Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Hugh Hefner & The Crack Whore; Inductive and Deductive reasoning.
Topic Started: Jan 16 2008, 11:52 AM (763 Views)
Stundie

Hi all,

I wanted to share this with you guys from a member called "Lowball Path" over at the SLC Forum. I think he demonstrates a near perfect example of how to investigate something like 9/11 by highlighting the difference with deductive (Which CTers tend to use) and inductive reasoning. (Which debunkers tend to use)

I’ve corrected some of the spelling and included a few links for anyone who is new to the world of 9/11 and investigating who may not understand certain words.

Quote:
 
Induction and Deduction
Within the philosophy of logic there are different modes of reasoning, and it is our job as logicians, i.e., people who think logically, to determine the best mode of reasoning and employ it accurately. The various modes of reasoning include but are not limited to inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning, and abductive reasoning.

What concerns us here is the differences between inductive vs. deductive reasoning. My premise is that a large segment of the population, to put it bluntly, lacks critical thinking skills. When faced with a strong inductive argument which challenges basic ideas, these people will turn to deduction and simply claim, "that doesn't make sense". This is due to a psychological concept called cognitive dissonance, which we will return to shortly.

Inductive reasoning simply means starting from the facts and working upwards, forming more general theories as we move up the pyramid. Induction moves from observations, to patterns, to a tentative hypothesis, to a theory. It is a bottom up approach.

Deductive reasoning is the opposite; it works from the top down. Deduction begins with a theory, then formulates a hypothesis, then moves to observation. Arguments can be expressed both inductively and deductively. When the proverbial apple hit Newton on the head, he used induction to come to the theory of gravity. Everything that comes up must come down, and this is a general principle or law that we can call gravity. Someone like Einstein on the other hand would be able to use his tremendous understanding to arrive at the theory of gravity via an alternative method, the general theory of relativity. Perhaps gravity is a bad example, but the differences between induction and deduction should be clear by now.


Hugh Hefner and the Crack-Whore
Lets suppose for a minute that Hugh Hefner is accused of raping a 57 year old, 220 lb. crack-whore. The police, initially highly suspect of these claims, investigate anyways. Witnesses report seeing a man matching Hefner's description getting out of a limo and entering this woman's home. DNA analysis determines that the DNA does indeed match Hefner. Police then search Hefner's home and they find writings indicating Hefner fantasised about these types of women. Other women then come forward and also make allegations against Hefner. It turns out that at every single aspect investigators look into, things are not what they seem with Hefner.

At this point a very strong case, both scientific and circumstantial has now been made against Hefner. Prosecutors charge Hefner with rape and the case then goes to trial.

At trial the prosecution presents all of the evidence. The defence doesn't even cross-examine the prosecution's witnesses. When it is their turn to present their case, they simply rest.

During closing arguments the defence simply talks about the absurdity of all this, considering the fact the Hefner lives with dozens of beautiful women, playmates in fact, who are more than willing to sleep with him. They make no reference whatsoever to the prosecutions case, other than to simply point out the illogicality of it. Naturally the jury finds Hefner innocent. Orange juice anyone?

In this hypothetical situation we have a very strong inductive case (a bottom up approach dealing with facts first and theories second) against Hefner "debunked" by a deductive argument: that Hefner simply wouldn't do such a thing (a theory that ignores the evidence).


Next time you are debating with a debunker who makes the normal arguments like "Its impossible to set up a demo for the WTC." or "The Goverment would never do such a thing." etc etc...then it might be worth pointing this out to them.

Cheers


Stundie :D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
insert new name here

A true skeptic deals with facts. My understanding is that 911 truth movement members ignore the evidence that has been presented, constantly cherry-picking at "proof" that really isn't. eg: "Pull It", "Stand Down", etc.

So, by ignoring facts, skeptics are actually forced to ask someone presenting a theory how it could be accomplished. Like rigging up 3 skyscrapers to collapse.

Most skeptics will not deny that our governemnt will and has completed "black ops."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stundie

Hi Insert New Name Here,

insert new name here
 

A true skeptic deals with facts.
Thats the whole point of the post, the truth movement see what the facts are and build a conclusion which fits with the evidence, aka deductive reasoning based on the facts available to them. A debunker (Not always) will look at the evidence and make a judgement on whether the evidence fits their theory, if it doesn't fit, then they sometime do whatever it takes to deny it.

insert new name here
 
My understanding is that 911 truth movement members ignore the evidence that has been presented, constantly cherry-picking at "proof" that really isn't. eg: "Pull It", "Stand Down", etc.
Things like "Pull It" is nothing more than circumstantial evidence and is hardly the most strongest of evidence pointing towards complicity from within.

As for the "Stand Down" well this is an area of interest for me because if you look at all the evidence regarding Dick Cheney movements on the morning of 9/11, it doesn't back what the commission claims. According to the commission, Cheney didn't arrive at whats known as the PEOC until/after 9:58.

The commissions arrive at this conclusion based on the following evidence.

  • Alarm Data (Which inexplicably is not retrievable, so how do we know that its correct?)
  • The word of 2 USSS men. (Whose testimonies/statement are never shown to the public, so we have to assume they are telling the truth.

However the commission admits “There is conflicting evidence as to when the vice president (Cheney) arrived in the (PEOC) shelter conference room.”

When you look at all the evidence, bearing in mind how weak the evidence supporting the official story, it contradicts what the commission claims. Here is all the other evidence which doesn't support the official story.



See using deductive reasoning, the evidence suggest that Cheney was in the PEOC before 9:58. Inductive reasoning, you would say that Cheney or the commmission would not lie.

Then commission ignores Norman Mineta statement (No official reason as been given as to why they ignored his statement, but debunkers will state that Mineta times are wrong without a single shrapnel of evidence and trust me, I've asked and looked for over a year!) who claims Cheney was in the PEOC when he arrived at 9:20. When you look at all the evidence, it supports Minetas timeline and the evidence overwhelms the official story.

So if we assume that Mineta statement is correct, that he & cheney were at the PEOC at 9:20am, then what was the "Order" that Cheney gave to the aid which Mineta refers to his statement?

If it was a "Shoot Down Order" as Mineta thinks it was and as debunkers claim too, then this goes against the another one of the commissions claims which states that Bush and Cheney confer on the "shoot down order" between 10:00-10:15am which is odd considering that Clarke says he asked for authorisation at 9:30am (Read his book on the link above) and even odder considering that the plane was scrambled in the wrong direction.

Also, if it was a "shoot down order" and they knew a plane was heading for the Pentagon, why would the aid challenge Cheney on this? If it's protocol to take out the threats in the sky if they present a threat to ground targets and potential loss of life on the ground too, then why would he question it. I'm speculating here, but if the VP said "Shoot it down" then I would go through with the order, as I would be aware that it could save the lives of the people at the Pentagon. The Military and Units such as Secret Service are trained to follow orders why would he question it?

I think it must have been a "Stand Down" order, Cheney admits in his interview with Tim Russert (See link above) that Secret Service were tracking "AA77" and they removed him to the PEOC as they thought it was coming to the White House. So once they realised that the White House was not the target and it was the Pentagon, which was 50, 30 and 10 miles out, the aid would have asked if the order still stands as no planes were sent to deal with AA77, other than the ones sent out over see and turn up too late. So the Aid knew where it was heading and questioned the order, because he may have known the Pentagon was about to be hit and kill the passengers and people at the Pentagon. Another thing which supports my arguement is according to the FDR, AA77 was approx 50 miles away from the Pentagon at 9:27am (As supplied by Pilots For Truth) and Cheney in his interview admits that they were tracking it.

If you simply ignore this evidence and believe that an event like 9/11 could not possibly be an inside job, whether they made it happen or let it happen on purpose, or if you simply think it's JUST not possible. Then you are using inductive reasoning to come to your conclusions, as you are not basing it on the facts.

insert new name here
 
So, by ignoring facts, skeptics are actually forced to ask someone presenting a theory how it could be accomplished. Like rigging up 3 skyscrapers to collapse.

Thats the thing, just because we do not know exactly how they were rigged, doesn't mean they were not rigged.

Of course, ignoring the facts could also be said for the actual collapse mechanism for all 3 towers, which there is no official theory/hypothesis for. NIST deal with the initiation and do not give a theory for how they collapsed.
insert new name here
 

Most skeptics will not deny that our governemnt will and has completed "black ops."

I should hope so, if you deny the exsistant of "Black Ops" you are not a skeptic anymore, you a pseudoskeptic.

I hope this helps and if you have any questions, or if you can find other evie

Cheers

Stundie
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
« Previous Topic · Investigate 9/11 · Next Topic »
Add Reply