Davis Straub; Idiot Statist, Endless Wars & Tyranny

[Bob Kuczewski]

Do you have any problem with me adding that title to the end of the topic? I'm going to go ahead and make the change. If you object, then I'll remove it, but then don't be surprised if people complain about the content not matching the title.

Changing the title to better reflect my intent would go more like 'Davis Straub, Idiot Savant or Why Statists Rationalize Endless Global Wars and Domestic Tyranny'. Will that fit in the title line?

Here's what fit in the title line: "Davis Straub, Idiot Savant or Why Statists Rationalize Endle"

Do you want to keep that or change it to something else?

[Free]

Do you have any problem with me adding that title to the end of the topic? I'm going to go ahead and make the change. If you object, then I'll remove it, but then don't be surprised if people complain about the content not matching the title.

Changing the title to better reflect my intent would go more like 'Davis Straub, Idiot Savant or Why Statists Rationalize Endless Global Wars and Domestic Tyranny'. Will that fit in the title line?

Here's what fit in the title line: "Davis Straub, Idiot Savant or Why Statists Rationalize Endle"

Do you want to keep that or change it to something else?

This should fit:

Davis Straub; Idiot Statist, Endless Wars & Tyranny

[Bob Kuczewski]

This should fit:

Davis Straub; Idiot Statist, Endless Wars & Tyranny

Is that the title you want? A yes or no will work.

[Free]

This should fit:

Davis Straub; Idiot Statist, Endless Wars & Tyranny

Is that the title you want? A yes or no will work.

Yes, thanks...

[Bob Kuczewski]

Davis Straub; Idiot Statist, Endless Wars & Tyranny

Done. You're welcome.

So how about a phone call?

[Bob Kuczewski]

I told you what I thought happened. Now I've been asking you for what you think happened. If you can't tell me what you think happened without turning it into a question, then I'm going to move on to other topics.

Speculating on what we think happened is like children speculating how the magician makes a rabbit disappear.
My question referred to known laws of physics that happen to have been altered on 9/11 and like your false argument that Ron Paul, was an "isolationist" with all its connotations, your answer to basic physics questions was to turn that discussion into speculative 9/11 theories with all its crazy conspiratorial connections.

My degree is in Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering. That comes with a heavy dose of Scientific Method. The Scientific Method requires making a hypothesis that fits the observable data. Here's the observable data:

• Terrorists hijacked jets.
• Jets flew into buildings.
• Jets burst into flames on impact.
• Flames undermined structural integrity.
• Buildings collapsed.

My hypothesis is that each of those observations contributed to the next as a predictable consequence. If you have a different hypothesis, I'd be happy to discuss it since you've brought up the topic. But we can't discuss which hypothesis is more likely if you won't provide one.

Call me conspiratorial but millions of dollars are being spent to hire disinformation tacticians to do exactly what you appear to be doing.

I'm not getting any money for my opinions. Maybe I should file for a federal disinformation grant!!   

Steering/manipulating/controlling discussions, exactly like the idiot savant Davis Straub does, when he has to. Lately Davis has been silent because his previous actions have stiffled all debate and discussion, as is the statist game plan.

On this forum, I'm just trying to bootstrap a national association to protect and promote the sport of hang gliding. That's all. I do have my own political views, but I don't generally bring them to this forum because this forum is about hang gliding. The people on this forum may have differing political views, differing religious views, differing economic views, differing moral views, and differing environmental views. If we focussed on all those differences, then we'd be so splintered that we'd have no hope of forming a new national hang gliding association - and we still wouldn't resolve any of those differences!!! So I'm just trying to keep us focussed on the one thing that we can do here in the context of hang gliding.

Forgive me if I am mistaken but you absolutely fit that profile with your indoctrination/background and ongoing connections in the military industrial complex.

You are mistaken ... and I do forgive you.   

I can't see how anyone would have been too confused in thinking they were going to get 'Hang Gliding 101' out of the title that was already on this thread.

That's why this thread doesn't belong in this forum. People come to the "Hang Gliding General" forum expecting to find hang gliding and not all the other problems in the world. I recognize that you've got other issues (and maybe more important issues) to discuss, and that's why we've got a "Free Speech Zone". I've even given you your own forum where you're free to post what you want. In fact, you can even allow Tad to post there if you want. After all, if Sam is able to ban who he wants, then you should be able to permit anyone that you want. But the consequences of that will fall on your shoulders and not mine.

But I may just be dreaming.. there is nothing to be concerned about and we should all just go out and have a fun fun day..
Warren

You're not dreaming. There are plenty of things going on in this country that have me terrified. And I've stepped up to the plate to address some of them in my private life. But I'm trying to save the sport of hang gliding in this forum. If you can help me, that would be great. Thanks!!

[Free]

Sorry Bob, you're going to have to explain your logic a little better to this undeducated simpleton before I can truly understand how you write such mumble jumbo..

My degree is in Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering. That comes with a heavy dose of Scientific Method. The Scientific Method requires making a hypothesis that fits the observable data. Here's the observable data:

• Terrorists hijacked jets.
• Jets flew into buildings.
• Jets burst into flames on impact.
• Flames undermined structural integrity.
• Buildings collapsed.

My hypothesis is that each of those observations contributed to the next as a predictable consequence. If you have a different hypothesis, I'd be happy to discuss it since you've brought up the topic. But we can't discuss which hypothesis is more likely if you won't provide one.

This is your explanation of "heavy dose of Scientific Method"?

Just to be clear, no one has asked for speculative hypothesis from you.
False premise. Why would you keep pushing that argument?

The question was simple physics.
It seems as simple as 2+2=4 to me, but then I'm a simple man.

At the same time you wrote the mental disconnect above you were making this argument to Tad at the kitestrings site:

Aviation is human beings taking flight. Our particular form of aviation is human beings taking flight for the sheer joy of taking flight. You can't remove that aspect of hang gliding from the discussion of its regulation. But if you want to talk numbers and logic, then start by explaining the laws of physics in terms of differential equations and not your simple 2+2=4 "logic" if you want my respect. Go ahead and explain the first quarter of Newtonian physics for us and see how far you get. We'll let you work your way up to the Navier–Stokes equations..

One argument seems so dumb and the other pretends to be so smart.
Which one is the real you?

[Bob Kuczewski]

From Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method ):

Four essential elements of a scientific method are iterations, recursions, interleavings, or orderings of the following:

• Characterizations (observations, definitions, and measurements of the subject of inquiry)
• Hypotheses (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements of the subject)
• Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction from the hypothesis or theory)
• Experiments (tests of all of the above)

A linearized, pragmatic scheme of the four points above is sometimes offered as a guideline for proceeding:

1. Define a question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form an explanatory hypothesis
4. Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner
5. Analyze the data
6. Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

The iterative cycle inherent in this step-by-step methodology goes from point 3 to 6 back to 3 again.

I was working on gathering observations. I thought that might be a place to find common ground - objective observable events. Then we could post our hypotheses as to what caused those events. Then we could explore the likelihood of those hypotheses being the causes for those objective observable events.

You'll notice that explanatory hypotheses play a central role in the scientific method. That's where the collections of facts and data are transformed into something meaningful. That's when you finally have something that you can support with facts and observations to see if they fit. That's when you can begin to objectively compare different hypotheses to see which ones are better (or worse) explanations for the observations. Hypotheses are the explanations (causes) behind the observations (effects). Hypotheses link causes to effects. Without posting a hypothesis, you just have a list of disconnected facts.

By the way, it's important to note that some topics are amenable to the scientific method and other topics are not. That depends not so much on the topics themselves, but on the willingness of the participants to place logic above their beliefs. If beliefs are held more dearly than logic, then pursuing the scientific method is likely to produce more disagreement than agreement. I suspect that's the case here, and I suspect that's why you began attacking me rather than post your own hypothesis about what actually happened on 9/11. As soon as you post an actual hypothesis, then it can be examined and compared to other hypotheses to see which ones are more (or less) likely. Attacking me is a diversion from the facts. You'll notice that I haven't attacked you at all. Can you say the same?

[Free]

Please stop pretending that there was ever a discussion seeking a specualtive hypothesis.
That is entirely your fabrication.

Your use of "scientific method" as argument for belief system acceptance fails the very first element on path to conclusion for your speculative hypothesis.

[*]Characterizations (observations, definitions, and measurements of the subject of inquiry)

Free fall acceleration of WTC Building 7, (not hit by a magic plane full of fuel,) was observed, measured and admitted by NIST.

Until you grasp the significance of this you can throw your scientific methodology out the window.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCDpL4Ax7I

From Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method ):

Four essential elements of a scientific method are iterations, recursions, interleavings, or orderings of the following:

• Characterizations (observations, definitions, and measurements of the subject of inquiry)
• Hypotheses (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements of the subject)
• Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction from the hypothesis or theory)
• Experiments (tests of all of the above)

A linearized, pragmatic scheme of the four points above is sometimes offered as a guideline for proceeding:

1. Define a question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form an explanatory hypothesis
4. Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner
5. Analyze the data
6. Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

The iterative cycle inherent in this step-by-step methodology goes from point 3 to 6 back to 3 again.

I was working on gathering observations. I thought that might be a place to find common ground - objective observable events. Then we could post our hypotheses as to what caused those events. Then we could explore the likelihood of those hypotheses being the causes for those objective observable events.

You'll notice that explanatory hypotheses play a central role in the scientific method. That's where the collections of facts and data are transformed into something meaningful. That's when you finally have something that you can support with facts and observations to see if they fit. That's when you can begin to objectively compare varying hypotheses to see which ones are better (or worse) explanations for the observations. Do you have a better way to address this?

By the way, it's important to note that some topics are amenable to the scientific method and other topics are not. That depends not so much on the topics themselves, but on the willingness of the participants to place logic above their beliefs. If beliefs are held more dearly than logic, then pursuing the scientific method is likely to produce more disagreement than agreement.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Please stop pretending that there was ever a discussion seeking a specualtive hypothesis.
That is entirely your fabrication.

I said I was trained as an engineer and that's how we go about finding the truth. We ask a question, collect observations, propose hypotheses, and explore those hypotheses to see which ones are more or less likely to account for those observations.

For me, that's the gold standard for finding the truth in any matter. If you don't want to do that, then all we've got are our opinions. I am always interested in seeking the truth with people willing to do so objectively. I am less interested in slinging opinions at each other.

The 9/11 issue is mostly resolved in my mind. I believe it was done by terrorists. There's probably a lot of history behind those terrorists and how they got trained and funded and supplied. Some of that history may even lead back to our own past actions. That would be difficult to determine without inside information, so I can't really know much about it beyond speculation. For those reasons, I'm not really inclined to enter into those conversations. I have only discussed it with you because I appreciate your participation in the US Hawks. If you'd rather not discuss it with me, then I'm happy to leave you alone to post what you want.

But in either case, I will do my job to maintain an orderly forum where people can find what they want in the topics and forums where they belong. I appreciate your help in keeping these topics organized in that manner. Thanks.