Scientific Theory for Controlled Demo Thread.

[Denie]

Please, empirical scientific data only. Not cut and paste (believe me, we've all seen it over and over) credulous theories about explosives, thermite, etc. from the many CT sites out there. There are many other threads here where you can post these types of things

And for those out there confused as to what a scientific theory and empirical evidence is, here are definitions of what criteria is required.

Logical Criteria

A scientific theory must be:
1. a simple unifying idea that postulates nothing unnecessary ("Occam's Razor")
2. logically consistent
3. logically falsifiable (i.e., cases must exist in which the theory can be imagined to be invalid)
4. clearly limited by explicit boundary conditions so that it is clear whether or not particular data are or are not relevant to verification or falsification

Empirical Criteria

A scientific theory must:
1. be empirically testable or lead to predictions or retrodictions that are testable
2. actually make verified predictions and/or retrodictions
3. involve reproducible results
4. provide criteria for the interpretation of data as factual, artifactual, anomalous or irrelevant

Sociological Criteria

A scientific theory must:
1. resolve recognized problems, paradoxes, and/or anomalies irresolvable on the basis of preexisting theories
2. pose a new set of scientific problems upon which scientists may work
3. suggest a "paradigm" or problem solving model to help resolve these new problems
4. provide definitions of concepts or operations which will help other scientists solve problems.

Historical Criteria

A scientific theory must:
1. meet or surpass all of the criteria set by its predecessors or demonstrate that any abandoned criteria are artifactual
2. be able to explain all of the data gathered under previous relevant theories in terms either of fact or artifact (no anomalies allowed)
3. be consistent with all preexisting ancillary theories that already have established scientific validity.

Overall, the criteria for scientific theories can be loosely be summarized by a few basic principles. Scientific theories are:

Consistent (internally and externally)
Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)
Empirically Testable & Falsifiable
Based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments
Correctable & Dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered)
Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

Please, this thread is for "scientific theories" (as discribed above) not "theories" as there is a very large difference in the two. Please also remember any evidence you bring forth needs to follow empirical law.

Thank You.

[sunflower]

Originally Posted by Denie

Please, empirical scientific data only. Not cut and paste (believe me, we've all seen it over and over) credulous theories about explosives, thermite, etc. from the many CT sites out there. There are many other threads here where you can post these types of things

And for those out there confused as to what a scientific theory and empirical evidence is, here are definitions of what criteria is required.

Logical Criteria

A scientific theory must be:
1. a simple unifying idea that postulates nothing unnecessary ("Occam's Razor")
2. logically consistent
3. logically falsifiable (i.e., cases must exist in which the theory can be imagined to be invalid)
4. clearly limited by explicit boundary conditions so that it is clear whether or not particular data are or are not relevant to verification or falsification

Empirical Criteria

A scientific theory must:
1. be empirically testable or lead to predictions or retrodictions that are testable
2. actually make verified predictions and/or retrodictions
3. involve reproducible results
4. provide criteria for the interpretation of data as factual, artifactual, anomalous or irrelevant

Sociological Criteria

A scientific theory must:
1. resolve recognized problems, paradoxes, and/or anomalies irresolvable on the basis of preexisting theories
2. pose a new set of scientific problems upon which scientists may work
3. suggest a "paradigm" or problem solving model to help resolve these new problems
4. provide definitions of concepts or operations which will help other scientists solve problems.

Historical Criteria

A scientific theory must:
1. meet or surpass all of the criteria set by its predecessors or demonstrate that any abandoned criteria are artifactual
2. be able to explain all of the data gathered under previous relevant theories in terms either of fact or artifact (no anomalies allowed)
3. be consistent with all preexisting ancillary theories that already have established scientific validity.

Overall, the criteria for scientific theories can be loosely be summarized by a few basic principles. Scientific theories are:

Consistent (internally and externally)
Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)
Empirically Testable & Falsifiable
Based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments
Correctable & Dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered)
Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

Please, this thread is for "scientific theories" (as discribed above) not "theories" as there is a very large difference in the two. Please also remember any evidence you bring forth needs to follow empirical law.

