in a position of authority- I said, as a matter of fact- much to the opposite. Additionally, following science is not an example of not being impartial. You are committing the guilt by association fallacy, here: Since "science" has been wrong, all science and scientists are therefore not being impartial. Utter nonsense. Hitler was a German. Hitler was a Nazi. Therefore all Germans are Nazis...

Quit a large pile of steaming excrement, you have there.

This is not an answer to the question, try again!



Neglecting that you don't believe in truth- having a belief in validity does not affect judgement or scientific inquiry necessarily. That's what the scientific method is, so you really didn't answer my question. Again, you try and stuff fallacies into your argument in order to claim that some humans are fallible some of the time, therefore humans are always fallible.

If you were correct- we again could not agree with you according to your logic. You obviously believe that you're correct and that's obviously "affecting your judgement", so you're wrong...

This is not an answer to the question, try again!



1) "Discussion based on observations" according to everything you have said is impossible. Not only because discussion is impossible, but because you believe that humans are wholly incapable of making observations without controlling those observations (in addition to your contradictory statements about subjective reality- you can't seem to make up your mind).

Either way... You're wrong! A "discussion based on observations" does not answer the question- and in fact attempts to circumvent it. How do these "discussions" occur, and are they necessary to the discovery of truth? If so, what "discussions" did you have presupposing that you were wrong- with whom, to now conclude that you're right, in your reality (because there are multiple realities) which you cannot confirm, but somehow know, but cannot explain?

You continue to neglect the difference between observation (perception) and conceptualization. More on that below.



And if we are to believe that you're right, then you're wrong. Your statement directly contradicts itself. Allow me to phrase it a different way: Is it true that there is no truth?

This is not an answer to the question, try again!



That question was answered already.

And this is not an answer to the question. You stated that I implied that ONLY I KNOW THE TRUTH. Your answer does not satisfy my challenge to your statement.

Either retract the statement, or try again!



This is not an answer to the question, try again!

Your response was not an answer. I asked you to conceptualize an object based on a description I was giving in order to show that communication and objective reality were true. Part of the requirements of this test were that you did not add or subtract anything, or change my statements. In order to avoid the inevitable- that's exactly what you did. You did not give a suitable justifaction for this, and your claim that you "disagree with my reasoning" makes no sense whatsoever.



This is not an answer to the question, try again!

My example- the one where you changed everything you could- shows that this is not only possible, but it's relatively routine. You have directly avoided the fact that observation is the act of an observer on an reality. This statement is possible only through an objective reality. Instead of addressing that- you go into "there's no way to know" regression, which was demolished long ago, and sunk in my statements above.



This is not an answer to the question, try again!

You've simply avoided the question by pretending it's far more complex than it needs to be. In order to combat that, I will rephrase the question, and you can attempt to avoid it again:

Does reality exist regardless of how we communicate about it?

You continually go back and forth between subjectivism, to relativism, to an objective reality. Each one of these views completely contradict the other- which is why you can't keep your story straight. This is a perfect example of that endless contradiction, which you are unable to resolve. You claim on the one hand that there is no such thing as truth, then you will turn around and state that truth is agreement- but you can't say how people agree because that would admit an objective view- but then you turn around and claim that reality cannot exist without communicating it.

My questions are specifically designed to point out these contradictions, and the fact that you continue to avoid them indicates that you are well aware of the contradictions, and simply cannot resolve them.



Wrong!

The answer to this question was posted and then linked to several times already. You have presented rebuttals to these statements, which I have debunked, and that has brought us to where we are. You have not addressed the undeniable fact that the answer (and subsequent followup) has already been given in the following posts: #50, #103, #105, #108, #111, #114, #116, #119, #123, #126, #130, #134, #140, and #142.



And here we see exactly why you had to take the quote at the top of this post out of context in order to attempt to justify your accusations. I addressed this lie above. I've also addressed your accusation that I am "avoiding" your question.

How can I be avoiding it if I point to my response every single time you have asked for it?

Either retract the statement, or try again!



Wrong!

You were trying to get clarification on things that were already said, as well as objects and statements already made. Trying to then flip that around and say you were merely trying to understand "me"- implying that I was unclear- is to avoid the question. The very act of scientific inquiry is a clarification it's asking the question and then finding the answer. You're committing the amphiboly fallacy by now changing the subject of the clarification (from reality to me).



