ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 9/11 , 9/11 conspiracy theories , 9/11 truthers , truthers

Reply
Old 29th March 2020, 09:00 PM   #201
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,181
It is pretty easy to show that modus ponens depends on the axiom of non-contradiction.

Suppose you have

P1 p->q
P2 p
Conclusion q

But any conclusion C can only be a consequence of an argument A if there is no interpretation of A in which C is false. So we add the negation of C to A

P1 p->q
P2 p
P3 ~q

If q can be true and false at the same time then this is a valid interpretation of A in which the conclusion is false and therefore C cannot follow from A.

So modus ponens does depend upon the axiom of non-contradiction.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2020, 09:22 PM   #202
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,672
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Rather something like 50% mainstream, 45% MIHOP, 5% everything else.
Please give details, facts and evidence to support your claim.

Please include what is in the 5%. Is it CD, explosives, remote control aircraft?

Please detail what is the 45% MIHOP.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2020, 10:02 PM   #203
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,181
I don't get the MIHOP thing.

Unless we are going to suppose it was all one big mistake then someone or some group made it happen on purpose.

So do we assign equal credence to each of the 6.2 billion suspects?
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

Last edited by Robin; 29th March 2020 at 10:07 PM.
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2020, 12:50 AM   #204
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,256
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
So you are saying that an argument can prove its conclusion even if the conjunction of the argument and the negation of the conclusion is consistent???

Please be explicit that this is what you are saying.
Of course, easy-peasy:

Premise: P & ~P
Conclusion 1: P (by conjunction elimination)
Conclusion 2: ~P (by conjunction elimination)

Quote:
No, you just didn't understand what I said.
In that case you're even more wrong, see previous paragraph.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2020, 01:01 AM   #205
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 31,006
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Apologize for lying.
Have you apologised for claiming that Northwoods suggested wounding people with plastic explosives yet?

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2020, 01:04 AM   #206
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 31,006
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Sure, just like another perfectly reasonable interpretation is that the operation was to be conducted without regard as to the life or death of the refugees in question, and yet another is that the operation was intending to cause a few deaths to have maximum effect.
So, as long as there is a reasonable interpretation of the Northwoods planning document as requiring no deaths even of citizens of another country, then the Northwoods planning document cannot be taken as evidence that the US government is prepared to advocate the killing of its own citizens, because it cannot be stated to have done so.

Thank you for clearing that up.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2020, 01:48 AM   #207
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,256
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
And this is true, because the very idea of a proof depends on this axiom.

The "proof" in PM is circular, as I said
Sure, the hundreds of logicians who have checked PM have all failed to find its obvious flaw, only for its flaws to be uncovered by you, a random person on the internet. What are the odds?

Quote:
And this is correct, modus ponens does depend on it
No it doesn't. This is fun, just going back and forth with "yes it does!" "no it doesn't!" But let me even give you an example of a logic which contains modus ponens yet does not contain a axiom of non-contradiction: da Costa's C(1)

Quote:
There is no paraconsistent logic that does not have an axiom of non-contradiction, by definition a logic that leaves this out would be an inconsistent logic, which as I said, are just toys for logicians.
LP does not have an axiom of non-contradiction. ~(A & ~A) is always true but also sometimes false.

Quote:
Again, true
Again, false. You even gave a counter-example yourself:
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
P->Q
P->~Q
P
Therefore Q & ~Q

The above is valid if non-contradiction is not an axiom of the system.
Quote:
Again, wrong. By definition a system of logic that does not include the axiom of non-contradiction is an inconsistent logic, not a paraconsistent logic.
Again, right. LP is an example of a paraconsistent logic without an axiom of non-contradiction.

Quote:
Again this is correct. For something to be considered proved in some logic A, the proof must be stated in A or some subset of A. A proof in a superset of A is only a proof of that proposition in the superset and cannot be considered a proof of something in A

No, a proof in a paraconsistent logic is a proof of something in that logic, not a proof of something in a subset of the logic.
I've already pointed you to da Costa's C(1). As you can see, it proves many of the theorems of classical logic.

