9/11 Conspiracy Theories

[kennyg]

You show your blind and ill-conceived prejudice here, I'm afraid.  Science is by its very nature self-correcting, which is not true of any religion.  Science is empirical and evidence-based, which is a vital ingredient that religions, being authority-based, have in only the most meagre supply.  Each of these two differences is sufficient to refute your position.  Together they demolish it completely.

In your ideal world, Scientists would always report their findings truthfully.  In reality, they often do not because their income would be cut off if they did.  That applies especially in medical research.  If company A is paying a researcher to produce proof of the safety and efficacy of their product and the researcher published findings that the product is highly toxic and of dubious value, the said researcher isn't going to get work from that company again.

I used to be idealistic about Science and think that Scientists are totally committed to the Scientific method, objectivity and honesty, but the realities have led me to understand that Scientists as a group do not behave any differently to the rest of the population when it comes to looking after their own self interests.

And please do not entertain the thought that I am in any way in favour of religion.  I consider religion to be the single most limiting influence on the human species.

[Anacoluthon64]

Then your definition of "terrorism" may be too narrow.

And, equally, yours may be too wide.  I have little interest in excusing the US's shenanigans, but I do take issue with statements long on emotive and short on factual content.  With the right spin, just about anything can be contorted into "terrorism."

As for the remainder of your reply, there's little there that I would contest, except possibly to add that it is important in such matters to distinguish the actions of a nation from those of individuals of that nation, even if those individuals are duly elected representatives of the nation.

Well, then I must be more precise.  I wish to distinguish between Science that is objective and Scientism that is dogmatic and religious.  Some Scientists are one, and some are the other.  Not all scientists handle the evidence with the same degree of objectivity and honesty.

In your ideal world, Scientists would always report their findings truthfully.  In reality, they often do not because their income would be cut off if they did.
<...snip...>

These distinctions you draw and the practical aspects you describe apply to scientists as people, not science itself.  The truth will out, even if it takes much longer than it should.  It remains patently absurd to characterise science itself as being "as much of a religion as any religion."

And lest it be thought that I am perhaps out of touch with the realities of the science enterprise, let it be understood that I have eight years' relevant experience, and Dr Luthon64 13 years, and counting.

'Luthon64

[kennyg]

I have little interest in excusing the US's shenanigans, but I do take issue with statements long on emotive and short on factual content.  With the right spin, just about anything can be contorted into "terrorism."

The representatives of the American people are very quick to label anyone they don't like a "terrorist".  The United States of America do not automatically occupy the moral high ground in spite of what they might think.

Which nation on earth has been the instigator of the most wars in the last 100 years?  Which nation produces the most landmines?  Just because your people are wearing an official military uniform and carrying an American flag does not make them any less terrorists than those terrorists that don't have a flag.  What would you call the group that tried to invade Cuba at the Bay of Pigs?

As for the remainder of your reply, there's little there that I would contest, except possibly to add that it is important in such matters to distinguish the actions of a nation from those of individuals of that nation, even if those individuals are duly elected representatives of the nation.

I wouldn't call all Americans terrorists.  Or all Afganis or Iraquis.  The elected leaders do act on behalf of the entire nation, however, and some of the things that they have done on behalf of the citizens of the USA look just like terrorism to those who were on the receiving end.

These distinctions you draw and the practical aspects you describe apply to scientists as people, not science itself.  The truth will out, even if it takes much longer than it should.  It remains patently absurd to characterise science itself as being "as much of a religion as any religion."

I will grant you that and allow for a pure and untainted abstract concept called "Science".  The Roman Catholic Church does much the same in claiming that the few Priests who are pedophiles represent only themselves and not the Church as a whole.  So the maveric scientists who lie and fake evidence are not representative of "Science" in its pristine and uncorrupted Ivory Tower, but of something else.  Granted.

[Anacoluthon64]

Which nation on earth has been the instigator of the most wars in the last 100 years?  Which nation produces the most landmines?  Just because your people are wearing an official military uniform and carrying an American flag does not make them any less terrorists than those terrorists that don't have a flag.

You're conflating your moral indignation with facts.  But the morality is not at stake here, and it is therefore not at all clear how these observations equate to terrorism.  As I suggested earlier, with the right spin, just about anything that has an element of violence to it can be made to fit the terrorism mould.

What would you call the group that tried to invade Cuba at the Bay of Pigs?

That would depend on where my loyalties lay.  Besides, you conveniently choose to ignore the lessons that were drawn from that failed escapade.

I will grant you that and allow for a pure and untainted abstract concept called "Science".

The power to self-correct is hardly abstract.  It's a defining characteristic with profound practical implications.

'Luthon64

[kennyg]

I will grant you that and allow for a pure and untainted abstract concept called "Science".

The power to self-correct is hardly abstract.  It's a defining characteristic with profound practical implications.

It's a standard that few Scientists keep to 100% of the time.  Expedience wins more often than not.

[Anacoluthon64]

The It's a standard that few Scientists keep to 100% of the time.

Again you reveal your shallow innocence of the scientific process.  Although individual scientists are involved along the way, the self-correcting nature of science is an emergent phenomenon resulting from many different minds being applied at different times in different circumstances and at different places to what is essentially the same problem.  Elsewhere, it has been written that science thrives on error because nothing pleases a scientist more than showing his or her colleagues and teachers to be wrong.  But there's a process to be followed in this, one that you wish ignorantly to impugn.

Expedience wins more often than not.

Only in kennyg-world.

'Luthon64