At least you can see that your answers make no sense. I don't expect any clarification from you on this point, because it's obvious you're incapable of giving it now: you realize it would be a direct contradiction- which for some reason you consider to be a "luxury"...

Not an answer to the question, try again!



Much like your statements in regards to reality, this makes no sense at all. It's obvious, however, that you're again trying an amphiboly fallacy changing the usage of "subjective" to instead mean "personal" (which is not a proper definition). You believe that this will allow you to avoid the underlying question. Of course, I'm not going to allow that to happen.

What you are not saying here is that all reasoning is personal- it's done by humans. That doesn't mean that all reasoning is flawed, however, or that all reasoning is wrong. It does mean that reality is objective, though. Our observations and conclusions are based on that reality- and whether we're right or wrong has no bearing on reality whatsoever (you cannot claim that humans are always wrong, and then also claim that reality is also wrong). You're trying to switch out your previous statements in regards to a subjective reality to one which is now objective but patently unknowable. There are several (thousand) contradictions that arise when you attempt to do this: the first of which is the "is it true that truth does not exist" (stolen concept fallacy) which you're well aware of, and submitted to in your response to one of the questions above.

This is not an answer to the question, try again!



The fact that you can't deny it without contradicting yourself is just the first step, kiddo. Considering the mountain of work required here to justify your statement- I'll settle for a retraction, for now.



This is not an answer to the question, try again!

You're simply saying the question is irrelevant- neglecting of course that this is a list of questions you never answered.



This is not an answer to the question, please try again!

Your response here is completely ambiguous- and doesn't even address the question.



Wrong!

That answer does not fit the defitnition of a strawman. I have already given you this response. You need to look up what a strawman is and retract your accusation.



This is not an answer to the question, please try again!

I did- and I gave you that answer, and you continue to avoid it by inventing your own definitions. I am asking for your definitions because you are using them interchangibly, and they are two- very separate- concepts.



This is not an answer to the question, please try again!

You simply avoided the question, here. (ipse dixit)



This is not an answer to the question, please try again!

You simply avoided the question, here. (red herring)



This is not an answer to the question, please try again!

You simply avoided the question here, and replaced it with another accusation- which is far too unspecific to mean anything.(ad hominem)



This is not an answer to the question, please try again!

You've simply avoided the question, here. (non-sequitur)



This is not an answer to the question, please try again!

You simply responded by giving me a defition of the term, instead of presenting your argument. (ambiguity)



This is not an answer to the question, please try again!

You simply avoided the question, although it's safe to assume you cannot answer it- not because the (obvious) answer escapes you, but because answering it would contradict everything you have said.

You're simply avoiding the inevitable.



Wrong!

Again, refer to that dictionary. There is no such thing as a confusion of perceived reality- in that it makes no sense. Your answer is intentionally worded to avoid the obvious evidence of objective reality.

Conflicting ideas of conceptualized reality- or to put it more simply (considering all knowledge is contextual): conflicting ideas. The important thing to remember is that reality is objective, and the degree to which we have truth is the degree to which we are consistent with reality.



This is not an answer to the question, please try again!

Considering this is a list of questions you have not answered, "I don't know" is wholly insufficient- especially since your claim was that there are multiple realities. I'm simply demanding that you justify that statement, or retract it.



You did not answer this question, please try again!



Your statement doesn't make any sense. Your "or" does not logically flow from your previous statement, regardless of what you expect. Additionally, we've already established above that language is irrelevant (although you avoid the question entirely).

This is not an answer to the question, please try again!



You did not answer this question, please try again!

You avoided the question by defining what more than one person is, instead of presenting an answer to the question. (Ignoratio elenchi)



Followup question: why make a distinction between "reality" and "human reality/perceived reality" when you believe that "reality" itself does not exist independent of humans (and human communication)?



And we end up at your core contradiction: you will claim that human reality is different than objective reality, so we can never have truth. By now, even you recognize the contradiction, here- though you cannot resolve it without submitting to an objective reality.



You did not answer this question, please try again!

You said:


I would like you to justify this statement with an argument.



You did not answer this question, please try again!

You have avoided the question, here. (ipse dixit)



You did not answer this question, please try again!

You answered with an incomplete and ambiguous statement. (argument by proxy)



You did not answer this question, please try again!

You have avoided the question by simply stating "it is". (ipse dixit) Furthermore, you attempt to define reality as experience (denying what it is that is being experienced) and then in the next sentence will claim that experience defines reality. Your answer- therefore- contradicts your previous statements.



You did not answer this question, please try again!



You did not answer this question, please try again!

You avoided the question by attempting to change the meaning of the statement (and negating previous statements in reference to "multiple realities" in the process).

:dl:

There you have your puppy, Mate.

[Expression_man]

Totovader, stop with the rubbish, red-herrings and selective reasoning.

Who decides what is true and how you have a monopoly on truth and reality?

To talk about anything else at this time would be to go even further off-topic. I can get back to your confusion regarding my answers (maybe) once we sort that out.

What excuse do you have for not answering this question given the notion that everything is perceived relative to the experience of an individual?

Well, that would answer itself I think.

It means that you can't have a monopoly on truth and reality.

The closest you come to attaining such a thing is by having a personal opinion of it.

[Totovader]

Totovader, stop with the rubbish, red-herrings and selective reasoning.

Please quote where I have committed a red herring or "selective reasoning" (whatever the crap that means).

Who decides what is true and how you have a monopoly on truth and reality?

This question was already answered above, and linked to multiple times.

Refusal to respond to those links at the very least constitutes as a failure on your part.

To talk about anything else at this time would be to go even further off-topic. I can get back to your confusion regarding my answers (maybe) once we sort that out.

Actually, I have stated many times that you have attempted to loop the discussion back around in order to avoid these very issues. You're simply using my complaint against yourself at this point. If you honestly believe that the discussion has gone off course- then get back to the point where you should have been answering my questions, and address the fact that I have pointed to where I answered yours- which you claim I never did.

Your "demand" is- quite obviously- a red herring. You're creating a diversion of demanding that I answer a question I've already answered (repeatedly) in order to draw attention away from the fact that the consequences of me answering that question have lead you to expose several contradictions in your theory. In order to avoid those contradictions, you want to loop the conversation back around and pretend that I never answered your question.

There is no rewind button in debate. Either address the fact that this question has already been answered and deal with it, or remove yourself from the discussion.

What excuse do you have for not answering this question given the notion that everything is perceived relative to the experience of an individual?

Your "given" does not logically flow from the complex question fallacy before it. Together, that makes an interesting ignoratio elenchi or invalid conclusion.

Well, that would answer itself I think.

Mind explaining how- since you're the only one that seems to think that way?

It means that you can't have a monopoly on truth and reality.

Again, this doesn't logically follow from your premise.


The closest you come to attaining such a thing is by having a personal opinion of it.

Pot, have you have met kettle, then?

My argument has been painfully clear and concise. Your only challenge to anything I've said is to repeat your question. I have absolute confidence that anyone still reading this thread can just as easily see that- also proving my point.

[ref]

This thread really has the life of it's own. Wow. Beer anyone?

[Peephole]

And then, at 0921, the phantom A11 report came in, and the Otis fighters were directed towards Washington DC.
Didn't they keep them over New York?

[Totovader]

This thread really has the life of it's own. Wow. Beer anyone?

It seems to have become the vulnerability of the scientific movement...

[jhunter1163]

Thanks for the dog, Pagan. We needed that.

[Expression_man]

Totovader

Still avoiding the question I see : p

Your claim really does belong in the conspiracy theories forum.

[Totovader]

Totovader

Still avoiding the question I see : p

Your claim really does belong in the conspiracy theories forum.

What makes you think this is going to work? Not everyone is as blind as you.

[Brainache]

I'd like to ask Expressionman a question, but since reality is subjective, I'm worried that I'm just a little voice inside his brain and have no objective existence. So maybe I'll start humming a Brittany Spears tune and just annoy him instead.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

What makes you think this is going to work? Not everyone is as blind as you.
Remember: nothing can be verified for him. He can't be sure that you've actually answered the question, so he must keep asking it forever. :rolleyes:

He's wasting his own time with this crap. Don't let him waste yours, too.