See, that’s another example of a strawman argument. Am I now demystifying this mysterious jargon that’s right there in the encyclopedia?
Actually, what you did is precisely what you have done throughout your "debate." You have evaluated a statement without the context. You have attacked a specific thing while failing to refute the arc of the story. I made the comment to which you responded to demonstrate that the sort of "logic" you are engaged in is the sort of "logic" creationists engage in.
HOWEVER, in CONTEXT, it should have become clear that I was simply stating that you are embarking along the same fallacious argumentation.
That is not, in fact, a strawman. You are trying to poke holes in an argument by citing instances of weakness in that argument, such as information gaps, while ignoring the story arc. This is exactly how creationists argue. The fallacy committed by the creationists, and by you, is the argumentum ad logicam.
Since I seem to be having trouble communicating why I think your arguments are equivalent, allow me to 'splain.
The creationists cite specific instances where evolutionary theory has either failed to find complete evidence supporting their theory, or where evolutionary theory appears to contain impossible elements. They then state "Evolutionary theory is wrong and unreliable and unproven." This ignores an alternative: That the theory might be incorrect in part, but perhaps largely correct - and is therefore correct and reliable in the majority. They have successfully cited instances of doubt ie, gaps in our knowledge, but those instances to not, of themselves, negate the entire arc of Evolutionary Theory.
Similarly, you cite specific instances where the 9/11 story has failed to find complete evidence in support of that story, or where the story appears to contain impossible elements, such as:
I’ve seen lengthy discussions on this subject by engineers and physicists. Both are missing something.
You successfully cite instances of gaps in our knowledge, but those instances do not negate the 9/11 story arc. They are not even suspicious, inherently.
On to the next part: Where you (paraphrasing here, don't want to get anybody confused) laugh at the people who throw burden of proof at you.
There is a very simple reason for this: When you suggest that the totality of the evidence DOES indicate government conspiracy, and state so, you have just made a proposition.
And what do we all remember from our days in debate and rhetoric, boys and girls? That it is the burden of the proposing side in the debate to prove its claims. This is why I say it is not enough to shoot holes in the theory, but that you need to present a coherent, workable story. By advocating a particular stance, you have changed your status from "critical skeptic," of the 9/11 theory, into the proposition. And, in so doing, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate the validity of your claims. In legal terms, you have taken on the role of the prosecutor.
Now, if you are merely limiting your commentary to "critical skeptic," then I have misunderstood your position, and offer my apologies on that count - but maintain my criticism of your arguments - and acknowledge that you can quite properly occupy the role of the "defense." That is, you can punch holes in the official story all day long with glee.
But, if you are actually advocating the proposition, then you must go beyond punching holes to make your point. You must actually prove your point before anybody should be expected to take it seriously. And so far, all I see are some holes that do not invalidate the story arc, and of which there are majority expert interpretations supporting the official story arc, opposed by a few rather noisy dissenters. I also see some coincidences that some might take as "evidence" that the government was involved. In legal parlance, it would be circumstancial evidence - and what I have seen is not nearly strong enough to make the case.
Note: Lest somebody try to nail me with appeal to authority/majority, citing consensual, expert opinion on a subject is hardly considered fallacious in a debate.... after all, how do you think scientific consensus is reached? I will admit that that consensus can be wrong, however, and the fullness of time would presumably bear that out.
And, if you are merely implying that foul play is afoot along the "something fishy is going on here," lines, then that is your opinion, and while I think worth entertaining as a conversation piece, hardly rises to the level of either of the above circumstances.
Regarding Unions, I'm not sure I was clear:
With respect to your discussion of my "hypocrisy." I stated at the beginning of my postings regarding "Unions committed 9/11" that the purpose of the story was to demonstrate how easily the argumentum ad ignoratum can be constructed. I don't know how you could possibly have thought that this:
Mind you, there's no evidence for it, but I never intended there to be. I think it might make for a good novel - or maybe even the Godfather IV.
was anything other than acknowledging that the "Union Theory" was a spurious invention, designed only to make a point. I have no intention of spreading this around as some sort of alternative theory. It exists only to show the ease with which a good, non-falsifiable fiction can be built. It is one fundamental problem with conspiracy that any evidence contradicting "their" story only shows you the depths/heights to which the conspirators go to cover up the "truth," or the depths/heights of the "stupidity/credulity of the herd." Never mind the neo-con like Argumentum ad Baculum....
Of course, the mainstream approach of calling conspiracy theorists crazy isn't much better.
"In the world of martial arts, respect is often a given. In the real world, it must be earned."
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand. "--Bertrand Russell
"Liberals - Cosmopolitan critics, men who are the friends of every country save their own. "--Benjamin Disraeli
"A conservative government is an organised hypocrisy."--Benjamin Disraeli
Originally Posted by cam
C'mon Kymus, don't you realize that it was all just a coincidence!
Reply With Quote
= 
& a 