Obviously most people think they use logic and sound arguments to inform their understanding and "beliefs" about the world. We also know that one needs to have some manner of esoteric and sophisticated knowledge about almost any topic to develop a sound/robust understanding of elements of the topic. This is true for everything we do from cooking to sports, arts, science, politics and so on.
What interests me is that most people are not experts in most things... and only a few could be considered experts in anything. We're mostly dilettantes, dabblers and approach things with enough knowledge about the topic to "make sense" and "enjoy it".
9/11 was an interesting phenomena because it involved so many elements and disciplines to have knowledge in... in order to knit together a coherent understanding of what happened. That is to say that the more detailed the understanding, the more esoteric knowledge one truly needs to truly understand the event(s).
I have been struck for years at the seeming contradiction of what appears to be intelligent and educated people coming up with very divergent understanding of 911. I normally would attribute this divergence to lack of technical knowledge... the more you have the better place you should be to understand these events.
But there us also the notion that understanding a complex issue would be analogous regardless of the discipline. You use the same tools and rules to build your understanding upon.
There also appears to be some divergent in the assumptions and basic understanding of mechanics. We can see this in things like what would happen to a jumbo jet which strikes a twin tower facade or a Pentagon wall. What would happen to the walls? One would think that mechanics has these solved. Why is there even divergent thinking about such things?
I think the same issue underlies the divergent thinking about the effect of fire on steel frames. Some would assert that they are invulnerable to collapse from fires... full stop. Others assert that the fire was not hot enough, didn't burn long enough and so on.
And finally why don't or can't truth guys sketch out a complete coherent explanation to the entire event?
Why can't truthers accept that events cascade in somewhat random manner and it's hard to predict the consequences with any reliability. Isn't there basic position that the perps (insiders) staged everything and had complete control and understanding of how the day would unfold. Isn't this absurd on its face? Why can't they see this or why do they think it was possible to plan the whole complex event to the smallest detail?
How do you explain this sort of odd thinking by seemingly intelligent people?
What interests me is that most people are not experts in most things... and only a few could be considered experts in anything. We're mostly dilettantes, dabblers and approach things with enough knowledge about the topic to "make sense" and "enjoy it".
9/11 was an interesting phenomena because it involved so many elements and disciplines to have knowledge in... in order to knit together a coherent understanding of what happened. That is to say that the more detailed the understanding, the more esoteric knowledge one truly needs to truly understand the event(s).
I have been struck for years at the seeming contradiction of what appears to be intelligent and educated people coming up with very divergent understanding of 911. I normally would attribute this divergence to lack of technical knowledge... the more you have the better place you should be to understand these events.
But there us also the notion that understanding a complex issue would be analogous regardless of the discipline. You use the same tools and rules to build your understanding upon.
There also appears to be some divergent in the assumptions and basic understanding of mechanics. We can see this in things like what would happen to a jumbo jet which strikes a twin tower facade or a Pentagon wall. What would happen to the walls? One would think that mechanics has these solved. Why is there even divergent thinking about such things?
I think the same issue underlies the divergent thinking about the effect of fire on steel frames. Some would assert that they are invulnerable to collapse from fires... full stop. Others assert that the fire was not hot enough, didn't burn long enough and so on.
And finally why don't or can't truth guys sketch out a complete coherent explanation to the entire event?
Why can't truthers accept that events cascade in somewhat random manner and it's hard to predict the consequences with any reliability. Isn't there basic position that the perps (insiders) staged everything and had complete control and understanding of how the day would unfold. Isn't this absurd on its face? Why can't they see this or why do they think it was possible to plan the whole complex event to the smallest detail?
How do you explain this sort of odd thinking by seemingly intelligent people?
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1RG5CvD
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire