Disputation with Gordon Ross

[pomeroo]

I invited Gordon Ross to participate in a disputation about his recently posted response to the new paper by Bazant and Greening. He accepted in a polite reply that appears below. Dr. Greening has opted not to examine Ross, so we have to organize a team of two or three qualified disputants. Ryan Mackey is an obvious choice for the rationalist side, but there are several other regulars here with impressive science backgrounds. It is suggested that volunteers be familiar with the exchanges between Ross and Greening that have appeared on the physorg forum.

The Doc has created the platform we require, so let's get started. We are attempting to arrange in-depth confrontations between fantasists and debunkers that are free from the distractions of public debates. Isn't the prospect of assembling such an accessible body of knowledge appealing? Think how useful it will be to dispose of a recycled canard by simply citing the results of, say, Mackey vs. Wood, or Roberts vs. Ryan, or Gumboot vs. Balsamo. Yes, many of these charlatans will refuse to engage us, but that is an accomplishment in its own right.

Who wants in?


Hi Ronald,

Thanks for your e-mail. I'm not sure what you mean by "a series of disputations, in the manner of the Scholastics". I haven't got a clue what the Scholastics are. Some more detail would be good but other than that I can't really see a problem.

One thing you should be aware of is with regard to time deadlines. My situation is such that I cannot guarantee to be on hand to fulfill tight deadlines and my computer access can be limited or curtailed for periods of a few days at a time. This can happen without much notice and makes it difficult, at times, to continue a prolonged dialogue.

With my limited time in mind I would be happy to participate in any attempt to advance our understanding with new ideas and physical evidence, beyond the old tired arguments that currently circulate.

Gordon.




Ronald Wieck wrote:Dear Mr. Ross,I occasionally host a public access show, 'Hardfire,' that airs in New York City and its suburbs. Over the past year, we have featured debates pitting prominent conspiracy theorists such as Jim Fetzer and the Loose Change boys against Mark Roberts, a rationalist with an encyclopedic knowledge of 9/11-related issues.Debates can be excellent entertainment, but they provide theater at the expense of a serious exchange of views. I am proposing something different: a series of disputations, in the manner of the Scholastics, for the purpose of resolving what is capable of resolution or, at minimum, delineating the current status of the controversy.These disputations will be structured to permit the methodical development of complex arguments and to disallow the distractions that attend public debates.I propose to initiate the series with your response to the new Greening-Bazant paper. Dr. Greening, NASA engineer R.Mackey, and possibly one other regular poster on the JREF will offer critiques of your response. You, in turn, are invited to challenge them. I trust that you'll agree that the prospect of advancing our understanding of the collapse of the Twin Towers makes this project a worthy one. Best Regards,Ronald Wieck

[Architect]

Ron

I can categorically confirm that the term "disputations" is not used in the UK, and "Scholastics" is a series of patronising US children's books which were briefly imported in the mid 70s before being consigned to the school dustbins.

That aside, I'm concerned that our Dundonian's idea of "tired old theories" might be what the rest of us call science and established fact. But there you go.

You can count me in on any discussions regarding general design and constructional matters, but for structures you'll want someone like Newton's Bit who can crunch numbers.

You'll observe that my normal defence of all things Scottish does not extend to our home-grown Truthers.

;)

[pomeroo]

Ron

I can categorically confirm that the term "disputations" is not used in the UK, and "Scholastics" is a series of patronising US children's books which were briefly imported in the mid 70s before being consigned to the school dustbins.

That aside, I'm concerned that our Dundonian's idea of "tired old theories" might be what the rest of us call science and established fact. But there you go.

You can count me in on any discussions regarding general design and constructional matters, but for structures you'll want someone like Newton's Bit who can crunch numbers.

You'll observe that my normal defence of all things Scottish does not extend to our home-grown Truthers.

;)



Architect, your contributions to the debate are outstandingly valuable. I agree with you that Newton's Bit would make a superb addition to the team.

How are the Scholastics referred to in the UK? Schoolmen, perhaps? Mortimer Adler revived the practice of holding disputations, engaging in several at the Aspen Institute.

[Architect]

Do you mean academics?

[pomeroo]

Do you mean academics?


Well, they were academics, of course, but I'm referring to the medieval theologians lecturing at the great universities in Paris, Louvain, Bologna, Oxford, etc. Public disputations were a common practice.

[Architect]

I think in the UK we'd jsut call them debates, to be honest. It's not a term in widespread use in the UK and wouldn't be generally understood - interestingly I always found it amusing that what many Brits considered to be "Americanisms" were infact relict English terms.

Scholastic would be used to refer solely to being scholarly, for example "he had a rather scholastic bent" but would be considerd unusual. Academia usually uses different terms to describe itself.

Not that any of this is relevant to your OP, so apologies for the derail!


Well, they were academics, of course, but I'm referring to the medieval theologians lecturing at the great universities in Paris, Louvain, Bologna, Oxford, etc. Public disputations were a common practice

Is Oxford actually medieaval? You live and learn. I had always thought it was about the same age as St. Andrews, which is 15th century and hence pushing the term a little. But my university, Strathclyde, was only founded in the 18th century, so what would I know????

[ConspiRaider]

Ron -

People have told me I'm handsome and have a nice disputation and I'm a wiseass besides. Am I overqualified? If so I'll take back the "handsome".

Lemme know.

[Apollo20]

Pomeroo:

Let's be clear on what I said about your proposal to have a "disputation" with GR because it is certainly inaccurate to say that "Dr. Greening opted not to examine Ross."

