What if most wars described in history books are complete fabrications and never occurred?

[Boojatta]

Consider the possibility of a conspiracy to spread disinformation, specifically a conspiracy by religious people who want to spread doubt about the value of science in solving the practical problems of daily life.

Scientific knowledge can be applied to create technology. For example, people use science to create office equipment or appliances that you might use. However, such artifacts of technology won't continue to operate if a bomb containing 500 pounds of TNT explodes just outside the walls of the home or office that contains the office equipment or appliances. Also, if you are in the process of operating the office equipment or appliance, then such a bomb will at least injury you and likely kill you.

It doesn't make any sense to say that reality consists of nothing but room-temperature environments that aren't subjected to explosions. Fortunately, where no war is currently being waged, it is very unusual for a bomb containing 500 pounds of TNT to explode near a home or office. So, from the point of view of someone in a home or office who wants to make use of the technological bounty made possible by science, the problem mentioned above is basically war itself.

Allegedly, there is no scientific theory that can reliably predict when and where a war will occur. Allegedly, there have many wars throughout history. It seems that circumstances have conspired to create the impression that, on crucial life-and-death issues, science might not be particularly valuable, and that the value it does provide can be received by anyone who has enough money to buy the products whose existence was made possible by science.

However, the above train of thought was based on the assumption that there have been many wars throughout history. What if wars are actually extremely rare events? Then science is as useful as it is supposed to be.

[Pterodactyl]

1. Um...huh.

[Stanchetalarooni]

2. Here is an eye opener for you.

The First Casualty: The War Correspondent as Hero and Myth-Maker from the Crimea to Kosovo http://www.amazon.com/First-Casualty-Correspondent-Myth-Maker-Crimea/dp/080186951X#_

[BeFree]

3. I dunno about all that

But when you apply just science to 9/11, the Official Conspiracy Theory is shown to be Goofy BS.

That and, the meager science that was applied, like the NIST report, is so meaningless that the report outright claimed that the report could not be used in a court of law. At least whoever compiled the report was honest about it being BS. Eh?

[KDLarsen]

21. Bull, that is a standard NIST rule

and not exclusive to any of their WTC reports.

TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 7 > § 281a

§ 281a. Structural failures

The National Institute of Standards and Technology, on its own initiative but only after consultation with local authorities, may initiate and conduct investigations to determine the causes of structural failures in structures which are used or occupied by the general public. No part of any report resulting from such investigation, or from an investigation under the National Construction Safety Team Act <15 U.S.C. 7301 et seq.>, shall be admitted as evidence or used in any suit or action for damages arising out of any matter mentioned in such report.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/usc_sec_15_00000281---a000-.html

Same thing goes for NTSB reports.

[BeFree]

4. Indeed

The whole OCT is as your title suggests:

"...complete fabrications..."

The only exception is the evident damage done and the actual wars that followed as a consequence of the fabrications.

[Boojatta]

5. Kick to encourage expression of opinions.

[Ohio Joe]

6. I would give mine but...

I honestly have not the slightest idea what you are trying to say here.

[Boojatta]

7. Interestingly, you gave not the slightest hint that would allow for

me to begin diagnosing what is wrong with the language in the OP.

[Ohio Joe]

8. The language is fine

I understand every words meaning... They just make no sense in the way you put them together. What is the point you are trying to make?

[Boojatta]

9. "They just make no sense in the way you put them together."

I suspect that you would have had even more difficulty making sense of the OP if I had put the words in strict alphabetical order, and supplied no punctuation.

[Ohio Joe]

10. Well, it would not make less sense

So.... Are you going to try and make your point clear?

[Boojatta]

11. Now I'm having trouble understanding you, but every word that you used is in my vocabulary.

When it comes to expressing the idea of your question, is the following as good as the language that you used?

and Are clear going make point So to try you your

[Ohio Joe]

13. I'll take that as a "No".

Good luck with the gibberish :hi:

[Boojatta]

26. "make no sense in the way you put them together"

Perhaps, before we get into semantics, we should start with syntax. Do you think that you would be able to create a tree for each sentence, with each word of a given sentence being a leaf of the tree that corresponds to that sentence? Do you think that you could label each node of every tree to indicate the part of speech?

[Ohio Joe]

27. How about instead...

For once you post what you want to say plainly? You post as though you are heavily drugged and trying to disguise it as deep. The reality is that your posts make no sense and they make less and less sense with each new post.

[Boojatta]

28. Does the following say plainly what the author wanted to say?

Link to a message in this thread

I am aware that, from your perspective, the author is replying to a bag of words, and not to replying to something that makes any sense. Thus, it might be difficult for you to understand what train of thought motivated the author. However, I'm hoping that we can focus purely on the author's message, and whether or not it is clear. I'm hoping that we can ignore the question of what motivated the author to write that.

