Australia is facing a controversy that is all too familiar to Americans. Fundamentalists in state schools are teaching children that humans and dinosaurs lived together and Noah brought dinosaur eggs on to the Ark.
Children are also taught that Adam and Eve were not eaten by dinosaurs “because they were under a protective spell.”
This is consistent with Palintology — the new science advanced by Sarah Palin — which insists that man and dinosaur must have co-existed despite carbon dating and simple logic.
Source: News
Bob,Esq.,
Hey there Bob … good eventide (that was a sincere greeting, please take it as such)
Kevin,
AS usual your bullshit is beyond voluminous. One particular highlight of your deft reasoning skills was this: “No, I’m saying if there was thermite there that didn’t effect the collapse or have a role in causing it (maybe someone was storing it for a friend ) then it would be irrelevant to the discussion of controlled demolition.”
There’s a certain mindset required to author bullshit like that. While I’ve gotten a glimpse of it during this debate, my suspicions were confirmed when you vainly attempted to excuse Obama for embracing tyrannical policies, i.e. exercising power beyond right which no one has a right to.
In those exchanges, I witnessed the rushed sloppy thinking of a man bereft of principle. While claiming you respected the rule of law so long as it applied to Bush out of one side of your mouth, you made excuses for Obama for exercising the same policies, because of the economy no less, out of the other side of your mouth.
Likewise, for someone who professes ultimate concern for scientific rigor, your argumentation tactics can be said to be anything but moral.
Adopting only that maxim that you would will to become a universal law seems to only apply when and where you find it convenient.
What if Harrit had issued a report on the collapse of WTC 7 while neglecting to do any physical testing of the metal altogether? What if Harrit created a computer model that he claimed supports his collapse theory, but refused to release that model for inspection by the public? What if Harrit entirely ignored the voluminous evidence of molten metal at the building’s base, and steel sulfidation documented by FEMA, despite having directly raised these issues in press conferences, and public comment periods for this and a previous report on the Twin Towers?
No wait; that was NIST. And if you were a man of principle, you’d find the foregoing a tad more dishonest than not testing the paints used in the Towers to see which ones allegedly burned hotter than the melting point of iron. Sadly, that’s not the case. Apparently your reverence for the scientific method is as genuine as your respect for the constitution. NIST gets a free pass from you just as you looked the other way regarding Obama’s use of the constitution as a urinal puck. If you were truly a man of principle, you would not excuse Obama’s illegal actions because of a bad economy and you would not implicitly condone NIST’s gross dishonesty while reproving and thence dismissing Harrit for non-dispositive technical objections.
But Bob, you should be attacking my arguments instead of me. Actually no; not in this case. Because the question arises: Why should I continue disproving every inane point you make when I have no reason to expect honest argumentation from you?
“if there was thermite there that didn’t effect the collapse or have a role in causing it??”
Seriously Kevin? You apparently know no shame. You need to grow up or grow a conscience.
… I’m a Scotsman … tea is part of my DNA
Slarti,
University scars last a lifetime!
Blouise,
I don’t drink coffee (a major failing in a mathematician ;-)), but I would be happy to scald cheerful early risers with tea while camping. I’m actually bad at sleeping in a tent – a hangover from all of the campouts to get in the lottery for Duke basketball tickets. If I’m sleeping in a tent and you blow a whistle, I’ll be half dressed, out of my tent, and heading to check in before I actually wake up…
Slarti,
Agreed … except when camping … with only nylon or canvass separating one from the birds sleeping in is impossible … but that does not mean one has to be cheerful about it! A grumpy camper with a hot cup of coffee is a real danger to cheerful risers … as it should be!
Blouise,
Me neither. I’m a big believer that you should only be seeing sunrise because you stayed up, not because you got up. 😉
Slartibartfast
1, August 28, 2010 at 12:37 pm
Blouise,
In my case it would be more accurate to say that I am up late than up early (I am decidedly NOT a morning person…).
=========================================================
In that we are kindred souls.
I don’t trust morning people … there’s something wrong with them … I’m just too foggy in the A.M. to figure out what it is … and cheerful morning people are definitely god’s punishment upon the world.
Buddha,
I always think of Dick Cheney as Darth Vader without the redemptive arc…
Although, now that I think about it, I have referred to Bond movie villains but only in the proper context. Which, of course, is to compare them to Dick Cheney.
Slarti,
I never talk of Bond in film terms except for the Daniel Craig films. As much as I like Connery and Llewellyn, the last two Bond movies are the only ones that do the spirit of the books justice. (Right now I hear Bond geek heads exploding all over the world.)
Blouise,
In my case it would be more accurate to say that I am up late than up early (I am decidedly NOT a morning person…).
Buddha,
I think it comes down to Q in the books (fantastic but only slightly exaggerated from reality) vs. Q in the movies (unconcerned with the laws of physics and the limitations of technology). When Dr. Jones allows that the thermite may have only been in detonators and Dr. Greening computes that the thickness of thermite in the chips Dr. Jones found would only be sufficient to warm the columns by a few degrees I think the idea that high-tech thermitic materials could have been used to engineer the demolition of the WTC is firmly in the realm of science fiction rather than science… I can’t prove that it didn’t happen, but I would be utterly shocked if that were the case.
Slarti and Buddha,
My goodness, science lovers arise early in the morning and, most astoundingly, are able to put coherent thoughts together and manipulate a keyboard thus producing thoughtful prose! I am in awe of such ability. No implosion amongst you all.
Over all I find Bob’s position to be a bit far fetched … I do not mean to imply that Bob is far fetched (he seems to take offense easily so I want to make certain I don’t give personal insult) … but based on the evidence, as presented, his argument seems to reach beyond the facts into the realm of “what if”. Should there be more evidence forthcoming which proves his scenarios then of course he will appear the wisest of all his peers and I will offer sincere applause but for now ….
Slarti,
“One of the reasons that I find Bob’s thesis an improbability verging on an impossibility is the lack of a complete theory which can explain all of the observations. While it’s possible (not really) that half a kiloton of explosives was placed in pre-drilled boreholes to pulverize the concrete or that the collapse was initiated by some sort of high-tech thermitic material which can be painted on to columns and somehow melt or weaken them or that thermite created molten metal (but it couldn’t have kept it molten) when you try to put a controlled demolition scenario together the implausibilities quickly multiply and the probability gets pretty close to zero.”
Quite frankly, I think you’re underestimating the both the effectiveness and flexibility in composition of metastable intermolecular composites. They are truly something Q would be proud to hand off to James Bond. The very cutting edge of materials sciences in addition to explosive chemistry.
“Personally, I like analog over digital in matters of philosophy. I prefer a spectrum of grays that can capture nuance to black and white. [0..1] is much more interesting than {0,1} to me. But that’s a whole other can of worms…”
Hence the positron analogy as nuance from the game theory analogy. Although I am versed in both digital and analog logics, it’s not a secret that that I view the universe in toto as an analog system (as do most scientists). However, all tools have their place and time.
And lastly, I am glad that you (and Bob) see the reasonableness of my position. And that you acknowledge the special challenges of being green. While the ladies may dig my jade complexion, it is often true what the felt frog so famously laments about ease related to the color.
Blouise,
Thank you for not just the compliment but the lovely hug and kiss. I like huggers. For the record, I am a big fan of hugs. Now if you’ll pardon me, this is the part of the program where I blush.
Blouise,
I’m glad you learned something – I’ve learned a lot researching this, too. Every time Bob forces me to learn more about this I become more amazed by how unscientific his position is. Part of his problem is that he never met a theory that (he thinks) supports his position that he didn’t like. He said that I’m like a magpie with words, well he’s like a magpie with truther theories (if you ever want to know what Bob’s up to, just look at what he’s accusing me of doing – that’s a shortcut that hardly ever fails me ;-)). Supporting half-baked, incorrect theories like his equivalent airspeed argument or theories falsified by the data like the holes in the primary radar or just arguing against conservation of energy and for the backwards heat equation are errors that he really can’t afford. If you’re going to argue the counter-orthodoxy you need to zealously guard your credibility or else you end up looking like a tinfoil-hatter latching on to any theory that confirms your bias no matter how illogical or unsupported by evidence. I don’t know if he’s desperate to prove his case by any means or if he really understands so poorly that he thinks that the evidence favors him.
Buddha said:
… peculiar, thou? I find green to be a most pleasing complexion.
Buddha,
Yes, indeed, should new evidence come to light I hope we all would pay heed.
I thank you for your most gentlemanly response to my subtle, yet respectful, remarks and being what others like to call a hugger, I respond with a warm hug and a buss on the cheek … XO
Blouise,
You will get no challenge from me on this issue. I have chosen the middle path – that while both arguments have merit, that there are two competing theorems I will choose neither because while one is indeed more likely (Slarti’s), the other is not impossible, just lacking sufficient evidence (Bob’s). So instead of making the judgment on probability, I suspend judgment on possibility. Due in large part to the suspect chemistry at this point. If you read the original threads this argument started on, in my role as skeptic, my position was initially based on order from chaos. I had problems with both the initial and final symmetries of the event. While those issues were largely dealt with during the discourse, the oddities of the chemistry still remain enough of a possibility I’m willing to keep an open mind should new evidence arise. It is not a position I would expect others to take and I recognize that my position is probably both particular and peculiar to my nature.
People like duality. They like their 1 or their -1. But duality is not how nature really works. It’s a superposition of our psychological needs for bilateral symmetry imposed by our biology. Nature shows us there is a third way. To stick with the game theory analogy, I have chosen 0 over either 1 or -1. To use particle physics, I prefer the neutron over Slarti’s proton or Bob’s electron. More accurately I should say I am a positron to their electron and proton, but I don’t want to stretch the analogy any further than that. Should your natural state pull to either charge, on this argument, I will not protest.
In other words, my jury is still deliberating although they do lean absent conclusory proof Bob’s position is impossible. It’s not an easy stance to choose and a bit peculiar I’ll admit. But I never claimed not to be a bit peculiar. 😀
Slarti,
Nope … I learned a lot and, happily, I believe yours to be the more correct position … why happily? Initially your discourse made more sense, however that was based on a perusal of the material … after reading all the posts … yours had the more substantial argument. For that reason I am even willing to question the stance of the great and wondrous Buddha (something I have never done before and probably will never do again) when he states that both of you could be right.
However, such is my regard for the mighty green one that should he challenge me, I would immediately back down ……
AY,
I’ve always been fascinated by triple points.
Buddha,
But I wanted to be unified! Lazy God… 🙁
Blouise,
Have you come to regret disregarding your better judgement yet?