Tweet
In saying that, FOJK, I also have to point out that when a 'conspiracy theorist' brings up a certain (potentially valid) point, it often gets ignored. And guess what... 'coincidence' doesn't really count (either way... but at some point or another, surely Ockham's Razor should be looked at - although, that is in no way a 'definitive' argument).
(for the record, Ockham's Razor states: "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity", or as I had it and prefer it - "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." And it was first brought about by William of Ockham... not Occam! To continue: 'In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities." (all from wiki... where truth shall forever reign
) Thus, if we take the whole 9/11 as an example, it requires less assumptions and postulations to say an agency was able to plan everything, than to say all those 'coincidences' just happened to coincide.
But... yes, it is rather crap to have any valid argument, or evidence presented, to get mocked. But an unwillingness to accept an argument, just because it happens to be distasteful, is meaningless and unhelpful... eg "I can't believe my government would actually do that"... umm - that's not actually either 'evidence' nor even a decent argument...
So, Mysty and Friend(s)... fight for your right to have intelligence in the argument!! (or just kick them in the shins with steelcaps... whichever is easier!)
(for the record, Ockham's Razor states: "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity", or as I had it and prefer it - "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." And it was first brought about by William of Ockham... not Occam! To continue: 'In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities." (all from wiki... where truth shall forever reign
) Thus, if we take the whole 9/11 as an example, it requires less assumptions and postulations to say an agency was able to plan everything, than to say all those 'coincidences' just happened to coincide.But... yes, it is rather crap to have any valid argument, or evidence presented, to get mocked. But an unwillingness to accept an argument, just because it happens to be distasteful, is meaningless and unhelpful... eg "I can't believe my government would actually do that"... umm - that's not actually either 'evidence' nor even a decent argument...
So, Mysty and Friend(s)
... fight for your right to have intelligence in the argument!! (or just kick them in the shins with steelcaps... whichever is easier!)
Comment