Episode 020: How to think critically

Listen Now

In Part II of our series on critical thinking, we'll cover the techniques one uses when evalutating ideas critically. Roger Darlington of the UK has put together a pretty good guide called How To Think Critically

There is also a challenge--the first X-Oriente Lab Experiment:

Zeigeist: The Movie is a film that has recently been released to the Internet. It asserts that religion as we know it is part of a greater plan to control humanity. It has garnered some rave reviews. Commentators on Digg.com said of it:

This is a must see project. No denying that it's controversial. It's a full length movie about historical perceptions of religion, the US and the world. Take an objective view and develop your own opinion.

So let's do that, shall we? In the spirit of Masonic discourse and debate, take a look at Zeitgeist: The Movie. Use Roger Darlington's Guide to Critical thinking. The Creators of the film exhort us to watch the movie and think for ourselves. What do you think?

Does the film make it's case? Is it credible? Why or why not? Did the authors practice good critical thinking? Create your own review and I'll play it on the show. You can call it in to the Skype line at +1 847 380 1881 and leave a message, or you can record it on your computer and send me the audio file. (Please keep it under 10 mb or contact me to make alternative arrangements.) Or write it as a comment and post it here or send it as an email. I'll assemble all the reviews in the next episode and think for ourselves. After all, that is part of what Masonry is all about, isn't it?

Comments

[Brother Steven]

You make the statement of how their is "no evidence" for alternative theories about 9-11. I am providing a link to the Scholars for 9/11 Truth web site, the names of all the Scholars involved can be found there. Please, have a look at the site and take a reevaluation.

[Eric Diamond]

Bro. Steven:

I looked at the information your forwarded, and sampled some of their evidence. It is spurious at best. Most of it are assertions without source attributions, anecdotal evidence and statements like "[such and such] couldn't have happened," without evidence to back those statements up.

For example, there is an interview with a janitor William Rodriguez, who claims on video that he heard a boom that sounded like a generator exploding in the basement. However the conclusion was drawn that it was an explosion in the basement.

Another point is that the scholars claim that the WYC was designed to withstand multiple impacts from Jumbo jets without collapsing. However, from the National Institue of Standards and Technology's own report:

"...NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that '… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…'

Furthermore, even if that were true, the modeling done to calculate that was based on a Boeing 707 (an aircraft 20% smaller than the 767 that crashed into the WTC), the data was untested and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey did not have the access to supercomputers needed to model such calculations with any amount of real accuracy.

The Scholars claim: "UL certified the steel in the buildings up to 2,000*F for three or four hours before it would even significantly weaken."

This however is untrue. UL does not certify steel in the U.S. Structures are tested and rated for fire resistance after they are built.

What I see in these sites are a hodgepodge of anecdotal theories (Like that of Rodriguez), unsubstaniated reports and press accounts. It is strange that none of these scholars studied this with any amount of scientific rigor.

The NIST did, however. They looked at seismic readings from Palisades, NJ; did simulations to test stress and melting points. They looked at alternative thoeries and considered them. They did their critical thinking homework, something the Scholars for 9/11 failed to do. Their evidence is actually assertion. They do not cite their sources, so for the Scholars I have to give them a grade of D+

Finally I found it curious that of the members of Scholars for 9/11 only one of them had any credentials as a structural engineer. What that means to me is that a Professor of French Literature assessment on the merits of the NIST's reports is not exactly credible. So I looked at Judy Wood's arguments (Wood is the sole strauctural engineer in the group). She has a web site. Her conclusion?

"...the plain fact of the matter is that NIST ignored eyewitness testimony that is completely
consistent with the claim that directed energy weaponry are a causal factor in the destruction of the Twin Towers and that the buildings did not “collapse” as NIST has fraudulently and deceptively reported." I also looked at the evidence she submitted to the NIST in her appeal to the NIST's findings. I won't bore you with the details (you can do the work yourself,) but suffice it to say that Dr. Wood seems in need of some psychiatric care.

Here is another example of an "expert" exposing the "truth" of 9/11. MMMM...all the flavor of science with none of the nutrition:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBuH8NNIBys

So there you have it. A lot of heat, virtually no light.

[Jorge]

Great to see another show posted! Just rented "Freemasonry Revealed" (2-Disc Series) (2007). Fairly objective (not everything is a conspiracy!). Shows several Lodges, Female Freemasons, Prince Hall.

[Jeff Carter, Naples Florida]

The show just keeps getting better and BETTER! Thanks for all that your doing Eric.......I'll be sending my thoughts on the Zeitgeist movie soon.

Forward Shock Troops of the Enlightenment!

[Dave J.]

Eric, its interesting the direction you are taking, in a good way. Not directly masonry, but a good lesson that our fore-fathers would wholly approve of! And with so much half-truths around Masonry, definitely worthwhile.

It made me think of a recent You-tube hit, railing on Fox News hosts' common usage of the statement "some people say". Once you are aware of it, it makes it so obvious as a crutch where information is lacking.