Thank You.

How about you offer up the other side's empirical evidence to counter it? Scientific theory about CD is fine - there's plenty out there - but it should be countered with the official "theory" and the evidence which backs it up as well. Don't you think?

[Denie]

Originally Posted by sunflower

How about you offer up the other side's empirical evidence to counter it? Scientific theory about CD is fine - there's plenty out there - but it should be countered with the official "theory" and the evidence which backs it up as well. Don't you think?

I'm not the one claiming a CD theory and need to provide nothing to support "the other side". A scientific theory does not "countered" by another theory in order to be proven or disproven. This thread is for CD theory only, and as such please do not try to hijack it by demanding evidence of other collapse theories.

I find it odd that you claim there's "plenty out there" yet post none of it.

[sunflower]

Originally Posted by Denie

I'm not the one claiming a CD theory and need to provide nothing to support "the other side".

I find it odd that you claim there's "plenty out there" yet post none of it.

You haven't looked for it, it appears.

And yes, if you're going to ask for scientific "proof" of CD, then you should be able to offer the same "proof" of the government's version of events, you know, that planes and fire collapsed three buildings completely.

[Denie]

Originally Posted by sunflower

You haven't looked for it, it appears.

And yes, if you're going to ask for scientific "proof" of CD, then you should be able to offer the same "proof" of the government's version of events, you know, that planes and fire collapsed three buildings completely.

So I see your only intent here is to spam the thread with your demands of evidence of a different theory.

Where were you taught that in order to ask for proof of one theory it is required that you offer proof of an opposing theory? That's called pseudo science where I come from.

Again, you post nothing to support a CD theory.

[sunflower]

Originally Posted by Denie

So I see your only intent here is to spam the thread with your demands of evidence of a different theory.

Where were you taught that in order to ask for proof of one theory it is required that you offer proof of an opposing theory? That's called pseudo science where I come from.

Again, you post nothing to support a CD theory.

I'm not spamming anything. It's pretty obvious that you believe the official story. So, post your own "empirical evidence" to support your own convictions. We will certainly come back with our own. That's guaranteed.

Can't do it?

[Duvidoo]

Originally Posted by Denie

I'm not the one claiming a CD theory and need to provide nothing to support "the other side". A scientific theory does not "countered" by another theory in order to be proven or disproven. This thread is for CD theory only, and as such please do not try to hijack it by demanding evidence of other collapse theories.

I find it odd that you claim there's "plenty out there" yet post none of it.

The other side claims that two hijacked airliners hit the two tallest office buildings in the world and brought them down like a stack of cards and you say you need no evidence to prove that scenario. Some of us find that very hard to believe. What convinced you that there was nothing untoward about it? Scientific or otherwise.

[Denie]

Originally Posted by sunflower

I'm not spamming anything. It's pretty obvious that you believe the official story. So, post your own "empirical evidence" to support your own convictions. We will certainly come back with our own. That's guaranteed.

Can't do it?

Yes you are spamming. Do you not understand the title of the thread? This is not a thread about the official story and please stop trying to hijack it into that.

Hmm...I've never read the "official" story so how is it "obvious" I believe it?

Again, where in science is it required to provide evidence of one theory in order to ask for evidence of another? If you don't like this thread then don't reply or start your own. What's so hard about staying on topic?

[brian_wilbanks]

Originally Posted by Denie

So I see your only intent here is to spam the thread with your demands of evidence of a different theory.

Where were you taught that in order to ask for proof of one theory it is required that you offer proof of an opposing theory? That's called pseudo science where I come from.

Again, you post nothing to support a CD theory.

Thats the same sort of argument you'll get from the Intelligent design crowd. they ask you to prove that god doesnt exist and then claim a victory for their side.

These people are beyond help. They're zealots. No matter what scientific evidence comes to light, they'll never accept reality.

I really hope the rest of America is smarter.

[brian_wilbanks]

Originally Posted by sunflower

I'm not spamming anything. It's pretty obvious that you believe the official story. ?

And there we go again...if you dont believe her.....then you believe GWB.

Pathetic...simply pathetic.