Evidence Of Things Not Seen

A few years ago one gent told me that faith in anything was stupid and that science had, or would, explain everything there was to know.

I asked him that if nothing could be taken on 'faith', how he knew all of this to be true.

He said that he'd read books and papers which explained everything he needed to know about the natural world.

I pointed out that even in that statement, he had made an leap of faith. How could he knew that anything was true if he himself had not personally tested the outcome. He was taking it on faith that what he was reading was true.

I was reminded of this after reading Michelle Malkin's post today.

Michelle points out that 9/11 conspiracy theories still abound, perpetrated by people whose academic credentials appear to be no innoculation against stupidity.

Such is the case of Brigham Young University physics professor Steven E. Jones:

"It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three buildings and set off after the two plane crashes — which were actually a diversion tactic," he writes. "Muslims are (probably) not to blame for bringing down the WTC buildings after all."

Yes, well I suppose on that basis it's quite 'plausible' that the moon landings were done on a Hollywood soundstage and aliens built the pyramids and Stone Henge.

Jones acknowledges that there have been "junk science" conspiracy theories about what happened on 9/11, but "the explosive demolition hypothesis better satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony and therefore is not 'junk science.'"

I suppose it is difficult to find two towers and two fully fuelled jet liners to slam into buildings in the interests of repeatability.

Morons like Jones do the world of science and forensic enquiry no good at all by perpetuating flagarant mistruths and indeed it calls into question every thing he does as a scientist. How do we know he isn't lying about his work in Metal-catalysed fusion? More people have been directly involved in investigating the events of 9/11 that will every be peer reviewing his work.

Perhaps Jones would like to leave his ivory tower every now and again and join the real world which already knows definitively what happened on Tuesday, September 11, 2001.

Cynicism is not a useful basis at arriving at facts because the enquirier is blinkered by their own perceptions as Jones clearly is.

Am I being cyncial in saying Jones wrote his 9/11 paper because he needed to get his academic publishing quota up for the year?

Tell Jones he's a moron. His phone number and e-mail address details are here.

-- Nora

UPDATE:
To Dr Jones' credit, he does return e-mail. Here it is with my response below:

"Jones, Steven" wrote:
Could I invite you then to actually read my article?

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Perhaps then you could get back to me.

Dr. Jones

Nora Charles"
Dear Dr Jones,
Have done. Still stand by my comments.

Could I invite you you then to actually read this article?

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y

Perhaps then you could get back to me.

-- Nora

It was similar to a request made by Charles Hueter. I wonder if he and Dr Jones are friends?