Noam Chomsky: 9-11: Institutional Analysis vs. Conspiracy Theory

[squeegee]

I called him a fucking twat because he posted up a sarky one line comment, "What has this got to do with Chomsky?" in response to my comments and then went straight on to talk about holograms again.

Understand now?

So it's alright to call someone a fucking twat but not a cunt. Or is it just that no one is allowed to justify their insults to you but your are allowed to justify your insults to them. Remind me again what your reason was for banning me?

And as for the sarky comment, it was a actually a pointed comment to show that the very things youe accuse me of, you are regularaly guilty of yourself.

It's why you don't fight fair. Why not give me carte blanche to get into a slanging match with you. You fancy your chances matey?

 

[squeegee]

Else, why don't we just leave the insults aside and, you know, reason like civilised human beings.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Everything you see is mediated by quanta of light.

I've no doubt this is true, but for some reason reading that sentence reminds me of Dennis Hopper in Apocalypse Now.

"You can't go to the Moon with fractions...."

 

[beeboo]

Thank you

How does that support you?

I'm saying there are bound to be some 'unlikely' occurances and to hold those up as evidence of a conspiracy is ridiculous, when they don't fit together to form anything like a coherent alternative theory.

Just saying 'that was a bit unlikely, as was that, and that' doesn't form an arguement.

 

[axon]

Just a quick slight diversionary non-Chomsky point. Squeegee you need to get passed the "anything is possible" mantra. Yes virtually anything is possible, 9-11 could have been perpetrated by Al-Qaida, US governement, my mum, or green aliens. What you have to do is look at how probable an explanation is. To help decide how probable something is, look at the evidence for it, and the sourse of the evidence. Then you can go along with the most probable, obviously not discounting ever the other theories but putting the most improbable on a shelf several light years away.

 

[squeegee]

Nope.

If anything is possible, then the simultaneous existence of mutually contradictory conditions would be possible. But, by definition, the simultaneous existence of mutually contradictory conditions is not possible, because they are mutually incompatible. So it is not the case that anything is possible.

God is Great, but not Greatly Absurd.

Can you explain what a paradox is please?

 

[squeegee]

squeegee, you seem to be missing the point, i did three years of QM. It's nothing special anymore. However you haven't done any at all or you wouldn't use that really bloody stupid comment earlier as it shows you haven't got a sodding clue.

Oh, this post reinforces that impression too. Find an A level physics text book down the library and have a read. QM is not what you think.

As for what is and isn't possible you might want to take a look at ocham's razor while you're there.

My bold: As oppposed to speaking to a quantum physics professor with over 40 years experience in the field? Au countraire, mon amie, it is you who haven't a sodding clue and who does not realise what QM actually is.

 

[nick1181]

This is a kindof stealth conspiracy thread. It's snuck in under the radar - pretending to be against the theories... but sneakily getting the whole conversation started again, and 9 pages later it's still going.

I tell yer, any behaviour that gets attention is reinforced. Simple pet psychology.

 

[squeegee]

Just a quick slight diversionary non-Chomsky point. Squeegee you need to get passed the "anything is possible" mantra. Yes virtually anything is possible, 9-11 could have been perpetrated by Al-Qaida, US governement, my mum, or green aliens. What you have to do is look at how probable an explanation is. To help decide how probable something is, look at the evidence for it, and the sourse of the evidence. Then you can go along with the most probable, obviously not discounting ever the other theories but putting the most improbable on a shelf several light years away.

But that's what I do Axon. It is others who make a point of absolutely rejecting theories out of hand. It is not the theory I am concerned with in this case, it is the logical fallacy that is thus invoked to attack the person not the reasoning. By all means show how holograms are unlikely. I would agree. But why then avoid the others gaps in the USG story just because they are not so easy to dismiss, if not that it is about winning an argument, rather than arriving at some plausible theories?

 

[squeegee]

The thread is about Chomsky's rejecting of the theory that members of the USG were somehow responsible for 9/11. It is the anti-conspiracy mob who keep goading some on here into answering on things like hologram theories.

I've said what I need to about Chomsky. Knowing his view of the USGs of the last 40 years it would be difficult to think he did not supect something. Even his writing on US covert involvement in Central America has been rejected out of hand by the government, else they would have been prosecuted. Doesn't mean they weren't involved.

 

[Jonti]

Can you explain what a paradox is please?

Sometimes people use the word paradox to mean puzzle, but technically a paradox is an absurdity, a logical contradiction, in the sense of an apparently true statement which logically leads one into a contradiction.

In the present context "anything is possible" may sound sort of plausiblish (!) but, as shown here, assuming it to be true leads one into a contradiction.

 

[squeegee]

If anything is possible, then the simultaneous existence of mutually contradictory conditions would be possible. But, by definition, the simultaneous existence of mutually contradictory conditions is not possible, because they are mutually incompatible. So it is not the case that anything is possible.

So is this a paradox?

 

[squeegee]

If anything is possible, then the simultaneous existence of mutually contradictory conditions would be possible. But, by definition, the simultaneous existence of mutually contradictory conditions is not possible, because they are mutually incompatible.

So it is not the case that anything is possible.

So is the above paragraph a paradox? Or is the second sentence a fact? Or is it both? Or neither. Or both or neither at the same time? Is Alan Watts in the house?

Oh shit....Chomsky, Chomsky, Chomsky

 

[Jazzz]

So is the above paragraph a paradox? Or is the second sentence a fact? Or is it both? Or neither. Or both or neither at the same time? Is Alan Watts in the house?

Oh shit....Chomsky, Chomsky, Chomsky

Don't worry, editor will bring us back to holograms in a moment, I'm sure

 

[Jonti]

Yes, the statement "Anything is possible" is a paradox. It sounds plausible, but on closer examination it can be seen to lead one into a contradiction; it is absurd.

Here's another. "This statement is false."
Let's assume the statement is true. Oops, it says it's false, so that can't be right. OK, we'll try again and assume the statement is false. Hang on, that's what it says, but it says it's false, so that can't be true either. the sentense turns out to be a paradox -- a logical absurdity.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

"All Cretans are liars."

 

[Jonti]

So is the above paragraph a paradox? Or is the second sentence a fact? Or is it both? Or neither. Or both or neither at the same time? Is Alan Watts in the house?

Oh shit....Chomsky, Chomsky, Chomsky

Alan Watts is like, everywhere and nowhere, man.

The paradoxical statement is "Anything is possible". The paragraph spells out why it is paradoxical.

More succinctly: If anything is possible, then it is possible that the statement "anything is possible" is untrue. So anything is not possible.

 

[Jonti]

"All Cretans are liars."

Donna Ferentes is a Cretan*.

* for the purposes of discussion only

 

[Bob_the_lost]

My bold: As oppposed to speaking to a quantum physics professor with over 40 years experience in the field? Au countraire, mon amie, it is you who haven't a sodding clue and who does not realise what QM actually is.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing and you have so very little you can be classed as a WMD. The reading of an A level text (even a current one) would boost your understanding of Quantum Mechanics by a large amount. I did not state that is all i studied, in fact if you read my post carefully (fat fucking chance of you doing that) then you'd see it's implied i did...

squeegee's position is clear, chomsky is either under duress or speaking in riddles to get his message accross.

 

[editor]

Don't worry, editor will bring us back to holograms in a moment, I'm sure

You're the only still going on about them, chum.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing

And "a little learning", as Pope originally wrote.

 

[Fruitloop]

Is the suggestion that Chomsky is in a superposition between believing in holographic aeorplanes and not, and we're waiting for him to collapse to one or other eigenstate? 'Cos if not then I'm very confused.

 

[editor]

And "a little learning", as Pope originally wrote.

A little LSD can be a dangerous thing too.

 

[Fruitloop]

So can a lot!

 

[laptop]

Simple pet psychology.

My lizard says:

 

[Roadkill]

I've said what I need to about Chomsky. Knowing his view of the USGs of the last 40 years it would be difficult to think he did not supect something. Even his writing on US covert involvement in Central America has been rejected out of hand by the government, else they would have been prosecuted. Doesn't mean they weren't involved.

There are all sorts of reasons why a government might reject something out of hand.

Knowing Chomsky had a point about what was going on in Central America might be one reason they haven't tried to prosecute: they wouldn't want the whole business raked over again and the skeletons to start emerging from the closet.

Knowing that people actually believe in free speech and trying to silence someone for expressing a viewpoint is unacceptable to them might be another.

A third might be that whatever theory being peddled is so ludicrous as to discredit itself without any assistance from outside, and a fourth that wacky theories being bandied around help to distract from investigation into any real wrongdoing. IMO both of the latter could well apply to the sort of paranoid conspiracy drivel that's peddled around here all too often...

 

[axon]

I've said what I need to about Chomsky. Knowing his view of the USGs of the last 40 years it would be difficult to think he did not supect something.

I read somewhere Chomsky saying he had thought about the US governments role in 911, and concluded* there was no proactive role due to the complete lack of evidence, and the overwhelming evidence for muslim terrorists. I can;t find the quote at the moment, if someone knows the one I'm talking about and has it handy, that would be handy. Otherwise I'll try and dig it out later.

*concluded; as in the everyday meaning of the word, but has not completely disregarded, along with the theory of Axon's mum or green aliens being responsible for 911.

 

[Badger Kitten]

How do you know Chomsky isn't a hologram?

 

[Jonti]

How do you know anything?

 

[Fruitloop]

How do you know Chomsky isn't a hologram?

Brilliant!