Here is what I actually said:

"I think the proper way to "debate" my paper with Bazant is by writing to the editors of the Journal of Engineering Mechanics or by submitting a counter argument to an appropriate peer-reviewed journal. I believe Ross has already gone the letter-to-the-editor route. It remains to be seen if the editors listen to Ross, or, I should add, accept my paper with Bazant!"

[AZCat]

Pomeroo:

Let's be clear on what I said about your proposal to have a "disputation" with GR because it is certainly inaccurate to say that "Dr. Greening opted not to examine Ross."

Here is what I actually said:

"I think the proper way to "debate" my paper with Bazant is by writing to the editors of the Journal of Engineering Mechanics or by submitting a counter argument to an appropriate peer-reviewed journal. I believe Ross has already gone the letter-to-the-editor route. It remains to be seen if the editors listen to Ross, or, I should add, accept my paper with Bazant!"

Dr. Greening - when do you think you'll find out if the Journal accepted your paper for publication?

[Apollo20]

AZCat:

I really have no idea! Based on past experience, journals can take anywhere from weeks to months to review a paper. The reviewers can send it back for all sorts of revisions too....

I also know of cases were Professors "sat" on a paper they had been asked to review so they could get their own material submitted and published first in order to "scoop" the competition.

Ah yes, it's a dog-eat-dog world ..... even in academia!

[AZCat]

AZCat:

I really have no idea! Based on past experience, journals can take anywhere from weeks to months to review a paper. The reviewers can send it back for all sorts of revisions too....

I also know of cases were Professors "sat" on a paper they had been asked to review so they could get their own material submitted and published first in order to "scoop" the competition.

Ah yes, it's a dog-eat-dog world ..... even in academia!


Wow - I didn't realize the process could take so long. It sounds a lot like the building permit process, what with the revisions and pointless delays. I guess bureaucracy is the same everywhere - sluggish and parochial.

Please let us know when (or what) you hear.

[pomeroo]

Pomeroo:

Let's be clear on what I said about your proposal to have a "disputation" with GR because it is certainly inaccurate to say that "Dr. Greening opted not to examine Ross."

Here is what I actually said:

"I think the proper way to "debate" my paper with Bazant is by writing to the editors of the Journal of Engineering Mechanics or by submitting a counter argument to an appropriate peer-reviewed journal. I believe Ross has already gone the letter-to-the-editor route. It remains to be seen if the editors listen to Ross, or, I should add, accept my paper with Bazant!"



Frank, I would naturally be delighted if you accepted my invitation to examine Ross in the first of what I assume will be a series of related disputations. Possibly I haven't made clear the difference between a debate and a disputation. In a debate, one side will often introduce evidence that it hopes the other side hasn't seen. Forensic skill plays a large role in determining the outcome. In a disputation, the ability to craft logical, well-structured arguments is paramount. An issue isn't resolved until it has been worn to rags.

[pomeroo]

Ron -

People have told me I'm handsome and have a nice disputation and I'm a wiseass besides. Am I overqualified? If so I'll take back the "handsome".

Lemme know.



Well, there's no disputatin' that you're a wiseass, but that's one of the things we love about you.

[pomeroo]

Pomeroo:

Let's be clear on what I said about your proposal to have a "disputation" with GR because it is certainly inaccurate to say that "Dr. Greening opted not to examine Ross."

Here is what I actually said:

"I think the proper way to "debate" my paper with Bazant is by writing to the editors of the Journal of Engineering Mechanics or by submitting a counter argument to an appropriate peer-reviewed journal. I believe Ross has already gone the letter-to-the-editor route. It remains to be seen if the editors listen to Ross, or, I should add, accept my paper with Bazant!"



Frank, I have no reason in the world to quarrel with you, but how can it be "inaccurate" to say that you opted not to examine Ross? I wrote you a lengthy e-mail explaining why I thought a series of formal disputations would offer an excellent opportunity to compare what the two sides are claiming and assess the relative merits of their positions. I was keenly disappointed when you showed no interest. If you want to participate, then I'm delighted to hear it.

[R.Mackey]

Here is what I actually said:

"I think the proper way to "debate" my paper with Bazant is by writing to the editors of the Journal of Engineering Mechanics or by submitting a counter argument to an appropriate peer-reviewed journal. I believe Ross has already gone the letter-to-the-editor route. It remains to be seen if the editors listen to Ross, or, I should add, accept my paper with Bazant!"


Yes, the peer-review process can take several weeks, and many months more for actual publication, depending on the journal. The process grinds slowly, but it does also grind small...

Peer-review is, of course, not an iron-clad guarantee of correctness. Once in a while something will escape the reviewers. However, the mere fact that a paper is submitted for independent review, let alone survives, says a great deal about the completeness of its ideas and the confidence of authors in its conclusions. In contrast, those who refuse to submit their work to peer-review, including Gordon Ross, well...

It should be evident that the "disputation" is not a peer-review process, more of a formalized but amateur debate. It should allow us to better understand the papers presented. If, however, this is going to interfere with the ordinary publication process in the eyes of the authors, then we should probably rethink it. Arguing papers while they are under review, or even preprints, is unusual.

[pomeroo]

Yes, the peer-review process can take several weeks, and many months more for actual publication, depending on the journal. The process grinds slowly, but it does also grind small...

