The reason Israel suffers so many less casualties is because they have a missile defense system that intercepts the vast majority of rockets which saves countless lives. Would you support Israel more if more Israelis died and the casualty count was 50/50? — BitconnectCarlos

Is this meant as a joke, or do you sincerely not see how fatuous this statement is?

You've clearly identified with one "side" and so are possibly incapable of looking at this conflict objectively, but take a few moments to consider again what you've said and see if you can at least play Devil's advocate to your own remarks.

(If you can't, there's no need in going any further -- defend Israel to the end; I'm not interested.)

Right. Which should provoke some basic questions: why does the US so strongly side with Israel? Why do we vote in lockstep with them? Why do we send billions of military aid and technology to them?

Questions a child would have, but which reveal some very interesting facts. I hope threads like these at least encourage people to look into it a little deeper.

99% of the killing is done by Israel. 99% of the children murdered are murdered by Israel. The idea that's just defending themselves from the vastly inferior power they are violently occupying is where the parody comes in. — Baden

Indeed.

Notice the rhetoric. If our team does it, it’s self defense. If the other team does it, it’s terrorism.

Completely ignoring the power imbalance, and hence reality.

That's the crux of it. Everything else is peripheral. This has been going on since ancient times. Plenty of posters here - Streetlight, 180, among others refuse to accept Israel's right to exist. — BitconnectCarlos

No, this is simply nonsense. This is a claim used over and over again to justify a brutal occupation. Israel has rejected the international consensus for years, the power balance isn't anywhere close to equal, and it's had the backing of the United States for decades.

Come to the bargaining table with us and we'll talk. We've withdrawn settlements and forces in the past and we'll do it again, just be civil. — BitconnectCarlos

Could have ended with Sadat in '71. What happened then? Or in Taba? Were they not asked politely enough?

That's all it's about: Accepting our right to exist. — BitconnectCarlos

That's simply nonsense.

You just admitted here that Palestinians are genocidal, so given that you've already accepted that, why should the Jews be willing to negotiate with a group who wants them dead? — BitconnectCarlos

That's like saying Native Americans were genocidal -- so why should the colonists negotiate with them?

I suspect you're willfully ignoring both history and current reality.

Of course Israel deserves condemnation when condemnation is due, and we can entertain a variety of approaches towards how to improve the state of Israel and make it more moral. — BitconnectCarlos

One way is by stopping their brutal decades-long occupation and agreeing to a two-state solution, as most of the world wants.

So yes, plenty of evidence, much of it in Hebrew. Won't be long before we get stuff in English. — Manuel

I can't read Hebrew, so I'll have to wait. I also haven't yet heard anything directly from Finkelstein, but I look forward to it.

This is absolutely party politics being played out at the expense of Palestinian lives — StreetlightX

Yeah, and yet we get front-page articles like this:

One week earlier, Mr. Netanyahu’s opponents were poised to unseat him and form a new government, potentially ending the rule of the country’s longest-serving leader as he faces corruption charges. He denies wrongdoing.

But the past six days of national turmoil have offered the Israeli prime minister a political lifeline. When Arab parties and a right-wing politician pulled out of talks this week to join or back a rival coalition, the threat to unseat Mr. Netanyahu appeared to collapse.

“Netanyahu has always thrived in environments of uncertainty, of chaos and crisis,” said Mitchell Barak, an Israeli pollster and director of Keevoon Global Research, who worked as an aide to Mr. Netanyahu in the 1990s. “He basically goes from crisis to crisis.” —

https://www.wsj.com/articles/israels-turmoil-hands-political-lifeline-to-embattled-prime-minister-netanyahu-11621092285?mod=hp_lead_pos2

As if to say "What luck for Netanyahu!" Most read newspaper in the states.

Haven't read the entire thread, but I truly wonder about the timing of all this. Seems to be a nice distraction for Bibi. I wonder if anyone else has read anything about this and whether it's supported by any evidence. I wouldn't be shocked in the least.

Divide and conquer is a piece of it, but probably a small one. The ruling class has other, very robust tools:

Misinformation; relative and absolute poverty; the law (which is more on the side of the rich than it is on the side of the poor); the police (and if need be, armed forced); the obedience training programs of secondary education; the mass media; and so on and so forth. — Bitter Crank

I think misinformation is spread through the indoctrination centers (schools) and various media -- that's a huge weapon, yes -- perhaps bigger than lack of organizing. But on the other hand, as Chomsky points out often enough and which I see in my life (and is reflected in polling), people tend to see the real issues -- they just don't necessarily articulate them.

So if the numbers are there, and the information is (basically) there, what short of coming together is stopping us? The Occupy Movement and the Sanders' campaign are proof enough that it can happen. Both made inequality (a class issue) a focal point. That struck a nerve after 40 years of neoliberalism.

Rugged Individualism is a ruling class friend. By all means! Encourage the masses to be individualists, rugged or not. Individuals should definitely pursue their unique set of interests. The ruling class, or the rich, have class consciousness. Let's not let the masses get infected by the kind of thinking that shows them that they are all in the same sinking boat! — Bitter Crank

Yeah, exactly.

A fish stinks from the head.

The American political system is, in most states, based on the motto "winner takes all". As long as this is in place, in law and in popular culture, there's just no reason to place much value on working together with others. — baker

Agreed.

I think the whole idea of there being Red and Blue states within one country is insane. It's a miracle the US has any semblance of functionality at all, given the political principles by which it is governed.

And then this whole notion of the president being a member of a political party! How could things not go wrong?! — baker

I think that certainly adds to it, and it's exactly what the plutocrats want -- since they own both parties (this is slightly changing now, however, with Trump and Sanders). But it leads to a larger point: the lack of awareness of alternatives, whether it be how other countries function politically and economically, or a completely different view of what a human being is (and thus what an ideal society can be imagined to cultivate it).

Perhaps Americans should get out more.

True. I just don't know what pulling out all the stops would look like if you don't have the Senate in the bag. — James Riley

I imagine there must be some, even though I don't have concrete examples. But it won't be easy.

Biden is still in the honeymoon that Obama and most POTUSs get. — James Riley

Maybe. If they can somehow get some of these policies passed, I think he’ll continue being popular and even gain some voters. But the likelihood is low with Mr. West Virginia in there. Plus I don’t know how hard Biden is willing to fight for these things. Very easy to propose (although I credit his administration for doing so), much harder to make a reality unless you really pull out the stops.

Once again: What you choose to do and not do affects others. It is because of this that you cannot be left alone. The only way what you do would not affect others is if you lived in isolation. To be left alone you must be alone. And even then there would be an impact on others. — Fooloso4

Well said.

Concern for others, common welfare, the common good, the simple fact that what we do (or don’t do) has real consequences on the world (including people) around us, etc, has been so thoroughly beaten out of people’s heads that they come to admire Ebenezer Scrooge.

We know where this dangerous nonsense comes from, and why it continues: it comes from the mouths of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, and other (perhaps unwitting) apologists for the plutocrats — and it persists because it’s useful to said plutocrats. Plain and simple.

It’s a truly sick mentality, and leads to sick outcomes.

Notwithstanding what the right says about the left being sheeple, the simple fact is, they are cats. You can't herd cats. The right, however, loves a strong leader who tells them what they want to hear, and they will fall in goosestep behind him (or, her, if she's hot). — James Riley

I don't think that's fair, actually. The "Left" (if they can be called that) fell right in line with Obama. At first it was borderline cultish, and it dissipated. The people who worship Trump didn't seem to get as disillusioned, but there were very different circumstances that accounts for that (social media and education levels come to mind).

Regardless, I think your point demonstrates how we separate ourselves from others and keep divisions going. I do this as well -- it's very difficult not to, when it looks as though one side is becoming a death cult. I wonder how I would have reacted to the rise of the National Socialist Party in the 30s if I were a German citizen, for example...what would have been the proper response (pre-Holocaust?)...given that Trumpism is even more dangerous, I don't think a Kumbaya attitude is appropriate. In that case, it's very hard to want to find any common ground with these people.

On the other hand, they're also deluded, mainly by outside factors (like media) coming from above that targets and exploits them -- their fears of changing demographics, their working class conditions, their latent racism, their lack of education, and the fears and values that have been instilled in them for the last 30 years (from "they're coming for our guns" to "keep government out of my social security").

Although you didn't ask, I personally tend more and more to want to talk with those who are already "there" mentally, or are at least reasonable. I'm not too interested in the die-hard Trump crowd -- they're a spectacle, and can't be ignored, but since they've shown they're immune to reason the only way to deal with them is to overpower them with a greater force -- a bigger army, so to speak (and of not just voters).

As a side note, I saw so many working class people who refused to avail themselves of any government services (that they had paid for with their tax dollars) because they "didn't want to be no welfare queen!" They end up physically broke down in a hovel somewhere and dying early. Oh well. — James Riley

That's interesting. Or look at the Republican states denying medicaid expansion or federal unemployment funding. It's truly insane. But that's where we are.

I don't know that any of the questions concerning the natural world (the domain of science) were ever philosophical in nature. — forrest-sounds

Science is natural philosophy, and used to be called as such, right through the 19th century.

The conception of nature as res extensa, as matter, or as the "physical" (as in the science of physics, a word derived from the Greek phusis, which is also often translated as "nature" [natura, in Latin]), comes from the beginning of what we call modern science, in Galileo and Descartes. Of course, their idea of "body" (and hence material) was based in the mechanical philosophy of the time: the idea of contact action. That is, that the world was like a machine, not unlike the complicated clocks and automata of the 17th century. Eventually this was abandoned, of course, for a view that takes into account the "forces" of nature -- but you see the point, I think.

But the very ontology behind science is a naturalistic one -- basically materialism or, perhaps better, mathematical and measurable. "Reality is only what is measurable," as supposedly Max Plank once said. This ontology is not itself scientific.

My sister, in Maine, said Collins was pushed over the top by some last minute outdoor T.V. personality that everyone loves. — James Riley

Hmm— do you recall the name?

So my question is this: Isn't it incumbent upon "liberals" to go into the lions den, troll if they have to, rock boats, stir pots? — James Riley

Don't we need a counter-insurgency program, specifically designed to upset stupidity? — James Riley

Regardless, I ask myself, how best to turn the craziness when the truth will not suffice? When facts will not suffice? Maybe the craziness should not be turned? — James Riley

I think these questions are in the right direction. My own view is to resist the temptation to engage with the opposition, especially on the Internet (and even more especially on social media platforms), and instead to focus on gathering and organizing people who share the same values/goals -- or those who can be swayed (of which there are many).

Why? Because I'm sorry to say that there's a chunk of the electorate that's just immovable, mentally. They're sinking further into a vortex of pure chaos, an alternative reality of "alternative facts" that far exceeds any kind of craziness on the left -- and is much more dangerous. The "Q" phenomenon is a prime example, but also the Big Lie ("election was stolen") and the sacking of the Capitol. There's really no reasoning with them anymore, and there's no time -- especially not online, which is where a lot of this banter takes place. If it's gonna happen, maybe it'll happen in real time between real people (neighbors, friends, pastors, priests, doctors, community leaders).

We can learn some lessons from history. We beat them in 2020 by 7 million votes during a high turnout year. Given the electoral college, that's still not good enough in my view -- especially against such an awful incumbent. On the other hand, incumbents historically win, and Biden voters were far less enthusiast than Trump voters in 2016 or Obama voters in 2020. Given the Republican gains in Congress and the state legislatures, however, it only shows how unpopular Trump was (e.g., Trump lost Maine but Susan Collins won re-election handily). Is this level of participation good enough? Not at all.

We need to do more, not only bringing more and more people away from the right and the center, but away from apathy and non-voting (the largest "voting" bloc there is by far). Our job, besides voting, is to organize these people.

I think the focus should shift away from national issues and towards local issues -- the state legislatures, local elections, councilmen elections, etc. Creating groups in person or online of like-minded people around your community. Otherwise all this news-consumption and yelling into the social media ether (Tweeting, re-tweeting, sharing memes, hitting a "like" button, writing long political posts, etc) and endless complaining amounts to is political hobbyism. (I should know -- I've fallen into that trap too. I see it all around me -- and there's good reasons for it; it's not just laziness.)

As far as national issues -- we should try pushing this administration and the Democratic party as a whole towards what we feel are the right issues. Here I am in Noam Chomsky's camp. Bernie Sanders has already done that in his own way, and it's showing in Biden's administration. I'm not at all fooled by the media's portrayal of this, making him out to be the "next FDR," but I simply don't see him going as big as he is without having to kiss the ass of the large number of Bernie voters and the vocalness of AOC et al. One reason to push, apart from the fact that they're simply better policies, is that if these measures pass they will have real, noticeable effects on people's lives and, once they get a taste of it, it'll be very hard to reverse -- and will lead to greater turnout. (I think Obamacare demonstrates the former point -- and I'm not a big fan of it, but it is far more popular now in it was 10 years ago.)

So, on the federal level: push them in whatever way you can to implement policies that will help the majority of Americans, and this will (arguably) lead to higher approval and turnout. More importantly, on the local level, start getting involved. This necessitates the things you mentioned: talking to others, trying different strategies, discovering better methods of organizing, etc. That itself takes group collaboration. So if there's any mantra here, it's that we've got to be more social.

Those on the Right know it, and they're better at it -- they're far more organized than the Left. They're also desperate, have a coalition that are becoming more and more unhinged (which are turning off a lot of corporate America despite their party being far more likely to give them everything they want), and increasingly rely on structural factors (electoral college, Senate representation) and cheating (gerrymandering, voter suppression) to maintain power.

We don't share the same problems. We already have the numbers, and we have the policies (large majority support for most of them). But we're simply not as organized. You can't run on demonizing the other side forever, and running simply on "I'm not as bad as that guy," even if it's true. Eventually you have to do something. I think handing out stimulus checks was a good start, and some of the proposals (child care, universal Pre-K, taxing the rich) are decent, but it's got to continue.

I live in NH -- close to Maine, where Collins won. I can't help but think if I did more to assist her opponents campaign that the Democrats would not have to be held hostage by the likes of Joe Manchin. So there's a little connection for you. (Not to say I have that much influence, of course.)

I think Trump will be highly competitive in 2024 and the odds on favorite to win if a recession hits by then, which seems highly likely given record high corporate debt levels today. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Are corporate debt levels very predictive of recessions? What data are you looking at, and can you pass along please? Thanks.

In general, I'd expect Far-Right political parties to continue their string of victories until developed nations figure out a solution for the issue of immigration. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don't think people really care much about immigration if there isn't a "crisis" or the media isn't whipping them up in a frenzy. Notice the hysteria about the border from last month has completely subsided. This shows up in polling, too. It's there, but other things like healthcare, political corruption, the economy, etc., consistently poll higher in importance.

I doubt that very much.
— Xtrix

To the extent that this counts as a post, you're right. — fishfry

Yes -- you're fairly predictable.

To summarize this odd discussion: you're yet another deluded 9/11 truther desperately pretending to not be a 9/11 truther -- exactly like most 9/11 truthers. "I'm one of the REASONABLE conspiracy theorists!"

It's simply terrible, terrible judgment. On par with flat earth theory -- many proponents of which are probably nice people as well, but likewise deluded.

It was fun embarrassing you -- have a good time with your unanswered "questions."

That all changed the day I saw a [url=]video of the collapse of building 7. You can't unsee it. It's a controlled demolition. — fishfry

It remains unexplained. — fishfry

Lots of things go unexplained. All kinds of strange things happen during disasters. There's nothing about that video -- or logic generally -- that suggests a demolition. The building fell for structural reasons due to the impact of the WTC collapse. It can't be sketched out exactly how, perhaps, but neither can how we evolved from primates. Must mean "God did it." Or maybe aliens. Or maybe a demolition by a corrupt government.

If you can't see the absurdity, and where your reasoning is going wrong, then, again, you're caught in the rabbit hole and there's no pulling you out. And I'm not interested in trying to.

How did three steel-framed buildings collapse, the first, last, and only such collapses of steel-framed buildings in history?
— fishfry

:roll: Ask a civil engineer.
— Xtrix

Like these guys? — fishfry

Oh you mean the conspiracy theory-peddling "non-profit" group of quacks known as the "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth"? Funny that's who you offer up. In that case, there's a group of "scientists" who you'll be interested in who deny climate change. There were lots of scientists paraded around by tobacco companies who denied any link to cancer. There are all kinds of scientists -- with degrees! -- who meet annually to discuss new findings for "creationist research" -- that Noah's flood was responsible for the Grand Canyon, etc.

