Tim I can't find the mail you forwarded below. Could you give a link? Interesting guy, I would like to take a look at the responses. I get a note: archive feature is temporarily not available or something similar. And I have no time to dig 9.750 items "Democratic Underground" "HamdenRice" 9/11 <http://www.google.de/search?q=%22Democratic+Underground%22+%22HamdenRic\ e%22++9/11&hl=de&start=10&sa=N&filter=0> zero with this search routine "Democratic Underground" "HamdenRice" "Hobbesian venue of attack" <http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=%22Democratic+Underground%22+%22Ham\ denRice%22++%22Hobbesian+venue+of+attack%22&btnG=Suche&meta=>
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/HamdenRice <http://journals.democraticunderground.com/HamdenRice> Standards of Proof and Errors in 9/11 Skeptic Thinking Posted by HamdenRice in Skepticism, Science and Pseudoscience Group Thu Mar 30th 2006, 03:06 PM The debate between the advocates of the 9/11 truth movement and the skeptics of that movement often degenerates into sterile, circular and repetitive circles. I think that one reason this occurs is that each side has fundamentally different notions of standards of proof: not what we know, but how we know what we know, epistemological standards. While both sides can retreat into unproductive, defensive positions, I suspect that it is the skeptics who make the more profound eptistemelogical errors. --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "tim_howells_1000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The mods at the DU's 911 dungeon posted a call for more civility. I'll > append a reply by HamdenRice that explains the situation in detail, and > contains info that I was previously unaware of. Predictably, the mods > posted a sarcastic, content free reply and then locked the thread. > Anyway here's Hamden's post: > > ======================================================== > > I think there is some ambiguity about what the role or stature of the > 9/11 Forum and discussion of the events around 9/11 are in terms of how > this forum is moderated. > > One issue that has frequently been raised is that the Administrators > basically believe that the official story is the correct story, and that > "conspiracy theories" about 9/11 are wrong if not insane. Many people on > DU and people who read DU and comment on it elsewhere have noted that it > is moderated with that bias seemingly in mind. > > The point is not to hurl accusations or dredge up past resentments, or > even criticize the administrators or moderators; but if you want more > civility and dialogue, it may be necessary for the moderators or > administrators to clarify certain things. > > I guess the basic question is: is questioning 9/11 a topic over which > reasonable people can agree to disagree? Or is questioning what happened > on 9/11 something that, in the minds of the moderators, only > unreasonable people do. > > The point is not to litigate what view is correct; but to ask: is this a > question over which reasonable people can disagree or is it not. > > Let me give you a more concrete example. Supporters of the official > story often point to this and other posts by the Administrator: > > > Skinner ADMIN (1000+ posts) Mon Sep-11-06 05:57 PM > Response to Original message > 8. Why is it that people expect 100% perfection from the "official" > story... > Edited on Mon Sep-11-06 05:59 PM by Skinner > ...but they do not hold the alternative "theories" to nearly such a high > standard? > > Do I believe that the official story is 100% correct? No. > Do I believe that the official story is WAY closer to the truth than the > conspiracy theories? Absolutely. > > The conspiracy theories don't hold up to scrutiny. They are mostly a > lame collection of faith-based wishful thinking. > > Wondering about what happened is not qualification for disdain and > ridicule. But if someone believes idiotic claims about controlled > demolitions or missing airplanes -- then yes, that person is deserving > of disdain and ridicule. > > Except for the fact that doing so to another member of this website > would be a violation of our personal attacks rule. So don't do it. > > <end quote> > > There are a lot of things going on in this post, and it has been taken > to mean a lot of different things. Again I don't want to litigate the > substance of the 9/11 debate, but it is clear that Skinner believes the > 9/11 Report to be mostly true and that he lumps together all alternative > explanations as equally "faith-based wishful thinking." > > That's fine. He and the moderators are entitled to their opinion. On the > other hand many smart and sincere people have looked at the data and > come to different conclusions. Ordinarily we would say reasonable people > agree to disagree. > > But I think what was most damaging to the civility of this forum was the > last few lines. Having lumped together all investigations and > alternatives as basically the same and, moreover, false, he says they > are "deserving of disdain and ridicule." > > Wow, now what do you think the effect, on supporters of the official > story is, of the administrator saying one side of the debate is > deserving of disdain and ridicule, even though that side seems to > represent about 85% of DU membership's views? The throw away line of > "don't do it," hardly counteracts the "wink-wink-nod-nod" which seems to > say, "go ahead and ridicule and disdain the other side." > > I don't know what your intentions were, but you've set up Philip > Zimbardo's Stanford psychology department basement prison experiment. > You've created a dungeon and told a portion of the posters that they are > the "prison guards" whose job is to "ridicule and disdain" the arguments > of the other side, rather than engage them. > > And that's exactly what that side did, and it seemed that the > moderators, taking the cue felt that this was the purpose of the 9/11 > Forum. Not only did posters assume this role, but they frequently quote > this very post as their justification for doing so. There were several > others from DU officialdom, and I am only using this particular post as > an example, and the one most frequently cited by supporters of the > official story as their reason for being disrespectful to questioners of > the official story. > > And let me be the first to admit, that having been thrown into that > dynamic one's instinctive response is to give as good as one gets. Hence > the 9/11 Forum became a Hobbesian venue of attack, ridicule, disdain and > counter attack on both sides. > > People often complain that the 9/11 Forum keeps discussion of 9/11 out > of GD. I couldn't care less. Because of this dedicate forum, I've gotten > a chance to meet Paul Thompson (cited by New York Magazine as the "gold > standard" of 9/11 research), Bryan Sacks, Nicholas Levis (Jack Riddler) > and other prominent or just plain thoughtful 9/11 researchers here. > Daniel Hopsicker has popped in here. As with any other subject, having a > place where people can meet is great -- unless, consciously or > unconsciously, purposely or by accident, the administrators and > moderators have created a venue in which all ideas questioning the > official story are set up for subjection to officially sanctioned > "disdain and ridicule" -- in other words if the purpose of the 9/11 > Forum isn't to allow people with similar interests on both sides, > whether skeptics or truthers, to interact; but if the purpose is to > allow one side to engage in name calling, ridicule, and heckling without > any sanction whatsoever. > > I realize that DU administrators and moderators take a dim view of how > DU is perceived in other forums, but sometimes outside views serve as a > useful reality check, and the perception has arisen out there in "the > internets" that this is indeed the purpose of the purpose of the 9/11 > Forum. That's why not only 9/11 discusion is moved here, but so is > discussion of alien lizard overlords. > > It would be a shame if this is still the purpose of the forum, because > questioning 9/11 is going mainstream and a majority of DUers are > interested in this research -- at least getting information so they can > learn and decide for themselves. Unfortunately, DUers who venture here > are turned off by the vitriol and don't stay for the available > information, eg: > > http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph > <http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph> ... > > This forum could be a great resource, rather than an embarrassment. Most > of all, it would be terrible if people like Paul Thompson, Bryan Sacks, > Nicolas Levis and others with lots of data and very busy schedules > simply gave up on this place because of the incivility. > > In conclusion, I guess what I am saying is that I'm not sure you can > improve the civility here and get people to actually start interacting > rather than yelling at each other simply by restating the rules unless > there is some sort of official statement as to whether this is a subject > about which reasonable people can disagree and therefore deserve equal > respect on both sides; or whether it is still DU official policy that if > you disagree with the official theory you should be subject to > officially encouraged disdain and ridicule? >
