Coming to grips with ignorance … loose screws

Veracity: “Not entertaining any proposition with greater assurance than the proofs it is built upon will warrant.” (Locke)

U.S. variation: If something is on TV and called “news” it is true. No proof need be offered.

Bertrand Russell:

“[Locke’s] definition is admirable in regard to all those matters as to which proof may reasonably be demanded. But since proofs need premise, it is impossible to prove anything unless some things are accepted without proof. We must therefore ask ourselves: What sort of thing is it reasonable to believe without proof?

I should reply: The facts of sense experience and the principles of mathematics and logic – including the inductive logic employed in science. These are things which we can hardly bring ourselves to doubt, and as to which there is a large measure of agreement among mankind.

But in matters as to which men disagree, or as to which our own convictions are wavering, we should look for proofs, or, if proofs cannot be found, we should be content to confess ignorance.” (The Listener, 1947)

The major event of our time for most Americans, 9/11, is surrounded by so-called evidence with little or no science behind it.

  • Jet aircraft cannot behave in that manner, cannot fly at 500+ mph in dense atmosphere;
  • The odds of 19 supposed hijackers all having success with minimal tools at their disposal are phenomenal …
  • … and then to fly the aircraft (which cannot fly at that speed anyway) unerringly to their targets … unlikely.
  • Large jet aircraft cannot fly through small holes without meeting resistance and leaving debris.
  • Light posts would not have been severed by aircraft wings – quite the opposite, the wings would have been severed by a denser metal.
  • Cell phone calls from aircraft were impossible then, as now.
  • The notion that an aircraft sunk in an abandoned mine and that no effort was made to recover it is … indescribably ludicrous.
  • That a group of people ascertained the plans of supposed hijackers and then voluntarily committed suicide to save others … Disneyesque, vain, patronizing and stupid.
  • That national defense responders all at once screwed up is so … highly unlikely …
  • … that fighter aircraft needed for national defense conveniently were out of position – highly coincidental.
  • The large number of military drills going on, easily ‘flipped live” to avail plotters of vast government resources, was too coincidental to be taken without serious skepticism.
  • The presence of an unreported large hurricane off the shore of Long Island that day … hmmmm.

These are the facts of sense experience, but also principles of mathematics and logic. Those of us who look at the events of that day with high skepticism are the ones who employ the skills of reason and logic, and are also the ones not so susceptible to TV truth. We are the sane ones. The rest of you … you seem to have some screws loose.

I do not understand the power in place that causes ordinarily sensible people to believe such monstrous lies. It’s really weird that all of the above, easily seen to be false, even ludicrous, are accepted without proof.

What the hell is wrong with you people?

About Mark Tokarski

Just a man who likes to read, argue, and occasionally be surprised.
This entry was posted in American wilderness. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Coming to grips with ignorance … loose screws

  1. JC says:

    “What the hell is wrong with you people?”

    Brainwashed.

    Like

  2. rightsaidfred says:

    I strive for a kind of agnosticism here.

    One hears the evidence; checks it against their own experience; checks what the experts say; checks the “chatter” — the arc of where the “wisdom of crowds” is taking things. One makes a tentative conclusion, but stays open to re-examining.

    The physics is not on your side, despite your trumpeting of a few anomalies.

    That the bureaucracy should have done better is hardly a useful argument.

    Some questions remain, but to attribute it to insiders with a plan to goose defense spending hardly fits anything about that industry.

    Like

    • Do talk physics. I am all ears. You’re pretty damned vague.

      Like

      • steve kelly says:

        Technology is going to take care of everything — well, according to the technocrats at least. Merry Christmas all.

        Like

      • There is Newton’s Third Law: When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.

        It has a Kailey corollary, however: If one object is going really, really fast, forget it.

        Like

      • rightsaidfred says:

        By what calculations does Newton’s Third Law support your position? Do you calculate that the buildings were supposed to fall over like a tree chopped down in the forest?

        Let’s model this on a car hitting a tree. Case 1: a car moving at 100mph impacts a tree. The tree is relatively small, so the car uproots the tree, flips it over the hood/roof/trunk, and goes on its way. Case 2: a car moving at 100mph impacts a somewhat larger tree. The car comes to a stop while the tree topples over. Case 3: a car moving at 100mph impacts a very large tree. The car comes to a stop; the tree remains standing.

        Non of these scenarios violates Newton’s Third Law.

        Like

        • You’re making my case for me. The key is not speed. The law specifically says that it does not matter which body is moving. There is an “equal and opposite” reaction. Increase speed, increase reaction. In this case, the moving tree could hit the car, and the result is identical. Math plays a role in that the relative mass of the two objects determines which will prevail and which will be destroyed.

          In the case of a steel building and an aluminum aircraft, the building wins every time, except on TV that day. Aircraft hits building, some damage to building, aircraft disintegrates and falls to ground below.

          Dr. Judy Wood did the actual calculations to demonstrate what forces would have to be in play for the buildings to collapse as they did. What we saw was not physically possible – an essential free-fall by appearances, but something else entirely in reality. You’re going to have to expose yourself to the evidence there to understand the concept.

          Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s