Quote:
Since classical logic is a subset if any paraconsistent logic then the proofs in the subset also exist in the superset, but that does not imply that any proof in the paraconsistent logic can be consisdered a proof in the underlying consistent logic. I can't.
This is trivially shown false by noting that in classical logic (A & ~A) proves B, for any A and B, whereas in paraconsistent logic it doesn't. Hence it is not the case that any proof in classical logic also exists in paraconsistent logic. Many proofs in paraconsistent logic also exist in classical logic though, as I already said.

Quote:
And this is also true, pretty much by definition.
So you keep saying and not supporting.

Quote:
Seems pretty good to me so far, it is your own track record you should worry about.
Sure...
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin

Last edited by caveman1917; 30th March 2020 at 02:31 AM.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2020, 01:50 AM   #208
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,256
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
It is pretty easy to show that modus ponens depends on the axiom of non-contradiction.

Suppose you have

P1 p->q
P2 p
Conclusion q

But any conclusion C can only be a consequence of an argument A if there is no interpretation of A in which C is false. So we add the negation of C to A

P1 p->q
P2 p
P3 ~q

If q can be true and false at the same time then this is a valid interpretation of A in which the conclusion is false and therefore C cannot follow from A.

So modus ponens does depend upon the axiom of non-contradiction.
The highlighted is only true in classical logics. Talk about circularity!
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2020, 01:53 AM   #209
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,256
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Have you apologised for claiming that Northwoods suggested wounding people with plastic explosives yet?

Dave
I'm not in the business of apologizing to the Joints Chief of Staff. But if they think that to be important they are free to make an account here and request such an apology.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2020, 02:10 AM   #210
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,256
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Lets not, unless you have an evidential basis for making such an assumption. Do you?
pgimeno claimed that it doesn't matter a bit for his argument, hence as far as his argument is concerned I am free to make any such assumption I want. Of course, in reality it matters a great deal to his argument. His argument is effectively this:

Suppose we have a large bowl of, say, 100 coloured balls which may be either green or red. I randomly pick 1 ball from the ball, it is green, therefor I conclude that it is unlikely that there is any red ball in the bowl.

His argument would work if he were to pick 90 balls out of the bowl, finding all of them to be green, and then concluding it's unlikely there is any red ball in the bowl.

As you can see, the validity of the argument depends quite a lot on the percentage of balls that you pick out of the bowl (ie the percentage of false-flag operations that fail secrecy).
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2020, 02:29 AM   #211
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,612
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Then let's assume that for every false-flag operation that failed secrecy there are 100 that didn't fail secrecy. If it doesn't matter a bit for your argument then we can freely make such assumption.
Indeed, my argument isn't affected by whether we assume they are in a relationship of 100:1 or 0:1. Both can be assumed by hypothesis without affecting it.


Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Then provide your derivation for what you think is a better estimate.
I haven't counted how many false flag operations that were not able to be kept secret there have been. Let's imagine the number is 4. None of them was a mass murder of own people. If that number was a good estimation, the sample would admittedly be too small to draw good conclusions from it, but from the sample, the probability can be estimated as less than 1/4.

If 9/11 was a false flag operation, it would be a false flag operation including a mass murder. Since the probability of this occurring is less than 1/4 (from our statistical sample), the probability that 9/11 was a false flag operation is also less than 1/4.

Repeat the argument with the correct number N of false flag operations that were not able to be kept secret, and you will have better upper bound of the estimation of the probability.


Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
We've established the mass killing of about 250.000 of their own people each year for the country's supremacy.
No, you've established that the focus of some people forgets other important things to care about.

Last edited by pgimeno; 30th March 2020 at 02:33 AM.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2020, 02:58 AM   #212
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,256
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
I haven't counted how many false flag operations that were not able to be kept secret there have been. Let's imagine the number is 4. None of them was a mass murder of own people. If that number was a good estimation, the sample would admittedly be too small to draw good conclusions from it, but from the sample, the probability can be estimated as less than 1/4.

If 9/11 was a false flag operation, it would be a false flag operation including a mass murder. Since the probability of this occurring is less than 1/4 (from our statistical sample), the probability that 9/11 was a false flag operation is also less than 1/4.

Repeat the argument with the correct number N of false flag operations that were not able to be kept secret, and you will have better upper bound of the estimation of the probability.
P(mass murder | false-flag) =/= P(false-flag | mass murder)

You've estimated the former rather than the latter.

Quote:
No, you've established that the focus of some people forgets other important things to care about.
Semantics, the net result is 250k of their own people dying each year for the country's supremacy. This strongly counters your heuristic argument that those in power care so much about their own people they wouldn't kill them for the country's supremacy.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2020, 03:04 AM   #213
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 31,006
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
I'm not in the business of apologizing to the Joints Chief of Staff. But if they think that to be important they are free to make an account here and request such an apology.
OK, so lying to the forum is of no importance to you. Thanks for sorting that one out too.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2020, 03:14 AM   #214
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,256
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
OK, so lying to the forum is of no importance to you. Thanks for sorting that one out too.

Dave
I didn't lie about the forum, best you've got is that I lied about the Joints Chief of Staff. Oystein, on the other hand, lied about me hence I demanded an apology. And yes, I can see your play with the distinction between lying about someone and lying to someone, it ain't gonna work. If you have trouble with that distinction, try figuring out why you can bring a defamation case against someone for lying about you but not for lying to you.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin

Last edited by caveman1917; 30th March 2020 at 03:16 AM.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2020, 03:40 AM   #215
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 31,006
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
I didn't lie about the forum, best you've got is that I lied about the Joints Chief of Staff. Oystein, on the other hand, lied about me hence I demanded an apology. And yes, I can see your play with the distinction between lying about someone and lying to someone, it ain't gonna work. If you have trouble with that distinction, try figuring out why you can bring a defamation case against someone for lying about you but not for lying to you.
You may note that none of that relates to my point, which is that clearly lying to the forum is not something you consider worthy of apology; in fact, it reinforces it.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2020, 04:27 AM   #216
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,256
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
You may note that none of that relates to my point, which is that clearly lying to the forum is not something you consider worthy of apology; in fact, it reinforces it.

Dave
That's true, I don't consider that worthy of apology. But even if I did, I would still not apologize given that it's not "clearly lying." Here's how you can tell:

When it was demonstrated to me that the primary source did not strongly suggest what I thought it did I acknowledged that and adapted my claim. That is the behaviour consistent with making an error, not with "clearly lying."

We can oppose the behaviour of Oystein, when it was demonstrated to him that his claim was false, he doubled-down on it while calling me disingenuous. That is the behaviour consistent with "clearly lying."

Furthermore, you now claim that none of that relates to your point, but you chose to quote my demand for an apology to Oystein to make your point. In short, you demanded an apology from me for making a false claim to the forum which I had already addressed when it was pointed out, in response to me demanding an apology from Oystein for making a false claim about me which he doubled-down on when it was pointed out, as if these two are in any way equivalent.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2020, 04:31 AM   #217
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,181
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
The highlighted is only true in classical logics. Talk about circularity!
In classical logic and derivatives like predicate calculus.

So do you agree that in those logics that modus ponens depends upon the axiom of non-contradiction?
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2020, 04:41 AM   #218
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,256
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
In classical logic and derivatives like predicate calculus.

So do you agree that in those logics that modus ponens depends upon the axiom of non-contradiction?
Yes, in those logics you can't have modus ponens without non-contradiction. However, your claim was that non-contradiction can not be proven in those logics, and that is false. Let's define A as modus ponens and B as non-contradiction. Then the claim that a classical logic with A & ~B is inconsistent is not the same as the claim that B can not be proven from A (and some other axioms).

To put it in mathematical terms. We can say that Peano arithmetic would be inconsistent if it both has 1 + 1 = 2 and 2 + 1 =/= 3. Yet that doesn't mean that 2 + 1 = 3 can not be proven from the axioms of Peano arithmetic.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2020, 05:09 AM   #219
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,181
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Let's define A as modus ponens and B as non-contradiction. Then the claim that a classical logic with A & ~B is inconsistent is not the same as the claim that B can not be proven from A (and some other axioms).
Whoever said it was the same? Not me.

I said that a proof in those logics depended upon the axiom of non-contradiction and so any proof would have to assume this axiom and therefore any proof of the axiom would be circular.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2020, 05:17 AM   #220
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,181
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Sure, the hundreds of logicians who have checked PM have all failed to find its obvious flaw, only for its flaws to be uncovered by you, a random person on the internet. What are the odds?
I am not aware of having claimed to have come up with the idea.

I assume it was those hundreds of logicians who uncovered this, I just learned about it at Uni.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2020, 05:27 AM   #221
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,256
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
Whoever said it was the same? Not me.
That's what you did:
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
It is pretty easy to show that modus ponens depends on the axiom of non-contradiction.

Suppose you have

P1 p->q
P2 p
Conclusion q

But any conclusion C can only be a consequence of an argument A if there is no interpretation of A in which C is false. So we add the negation of C to A

P1 p->q
P2 p
P3 ~q

If q can be true and false at the same time then this is a valid interpretation of A in which the conclusion is false and therefore C cannot follow from A.

So modus ponens does depend upon the axiom of non-contradiction.
You haven't shown that modus ponens depends on non-contradiction, you've shown that it is inconsistent with the negation of non-contradiction. Big difference.

Quote:
I said that a proof in those logics depended upon the axiom of non-contradiction and so any proof would have to assume this axiom and therefore any proof of the axiom would be circular.
Yes and this is false. Just because modus ponens is inconsistent with lack of non-contradiction doesn't mean it requires non-contradiction as an axiom. More generally, any set of axioms is inconsistent with the negation of one of its theorems, but that doesn't mean that said theorem needs to be assumed as an axiom in order to prove it. You actually got quite a bit of leeway to decide which things you will take as axioms and which you will take as theorems. You could take the excluded middle and De Morgan's laws as axiomatic and derive non-contradiction as a theorem, or you could take non-contradiction and De Morgan's laws as axiomatic and derive the excluded middle as a theorem, or...
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2020, 05:29 AM   #222
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,256
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
I am not aware of having claimed to have come up with the idea.

I assume it was those hundreds of logicians who uncovered this, I just learned about it at Uni.
Can you provide a reference? I know that several criticisms have been made of PM, but I've not heard of it being circular.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin

Last edited by caveman1917; 30th March 2020 at 05:54 AM.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2020, 06:30 AM   #223
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 31,006
Just for context:

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Have you apologised for claiming that Northwoods suggested wounding people with plastic explosives yet?

Dave
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
When it was demonstrated to me that the primary source did not strongly suggest what I thought it did I acknowledged that and adapted my claim. That is the behaviour consistent with making an error, not with "clearly lying."
Now, as someone said earlier:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
That's yet anther disingenuous lie as anyone can easily verify. You understand that this thread is public record and can be checked by anyone, right?
All you've in fact admitted - though, in fact, by doing so you've therefore demonstrated the invalidity of your starting premise - is that Northwoods may be interpreted as not requiring any deaths as part of the plan. So perhaps you'd like to either (a) link to the post where you acknowledged that Northwoods did not suggest wounding people with plastic explosives, or (b) admit that you were lying a couple of hours ago when you claimed you had made that admission?

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2020, 07:11 AM   #224
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,256
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
All you've in fact admitted - though, in fact, by doing so you've therefore demonstrated the invalidity of your starting premise - is that Northwoods may be interpreted as not requiring any deaths as part of the plan.

So perhaps you'd like to either (a) link to the post where you acknowledged that Northwoods did not suggest wounding people with plastic explosives
As you acknowledge, I've admitted that the Northwoods document may be interpreted as intending not to cause any deaths, which implies it may be interpreted as not suggesting to wound people with plastic explosives.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2020, 07:17 AM   #225
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 31,006
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
As you acknowledge, I've admitted that the Northwoods document may be interpreted as intending not to cause any deaths, which implies it may be interpreted as not suggesting to wound people with plastic explosives.
Well then, I have to say it was very nice of you to imply all of that in the single word, "Sure".

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2020, 07:39 AM   #226
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,256
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Well then, I have to say it was very nice of you to imply all of that in the single word, "Sure".

Dave
What else would be needed? It follows directly from the fact that attempting to wound people with plastic explosives would likely lead to deaths, something I think we both agreed on. Hence if the intention is to not cause deaths then the intention is to not attempt to wound people with plastic explosives.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2020, 08:08 AM   #227
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 31,006
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
What else would be needed?
You're asking for the word "Sure" to do one hell of a lot of work here. Let's go back to where Northwoods was first mentioned in the thread.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Speaking of that, there is not a single false flag operation in history that involved a mass murder of the committers' own people.
None that we know of at least. We do know that serious proposals for such were considered (Operation Northwoods) so as a concept it's hardly unthinkable.
Now, we've established that Operation Northwoods was not a "serious proposal[s] for such," where "such" clearly refers to "a [single] false flag operation [in history] that involved a mass murder of the committers' own people"; in fact, it did not suggest the murder of a single one of "the committers' own people" (which must be taken to mean "US citizens," as the "committers" were themselves US citizens), and that it is at best merely arguable that it called for any deaths at all given that it did not specifically state that even Cuban nationals were to be killed. So can we further read into your use of the word "Sure" that you admit that your claim about Operation Northwoods - that it was a "serious proposal for such" - was in fact incorrect?

I know this may seem pedantic, but most people, if faced with the necessity of posting a list of admissions of things that they got wrong, would actually do so, rather than assuming that several paragraphs' worth could easily be read into the word "Sure" in response to a subset of that list.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2020, 09:07 AM   #228
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,256
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
So can we further read into your use of the word "Sure" that you admit that your claim about Operation Northwoods - that it was a "serious proposal for such" - was in fact incorrect?
No, I admit that the primary document available is insufficient to establish the claim - it can be interpreted in multiple ways. That's not the same as saying that it is in fact incorrect that it's a serious proposal for such, it may very well have been so, it's just not established by the primary documents available to us.

Quote:
I know this may seem pedantic, but most people, if faced with the necessity of posting a list of admissions of things that they got wrong, would actually do so, rather than assuming that several paragraphs' worth could easily be read into the word "Sure" in response to a subset of that list.
Necessity? There is no necessity, I am responding to you on this because I choose to, I could just as well simply ignore you. Which I may very well do once I'm fully convinced you have a personalized ulterior motive, as demonstrated by you singling me out for this "list of admissions of things I got wrong." Of course, I may still be shown wrong by what I can only assume to be a delay in your posts demanding everyone else in this thread to do the same.

And it's a list now? Where would you like me to start? For example before I was about 5 years old I believed in Santa Claus, I obviously got that wrong.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin

Last edited by caveman1917; 30th March 2020 at 09:09 AM.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2020, 09:12 AM   #229
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 31,006
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
No, I admit that the primary document available is insufficient to establish the claim - it can be interpreted in multiple ways. That's not the same as saying that it is in fact incorrect that it's a serious proposal for such, it may very well have been so, it's just not established by the primary documents available to us.
But in fact it is incorrect - just trying to wring the last drop of meaning out of the word "Sure" here - to say that "We do know that serious proposals for such were considered (Operation Northwoods)," right?

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2020, 09:13 AM   #230
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,256
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
But in fact it is incorrect - just trying to wring the last drop of meaning out of the word "Sure" here - to say that "We do know that serious proposals for such were considered (Operation Northwoods)," right?
Yes that is true. It is incorrect that we know that serious proposals were considered.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2020, 09:15 AM   #231
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 31,006
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Yes that is true. It is incorrect that we know that serious proposals were considered.
Thank you. We got there in the end.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2020, 09:18 AM   #232
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,256
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Thank you. We got there in the end.
No we were already there several days ago when I acknowledged that the first time. Anyway, I'm looking forward to your grilling of Axxman, Allen, smartcooky, Oystein, et al with the same pedantry.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2020, 09:19 AM   #233
Leftus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,954
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Giving an example of an hypothesis with a specific property is not the same as claiming the hypothesis to be true. As for your persistent claims of disingenuity, I think you might want to look up the - much referenced in this thread - concept of "projection".
But it's also not addressing the actual question.

You said "If you believe my version of the conversation to be disingenuous then you are free to quote me or anyone else in this thread making the claim that there was covert US involvement in 9/11. "

And I did. As noted above, you weren't asking if it was true, only if it existed. BTW, since then you've done nothing but push a covert MIHOP. So, clearly, dishonesty.

But rather than address that honestly, you deflect and accuse me of your own faults. It's disingenuous. It was not about the content of the claim, but if the claim existed. It does, you are wrong, and should stay on point about the dishonest context you put the "911 was not an inside job" statement. In short, nobody starts a conversation that way. It's always a reaction to the converse statement that it was an inside job. It's not a statement, but a shorthand rejection to the claim that it was an inside job. It's not a perfectly worded argument, just a common way to say "Prove it" or BS.

Last edited by Leftus; 30th March 2020 at 09:20 AM. Reason: adding the t
Leftus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2020, 09:26 AM   #234
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 31,006
Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post






An American citizen that participated in a plot to "kill about 3,000 of his own countrymen

and start unlawful wars in Asia and the Middle-East" would be ever petrified with fear and terror of discovery.

The thought of prison or firing squad would supply ample incentive for eternal silence.


Additional persuasion to protect their sorry tuckus would arise when they come to realize the upper echelon

of the plot perpetrators might sleep better at night knowing loose-ends
were neutralized.

Yes, I agree that any reasonably intelligent person would be able to predict finding themselves in that predicament as soon as they accepted the invitation to participate in a plot to kill thousands of their countrymen. Yet one thing we can say for certain is that nobody was invited to join a conspiracy to fake the 9/11 attacks, refused the invitation and then went public about it afterwards; nor has anyone gone public by saying that their life was threatened if they didn't join in the conspiracy. So why, if people really were asked to do such a thing, would every one of them have willingly accepted the invitation?

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2020, 09:26 AM   #235
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,256
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
But it's also not addressing the actual question.

You said "If you believe my version of the conversation to be disingenuous then you are free to quote me or anyone else in this thread making the claim that there was covert US involvement in 9/11. "

And I did. As noted above, you weren't asking if it was true, only if it existed. BTW, since then you've done nothing but push a covert MIHOP. So, clearly, dishonesty.

But rather than address that honestly, you deflect and accuse me of your own faults. It's disingenuous. It was not about the content of the claim, but if the claim existed. It does, you are wrong, and should stay on point about the dishonest context you put the "911 was not an inside job" statement. In short, nobody starts a conversation that way. It's always a reaction to the converse statement that it was an inside job. It's not a statement, but a shorthand rejection to the claim that it was an inside job. It's not a perfectly worded argument, just a common way to say "Prove it" or BS.
Person A: "There exists no hypothesis saying the moon is made of any sort of food."

Person B: "Sure there does, here's an example: 'the moon is made of cheese'"

You: "Person B is claiming that the moon is made of cheese."

Person B: "No I'm not."

You: "You're dishonest, disingenuous, pushing a covert claim that the moon is made of cheese, blah blah blah!"
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2020, 09:27 AM   #236
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 31,006
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Anyway, I'm looking forward to your grilling of Axxman, Allen, smartcooky, Oystein, et al with the same pedantry.
Perhaps you'd like to recommend the specific posts where each of them says something (a) relevant to the subject of 9/11 conspiracy theories and (b) demonstrably wrong.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2020, 09:29 AM   #237
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,672
Rather something like 100% can't explain 50/45/5

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Of course, easy-peasy:

Premise: P & ~P
Conclusion 1: P (by conjunction elimination)
Conclusion 2: ~P (by conjunction elimination)

In that case you're even more wrong, see previous paragraph.
Wow, this is how you came up with 50/45/5? That explains why you claim of 50/45/5 is undefined, ready for the bit bucket, aka, the empty set {}.

9/11 was an event. 19 terrorists associated with UBL did it and they used our response to hijacking to give about an hour before we figured out it was planes as weapons. It was our habits, our response customs which help make it happen.

Your posts are BS, and useless for an event. You can't explain your 50/45/5.


Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Rather something like 50% mainstream, 45% MIHOP, 5% everything else.
Can you give details, facts and evidence to support your claim. I guess that is 100% NO.

Can you explain what is in the 5%. Is this another 100% can't do it?


Can you expand on the 45% MIHOP. Is this also 100% no clue?



Next time you comment on what happen on 9/11 just say "{}".
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2020, 09:37 AM   #238
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,256
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Perhaps you'd like to recommend the specific posts where each of them says something (a) relevant to the subject of 9/11 conspiracy theories and (b) demonstrably wrong.

Dave
Sure, you can start with the following post by smartcooky:
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
That is a load of horse-cock - its not how burden of proof works. What you are trying to do is use one of the classic methods that CTs use to shift the burden of proof - The Argument from Ignorance, A.K.A. appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence")

The established, observed facts are the null. The burden of proof is on the claimant of the positive claim; the claim that something happened against the null. The negative claim carries no burden of proof as its proof is the absence of evidence. This is a technical way of saying that you cannot prove a negative.

Person X claims the the CIA was behind 9/11, it is their burden to prove, and they will require evidence to support their claim.

Person Y claims that the CIA was NOT behind 9/11, that is the null, the absence of evidence supports their claim.

Until Person X comes up with evidence of CIA involvement, Person Y's claim, the null, stands as established fact.
It should be an interesting list as almost every claim in it is demonstrably wrong.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2020, 09:46 AM   #239
Leftus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,954
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Person A: "There exists no hypothesis saying the moon is made of any sort of food."

Person B: "Sure there does, here's an example: 'the moon is made of cheese'"

You: "Person B is claiming that the moon is made of cheese."

Person B: "No I'm not."

You: "You're dishonest, disingenuous, pushing a covert claim that the moon is made of cheese, blah blah blah!"
Again with the lies? The statement was not "there exists no hypothesis" but "nobody is putting forward said hypothesis"

You can shoot down the hypothesis all you want, but it doesn't address the statement that nobody is saying it.

You said "If you believe my version of the conversation to be disingenuous then you are free to quote me or anyone else in this thread making the claim that there was covert US involvement in 9/11. "
Leftus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2020, 09:47 AM   #240
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,253
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
<snip>
It should be an interesting list as almost every claim in it is demonstrably wrong.
Since it has been nearly 19 years from the event, and not one person has come forward to announce an involvement by any branch of the government in planning/execution of the 9/11 attacks, one could support that with rather high certainty, that the government was not involved with planning/execution of the 9/11 attack. Notice I did not indicate a 100 % certainty.

Disprove that.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:12 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.