Peer-review is, of course, not an iron-clad guarantee of correctness. Once in a while something will escape the reviewers. However, the mere fact that a paper is submitted for independent review, let alone survives, says a great deal about the completeness of its ideas and the confidence of authors in its conclusions. In contrast, those who refuse to submit their work to peer-review, including Gordon Ross, well...

It should be evident that the "disputation" is not a peer-review process, more of a formalized but amateur debate. It should allow us to better understand the papers presented. If, however, this is going to interfere with the ordinary publication process in the eyes of the authors, then we should probably rethink it. Arguing papers while they are under review, or even preprints, is unusual.



Not to nitpick, but Ross would be defending his response to the paper.

[R.Mackey]

Yes, I understand this. The point is that Drs. Bazant, Greening, etc. are under no obligation to respond to Ross. Their point of contact is the journal editor. Responding to Ross directly cannot strengthen, and can only weaken (though it probably won't) their case for publication.

Our interest is different. But it may be difficult to argue against Gordon Ross's whitepaper without dragging the original, submitted paper into the discussion. It's a fine ethical line.

[WildCat]

It sounds a lot like the building permit process, what with the revisions and pointless delays. I guess bureaucracy is the same everywhere - sluggish and parochial.
You should see the process for getting a porch permit here in Chicago - everyone is afraid to sign off on the plans because they're in major CYA mode after this disaster (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Midwest/06/29/deck.collapse/) (which actually killed 13 people btw). After that, the city changed the building code so that porches have to withstand a ridiculous 100 lbs/sq. ft. live load, by comparison the building proper only requires 30 lbs/sq. ft. Of course, the porch that collapsed wasn't even built to the old building code but since the building inspectors here are all a bunch of hacks who get their jobs because of political connections and don't know a damned thing about proper porch construction we ended up with the current CYA solution.

And btw, I lived a few blocks away from there and went by the next day, it was immediately obvious to me even in the collapsed state (and the city had already hauled most of it away) what had gone wrong... but I have been building and repairing these for 25 years and actually know a thing or 2 about them.

Ahhh, beauracracy... :rolleyes:

[Newtons Bit]

WildCat: There's good reason for that 100psf. It's actually not that hard to design for and it's a good idea to do anyways. The International Building Code (which most of the nation uses, except some places which refuse to get rid of the old UBC), which currently references ASCE7, requires 100psf. Most of the nation now uses this.

Morons will over-use balconies, they have to be designed for the "drunken idiot" load. I actually have labeled a load on one of my calcs as the "drunken idiot" load too. It frequently controls design =\

[AZCat]

WildCat: There's good reason for that 100psf. It's actually not that hard to design for and it's a good idea to do anyways. The International Building Code (which most of the nation uses, except some places which refuse to get rid of the old UBC), which currently references ASCE7, requires 100psf. Most of the nation now uses this.

Morons will over-use balconies, they have to be designed for the "drunken idiot" load. I actually have labeled a load on one of my calcs as the "drunken idiot" load too. It frequently controls design =\

I have the "drunken idiot" factor, but in my case it refers to me, not the future inhabitants of my buildings!

[WildCat]

WildCat: There's good reason for that 100psf. It's actually not that hard to design for and it's a good idea to do anyways. The International Building Code (which most of the nation uses, except some places which refuse to get rid of the old UBC), which currently references ASCE7, requires 100psf. Most of the nation now uses this.

Morons will over-use balconies, they have to be designed for the "drunken idiot" load. I actually have labeled a load on one of my calcs as the "drunken idiot" load too. It frequently controls design =\
No, not hard to design for but it adds greatly to the cost of a porch if the contractor actually follows the blueprint. Many don't, and the idiot building inspectors (who all come from a single politically-connected Carpenters Union Local) don't seem to notice this. So some contractors use undersized bolts, lighter-gauge supporting brackets than the code requires. And get away with it.

And as far as inspections go, it's a complete crap shoot. I'm working on a porch repair right now (it's an old porch, but nothing is grandfathered in any more) where the inspector got all worked up over the decks (which IMHO were just fine, but it was the old-style 6x6 lookout in a pocket in the masonry at one end and notched into a 6x6 column at the other), so we tore them all out and did the whole ledger board construction they love now. Meanwhile, the winder stringers are completely miscut, badly designed and/or built, and are a clear and imminent hazard IMHO. But the inspector didn't write those up at all for some reason, go figure. The building owner is selling so doesn't want to do a single thing the inspector didn't write up, so there ya go. Oh, and when you go from 2x8 joists to 2x10 and 3/4" decking to 1 1/2" it really messes up the transition from deck to step... the first step is now either too high or too low, a complete ***************.

I completely understand why the codes needed to be revised, but it is unecessary on existing porches that don't extend more than 7 feet from the building - the limit for a 6x6 lookout. But then people wanted 10 feet of porch, and incompetent carpenters like the guy who built the one that collapsed frequently underbuilt them.

The old designs were good for 150 lbs/sq. ft. dead load, don't know what the live load rating was.

Sorry for the derail folks... :boxedin:

[The Doc]

My first choices would be a combination of any of the following:

Dr. Greening
Ryan Mackey
Newton's Bit
Architect.

I sent out an email to Richard Gage a week or so ago trying to organize a formal debate between him and Architect, but never got a response.

I will be able to set this up on 911debates.com whenever is necessary.

[Apollo20]

Ron:

I really wonder why you and many other JREFers would want to debate the likes of Gordon Ross or Steven Jones when you spend so much time on this site describing such "Truthers" as stupid, inane, idiots and liars. If that is what you really believe, then surely any logic and reason applied to the debate would be wasted on such fools and charlatans; so why bother? A “debate” surely implies a situation where both sides initially have a chance of “winning”. A process involving a thesis and an antithesis leading to a synthesis – a true Hegelian dialectic! However, given that the JREFers have an obvious distain for anyone who exhibits even a modicum of skepticism over the official line on 9/11, I would expect a JREF “disputation” with any “Truther” to be more like a scene from a Kafka novel (or perhaps Orwell's 1984)…

[Kent1]

Lets stick to science and topics and hand rather than attempts of mudslinging to bolster ones perceived neutrality. Later of course to be regurgitated and strike headlines on 911blogger.

[Brainster]

Ron:

I really wonder why you and many other JREFers would want to debate the likes of Gordon Ross or Steven Jones when you spend so much time on this site describing such "Truthers" as stupid, inane, idiots and liars. If that is what you really believe, then surely any logic and reason applied to the debate would be wasted on such fools and charlatans; so why bother? A “debate” surely implies a situation where both sides initially have a chance of “winning”. A process involving a thesis and an antithesis leading to a synthesis – a true Hegelian dialectic! However, given that the JREFers have an obvious distain for anyone who exhibits even a modicum of skepticism over the official line on 9/11, I would expect a JREF “disputation” with any “Truther” to be more like a scene from a Kafka novel (or perhaps Orwell's 1984)…

Isn't it at least possible that these disputations are an attempt to get around the ad-hominem arguments? And aren't you now being just as guilty of deriding all JREF forum members with a broad brush as you claim we are of deriding 9-11 Deniers?

[Apollo20]

I have never called anyone on either side of this debate "stupid", "a liar", "an idiot"..... etc.

I am simply questioning why Ron and his fellow-travellers on this site would waste time and effort arguing with people they have declared to be stupid liars and idiots; or do you, Ron, claim that this is not how you have characterized "Truthers"?

[Kent1]

I have never called anyone on either side of this debate "stupid", "a liar", "an idiot"..... etc.

I am simply questioning why Ron and his fellow-travellers on this site would waste time and effort arguing with people they have declared to be stupid liars and idiots; or do you, Ron, claim that this is not how you have characterized "Truthers"?
I don't recall those words, but you've certainly had your fair share of personal attacks. APOLOGISTS, well-trained parrots, pathetic, nay-sayers etc etc...

[rwguinn]

I have never called anyone on either side of this debate "stupid", "a liar", "an idiot"..... etc.

I am simply questioning why Ron and his fellow-travellers on this site would waste time and effort arguing with people they have declared to be stupid liars and idiots; or do you, Ron, claim that this is not how you have characterized "Truthers"?
The simple reason: There are a number of people who will accept anything that sounds authoritative, or which can be made to sound plausable. It is because of those we address the "stupid, liars, and idiots", because with very little effort they expose themselves as illogical, no-evidence story-tellers and purveyors of lies.

[Apollo20]

RWGUINN:

May I ask why you want to debate folks you believe to be "illogical, no-evidence story-tellers and purveyors of lies."

Don't you realize that you are only encouraging them?

Do you think that the insults you guys throw at an Ace Baker, for example, have changed his way of thinking one iota?

KENT1:

When you tell me that "you've certainly had your fair share of personal attacks". I couldn't agree with you more!

[rwguinn]

RWGUINN:

May I ask why you want to debate folks you believe to be "illogical, no-evidence story-tellers and purveyors of lies."

Don't you realize that you are only encouraging them?

Do you think that the insults you guys throw at an Ace Baker, for example, have changed his way of thinking one iota?

absolutely not. I fear that only chemical therapy, or possibly electroshock can affect the individual.\None the less, by exposing his ranting and raving for what it is, those who do not have a technical education can see what direction the troofers take--and make up their own minds. Exposure to logic and critical thinking has some effect on the world at large, and if it causes just one person to investigate and learn some physics or engineering, it is worth then effort.
"course, that opinion comes from a mere engineer, not a "why is there air" scientist, so it is probably worthless.

KENT1:

When you tell me that "you've certainly had your fair share of personal attacks". I couldn't agree with you more!

[chipmunk stew]

Don't you realize that you are only encouraging them?
Asks the man who coined (or at least popularized) the term "NISTian"... :rolleyes:

Ask the man in the mirror, Frank.

[Kent1]

I hope people here are not under the impression that they are going to change anyone such as Ace Baker but hopefully others reading might see the problems.

[Apollo20]

When it comes to having a real debate with "Truthers", I do not see that particular action as encouraging anything sinister or subversive. Do you? But when people on this site call "Truthers" idiots and loons and liars... now that IS encouraging them... there's a difference.

Why? Because calling someone stupid is not a way to win a debate. In the end YOU are the one who looks bad!

Sure I have done my fair share of criticizing people in the 9/11 debate... but calling someone a "nay-sayer" or a NISTIAN is hardly the same as calling them stupid or a liar

A lot of people call Steven Jones/Jim Fetzer stupid, but I dont. In this way I am able to engage in a worthwhile dialogue with both of them. I disagree with a lot of what they say, but I am still talking to them...

Thesis, antithesis........SYNTHESIS

[Kent1]

When it comes to having a real debate with "Truthers", I do not see that particular action as encouraging anything sinister or subversive. Do you? But when people on this site call "Truthers" idiots and loons and liars... now that IS encouraging them... there's a difference.

Why? Because calling someone stupid is not a way to win a debate. In the end YOU are the one who looks bad!

Sure I have done my fair share of criticizing people in the 9/11 debate... but calling someone a "nay-sayer" or a NISTIAN is hardly the same as calling them stupid or a liar

A lot of people call Steven Jones/Jim Fetzer stupid, but I dont. In this way I am able to engage in a worthwhile dialogue with both of them. I disagree with a lot of what they say, but I am still talking to them...

Thesis, antithesis........SYNTHESIS

Honestly, I do think we should cut down on the personal attacks and spend less time addressing some of the more fringe ideas. Well-trained parrots or not, I think there is always room to improve.

That aside Jim Fetzer is about as bad as you can get. He's nuked his own base. His days as any sort of leader are numbered. I don't think I would waste much time with him anymore.

[T.A.M.]

I have never called anyone on either side of this debate "stupid", "a liar", "an idiot"..... etc.

I am simply questioning why Ron and his fellow-travellers on this site would waste time and effort arguing with people they have declared to be stupid liars and idiots; or do you, Ron, claim that this is not how you have characterized "Truthers"?

There are some "truthers" who have exibited behavior that could classified as stupid, and some who out right lie. However, that said, I do not think we have called G.Ross or S.Jones those...but I could be mistaken.

The main reason most of us (I speak not for all, for sure) like to debate the issues with these people, if we feel qualified, is to provide a written or recorded record of a presentation of both sides, along with refutation from each, so that those who come here for answers (look at the number of people lurking on the site, compared to the registered users, and you will see this subforum has ALOT of lurkers), get to see just how weak the truther arguments are, when stacked against the REAL EVIDENCE.


When it comes to having a real debate with "Truthers", I do not see that particular action as encouraging anything sinister or subversive. Do you? But when people on this site call "Truthers" idiots and loons and liars... now that IS encouraging them... there's a difference.

Why? Because calling someone stupid is not a way to win a debate. In the end YOU are the one who looks bad!

Sure I have done my fair share of criticizing people in the 9/11 debate... but calling someone a "nay-sayer" or a NISTIAN is hardly the same as calling them stupid or a liar

A lot of people call Steven Jones/Jim Fetzer stupid, but I dont. In this way I am able to engage in a worthwhile dialogue with both of them. I disagree with a lot of what they say, but I am still talking to them...

Thesis, antithesis........SYNTHESIS

S. Jones, I agree he is NOT stupid, and I doubt he is a liar. Fetzer, however, is a difference matter. He may have an intellect about him, but he is far from wise. As a matter of fact, he has said that to fabricate evidence in the name of the "truth" is ok, as long as it furthers the cause.

Also, I would point out, that in an actual debate, i doubt anyone here would call their opponent stupid or a liar...we leave that to Jason Bermas and others of his ilk.

Just my opinion.

TAM:)

[chipmunk stew]

When it comes to having a real debate with "Truthers", I do not see that particular action as encouraging anything sinister or subversive. Do you? But when people on this site call "Truthers" idiots and loons and liars... now that IS encouraging them... there's a difference.
How does insulting someone encourage them? How does humoring them by treating their absurd views with respect not encourage them?

Why? Because calling someone stupid is not a way to win a debate.
I don't recall anyone here trying to win a debate by calling the other guy stupid. The epithets only come out after (or in lieu of) debate.

In the end YOU are the one who looks bad!
Looks bad to whom? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Sure I have done my fair share of criticizing people in the 9/11 debate... but calling someone a "nay-sayer" or a NISTIAN is hardly the same as calling them stupid or a liar
No you're right, it's not the same. A broadbrush, emotive, cleverly loaded term such as 'NISTIAN' is a much more effective propaganda meme, encouraging Truthers to dismiss any argument that cites any work done by NIST, and giving them reason to hope that a highly regarded and credible scientist is seriously questioning the official story too. There's no comparing that with such a weak and overused word as 'stupid'.

A lot of people call Steven Jones/Jim Fetzer stupid, but I dont. In this way I am able to engage in a worthwhile dialogue with both of them. I disagree with a lot of what they say, but I am still talking to them...
You're humoring them. You're encouraging them. I honestly don't care that you are--it's your prerogative--but be honest with yourself, Frank. Your engagement with them lends them an air of legitimacy.

BTW, do you really--I mean truly--have "worthwhile dialog" with Fetzer??? I find that extremely difficult to believe.

[Apollo20]

Ron had Fetzer on his show. Was Ron encouraging him?

[chipmunk stew]

Ron had Fetzer on his show. Was Ron encouraging him?
No, because Ron and Mark made it clear from the very beginning that they thought Fetzer's views about 9/11 are an absurd and twisted fantasy.

[JJordan]

When it comes to having a real debate with "Truthers", I do not see that particular action as encouraging anything sinister or subversive. Do you? But when people on this site call "Truthers" idiots and loons and liars... now that IS encouraging them... there's a difference.

Why? Because calling someone stupid is not a way to win a debate. In the end YOU are the one who looks bad!

Sure I have done my fair share of criticizing people in the 9/11 debate... but calling someone a "nay-sayer" or a NISTIAN is hardly the same as calling them stupid or a liar

A lot of people call Steven Jones/Jim Fetzer stupid, but I dont. In this way I am able to engage in a worthwhile dialogue with both of them. I disagree with a lot of what they say, but I am still talking to them...

Thesis, antithesis........SYNTHESIS

Thank you for your level headed observations. As the kids say, "you're not wrong". One only has to look at the recent need for moderator intervention in the conspiracy section as proof. I've been prefering to debate my favorite movies at JREF, but seeing things are calmer over here, perhaps I will get more involved.

For the record, I think if "truthers" would stop saying "Bush did it"(an absurdity considering his incompetence) and instead point out how he ignored warnings(another example of his incompetence) they wouldn't look or sound as crazed. Still, just because someone is inexpert at presenting their case is no excuse to call them a liar.

As for debating Mr. Ross, I don't know. He doesn't seem to have the intellectual caliber that would make it worth while. IMHO.

[Apollo20]

Chipmunk Stew:

Then how about this gem posted on another thread just today?

"But It would be interesting to ascertain whether members of the Idiot Movement are predisposed to long-term memory loss. Just Asking QuestionsTM"

Is this helpful in any way?

[Darth Rotor]

Then how about this gem posted on another thread just today?

"But It would be interesting to ascertain whether members of the Idiot Movement are predisposed to long-term memory loss. Just Asking QuestionsTM"

Is this helpful in any way?

Point taken, and I will offer that the event in question, the attack on the WTC and Pentagon in 9-11 triggers strong emotion, still, to this day. This can color any discussion. Given the emotive language and tactics of the so called "Truth" movement, it is no surprise that emotion is so easily invoked.

I admire your ability to remain engaged, and to park any emotions you feel, in your dialogue with Jones and Fetzer, given the crossover from scientific investigation and political rhetoric regarding this matter.

Full disclosure: My own emotions are not settled on this matter, and I am wont to flame emotive and irrational assertions of those who claim to be "looking for the Truth" when the rhetoric is clearly on the political side of the matter, not the physical.

I sincerely hope you can participate with Ron in this endeavor. I think it will add value to a debate, a discussion, that is far too often filled with zero value added tripe, some of my more ascerbic flames included. :blush:

DR

[Kent1]

Then how about this gem posted on another thread just today?

"But It would be interesting to ascertain whether members of the Idiot Movement are predisposed to long-term memory loss. Just Asking QuestionsTM"

Is this helpful in any way?

Again, hypocritical or not, I think you have a valid point. Nuff said.

[chipmunk stew]

Chipmunk Stew:

Then how about this gem posted on another thread just today?

"But It would be interesting to ascertain whether members of the Idiot Movement are predisposed to long-term memory loss. Just Asking QuestionsTM"

Is this helpful in any way?
No. It's not helpful in any way. But neither does it encourage Truthers.

Your approach, OTOH, results in:
beachnut: unless someone has posted how a natural collapse can basically turn the WTC buildings into dust (which is physically impossible), I haven't missed anything.

You will undoubtedly be directed to Dr. Geenings new paper and "concrete comminution" for some clarification on this. It would appear that what you stated is the exact opposite, someone has posted how natural collapse is the only way in which the WTC buildings could basically turn to dust.

..and I would just counter with the response to his paper showing how his own calculations do not support the official story. I'll save us all some time by not creating another thread, because at the end of the day, we're both just going to believe who, and what, we want to believe.

[pomeroo]

Ron:

I really wonder why you and many other JREFers would want to debate the likes of Gordon Ross or Steven Jones when you spend so much time on this site describing such "Truthers" as stupid, inane, idiots and liars. If that is what you really believe, then surely any logic and reason applied to the debate would be wasted on such fools and charlatans; so why bother? A “debate” surely implies a situation where both sides initially have a chance of “winning”. A process involving a thesis and an antithesis leading to a synthesis – a true Hegelian dialectic! However, given that the JREFers have an obvious distain for anyone who exhibits even a modicum of skepticism over the official line on 9/11, I would expect a JREF “disputation” with any “Truther” to be more like a scene from a Kafka novel (or perhaps Orwell's 1984)…



Frank, I have tried to be clear in stating the aims of this proposed series of disputations. They are, to repeat, to show as fully as possible the substance of the arguments made by the opposing sides and, ideally, to permit an objective assessment of the competing claims.

You are back to your puzzling pose of accusing JREFers of intolerance. At this juncture, I can only throw up my hands in exasperation. Is Mackey intolerant? Are the people here who have science backgrounds close-minded about the new evidence? What new evidence has come to light? Has anyone rejected a serious, well-founded argument because the conclusion was distasteful? What argument was that?--I seem to have missed it.

For cryin' out loud, Frank, what are you complaining about? You raised the issue of iron spherules in dust samples from the WTC and were asked to explain their significance. You chose to tantalize rather than enlighten. If you want to pretend that you've been silenced, I'm afraid that nobody will believe you. Your work has been greeted with enthusiam here and your opinions are eagerly sought. But, when you paint this forum as a benighted bastion of orthodoxy, you do many people an injustice.

The people we label as "fools" and "charlatans" are precisely the fools and charlatans who make unfounded, wildly implausible claims and then flee from honest, open discussions. Jones refuses to defend his bogus science, demanding that you and Mackey submit your work to peer review. Isn't his refusal to take his own advice an appropriate target for ridicule?

Your final sentence is outrageous and indefensible. From where do you suppose the Kafkaesque elements in the disputation would originate? Would the JREFer make assertions that fly in the face of our current understanding of physics? Would the JREFer knowingly misstate data? Tell us, Frank, how the obscurantist JREfer would suppress the truths being presented by the fantasist. And what truths are those? Are the positions held by the JREfers demonstrably false? What is holding up the demonstration? What is the JRERer's motive for defending a discredited position? And, although I hate repeating myself, tell us again how the JREF position was discredited.

