Scientists and Truthers

Wildy

Adelaidean
Wildy
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
11,977
Location
Australia
On another forum (FCN if you must know) I was recently on the receiving end on a cry of "BS" from a truther there.

I basically said that 99% of scientists don't support them.

This guy then sort of complains that I am "making up evidence" when I only said the number because it just shows a minority really well.

But it got me thinking, what percentage of scientists in the relevant fields are actually truthers? Do they even make 1% of those scientists?
 
Wildy said:
On another forum (FCN if you must know) I was recently on the receiving end on a cry of "BS" from a truther there.

I basically said that 99% of scientists don't support them.

This guy then sort of complains that I am "making up evidence" when I only said the number because it just shows a minority really well.

But it got me thinking, what percentage of scientists in the relevant fields are actually truthers? Do they even make 1% of those scientists?
Click to expand...

And, just because a scientist doesn't call him/herself a truther, it doesn't mean that they are automatically for the official hypothesis.

It is very possible that a lot of scientists haven't looked into the details of the matter.

To say that 99% of scientists don't believe the alternative theory is not accurate because a certain percentage have not weighed either body of evidence.
 
Sizzler said:
It is very possible that a lot of scientists haven't looked into the details of the matter.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's not like the collapse of the wtc towers would be of any interest to a structural engineer.

But then again, why should a biologist be considered an authority on what a plane crash site should or shouldn't look like?
 
uk_dave said:
Yeah, it's not like the collapse of the wtc towers would be of any interest to a structural engineer.

But then again, why should a biologist be considered an authority on what a plane crash site should or shouldn't look like?
Click to expand...

Who considers me an authority? Certainly not I.
 
Sizzler said:
And, just because a scientist doesn't call him/herself a truther, it doesn't mean that they are automatically for the official hypothesis.

It is very possible that a lot of scientists haven't looked into the details of the matter.

To say that 99% of scientists don't believe the alternative theory is not accurate because a certain percentage have not weighed either body of evidence.
Click to expand...

Then let's change the standards. We take the percentage of scientists who have actually studied the 9/11 issues that are related to their fields.

I still think we'd probably get in the 90-99 range for scientists siding with the official story.
 
Sizzler said:
Who considers me an authority? Certainly not I.
Click to expand...

I think that went over your head.

The point being that scientists in a particular field are generally going to be interested in pretty much the biggest events in their field known to man. Not to many would simply not think about their lifes work.
 
Last edited:
Jonnyclueless said:
I think that went over your head.

The point being that scientists in a particular field are generally going to be interested in pretty much the biggest events in their field known to man. Not to many would simply not think about their lifes work.
Click to expand...

I have a biology degree. I've mentioned that before. I think that is why he used that example.

I understand your comment though, seems pretty logical, right?

I'm not one to take one's word for it. I respect the scientific method and I believe in the end, the truth reveals itself. However as we wait for the official hypothesis of WTC7 to be published, I doubt anyone could prove with a fact that most structural engineers in the world support the official hypothesis.

2008 will certainly be an interesting year as we all wait for the final report.

Until then, how do we truly know who supports what?
 
The 99% factor is probably too low, if you assume that those who have not spoken up on the matter are accepting of the official account of 9/11. This is a big assumption, although one often used (The silent majority).

Personally, I think if all scientists were polled, it would go more like 80-90% of scientists accept the official account, 10-20% do not, and 0-10% are undecided.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
The 99% factor is probably too low, if you assume that those who have not spoken up on the matter are accepting of the official account of 9/11. This is a big assumption, although one often used (The silent majority).

Personally, I think if all scientists were polled, it would go more like 80-90% of scientists accept the official account, 10-20% do not, and 0-10% are undecided.

TAM:)
Click to expand...


that sounds pretty reasonable.
 
T.A.M. said:
The 99% factor is probably too low, if you assume that those who have not spoken up on the matter are accepting of the official account of 9/11. This is a big assumption, although one often used (The silent majority).

Personally, I think if all scientists were polled, it would go more like 80-90% of scientists accept the official account, 10-20% do not, and 0-10% are undecided.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

I wonder how those results would stack up against young-earth creationists, intelligent designers and evolution-rejecters. I personally work with a chemist (PhD Chemistry, MS/BS Materials Science) who is a creationist. He is arguably the smartest guy I know, but he just believes this one dumb thing.
 
T.A.M. said:
Personally, I think if all scientists were polled, it would go more like 80-90% of scientists accept the official account, 10-20% do not, and 0-10% are undecided.
Click to expand...

And those 10-20% would probably be of the Frank Greening variety rather than the Steven Jones "hey I found sulfur so that equals thermite" variety.
 
Sizzler said:
And, just because a scientist doesn't call him/herself a truther, it doesn't mean that they are automatically for the official hypothesis.

It is very possible that a lot of scientists haven't looked into the details of the matter.

To say that 99% of scientists don't believe the alternative theory is not accurate because a certain percentage have not weighed either body of evidence.
Click to expand...


You could advance the debate considerably by doing something no one else has done: provide a coherent narrative for the "alternative theory." Tell us how the fantasy movement accounts for the events of 9/11/01.
 
Sizzler said:
To say that 99% of scientists don't believe the alternative theory is not accurate because a certain percentage have not weighed either body of evidence.
Click to expand...

And what "body of evidence" does the TM have, exactly?
 
I think rather than "body of evidence" the truth movement should use terms like "collection of arguments" or "coincidences and anomalies".

TAM:)
 
Forget the scientists. 911 calls for teleologists. (Get my Photon, quickly!)

Gentle readers,

What does it matter what percentage of scientists are truthers? 911 is not a scientific problem; 911 is a teleological problem. There is a difference!


"Why does element X decay?" is a scientific problem.

"What did that magician just do?" is a teleological problem.


911 is a teleological problem.


The problem is that the scientific method is blind to teleological phenomena. The scientific process begins with observations, before generating hypotheses. But good magicians can cloak evidence, using diversions and other tricks. No evidence - no hypothesis-generation.


Scientists have been blind to the WTC controlled demolitions because the scientific method does not generate the hypothesis "911 was an inside job, and the collapses were controlled-demolitions."

Without this hypothesis, there was no impetus for an arson investigation.


MILDEC planners knew that the scientific method had that exploitable susceptibility, and MILDEC took advantage of it. Now, pseudo-gangs of scientists - all of whom have incorrectly diagnosed 911 as a scientific problem - and rendered certain, having been successfully targeted by ambiguity reducing deception (making experts CERTAIN the jets caused the fires, so no need to investigate for arson in the form of incendiaries planted at steel connections to heat-weaken the towers to initiate collapse) - stabilize the deception for MILDEC by ensuring the correct hypothesis be attenuated (because it ain't scientific).

In other words, pseudo-gangs of scientists cloaking the teleological problem that is 911.


Max Ex Machina
 
Last edited:
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