PDA

View Full Version : On conspiracy theories, and being taken seriously


defaultdotxbe
6th August 2007, 12:34 PM
In this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2837570&postcount=71) Dr. Greening attempts to reconcile no-plane theories with rational thought, and concludes that all evidence should be weighed before deciding if no-planers are nuts or not. Naturally this doesnt go over well.

Let me provide another example to show why, at this point in time, no-plane theories do not deserve serious consideration.

Lets say you want to buy a car, and have a budget of 15,000 dollars, and I offer to sell you my 1992 Ford Escort for 15k. What do you say?

Do you ask to see a picture of the car?
Do you ask for the mileage to get the Blue Book value?
Do you ask for the VIN to run a CarFax report?
Do you ask my address to take it for a test drive?

Of course not, you tell me to shove it because theres no way you are going to pay 15,000 dollars for a 15 year old car that wasnt even 10k brand new. You dont need to "weigh all the evidence" to know im trying to rip you off

Now, if the car is indeed somehow worth 15,000 dollars, is it up to you, the buyer, to look at all aspects, or is it up to me, the seller, to show you what makes the car worth so much? Naturally its my job to show the buyer hes getting his moneys worth

The same holds true for no-plane theories, until they can provide a reasonable explanation as to why hundred (perhaps thousands) of New Yorkers saw, with their own eyes, a plane strike the WTC, they do not deserve to be taken seriously

Of course in any case of multiple eyewitnesses there are a few statistical outliers, people who saw somethign different, but when the vast majority agree with eachother and the dozens of videos and photographs it seems like pretty solid evidence, doesnt it?

So, to all no-planers out there, why should i pay 15,000 dollars for your Ford Escort?

PS: use your words, all answers are not held in a youtube video

HyJinX
6th August 2007, 12:42 PM
The truth is...there is no Ford Escort.

defaultdotxbe
6th August 2007, 12:46 PM
The truth is...there is no Ford Escort.
but im sure someone will pay 15 grand for a holographic projector capable of displaying a photorealistic model of an escort in a 3d environment :)

and then the truthers can use it to prove their hologram planes theories are plausible!

Drudgewire
6th August 2007, 12:55 PM
The truth is...there is no Ford Escort.

Maybe the terrorists should consider crashing Ford Pintos into skyscrapers.

Anti-sophist
6th August 2007, 12:55 PM
I disagree.

If you can show me evidence that the video is fake, I want to see it. I consider it a fatal mistake to be willing to ignore simple anomalies to fit in with what you already believe to be true.

I am much more concerned by the fact that any time anyone wants to present their evidence in a detailed fashion, they and whoever takes up the challenge of dealing with the information directly gets drowned out with "OMG WHY ARE WE EVEN TALKING ABOUT THIS. THIS IS ABSURD.".

defaultdotxbe
6th August 2007, 01:05 PM
I am much more concerned by the fact that any time anyone wants to present their evidence in a detailed fashion, they and whoever takes up the challenge of dealing with the information directly gets drowned out with "OMG WHY ARE WE EVEN TALKING ABOUT THIS. THIS IS ABSURD.".
the problem im addressing is the fact that very rarely is evidence ever presented in a detailed fashion, its always "look at this youtube video, it will answer all your questions"

if the truther does stick around for a discussion it usually results in them stringing out bit of "evidence" at a time, hoping to find one "smoking gun" that doesnt get debunked

to go back to my original analogy:


you: why is your car worth 15k?

me: its got a turbocharger

you: thats not worht 15k

me: well its also got custom paint

you: thats still not 15k

me: its also got a new body kit

you: still not worth it

me: did i mention the turbo?

you: forget it!


see my point? if i were to list everything the car has to make it worth that much right up front there wouldnt be a problem, but you quickly get sick of the back-and-forth shown above


so essentially what im asking for is for a no-planer to lay out all his evidence at once, put it all on the table

anyone up for it?

Triterope
6th August 2007, 01:28 PM
You dont need to "weigh all the evidence" to know im trying to rip you off.

This is the right way to look at 9-11 conspiracy theory. Most of the Twoofer arguments fail on such a fundamental level that they don't warrant the detailed point-by-point rebuttal they get here. (Or at least they got before the 9-11 Truth movement went into reruns.)

For the trillions of zeros and ones that have been consumed discussing controlled demolition theories on the Internet, there is still no response to this simple statement:

"Demolition of a building the size of the WTC towers would take months to set up, would require hundreds of pounds of material, would scatter unmistakable evidence all over the eastern seaboard, and would be very difficult to control when mixed with plane impact/jet fuel/fire."

The above sentence is gleaned from readily-available information about what goes in to exploding a building, and can be understood by most anyone.

It's silly to pick nits about thermite, squibs, and other controlled demolition theories when none of them can get around the fundamental problem of installation.

Par
6th August 2007, 01:37 PM
I disagree.

If you can show me evidence that the video is fake, I want to see it. I consider it a fatal mistake to be willing to ignore simple anomalies to fit in with what you already believe to be true.

I am much more concerned by the fact that any time anyone wants to present their evidence in a detailed fashion, they and whoever takes up the challenge of dealing with the information directly gets drowned out with "OMG WHY ARE WE EVEN TALKING ABOUT THIS. THIS IS ABSURD.".



I understand where you’re coming from, but out of interest, how much of our lives do you think we’re epistemologically committed to spend reading through Ace Baker’s “work”? Is there any point at which it’s reasonable to say “I’m just not interested anymore”?

IMST
6th August 2007, 02:02 PM
I recently sold a 1992 Ford Escort. I shoulda asked for 15,000 and sold it to the noplaner in my office.

Gravy
6th August 2007, 02:27 PM
I disagree.

If you can show me evidence that the video is fake, I want to see it. I consider it a fatal mistake to be willing to ignore simple anomalies to fit in with what you already believe to be true.

I am much more concerned by the fact that any time anyone wants to present their evidence in a detailed fashion, they and whoever takes up the challenge of dealing with the information directly gets drowned out with "OMG WHY ARE WE EVEN TALKING ABOUT THIS. THIS IS ABSURD.".

We've seen all their arguments, and they are absurd.

Anti-sophist
6th August 2007, 02:35 PM
I understand where you’re coming from, but out of interest, how much of our lives do you think we’re epistemologically committed to spend reading through Ace Baker’s “work”? Is there any point at which it’s reasonable to say “I’m just not interested anymore”?

And I too understand exactly what you are saying. The point is that not being interested is not the same as filling a thread with noise by repeatedly mentioning it.