[Ohio Joe]

29. I'll take that as another "No"

Instead of even attempting to clarify what you are trying to say, you point to someone else's reply and want me to guess if that person understood you or not. Why is it always so difficult in this forum to get anyone to give a straight answer? I don't see this in any other forum on DU... Now there is a question for you to ponder.

[Boojatta]

30. Your idea isn't clear to me.

You have some general concept of "saying plainly what you want to say" and I presume that you also have some methods for applying the concept to categorize a given message as either belonging in the "saying plainly" category or not belonging in that category.

I was hoping that you might be willing to apply your concept to a specific message that I didn't write. After all, it's theoretically possible that somebody could dislike the Original Post of this thread, note the DU member name of the author of that Original Post, and automatically categorize every message posted under the same DU member name as an "unclear" message.

Analogy:
Some people claim to be able to distinguish between a water-based homeopathic remedy and a sample of water that was obtained directly from a residential water faucet. Suppose that you are trying to determine whether or not they actually have that ability. Would you label the samples with clear and accurate labels visible to the people who claim to be able to distinguish between the actual substances? Would you put the label "homeopathic remedy" on every sample that was produced in accordance with the steps used to make homeopathic remedies, and the label "plain water" on every sample of water that was obtained directly from a residential water faucet?

[Ohio Joe]

31. um... yeah

Another thing that seems to be exclusive to this forum is game playing... You should also ponder why that is.

[Boojatta]

32. There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear.

There's battle lines being drawn. Nobody's right if everybody's wrong.

[zappaman]

33. Buffalo Springfield?

oooooh, that's what this is about?!
Just saw them last saturday...great show!
man, now I finally understand the OP.
shouldn't this be in the ENTERTAINMENT forum tho?

[dixiegrrrrl]

15. I once wrote a term paper in language like that.

The ideas were great, insightful, original, I typed the words as they flowed long into the night and early morning.

Then the drugs wore off.

:evilgrin:

[Drale]

12. Don't hang around the Veterans home

those guys are really committed to the fantasy.:tinfoilhat:

[zappaman]

14. +1

for sanity.

[Boojatta]

23. Among people now living in homes for veterans, how many are survivors from wars of the 1700s?

Assuming for the sake of argument that all wars that are said to have occurred within the past one hundred years actually did occur, how can you conclude that most wars described in history books actually did occur? In history books that you read, is the consideration restricted to narrow time spans?

[Boojatta]

25. I apologize for omitting an important part of what should have been my question for you ...

In history books that you read, is the consideration restricted to time spans that are recent and of relatively short duration compared to the full history of warfare on planet Earth?

[On the Road]

16. Well, Don't Get Too Far into Archaeology, Art, and Literature

if you want to hold that thesis. Many or most ancient civilizations spent huge amounts of their national income on defensive fortifications right through the renaissance. Many excavated sites show clear damage of violent destruction. Finds of weapons are commonplace. Documents from Greece and Rome have constant reference to war. Artwork depicting warfare is common, as are stories, poems, and plays.

To believe historical wars are fabrications requires that all that evidence is fabricated as well. At some point the belief comes solipsistic. No one can disprove solipsism, but it's considered a sterile theory because evidence from history and the natural world is universally dismissed and the believer is left with only his or her thoughts and imagination.

Now if you want to go back to hunting and gathering societies there is a somewhat better argument. But most of those hunting and gathering societies were destroyed by more militarized ones.

[Boojatta]

17. That's an excellent reply. Thank you.

[On the Road]

18. You're Welcome

and thank you for a nice reply that a post that was disagreeing with you. You never know how these things will be taken.

[OnTheOtherHand]

19. I've always construed boojatta as an ironist

I don't think I've ever seen a break in character, but what else could one possibly make of (to cite some recent work):

"From 1933 to 1945, was Hitler the leader of Portugal rather than Germany?"
"Was Boris Yeltsin a Secret Muslim?"
"How many open minds should be closed for repairs?"
"Is Alphabetic Writing a Hoax?"
"Buzz Aldrin: Apollo 11 astronaut and 2nd human being on the moon OR badass hoax participant?"

One of the most creative posters I've seen on DU. The material is uneven, but there's always something interesting going on.

Now, this is brilliant:

No one can disprove solipsism, but it's considered a sterile theory because evidence from history and the natural world is universally dismissed and the believer is left with only his or her thoughts and imagination.

Indeed.

[On the Road]

20. I Took the Original Post as a Thought Experiment

rather than a statement of belief. Thought experiments are good because they they tend to force you to consider what you really know and what you simply assume.

[OnTheOtherHand]

22. that's a good way to take it

Many of the "what if" questions posed on this forum don't seem to reward consideration as thought experiments, but boojatta's often do, as epistemological riddles and/or as little snippets of alternative history.

[montanto]

24. This again?

[Boojatta]

34. Kick