I have been your most consistent advocate, but that last sentence of yours has worn out my patience. Do you imagine that in a debate between a serious historian and a Holocaust-denier both sides have an initial chance of winning? What are you saying?

[pomeroo]

Isn't it at least possible that these disputations are an attempt to get around the ad-hominem arguments? And aren't you now being just as guilty of deriding all JREF forum members with a broad brush as you claim we are of deriding 9-11 Deniers?




It should be "at least possible," given that I have stated that it is the aim of these disputations to avoid the distractions that attend public debates. An event designed to discourage ad hominem arguments should, theoretically, have some chance of avoiding them.

[tacodaemon]

By the way, when Ron referred to the Scholastics with a capital S he was referring to Scholasticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticism).

[pomeroo]

By the way, when Ron referred to the Scholastics with a capital S he was referring to Scholasticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticism).



Many thanks, tacodaemon. I have been prejudiced against Wikipedia for too long, having seen some extremely irresponsible and inaccurate material in a chess-related article. The treatment of Scholasticism you link to is first-rate, and explains my interest in the disputation as a tool for furthering our understanding of a controversial subject.

[Apollo20]

Ron: I guess what I am saying is:

Debate? What debate!

I mean, Ron, if you want to claim the moral high ground .... a priori ....

Before the debate begins, that is.....

[ConspiRaider]

For cryin' out loud, Frank, what are you complaining about? You raised the issue of iron spherules in dust samples from the WTC and were asked to explain their significance. You chose to tantalize rather than enlighten. If you want to pretend that you've been silenced, I'm afraid that nobody will believe you. Your work has been greeted with enthusiam here and your opinions are eagerly sought. But, when you paint this forum as a benighted bastion of orthodoxy, you do many people an injustice.
You tell him, Ron. In fact I benighted a bastard this coming September in London of the city of England by some real smart dukes and dukesses cuz of what I done to the twoofers and their arguments. Them royalties know, sure nuff. And it was a lot harder for me too because I didn't even have a British accent when I took those stupid idiot twoofers on! So how could they know I was smart? I did it with shear Tom Foolery, that's what.

[David Wong]

Chipmunk Stew:

Then how about this gem posted on another thread just today?

"But It would be interesting to ascertain whether members of the Idiot Movement are predisposed to long-term memory loss. Just Asking QuestionsTM"

Is this helpful in any way?

Yes. It made the person who typed it feel better and entertained those who read it.

[David Wong]

Ron:

I really wonder why you and many other JREFers would want to debate the likes of Gordon Ross or Steven Jones when you spend so much time on this site describing such "Truthers" as stupid, inane, idiots and liars. If that is what you really believe, then surely any logic and reason applied to the debate would be wasted on such fools and charlatans; so why bother?

You can't seriously be asking this question.

The reason is to demonstrate for the people observing the debate which side is correct.

You don't ever convince the person in the debate. You convince the people watching the debate.

Come on, you had to know that.

[Apollo20]

David Wong:

Well, once again, you are assuming... a priori... that you have the moral high ground BEFORE the debate begins and therefore that you could not possibly "lose" the debate even if you debated poorly and resorted to calling the other side "idiots", "stupid", "liars", etc, because TRUTH is on your side.

[Apollo20]

And, David Wong, your justification for using abusive language is that "It made the person who typed it feel better and entertained those who read it."

Well, back in Ancient Rome feeding people to lions made the Emperor feel better and entertained those who watched.... but was it morally justifiable?

[AZCat]

And, David Wong, your justification for using abusive language is that "It made the person who typed it feel better and entertained those who read it."

Well, back in Ancient Rome feeding people to lions made the Emperor feel better and entertained those who watched.... but was it morally justifiable?

Lions need to eat too.

[JimBenArm]

And, David Wong, your justification for using abusive language is that "It made the person who typed it feel better and entertained those who read it."

Well, back in Ancient Rome feeding people to lions made the Emperor feel better and entertained those who watched.... but was it morally justifiable?
You're assuming I have morals.
I do have morels. Excellent with scrambled eggs!

[ConspiRaider]

And, David Wong, your justification for using abusive language is that "It made the person who typed it feel better and entertained those who read it."

Well, back in Ancient Rome feeding people to lions made the Emperor feel better and entertained those who watched.... but was it morally justifiable?
(bolding mine)

Yes. Because the Christians were stupid, idiots and liars. Plus none of them had degrees from accredited colleges.

[David Wong]

Let me make it clear that I am not in favor of killing the truthers by having them torn apart by wild animals. I was talking about making fun of them instead.

[Apollo20]

ConspiRaider:

Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing wonder and awe: the starry heaven above and the moral law within...

[pomeroo]

Ron: I guess what I am saying is:

Debate? What debate!




The debate I have in mind is the disputation that I've invited you to participate in, Frank.





I mean, Ron, if you want to claim the moral high ground .... a priori ....

Before the debate begins, that is.....



The whole point, as I believe you're well aware, is to present the competing arguments as substantively as possible. Each side lays out its position comprehensively and engages the opposing arguments attentively and honestly. Is there something wrong with my proposal?

What does this talk about a "moral high ground" have to do with the validity of the opposing claims? My objection to the fantasists is that they purport to promote "truth," but sneak out of town like snake oil peddlers whenever the sheriff arrives. If they have a case, let them make it. People who keep pretending that "pull it" means "blow up the building" deserve to be called fools and liars.

[ConspiRaider]

ConspiRaider:

Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing wonder and awe: the starry heaven above and the moral law within...
Frank: Did Arthur C. Clarke write that in 2001: A Space Odyssey? :)

[pomeroo]

You tell him, Ron. In fact I benighted a bastard this coming September in London of the city of England by some real smart dukes and dukesses cuz of what I done to the twoofers and their arguments. Them royalties know, sure nuff. And it was a lot harder for me too because I didn't even have a British accent when I took those stupid idiot twoofers on! So how could they know I was smart? I did it with shear Tom Foolery, that's what.



I'm actually considering changing the tagline under my handle from "Unpaid Gubmint Shill" to "Benighted Bastard of Orthodoxy." How does it sound to you? Pretty catchy, I'd say.

[rwguinn]

David Wong:

Well, once again, you are assuming... a priori... that you have the moral high ground BEFORE the debate begins and therefore that you could not possibly "lose" the debate even if you debated poorly and resorted to calling the other side "idiots", "stupid", "liars", etc, because TRUTH is on your side.
You are supposed to be a scientist? It is not because "TRUTH" is on our side--physics is on our side. Styling these discussions as "Debates" is an absolute misnomer--one might as well debate the value of 2+2, or what happens when iron and sulpher are mixed in the presence of heat.
There is no "Moral High Ground" in these discussions. Physics is what it is. There is no halfway, or moral right here. It is the way things are, have been, and will be. Mother Nature is an absolutely amoral, non-judgemental b*^ch.
Breaking the laws of man can get you incarcerated, possibly killed. Breaking the laws of god get your soul condemned to hell, unless you beg forgivness. However, even attempting to break natural laws is generally fatal-usually on the spot.

[pomeroo]

Uh, I hate to intrude on the hilarity, but I was wondering if we could actually get the disputation off the ground. Does anyone have any ideas? I mean, Ross is on board.

[WildCat]

If I see a NISTian on a plane, I'll kill him!




Full disclosure: I spent the evening drinking beer on a friend's boat, and watched the fireworks off Navy Pier. The bike ride home did little to sober me up. Anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot and a shill. :cool:

[Gravy]

If I see a NISTian on a plane, I'll kill him!It's Claus Wildcat, the world's most dangerous skeptic!

[Apollo20]

ConspiRaider:

The quote about the moral law within is actually taken from Immanuel Kant's Critique of Practical Reason.

And, Rwguinn, I agree that the Laws of Physics have nothing to do with morality, but we are talking about how to debate "conspiracy theories" without mud slinging. While we may all partake in some verbal jousting from time to time, I cannot accept people who use the terms "idiot", "stupid" or "liar" to describe anyone who posts on this site..... Having been through TWO law suits (and won both), I know that you must be very careful about accusing someone of lying. You need to prove that the person DELIBERATELY said something that they KNOW to be untrue..... good luck with that!

And good luck with your disputation with GR .....

[T.A.M.]

Apollo:

The fact is, in any debate involving an issue that has moral or emotional implications, both parties will take what they percieve as a "moral high ground".

eg. Abortion...

Pro-Life - God says it is wrong
Pro-choice - it is an given human right, freedom of choice

See, both claim to be in the moral "high ground", why, because the outcome of the debate will be a moral one.

9/11:
Debunkers - False Accusations of murdering innocent people is wrong
Truthers - The murder of thousands of innocent people for political/financial gain is wrong.

See...

TAM:)

[uk_dave]

I know that you must be very careful about accusing someone of lying. You need to prove that the person DELIBERATELY said something that they KNOW to be untrue..... good luck with that!

And good luck with your disputation with GR .....

That may possibly be the only way the 'truthers' claims will ever be tested in court.

[Crungy]

If I see a NISTian on a plane, I'll kill him!




Full disclosure: I spent the evening drinking beer on a friend's boat, and watched the fireworks off Navy Pier. The bike ride home did little to sober me up. Anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot and a shill. :cool:

Which harbor? I have a friend who's parked at Monroe. I was out on Tuesday. Nice ride, but still a bit cold far out. The Pilsner, Pacifico and Three Floyds helped out. We usually go Wednesday to catch the fireworks. I hop on after my 16" at Grant Park.

I've got to be on the Harrison intake crib next week for a fuel tank pressure test. UL wouldn't certify it (damn that Kevin Ryan!), but I still spec'd it out per UL 142 standard.

[pomeroo]

ConspiRaider:

The quote about the moral law within is actually taken from Immanuel Kant's Critique of Practical Reason.

And, Rwguinn, I agree that the Laws of Physics have nothing to do with morality, but we are talking about how to debate "conspiracy theories" without mud slinging. While we may all partake in some verbal jousting from time to time, I cannot accept people who use the terms "idiot", "stupid" or "liar" to describe anyone who posts on this site..... Having been through TWO law suits (and won both), I know that you must be very careful about accusing someone of lying. You need to prove that the person DELIBERATELY said something that they KNOW to be untrue..... good luck with that!

And good luck with your disputation with GR .....



Frank, I invited you to participate in a disputation with Gordon Ross to address his response to your new paper. You declined. I started this thread to round up a team of two or three qualified disputants, and commented that although I wanted you to lead the team, you weren't interested. You then informed me publicly that what I claimed was inaccurate.

I'm going to lead with my chin here and ask if I'm confused because I'm dumb, or is my confusion entirely justified.