I know what you're thinking: "How am I to know who to listen to?" But you've already made your choice. You've thrown in with the small minority of cranks. I throw in with the vast majority of credible scientists. I advise you to take a break from truther websites and have a conversation with them instead.

https://web.archive.org/web/20070809030224/http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf

And you seem remarkably uncurious about the world. — fishfry

Not at all. I'm just not interested in whether Santa Claus likes chocolate chips or macaroons. Nor am I "curious" about Jewish space lasers, Bigfoot, Creationist theories, climate "skepticism," and moon landing conspiracies. Like I've said before -- you're welcome to your delusions. Have fun with that.

I don't consider 9/11 "questions" to be legitimate ones
— Xtrix

Why not? — fishfry

For the same reasons you (I would hope?) think "questions" about whether Reagan was really replaced by a robot after his assassination aren't legitimate. Some things are so stupid you just can't bother with them. If you don't recognize that 9/11 truther claims are of the exact same cloth, then your judgment is simply terrible. And, like I said, it won't matter what I say about it. Nor can I convince you or teach you. You simply possess terrible judgment.

No -- that's just an excuse you tell yourself. The real reason -- and obvious to anyone with any historical or psychological sense -- is that Reagan didn't die. Had he died, it would have been another JFK moment, and people like you would be defending bogus theories about Hinckley being a CIA operative or something.
— Xtrix

I don't see that at all. — fishfry

I don't recall anything out of the ordinary or questionable about that case. — fishfry

:rofl: Exactly.

How did this guy get so close to the President? Did you know there were warning signs that were ignored by the FBI? Full documentation is still classified. Reagan's stint in the hospital was odd -- no reporters, no pictures. Many people think that he really died but a look-alike was put in his place from then on -- plenty of video evidence that suggests this. Etc.
— Xtrix

LOL. Good stuff! There was nothing remarkable about the case at the time. You seem to think people make up conspiracies, rather than simply notice anomalies in the official explanation and look for answers. — fishfry

Was I not just noticing anomalies in the official explanation? Can you prove me wrong? Why do you hate questioning? How can you dismiss all the people who want answers to these questions?

I'm not saying any of it is true -- but how can you not question? Don't you want to find out the truth? If you want to sit and idly believe the standard narrative, that's on you. Why are you so conforming?
— Xtrix

You honestly don't seem to be able to distinguish between people making things up, and people noting actual, substantive anomalies. — fishfry

You continually missing the point here is very telling indeed. I'll leave it for anyone following this sad discussion to judge for themselves, but it's an interesting teaching tool.

All deluded people think they have "substance" and "evidence," including flat earthers. That doesn't make them all equally ridiculous, but the commonality is still there. You simply aren't capable of seeing how ridiculous your theories about controlled demolitions are, and how similar they are to creationist and flat earth theories. So be it -- that's no surprise.

People question the official stories of the JFK assassination and 9/11 precisely because the official explanation are so full of holes. Not because they are psychologically disposed to see things that aren't there. And this explains your Hinkley example. There really weren't any mysteries about that case. That I know of. And if there were, as you enumerated, they didn't resonate with enough people. — fishfry

No -- it's precisely because they are psychologically disposed. Which is why JFK's assassination has numerous theories, because it was a shocking event, and Reagan's doesn't -- because it turned out OK. If it hadn't turned out OK, you'd be hearing plenty of "mysteries" (some of which I already made up as examples) and would probably be arguing about how closed-minded I am for not taking them seriously. Your last sentence proves the point: it didn't resonate with people. Yes, and JFK theories do -- as do 9/11 theories (but not the WTC bombing in 1993). Why? For exactly the reasons mentioned.

Ad hominems are all you've got. No facts, no evidence, no logic. — fishfry

You're embarrassing yourself. — fishfry

You fail to see that you're embarrassing yourself. Also no surprise.

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Someone with your level of judgment lecturing anyone about "logic" is itself pretty embarrassing. But again, nothing I haven't encountered before -- Creationists say the exact same things. :roll:

You have as little curiosity about 9/11 as you do about flat earth theory. I just find this a stunning admission. — fishfry

Shocking! How can I be so closed minded and incurious! How can I be so awful to those poor 9/11 widows! I don't know how I live with myself.

Yes. You have poor judgment and I don't. That's the difference.
— Xtrix

I would say the same about you. — fishfry

No kidding? I suspect Ken Ham would as well. I'll lose as much sleep over either.

What am I deluded about? — fishfry

What are Creationists "deluded" about? They're just asking questions too.

To say it one more time: the very fact that you care about this, and have judged (poorly) that this is something worth pursuing, and that it's all a "mystery" worth solving, etc., is on par with any other conspiracy theory of your choice.

It's the same argument used with Creationists ("God of the gaps"), in that there will always be questions and holes and mysteries and problems with any historical event, if one cares to delve deep enough into it. The very reason there is this level of controversy about 9/11 and not the 1993 bombing, or the JFK assassination and not the Reagan assassination, is well known by psychologists, and is rather predictable. You see it all around the world, in fact.

There's nothing wrong with questioning things. But what you choose to question, and why, matters. What you choose to do with your time, energy, and attention matters. It's a judgment call.

It's precisely judgment that you lack. Regarding "delusion": you're deluded if you believe building 7 was "demolished," for example. Which you said. So there's a specific example for you.

You can have the last word. — fishfry

I doubt that very much.

A history of stupid choices and stupid judgments comes to mind. But generally it's not something easy to explain.

But there's level of crazy. JFK seems to me to be less crazy than 9/11 which is less crazy than Q, etc. And I'll go further, I think you're allowed to have one or two such ideas, as long as it doesn't cloud everything in your vision. It's a fine line. — Manuel

Yes. Reminds me of Nietzsche:

"There are horrible people who, instead of solving a problem, tangle it up and make it harder to solve for anyone who wants to deal with it. Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all."

That's how I feel about people with awful judgment "weighing in" on anything -- whether it's physics, the election, the coronavirus, vaccines, 9/11, or anything else.

What really set me off was you bringing Donald Trump into it. I have friends whom I like, respect, and trust who voted for him. — T Clark

So do I, including family members. So what? It's still terrible, terrible judgment.

Which is not to say that one can't be skeptical of certain claims made by such people. but one should be careful. — Manuel

Indeed. Much more careful than most people are, in fact. It's very tempting to have opinions about everything, rather than constantly saying "I really don't know enough to have a real opinion about that," so I get the urge. In today's landscape especially, where everyone thinks they're experts about whatever their media tells them is an "issue" -- masks, vaccines, epidemiology, medicine -- it's an almost unavoidable pitfall.

A portion of it is simply probability, as is "what is more likely to be true" an inside job or what happened? — Manuel

I tend to agree, but it's like playing poker: there's incomplete information, so you have to use your judgment about probabilities (is the likelihood that this person's range beats me here greater than my hand's strength?) -- but determining that probability is "subjective," dependent on how the person gathers information and assesses the situation.

Like poker, like life. Some are winners; most are losers. But the losers attribute their losses to bad luck, never improve, and never learn exactly where they go wrong. So it goes with conspiracy theorists as well: they're convinced they're doing God's work, that they're of Galileo's cloth. Yet their conclusions are so absurd it's almost shocking. What I love the most is when they make predictions based on their beliefs. Then it becomes as apparent as poker: they're always wrong. Look no further than the Q-anon people. It's such stupid nonsense that they actually make predictions -- smarter charlatans never do that, for good reason.

Watching the day come and go when Trump was supposed to re-take office and watching them scramble for explanations was hilarious. As hilarious as the "end of the world" people. The date comes and goes and nothing happens -- of course.

So the idea that people with terrible judgment also are more likely to make armchair claims about physics being “bad” is “baloney” to you? Seems almost like a truism to me.

(Notice this says nothing whatever about debate within physics.)

You didn’t come close to understanding what I wrote.

I've known smart, perceptive people who believe some of them. They're just wrong. — T Clark

Give me a break. If they’re “smart and perceptive” and yet buy into what a 10 year old could recognize as complete bullshit, I question more your judgment of their “perception” than anything else.

What happened? One conscientious scientist, Mordechai Vanunu, managed to blow the whistle and let the world know that Israel had nukes. Of course, he's now under arrest, can't leave the country, labeled as a traitor, etc. Yet, if in such a secretive country, with relatively few people in the know about such a delicate subject could not keep such a secret, how in the world would an inside job, involving hundreds of people, if not more, possibly commit 9/11 without anyone saying something substantial about it? — Manuel

Yes, this and a thousand other reasons. But to quote Strangelove: “There’s nothing to figure out—the man’s obviously psychotic.”

To bring it back to “bad physics,” it should come as no surprise that people with terrible judgment and delusions of grandeur are attracted to such claims— it further supports the self-serving picture they’ve created for themselves of being “contrarian.”

This is the same crew who glibly parrot jingoist slogans about American exceptionalism and vote for Donald Trump. Skepticism and questioning about everything except what matters in the real world, because the latter would mean you may have to actually do something. And that’s hard work. Better to sit and get your feeling of superiority from self-created labels like “dissenter” and “nonconformist.”

Easy, cheap, predictable, and common. But can also be quite amusing. It’s almost too easy, and I know I shouldn’t ridicule— but I can’t help myself.

That was a delightful romp, X. :cheer: — Tom Storm

I really was laughing through most of it.

But remember: in alternative world, he’s the one “needling” ME. Classic Trump mentality: “No, you’re the puppet.” Patterns of similarity are emerging.

It's about looking at the obvious. Keep a (very very very very) open mind about it, and you'll get there. :wink: — Manuel

Yes— not open minded enough. Exactly. That’s my problem. After all, it’s about facts and evidence... nothing about conspiracies!

In short, these "theories" are nonsense. — Manuel

And it should take a person about 15 seconds to come to that conclusion, without even hearing “the pitch.” To tweak Hitchens: delusions can be dismissed without evidence.

How do we tell? I’m beginning to think it can’t be formally taught. You have it or you don’t.

Q is in the building... — Manuel

Don't you mean the natural born rebel, you conforming Nazi you?

You can mock Q all you want, but what about the EVIDENCE? Why don't you want to talk about the EVIDENCE instead of just ridiculing?

But there are actual conspiracies' people could look at that are useful: just open The Wall Street Journal or The Financial Times, you'll learn how money moves and shapes interest. Or try Foreign affairs to see how the military thinks the US should treat China. It's enough to send chills down your spine. Apparently these things aren't interesting... — Manuel

This is an important point. Very important.

I don't follow your claim that there are subjects that we have no right to question. — fishfry

I never once said that.

And so forth. Surely it's perfectly clear, beyond dispute, that the commission didn't do a thorough investigation. So why shouldn't one be done? — fishfry

I'm talking about 9/11 truthers -- those who believe the towers were an "inside job," brought down by the government -- through use of remote control planes or dynamite installed in the buildings, etc. The "Building 7" crowd. If you're talking about something else, fine -- yeah, there are holes in all kinds of commissions. But the evidence isn't restricted to one official governmental commission.

How did three steel-framed buildings collapse, the first, last, and only such collapses of steel-framed buildings in history? — fishfry

:roll: Ask a civil engineer.

