"Science thrives on errors, cutting them away one by one." - Sagan

[greyl]

Random thoughts from C. Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World"

The Method And Way of Thinking:

Science thrives on errors, cutting them away one by one. False conclusions are drawn all the time, but they are drawn tentatively. Hypotheses are framed so they are capable of being disproved. A succession of alternative hypotheses is confronted by experiment and observation. Science gropes and staggers toward improved understanding. Proprietary feelings are of course offended when a scientific hypothesis is disproved, but such disproofs are recognized as central to the scientific enterprise.

Pseudoscience is just the opposite. Hypotheses are often framed precisely so they are invulnerable to any experiment that offers a prospect of disproof, so even in principle they cannot be invalidated. Practitioners are defensive and wary. Skeptical scrutiny is opposed. When the pseudoscientific hypothesis fails to catch fire with scientists, conspiracies to suppress it are deduced.

The scientific way of thinking is at once imaginative and disciplined. This is central to its success. Science invites us to let the facts in, even when they don't conform to our preconceptions. It counsels us to carry alternative hypotheses in our heads and see which best fit the facts. It urges on us a delicate balance between no-holds-barred openness to new ideas, however heretical, and the most rigorous skeptical scrutiny of everything -- new ideas and established wisdom. This kind of thinking is also an essential tool for a democracy in an age of change. One of the reasons for its success is that science has built-in, error-correcting machinery at its very heart.
a little more

[Kingshakabobo]

1. Sagan was in on it. n/t

[CGowen]

2. I really like Carl Sagan, I have to read more of his work.

A central lesson of science is that to understand complex issues (or even simple ones), we must try to free our minds of dogma and to guarantee the freedom to publish, to contradict, and to experiment. Arguments from authority are unacceptable.


Carl Sagan from Billions and Billions: Thoughts of Life and Death at the Brink of the Millenium (1998)

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan

[Bolo Boffin]

3. It's funny how you're using Sagan as an authority for your anti-authoritarian stance.

Another Fox News tactic from CGowen.

[CGowen]

4. He was an astronomer, and they had to fight a lot throughout history.

I imagine that he knew history and people like



Giordano Bruno


Bruno is known for his system of mnemonics based upon organized knowledge and as an early proponent of the idea of an infinite and homogeneous universe. Burned at the stake as a heretic, Bruno is seen by some as the first martyr to the cause of freethought.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno



or

Galileo Galilei

* Galileo was required to recant his heliocentric ideas; the idea that the Sun is stationary was condemned as "formally heretical." However, while there is no doubt that Pope Urban VIII and the vast majority of Church officials did not believe in heliocentrism, Catholic doctrine is defined by the pope when he speaks ex cathedra (from the Chair of Saint Peter) in matters of faith and morals. While Church officials did condemn Galileo, heliocentrism was never formally or officially condemned by the Catholic Church.
* He was ordered imprisoned; the sentence was later commuted to house arrest.
* His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial and not enforced, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallileo

[wildbilln864]

6. And he smoked a lot of pot!

:hi:

on edit: Did you know that greyl?

[greyl]

7. Do you think that's a bad thing, wildbilln864? nt

[wildbilln864]

9. no indeed I do not!

:hi:

[greyl]

22. Your statement was pointless, correct? nt

[wildbilln864]

25. no....

incorrect! :hi:
it was a point of fact!

[greyl]

26. How was it relevant? nt

[JackRiddler]

27. No more pointless than the OP's empty resort to the authority...

of a dead man who cannot have an opinion on 9/11, as a transparent tool of insinuation (albeit completely irrelevant) against the other side in a debate.

"When losing an argument, claim Science as your ally." - Sophists of All Eras

[greyl]

29. Sorry, you're fired, too. nt

[JackRiddler]

30. "A touch! A touch! I fear I breathe my last!"

[JackRiddler]

5. Opinion on why this thread and similar ones should be viewed as flamebait.

(repeated from elsewhere, but equally applicable here)

This topic would be relevant on a board dedicated to general discussions of skepticism and scientific methodology. On this board, it would be relevant as a response post, e.g. in critiquing points of methodology in other statements, insofar as these actually relate to the events of September 11th.

As a new thread, it is off-topic to the subject of the board.

Furthermore, while seemingly neutral, I submit the thread is intended as an insinuation, i.e. flamewar by other means. The poster has a history of introducing off-topic discussions of abstractions as a way of claiming the mantle of skepticism and logic in advance of empirical examination actually relating to 9/11, and as an implicit rebuke to those whom he wishes to preemptively characterize as undeserving of that mantle, i.e. whom he labels as "conspiracy theorists."

