Pyrrho wrote:Well, um, we can't have it both ways. If the NIST hypothesis is unfalsifiable pseudoscience, one cannot claim to have falsified the NIST hypothesis. If the NIST hypothesis is falsifiable, then it is a scientific hypothesis by definition.
I don't mind debating the issues if people would condescend to keep their logic straight. I get very quickly bored with repetitions of informal logical fallacies in place of reasoned discourse. Not worth my time. Certainly not worth Michael Shermer's time.
As for skepticism, etc., skepticism is just doubt. Doesn't matter what the person doubts. If they're skeptical of the NIST report, fine. If they're skeptical of the moon landings, fine. I don't like litmus tests to decide who is or is not a "skeptic," because it's just a label for someone who doubts, efforts of people to enlarge upon it notwithstanding.
Beyond that, our opinions and conclusions based on examination of the evidence are bound to differ. There is a difference between that and claiming "case closed." There is a key difference between doubt and proclamations of "truth." Purveyors of snake oil remedies tout "cures," while people who know better talk about "treatments." We recognize that all the facts regarding the 9/11 building collapses are not knowable. We do know enough to posit reasonable, scientific hypotheses without having to resort to additional conspiracy theories in a sort of "Hamburger Helper" effort to gain legitimacy.
For what it's worth, which is essentially nothing. Everybody needs a hobby. For some people, it's 9/11 conspiracy theories. For others, it's rock collecting.
I'm not the one with logic problems. I never said the NIST WTC 7 hypothesis was not falsifiable. In fact I directly implied it was falsifiable because due to the conservation law of energy (first law of thermodynamics), the second law of thermodynamics and the conservation law of momentum, it predicts an observation that would falsify it, a period of free fall. Since a period of free fall is in fact observed, the NIST WTC 7 hypothesis is falsified. Free fall is just one of the many facts that falsify or refute NIST's crackpot hypothesis. When a hypothesis is falsified it is not scientific, it is in fact pseudoscience.http://www.skepdic.com/pseudosc.html
Skepticism is about doubt, reasonable doubt. Skepticism is not about believing things are false because their being true is too disturbing. That is skeptopathy, pathological skepticism.
Reasonable, scientific hypotheses explain all the facts not just the facts you pick and choose. Reasonable, scientific hypotheses explain all the facts not none at all. Reasonable, scientific hypotheses are not hypotheses that are easily falsified like the crackpot NIST theories.
See at the top of this page? Does it say "Promoting doubt"? No. It says "Promoting science and critical thinking". Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic magazine, by wholeheartedly supporting the crackpot easily falsified NIST theories is actually promoting the direct opposite, pseudoscience and uncritical thinking.