Yes, it was the first time in history. It was also the first time in history the US was attacked in such a way on its own soil (besides Pearl Harbor). So what? It happened: the planes flew into the buildings, and the buildings collapsed. If you want to learn about it, there's plenty of credible information out there. The NIST comes to mind. Direct your very free-thinking questions to them. While your at it, direct your skepticism towards electromagnetism -- isn't THAT theory a little funny?

Look I am not interested in debating 9/11 here. You brought up 9/11 as a subject that cant even legitimately be discussed. I just don't get this at all. — fishfry

Actually you seem rather neck-deep in conspiracy bullshit. You're not even hiding it well.

But I've never said things can't be legitimately discussed. Some things can, some things can't. I don't consider 9/11 "questions" to be legitimate ones -- they're not after "truth," they -- like Creationists and Holocaust deniers before them -- start with an idea that's been planted into their heads and they try to poke holes, distort and exaggerate every word and every detail, use false arguments and sophisticated sophistry to confirm their gut feelings. All with either no alternatives, or stories that are so ludicrous as to be embarrassing. Flat earthers do the same thing -- are their questions "legitimate"? Maybe to you -- not to me. 9/11 truthers are in the same group, in my judgment. Again, your circle of legitimacy needs to be shrunk -- by a lot.

In the case of Reagan there was no investigating board whose obvious purpose was to cover up and bury the truth rather than reveal it. — fishfry

No -- that's just an excuse you tell yourself. The real reason -- and obvious to anyone with any historical or psychological sense -- is that Reagan didn't die. Had he died, it would have been another JFK moment, and people like you would be defending bogus theories about Hinckley being a CIA operative or something.

There's plenty of problems with that assassination attempt I could conjure up right now. How did this guy get so close to the President? Did you know there were warning signs that were ignored by the FBI? Full documentation is still classified. Reagan's stint in the hospital was odd -- no reporters, no pictures. Many people think that he really died but a look-alike was put in his place from then on -- plenty of video evidence that suggests this. Etc. I'm not saying any of it is true -- but how can you not question? Don't you want to find out the truth? If you want to sit and idly believe the standard narrative, that's on you. Why are you so conforming?

Psychological theories aren't evidence. — fishfry

Again, not a surprise you miss the point. What psychology does do is show why people like you even care about evidence in the first place.

You're clearly of this cloth. And no amount of explanation by me or anyone else can convince you of where you're going wrong. But you are. You go way too far towards one extreme, then want to justify it with the standard arguments about "free thought," while of course invoking Galileo and the Church, how "everyone believed" the earth was flat at one point (straight out of Men in Black, if I recall), sapere aude, etc. etc. etc. Been there, done that.
— Xtrix

Ok. But notice how you have zero interest in the facts of the case — fishfry

you want to talk about the psychological proclivities of people "like me," — fishfry

Indeed. I do the same with Creationists and Flat Earthers as well. Normally I don't even bother with the claims about "facts" or "evidence" at all -- so you're an exception in that case!

But still ultimately another deluded individual. And again, me saying so won't sway you. I already know that. I'm writing mainly for others -- you're a good demonstration of thinking gone awry.

The government's description of the collapse of the buildings violates the laws of physics. — fishfry

Especially the infamous building 7, which collapsed perfectly symmetrically at freefall speed into its own footprint from "office fires" without ever being hit by a plane. — fishfry

:lol:

Guess I caught a real one here. Funny I anticipated the building 7 thing above -- without having read further. Shocker.

I see you've never actually take the trouble to study the case. — fishfry

Another typical response. Actually in the 9/11 case I have, a little. But I regret spending even a second on it -- the most it deserved was 0 seconds, like the claims of flat earthers. Of course I could be wrong about them too! But that's a risk I'm happy to take. I trust my bullshit-detector.

But how can you say I have no right to question these things? I have every right — fishfry

I would say that every American has a civic and patriotic duty to study and question this case. — fishfry

I'm simply questioning your belief that I am somehow beyond the pale as a human being for even daring to question the government's account or to even remind you that the commissions OWN CO-CHAIRs questioned their own account. — fishfry

Calm down...

Why do they need to stay home, socially distance, and wear masks if every single one of them is vaxed? — fishfry

Why? WHY?

You and I have different personality types. — fishfry

Yes. You have poor judgment and I don't. That's the difference.

I would say that if we draw a continuum between "natural born rebel" and "natural born conformer," I'm closer to the former and you to the latter. — fishfry

I actually did laugh at this one. You rebel you! Just a natural born rebel!

Or naturally born deluded. But go with whichever is more psychologically pleasing.

You may have heard of the famous Milgram experiment, in which normal people were induced to subject others to fatal doses of electrical shock when told to by authorities. It's a frightening experiment. — fishfry

Yes, and I suspect you'd go right to the end of that experiment -- if the experimenter was a 9/11 truther, of course.

When told to jump, you say "How high?" and I say, "Why should I?" — fishfry

Yes, nailed it. That's what's happening here. :lol:

I know that one loses the debate when they bring up the H-word, but you'd have made a fine Nazi. — fishfry

Sorry I just can't help needling people like you. — fishfry

Yeah...that's definitely what's happening. I'm totally being needled by you.

I am interested in math cranks. That doesn't mean I agree with them. I find alternate takes on things to be interesting. I just don't see why you think that makes me a bad person. — fishfry

Calm down. I never said you're a bad person. I take interest in cranks like you just as you take interest in math cranks. Do many of the math cranks you encounter readily admit that they're cranks? Probably not....

But then again, for a super-conforming Nazi like me, it's hard to know unless some expert tells me. :kiss:

a lot of blarney is wrapped up in the old, "I'm just asking questions here." — Tom Storm

Yes -- a common defense for all quacks, charlatans, and bad faith actors. Knowing the difference between honest, healthy skepticism/questioning and quackery? That's what I meant by "weeding it out." There's no algorithm to do so. "Or you got it, or you ain't."

We start with some basic axioms, and then to differing degrees of success, end up with intricate systems that we then apply to practical situations. But the axioms themselves are not susceptible to proof, it seems. — Philguy

I think that's basically it, yeah. I'd just add that the axioms (or principles) are generally not even thought. Most of our activity (read: behavior, morality, actions, etc) is unconscious and non-rational. It doesn't really follow rules, recipes, and algorithms -- that is abstracted after the fact, constructed and projected on what happens. But these rules and principles -- these axioms -- are extremely useful, and even though they tend to be "absorbed" through experience and development in one's culture (like language) in a kind of reflexive/habitual way, doesn't mean they're not "real."

In the end, it does seem to be based largely on "faith." You accept these axioms (consciously or not), as beliefs or assumptions, and operate on the basis of them. Long before the formulation of "gravity" people were still avoiding walking off of cliffs, and long before the formulation of the "Golden Rule" people were still treating each other in ways they would want to be treated. Rationality, logic, abstract thinking, and even conscious awareness only goes so far.

The "lived world" seems much more fluid and, in a way, groundless than what philosophers and scientists (especially in the West) have wanted -- in the sense of making everything explicit, abstract, rule-based, theoretical, mathematical and measurable.

And no -- I'm not advocating or trying to open a door for "religion."

No, no. Those people have it wrong. In my theory, it's Ethiopian space lasers.

You didn't answer my question. Do you think we know the full truth of 9/11, despite the commission's own co-chairs telling us that we don't? Or do you just not care? I'm curious to understand. — fishfry

No, you're transparently attempting to make a point which you believe supports your call to question things. Nevertheless: what exactly would the "full truth" be? It's a ridiculous phrase. Am I certain that the WTC was hit by airplanes that were hijacked by Islamist extremists plotted by Al Qaeda? Yes, I am. But that's not what's important here.

What's important, as I mentioned before, is the reason why people like you want to enter into "debate" about it in the first place and not, say, about the assassination attempt on Reagan. There's a reason we learn from psychology: with big events (just look around during this pandemic), especially very emotional ones, people want to look for special explanations of why it happened. They also want to appear like they have "special knowledge." So suddenly they become cheap skeptics -- even when otherwise they couldn't think themselves out of a paper bag -- and get drawn into the sophistry of conspiracy theorists and other quacks, who of course are just "questioning" and "thinking for themselves" (what could be wrong with that?).

You're clearly of this cloth. And no amount of explanation by me or anyone else can convince you of where you're going wrong. But you are. You go way too far towards one extreme, then want to justify it with the standard arguments about "free thought," while of course invoking Galileo and the Church, how "everyone believed" the earth was flat at one point (straight out of Men in Black, if I recall), sapere aude, etc. etc. etc. Been there, done that.

So yes, to answer your question: I'm fairly certain, given the evidence -- and common sense (uh oh -- that controversial term! Have a field day with that one!). But this doesn't have anything to do with physics, which was the OP. With the sciences, I'm even more certain. (It's like gambling, where I win time and time again because I know how to bet on winners -- i.e., the scientists.)

Again, if you want to waste your time chasing every claim that literally anyone can conjure up, have at it. I've got one for you now: the WTC was brought down by space lasers. All the video footage of the planes was CGI. Behind it was a secret deal involving the Business Roundtable, George Soros, and Dick Cheney.

Have fun with that one. Could be true, after all. Where do you draw the line, exactly? Because wherever you do draw the line, it needs to be re-calibrated. But as Bob Dylan once said, "I can't teach you how to weed it out."

Myself I'd like to know the truth. And for that you said I'm not worth talking to. I'd like to understand that too. That's like a physicist saying they want to know the truth about nature, and you go, "Oh, a nature truther! I don't want to talk to YOU anymore!"

As Plato said: “No one is more hated than he who speaks the truth.”

And you hate people who even ASK about the truth. How bad is that? — fishfry

:lol: Exactly. Something Donald Trump could say, too.


* I'm fully vaccinated, as well. I was the first one at my job to sign up. No hesitation whatsoever, despite all the BS surrounding it and some of the concerns of my co-workers. Did I have to refute every one of their claims beforehand? No. Did I have to go through every internet theory and debunk them all? No. I had a friend who is a very bright anti-vaxxer try to convince me not to do it -- and she had a mountain of information about it, too. Information that I would have had to spend months unraveling. I took it anyway, and I've been absolutely fine -- no surprise whatsoever. Why? Why was I so certain it would turn out that way, given all this "controversy"? It's a matter of common sense, critical thinking, probability, BS detector, etc. But mainly it's just going with what the consensus of experts say. I do this same thing with all kinds of issues in life and, as I said before, I come out looking super smaht, when in reality it's just extending what we do all the time -- going to a doctor, a mechanic, a lawyer, etc. It's trusting in expertise, and not getting sucked up into the vortex of bullshit that always surrounds "big" issues (and which gets amplified with social media these days). It's picking your battles and weighing probabilities.

Yes, maybe the buildings were brought down by dynamite. Maybe JFK wasn't killed by Oswald. Maybe Pearl Harbor was planned (or allowed). Maybe we DID fake the moon landing. If you want to doubt everything -- especially things that are "important events" -- that's your business. In that case, spend the rest of your life debating creationists and flat earthers.