I would argue that new topics introduced to this board should actually relate to the subject of the board, or to a political subject potentially relevant to the events of 9/11. For example, greyl would be free to initiate a thread on what he views as fallacies in actual 9/11 research, and cite this text by Carl Sagan in support. As it stands, the thread topic is merely presenting the work of a writer who is being posthumously abused, because his views on 9/11 are unknowable.

This board is not for general science lectures.

[CJCRANE]

8. Theory of the Authoritarian Personality:

Excerpt:

"The instrument for assessing the underlying authoritarian personality structure was the so-called F-Scale ("implicit antidemocratic tendencies and fascist potential"). This scale is comprised of the following subscales:

Conventionalism -- uncritical acceptance of social conventions and the rules of authority figures; adherence to the traditional and accepted

Authoritarian Submission -- unqualified submission to authorities and authority figures

Authoritarian Aggression -- hostility toward individuals or groups disliked by authorities, especially those who threaten or violate traditional values"

More:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_personality

[JackRiddler]

10. CJCrane, I think...

In the spirit of the OP, you should probably use this post to start a separate, completely off-topic thread as yet another general socio-lecture irrelevant to empirical examination of 9/11 or related history.

[greyl]

12. You think Sagan was an Authoritarian Personality?!? nt

[The Lone Groover]

11. Perhaps...

the OP is an attempt at the science of throwing shit and hoping some of it sticks.
Otherwise I don't see what this has to do with 9/11.

[greyl]

13. For those few who didn't grasp the point...

If I was in charge of restructuring the 9/11 Truth Movement, I would proceed in a logical fashion with deference to the proven methods of science. In order to maximize efficiency, one of the first orders of business would be to declare certain CTs Non-issues, they having been shown to be wholly without rational merit over the past several years. Iow, the bullshit theories would be cut away one by one and be deemed contrary to the goals of the movement. Any topics that remain would then be afforded their rightful place in the spotlight.
A Truth movement with sufficient integrity would define itself partially by the theories it proudly considers to be debunked bullshit ("untrue"). It also would not consider meta-discussions about the values of critical thinking and scientific method to be flamebait; it would applaud them.

[petgoat]

14. Proposing Adherence to the Scientific Method is Disingenuous

when the evidence has been destroyed and suppressed.

You can't debate evolution rationally when the officials bottle all
the fossils in holy-water vials to protect us from their devilish
influence, and won't let us see them.

[greyl]

16. Forget it, then. We'll hold a 9/11 Truth Seance instead. nt

[petgoat]

19. Not at all. We'll use epistemology to identify productive areas of

inquiry and speculation, we'll formulate questions, and we'll press
in the political sphere for answers from the people who can testify
to them.

[greyl]

20. Sorry, but you're fired.

No weasel words allowed.

[petgoat]

31. Epistemology is a weasel word? nt

[greyl]

32. There are no singular weasel words. nt

[petgoat]

33. AH, then the problem is alleged weasel phrases, not weasel words. nt

[greyl]

34. Weasel words is plural, and is most commonly used to describe deceptive phrases.

Phrases are groups of words in a pattern.
Weasel words are groups of words in a pattern.
There are no singular weasel words.
Your post included words phrased into a weaselly pattern.

[petgoat]

35. And what is deceptive about the following phrase?

"We'll use epistemology to identify productive areas of
inquiry and speculation, we'll formulate questions, and
we'll press in the political sphere for answers from the
people who can testify to them."

[Bryan Sacks]

36. greyl wouldn't know from epistemology, even if it pist all over him, petgoat n/t

[naboo]

15. what do you know about science?

no offense.

[greyl]

17. Why would an honest question be offensive?

It's just that it's a stupid question. Consider narrowing it down a bit.

[CGowen]

18. The so called truth movement is not centralized

Issues that are irrational sort themselves out, like no planes, space beams etc.


http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200610/Salter.pdf (A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories)

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Directed-Energy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdf
(The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center)

http://www.journalof911studies.com/

[greyl]

21. That's one of the things I would change.

I pretty much agree with your post.

[Twist_U_Up]

23. Doesnt Sagan smoke ALOT of dope ?

[greyl]

24. If he's in heaven, I imagine he may be. nt

[wildbilln864]

28. He did while ...

living is what I've read!
:hi: