Science vs Teleology: Which lens is best for viewing 911?

Max Photon

Graduate Poster
M
Joined
Jul 7, 2007
Messages
1,592
Who perpetrated 911?
Just between you and me,
Is this a question for science
Or of teleology?
 
Last edited:
Well, what it is NOT is a question for some obscure internet forum. Evidence of wrong doing as strong as you say you have should be shaking the world.

It is indeed not.
 
Which lens?

Looks like you've chosen the inverted fish-eye, Max.

ETA: Bugger
 
Last edited:
This thread is intended to be an extension of R.Mackey's excellent thread Offer to the Truth Movement: Let's Settle It

In that thread, Ryan addresses critical 911 issues through the lens of the scientific method. But is the scientific method really the most appropriate for 911?

I elected to ask my question here instead of on Ryan's thread, out of respect for his OP. Therefore, I request that you treat this thread with at least the same respect that Ryan's received. Thanks.
 
The "who dunnit" of 9/11 is best looked at through FORENSICS. Forensics is a science.

Now you can use Teleology to debate who had motive, etc... but just as in court, FACTS, EVIDENCE, SCIENCE, trump "motive".

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
Now you can use Teleology to debate who had motive, etc... but just as in court, FACTS, EVIDENCE, SCIENCE, trump "motive".
Click to expand...

This is key; there is a reason why science and evidence trumps motive in a court of law. Do you want to take a try at telling us why, Max?
 
What is teleology?

1337m4n said:
What is teleology?
Click to expand...


From Wikipedia:

Teleology (Greek: telos: end, purpose) is the philosophical study of design and purpose. A teleological school of thought is one that holds all things to be designed for or directed toward a final result, that there is an inherent purpose or final cause for all that exists.


1337m4n, let me give you a great example of scientific vs telelogical thinking...

A while back there was a thread titled: New Conspiracy Subgroup: No Sounders

I posted:
New Conspiracy Subgroup?
I don't like the of that.

The next person posted:
And I don't like the structure of your sentence.

Pomeroo then posted:
Not bad Max: I'll give you that.


The person who didn't get the joke was viewing the problem through the lens of science. Through the scientific lens, hypotheses are data-driven only - speculation is not allowed! Here science produced the conclusion that old Maxwell simply forgot a word out of carelessness. And Occam's Razor confirms it; carelessness is much simpler that some premeditated diabolical plot to trick people. In this case, the lens of science was blind to humor.

But Pomeroo didn't apply science. (He couldn't if he tried.) Pomeroo correctly viewed the problem through the lens of teleology; Pomeroo suspected there was intention - mind - deliberate planning - behind the design or construction of my post. What lead Pomeroo to correctly choose the teleological lens, and get rewarded with humor? Pomeroo was suspicious that I was up to something. Why? In large part because of the embedding space of the problem; Pomeroo is aware of my past tendency to use deception (which is what humor is), so he speculated that this was also a deceptive act, and not a natural mistake.


Well, similarly, some of us see the embedding space of 911 as riddled with deception....
 
Last edited:
Are you also a proponent of the Intelligent Design movement, Max? For a long time, I've been pointing out the parallels between ID and 9/11 Truth, and this is another example. Both movements 'think' alike.
 
More on teleology

Also, please note that taking a teleological perspective on a problem does not preclude using the scientific method. In fact, it can be viewed as augmenting the scientific method with suspicion and speculation. Science is good for studying rocks or box turtles. Teleology is good for studying magicians.
 
Max Photon said:
Who perpetrated 911?
Just between you and me,
Is this a question for science
Or of teleology?
Click to expand...
UBL helped 10 terrorist. If you can not figure it out when the passengers on Flight 93 did, you may not have what it takes to be a hero. You make up fantasy and blame innocent people.
You missed where UBL took credit. So it stands!: 9/11 tells lies, the terrorist tell the truth. Irony to the nth power.

The rest of you post is not needed, the main question is answered.
 
Max Photon said:
In that thread, Ryan addresses critical 911 issues through the lens of the scientific method. But is the scientific method really the most appropriate for 911?
Click to expand...

This is a reasonable question.

My answer is that there is no practical difference between the Scientific Method and criminal investigation, which would seem to be the only alternative. The mechanisms and the traditions are different, but both follow the same logical pattern.

If you wish to disprove this, you may begin by presenting a question central to yours or any other theory of September 11th that cannot be answered by the Scientific Method. Your answer, Max?
 
Max Photon said:
Also, please note that taking a teleological perspective on a problem does not preclude using the scientific method. In fact, it can be viewed as augmenting the scientific method with suspicion and speculation. Science is good for studying rocks or box turtles. Teleology is good for studying magicians.
Click to expand...

Along those lines I think that it has been proven beyond a resonable doubt that OBL, al-Qaeda and those associated therewith had the motive, the means and the opportunity to pull off their plans. It was well known that Bin Laden wanted to do serious damage to the U.S. and that he had a hand in the 1993 WTC bombing. It was also well known that al-Qaeda was likely to try another attack. Their motivation was the disruption of the world economy and causing fear among the American people, as well as the rest of the world's population.
There has been no credible evidence presented yet that establishes a motive on the part of anyone else, especially those within our government, to cause so much chaos and destruction, especially on their own population.
 
Last edited:
Ryan, could you please rephrase your last sentence. I'm not clear
on the antecedent to "this." Thanks.
 
If you wish to disprove my contention, which is that there is no practical difference between the Scientific Method and criminological investigation into September 11th.

Clear?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom