The Skeptics Guide to the Universe Forum

Quote from: Desert Fox on September 24, 2023, 05:19:09 PM

Quote from: Harry Black on September 24, 2023, 03:46:24 PMI dont think there is any conflict though or any need for a crisis.
Is it possible that they actively planned to create holes in national security in the hopes that an attack might happen?
Absolutely. The number of people required to be involved in that is actually quite small.
Is there any direct evidence that such discussions took place?
...not really.

I agree but I honestly think it is probable enough that we cannot just dismiss the possibility.

I dont dismiss it but what would it change in a functional sense?

If we ever get such evidence, we might see the first presidential execution😍 (and to be very clear, I think multiple people from that administration should be executed from a moral perspective, regardless of whether or not they conspired to let an attack happen.)

If they had hoped for an attack, I dont think they dared to imagine anything like what happened.

Quote from: Harry Black on September 24, 2023, 03:46:24 PMI dont think there is any conflict though or any need for a crisis.
Is it possible that they actively planned to create holes in national security in the hopes that an attack might happen?
Absolutely. The number of people required to be involved in that is actually quite small.
Is there any direct evidence that such discussions took place?
...not really.

I agree but I honestly think it is probable enough that we cannot just dismiss the possibility.

Quote from: Desert Fox on September 24, 2023, 10:43:38 AM

Quote from: Quetzalcoatl on September 22, 2023, 01:52:48 PMThe idea that the Bush administration hoped that there would be an attack is a conspiracy theory. Maybe not a classical 9/11 conspiracy theory (that would postulate that they knew in advance that it would happen or that they orchestrated it themselves), but a conspiracy theory nonetheless. There is also no evidence for it, and it is incredibly stupid.

The sympathy expressed for it in this thread is yet another sign that this forum isn't really a skeptic forum anymore, but a forum dominated by conspiracy theorists, denialists, and ideologues.

Part of my original argument when I started this thread was that we cannot dismiss widespread conspiracies without at least examining them closely. This is what I wrote:

I am having something of a crisis of skepticism with respect to conspiracies

Of course there is the long discussed conspiracies where police cover for each other. We only really show now with video. There are also conspiracies where it appears almost certain that the courts are covering for bad law enforcement, allowing an innocent person to be incarcerated or even executed to protect the police and prosecutors involved instead of doing the right thing.

I just recently found yet another layer on this conspiracy. I was listening to a podcast that discussed the murder of Irene Garza. The murderer, a Catholic Priest, was protected on multiple levels where the church protected him, the police obscured the case, and the prosecutor also obscured the case. The church conspired with them in order to protect the church. There were rumors and stories but nothing concrete, just as we do with other conspiracies.  It was not until the Boston Globe released their expose on the Catholic Church that some of the other priests involved broke their silence that any movement occurred.  Even then, decades after the murder, When the family pressed to get the case reopened, the DA refused.

The case also does verify the idea in spotlight that the Catholic Church has special monasteries for troubled priests.

I verified with other sources and it appears as if the podcast I listened to described the situation accurately and honestly.

Do we need to put to bed the idea that wide ranging conspiracies do not exist?

If a group of police, priests, judges, and prosecutors can all cover for a priest murdering a woman in order to protect the church, then why can we not conceive of half a dozen politicians and political appointees covering for a plan to allow for terrorist attacks. It might involve less people than the January 6th plot to steal the presidency in fact.

I dont think there is any conflict though or any need for a crisis.
Is it possible that they actively planned to create holes in national security in the hopes that an attack might happen?
Absolutely. The number of people required to be involved in that is actually quite small.
Is there any direct evidence that such discussions took place?
...not really.

I'll grant that I was a little sloppy there. It should have been written:

The idea that the Bush administration hoped that there would be an attack and eased off anti-terrorism efforts with the purpose for that to happen is a conspiracy theory. Maybe not a classical 9/11 conspiracy theory (that would postulate that they knew in advance that it would happen or that they orchestrated it themselves), but a conspiracy theory nonetheless. There is also no evidence for it, and it is incredibly stupid.

Will you now engage with the actual discussion, rather than obsessing over that I by mistake left out a bit?

Quote from: Quetzalcoatl on September 24, 2023, 10:39:00 AMDid you earn a degree in strawmanning?

The mere assertion that "The Bush administration hoped for an attack." is rather vague and meaningless. But the assertion "The Bush administration hoped for an attack and therefore deliberately scaled down on anti-terrorism efforts on purpose for that to happen." is a conspiracy theory. It is a very stupid conspiracy theory and there is no evidence for it.

You don't know what a straw man is, do you?


Dear reader, let me directly quote what started my latest participation in this thread(emphasis mine):

Quote from: Quetzalcoatl on September 22, 2023, 01:52:48 PMThe idea that the Bush administration hoped that there would be an attack is a conspiracy theory. Maybe not a classical 9/11 conspiracy theory (that would postulate that they knew in advance that it would happen or that they orchestrated it themselves), but a conspiracy theory nonetheless. There is also no evidence for it, and it is incredibly stupid.

I rest my case, and I'm glad you agreed with my arguments and abandoned your position.  Who says you can't teach an old dog new tricks!

Quote from: lonely moa on September 24, 2023, 03:51:23 AMEvan, a tonne of ice is one cubic metre, Well water is, ice will be slightly lighter.

yeah came here to say this as well.
The benifits of a metric system, easy to visualize a tonne (ice as you say is slightly lighter at sea level since it expands)
though a trillion is ~33km x 33km x 1km (a billion is 1km ^3) so actually not that large, but still f-ing massive, I guess its a smaller volume than the amount of plastic waste we make each year

In another discussion on this forum, a forum member criticized me for deferring to expert knowledge rather than engaging in "actual critical thinking" (the person in question rejected expert knowledge and consensus on the actual subject matter). An appeal to authority, in his view. Is this correct? Is critical thinking a substitute for expert knowledge?

This is a quite common view (not necessarily here, but in society at large), but it is not actually correct.

Back in 2009, James Randi expressed his dissent from the expert consensus on global warming. Other skeptics were quick to respond, criticizing him for doing so despite his lack of expertise on the topic. It prompted a worthwhile blogpost by Daniel Loxton, What, If Anything, Can Skeptics Say About Science?:

Quote from: Daniel Loxton1) Where both scientific domain expertise and expert consensus exist, skeptics are (at best) straight science journalists. We can report the consensus, communicate findings in their proper context — and that's it.

...

2) Where scientific domain expertise exists, but not consensus, we can report that a controversy exists — but we cannot resolve it.

...

3) Where scientific domain expertise and consensus exist, but also a denier movement or pseudoscientific fringe, skeptics can finally roll up their sleeves and get to work.

...

4) Where a paranormal or pseudoscientific topic has enthusiasts but no legitimate experts, skeptics may perform original research, advance new theories, and publish in the skeptical press.

Loxton continued on this theme in Why Is There a Skeptical Movement?:

Quote from: Daniel LoxtonCritical thinking is not a substitute for expert knowledge, no matter how much skeptics, creationists, 9/11 Truthers, or deniers of climate science might wish that it were. Applying strong critical thinking skills to insufficient knowledge leads us to perceive patterns and problems that don't really exist. Most pseudoscience arises from such feral critical thinking. "It would never be healthy for 'skeptics' to be more skeptical than the scientific community itself," Kendrick Frazier cautioned. Skeptics who venture beyond the limits of our own expert knowledge are at least as vulnerable to becoming pseudoscientific cranks as anyone else.

Note also that entries on the appeal to authority fallacy (RationalWiki, Wikipedia, Logically Fallacious) note that appealing to expert knowledge and consensus is not actually fallacious.

In fact, we defer to expert knowledge every day in our daily lives. It is simply not possible for any one person to be an expert on everything. Finding reliable expert viewpoints is an important skill to have in our current society.

Lets knock the bickering on the head.

Your body will also try to stay at the same weight. If you lose weight it will try to get back to that original weight. It takes time for the body to reset to a new weight. This is what Danial is talking about with metabolism. There was a great TV show on PBS NOVA I think that talked about weight loss. It talks about how we might be biologically set for a certain weight.

Here is a transcript of the show if you want to read it. Don't feel like you have to, it's just here if you want to read it.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/obesity/

Thank god someone mentioned the hunter gatherer activity myth. It was killing me.
Not only do they spend a lot of time resting, they are usually, on average, quite a bit smaller than people in industrialised nations. So 2500 calories could be a high calorie diet for them.
Its just not a useful comparison.

And yes there are reasons why fat loss plateaus. Those reasons are addressed by any bodybuilder cutting diet plan which evolves as the athlete progresses.
Natural bodybuilders can predict with great precision what their rate of weight loss will be, week on week, to hit their competition target. Are they just making lucky guesses?
 You out petrol in a car and get motion out of it. The processes are more complicated than that but it does not make the basic concept untrue.

Also, its kind of funny that this thread started with the idea that exercise at a certain time is the best way to lose weight and now the OP is all in on the opposite idea.
Jump through enough hoops and you might come back around on yourself.