Again -- when it comes to science, and I'm neither an expert nor have time to reach an even intermediate level of knowledge, I go with the consensus view. As we all do for everything else -- everything that hasn't been manufactured to be "controversial," I mean. Manufactured controversy which leads to all kinds of armchair "theories" that "could be true," because science is "never settled," after all, and a lot of it is "just theory," etc. I have no time to waste on nonsense like that. Life is too short.

What the government says about something hardly makes it a scientific consensus. Nor does public opinion -- as most can't identify the US on a world map. Hardly the same thing. Different than, say, what civil engineers say about the impact of planes crashing into buildings. You're confusing categories.

Thinking for yourself and healthy skepticism is important. But notice the italics. Letting your imagination run wild and questioning everything always, under the guise of simply being a "contrarian" (a very self-serving view), is completely hopeless. But you're welcome to it.

But one doesn't have the time to get a Ph.D. in physics and a Ph.D in climate science and a Ph.D in epidemiology in order to have an opinion on these things. — fishfry

True. Again, this is why I said it's tricky, but in the end a good rule of thumb is go with the consensus, if there is one -- and especially when it's an extremely high one (evolution, climate science, relativity, electromagnetism, atomic theory, germ theory, and so on).

, 9/11 truthers,
— Xtrix

It always strikes me as a bad sign of our postmodern world that when we want to marginalize and dismiss someone's ideas, we accuse them of being interested in the truth. How quaint! Don't they know that narrative is all that matters?

The 9/11 commission report was a very shoddy piece of work. The commission's own co-chairs Hamilton and Keane said publicly that the commission was set up to fail and that the Bush administration blocked them at every turn. There are still many unanswered questions about the event.

One doesn't need to believe that Dick Cheney personally gave the order to want to find out what really happened. Don't you? The government's account is seriously incomplete and riddled with problems. — fishfry

So you're a 9/11 truther. Got it. I'll skip the rest of your post. Be well.

That having watched a few dozen videos on youtube does not give you licence to re-write General Relativity. — Banno

Yes indeed.

Ok. Suppose I phrased it somewhat differently:

I've been reading some books and articles, and watching some videos, in which professional physicists criticize the current practices of some areas of physics on the grounds that they have substituted abstract math for experimental contact with the world. I do tend to agree with this point of view; but of course the physicists being so criticized would disagree, and I lack the professional competence to have certainty on the matter.

That said, I am sharing these links with the forum because they are interesting and educational in and of themselves, whether you agree or disagree with their point of view.

Would that be better? — fishfry

In my opinion, there's a danger in the very idea of "debate" -- as if we're qualified to judge whether there's even "two sides" to the story. I don't think, most of the time, we're even competent enough to make that judgement. Again I refer to creationism, 9/11 truthers, holocaust denial, anti-vaxxers, climate change denial, etc. To even say "I've read both sides of this debate, and I align myself with x" is itself ridiculous. Flat earthers are out there -- does that mean we should read their books and conclude that there's debate?

That being said, for those of us who aren't experts in a given domain, it's our responsibility to weed out who to listen to. This is a very tricky thing, and we're living in the midst of a real dilemma of this very thing.

For me, I go with the whatever consensus is reached among experts. The vast majority of the time, I turn out to look like a genius because of that simplistic, 3-year-old strategy. I'd say that's a good rule of thumb for anyone. If one wants to learn more about a topic, listen to them. That's not to say dissent is not valuable -- it is. But within boundaries.

It seems to me, if I'm reading you correctly, that I am entitled to opine (ignorantly as it happens in this instance) on Wittgy; but not on Witten. I wonder if you can help me understand the distinction. — fishfry

You're entitled to opine about anything you want. But since you asked for my opinion: I don't take either very seriously. Not just from you but from anyone. If I know a little something about a topic, and someone has something to say that I find interesting on a philosophy forum, then I take it from there. 95% of what I read here is so uninteresting to me that it's not worth bothering with. I'm sure you feel the same way.

When it comes to science, especially mathematics and physics, I have less patience for people's armchair opinions. It's much easier to be a bullshitter in philosophy (and sociology, and literary criticism, etc) than it is in the hard sciences. In my opinion. And so yes, I do perhaps come down more harshly on that class of opinions.

Do you at least take my point? — fishfry

I do.

Did I say something that bothered you? By way of conversation, I'm wondering why you think the public is entitled to a voice in which highways to build, which public projects to fund, but not which scientific projects to fund? — fishfry

They do have a say in that -- a limited one.

That has nothing to do with whether physics has been "bad" for the last few decades. The OP isn't about funding science.

I can't speak for you. But I'm entitled to (and do in fact have) an informed opinion on the matter. I can refer you to some recent books by physicists on the subject. And since the work of modern physics is primarily supported by government grants and I'm a taxpayer, I most definitely have say. — fishfry

Well we can't all recognize our delusions. If you're not a physicist, I'm not interested in your amateur opinion -- no matter how many pop science books you read.

Note that all these books and articles, and others like them, are intended for mainstream audiences. — fishfry

Yes, and I'm sure there are plenty of responses to "The Trouble With Physics" by physicists (in fact, I'm certain of it). Debate within the sciences are wonderful. But, much like the creationists, to pretend we know something we don't simply because a few outliers publish books -- ditto with the climate change "debate" -- is absurd.

You're welcome to your delusions.

What explains the recent (past several decades) of bad physics from the hard-working professional physicists? — fishfry

I leave that to physicists to decide. To presume I have any idea that its "bad physics" is delusional. Ditto for you (unless you're a physicist, of course).

Any explanations? — Banno

Yes: understanding physics takes work. Hard work.

The Framers' Coup: The Making of the United States Constitution by Michael Klarman

Highly recommended.