19-06-2012, 10:01 AM
Tom has posted this interesting comment (my bold):
".....it is time to begin the 4th and final part of the smart idiots thread.
In the third part I constructed a "book" which now appears on my website. I am now happy with the overall structure, and in this 4th and final part I will try to refine and finalize the book. I want to take this opportunity to explain why I wrote each part as I did and how this book can be used as a tool on many levels.
........................
I chose the thesis carefully. The common approach to a book or paper on this subject is to write around the following thesis:
The buildings were demoed because...
or
The buildings were not demoed because...
Both approaches assume a level of certainty to which the claimant does not have access in reality. Premature efforts in these directions are sure to end in failure, since neither can be claimed without a comprehensive understanding of what we are looking at. What I have found from experience is that nobody I have observed had a real understanding of what they were looking at, including me.
Over time I've watched people on all levels make incorrect claims, sometimes quite blatantly about global attributes of each collapse. There can be no doubt that those with PhDs and higher levels of technical education have made some bone-headed blunders, often in a state of fixed certainty. We have watched this for some time.
in retrospect, the single biggest obstacle for many participants within the discussions, including mathematicians, physicists, chemists, engineers, computer programmers and journalists, was their own head-strong vanity which led to premature states of false certainty. The evidence for this is everywhere we look within years of recorded posting histories, published papers and articles written about the collapses. It became quite obvious that the less humility one has when approaching these issues, the more certain that individual was to post blatantly untrue information and defend it to the point of absurdity.
This pattern still continues today. It will probably never end with respect to these events.
But while observing the contradiction and confusion, I, poor Major_Tom, began to understand why this is the case. As a result I do not blame people for being so confused, or rather I blame some for their extreme stubbornness but not for their confusion.
I came to understand that each individual was left to guess on their own as they had no common pool of technical information from which to draw understanding. This is because we were never given an intelligible description of what we were looking at.
This, to me, is the fundamental starting point from which one can begin to understand the objects being observed as well as the reactions of those observing them. This is why the specific thesis was chosen and the book was written around it."
".....it is time to begin the 4th and final part of the smart idiots thread.
In the third part I constructed a "book" which now appears on my website. I am now happy with the overall structure, and in this 4th and final part I will try to refine and finalize the book. I want to take this opportunity to explain why I wrote each part as I did and how this book can be used as a tool on many levels.
........................
I chose the thesis carefully. The common approach to a book or paper on this subject is to write around the following thesis:
The buildings were demoed because...
or
The buildings were not demoed because...
Both approaches assume a level of certainty to which the claimant does not have access in reality. Premature efforts in these directions are sure to end in failure, since neither can be claimed without a comprehensive understanding of what we are looking at. What I have found from experience is that nobody I have observed had a real understanding of what they were looking at, including me.
Over time I've watched people on all levels make incorrect claims, sometimes quite blatantly about global attributes of each collapse. There can be no doubt that those with PhDs and higher levels of technical education have made some bone-headed blunders, often in a state of fixed certainty. We have watched this for some time.
in retrospect, the single biggest obstacle for many participants within the discussions, including mathematicians, physicists, chemists, engineers, computer programmers and journalists, was their own head-strong vanity which led to premature states of false certainty. The evidence for this is everywhere we look within years of recorded posting histories, published papers and articles written about the collapses. It became quite obvious that the less humility one has when approaching these issues, the more certain that individual was to post blatantly untrue information and defend it to the point of absurdity.
This pattern still continues today. It will probably never end with respect to these events.
But while observing the contradiction and confusion, I, poor Major_Tom, began to understand why this is the case. As a result I do not blame people for being so confused, or rather I blame some for their extreme stubbornness but not for their confusion.
I came to understand that each individual was left to guess on their own as they had no common pool of technical information from which to draw understanding. This is because we were never given an intelligible description of what we were looking at.
This, to me, is the fundamental starting point from which one can begin to understand the objects being observed as well as the reactions of those observing them. This is why the specific thesis was chosen and the book was written around it."