[Matt English]

Hey Eric,
Excellent show. It's good to see that one of the tenets of our organisation (specifically the Fellowcraft Degree) is being promoted. Constant education in the liberal arts and sciences (which included subjects related to critical thinking, eg rhetoric)is one of the RESPONSIBILITIES of a Mason and this current ark of interest certainly assists with that. Keep up the good work.

Fraternal greetings as usual from Kalgoorlie
Matt

[Mark E. Koltko-Rivera]

Off-topic comment:

How may I send an e-mail to the author of the X-Oriente site? Please let me know at koltkorivera@yahoo.com ; I shall not publish your e-mail address. (Please be so kind as to delete this comment.)

Bona fides: www.thesquareandcompasses.com

[Dave Diamond]

Listening to the show. Where are the peer reviews of the NIST report and all of the other contents of the offiicial story publications? Oh wait, those scientists, architects, etc they are "Nuts!"

"look at the person who did the report" - Zelikow? Uh, nah he would have NO reason to skew the report - no way, that's crazy talk. How about the head of Popular Mechanics - be sure and look up THAT guy's credentials. Laughable.

[Eric Diamond]

A note to Dave Diamond:

I read the whole thing. Every word of it. Several times. And I started a detailed response, but as I got further and further into it, I realized I was being led to Crazytown. Though normally I hate censorship, your comment was removed and here's why:

1. It contains obscenities

2. It contains ad hominem attacks

3. None of your assertions are supported by evidence. Not one.

4. It contains statements that are insulting and not germaine to your argument. (your rants on religion, specifically)

As far as I am concerned on the subject of 9/11, the NIST report is conclusive. If someone brings evidence to the contrary, I will of course revise my position. However it will be evidence not questions and ad hominem attacks, that will sway my opinion.

Are there alternative explanations to the NIST's account? Plenty. Do any of them have any empirical evidence to support them? Not a one so far.

I love a good conspiracy story just as much as the next guy, but it is not critical thinking. If you'd like we can take this backchannel and if you have evidence you can cite, I would be happy to take you seriously.

And that goes for the rest of youse. As far as I am concerned the 9/11 subject is done. This is about critical thinking not 9/11. I'm not going into downtown Crazytown just to address what is a rant.

[Dave Diamond]

"Be ready to change your mind" No kidding. Why is it so awful to be proven wrong? It's quite liberating and enlightening for me. Yet, no one has proven 9/11 being an inside job wrong. Not one. Not based on all the facts and evidence.

Oh, Mr. O's Razor. Love that one. Done that too. The simplest explanation that requires the fewest assumptions based on EVIDENCE, not "because we said so", is 9/11 was an inside job. Based on what the evidence shows.

Your discussion on Zeitgeist:

You DO have to watch the whole thing, OR you do NOT get the sense of it.
Why would someone read half the 911 reports? Half of the income tax code? Why would a buy studying for the bar read HALF his law books. Watch the whole thing. Use your brain & think critically and do NOT listen to Eric's "don't watch all of it advice."

Is the evidence valid? By who? Says who? You? Me? Who makes it VALID?

Are the creators credible? Are you credible? We need to stop thinking of people in categories. Is Bush credible? Is Meigs? Is Zelikow? Are you? Define a credible person for us. Where's the handbook?

[Dave Diamond]

And calling the 9/11 issue "Crazy Town" is exactly what you do. What you all do. You refuse to look. That is the probem all of you have. You refuse to face facts. You deny them and say "go away".

This is why that fraud is working so well.

[Dave Diamond]

"Are there alternative explanations to the NIST's account? Plenty. Do any of them have any empirical evidence to support them? Not a one so far."

Not one that you have either read or been willing to read. From your perspective - not one. That doesn't make it true. NIST's reports have been debunked.

[imflammatory material deleted. In the future please refrain from making disrespectful religious comments]

[Eric Diamond]

I should point out to my listeners that though Mr. Diamond and I share the same name, that's about all we share. To my knowledge we are not related.

To Dave:

I haven't yet said "go away" but I have to say you are making me want to.

It would be wonderful if you could prove anything. But sadly all you've proven is that you have no understanding of critical thinking. First, you cannot prove a negative. You cannot prove that something doesn't exist. When engaged in a proof of something you much have evidence and a lack of evidence is not causal, nor is it proof. It is merely a lack of evidence.

Because I do not agree with you I am in denial? Enough with the ad hominem attacks already!

NIST reports have been debunked? By who? Where? Do you know how to cite a source?

Define a credible person? A credible person is a moderate person. Someone who can back up his assertions with evidence. A person who thinks critically. Who avoids ad hominem and shrill rhetoric.

You have cited not one shred of evidence for any of your assertions. You keep insising it is there, but so far have not produced the goods. I am willing to read any credible evidence. The site you listed is more of the same "prove it doesn't exist" crap. Conjecture does not make something evidence simply because it appears on the web.

And if you were at all a regular listener you would know that I am not a "Jesus guy." But there are guys here who are and we must respect that.

As far as I am concerned this subject of 9/11 is closed. We know how you feel and I think the horse is dead so you can stop beating it. Please refrain from inflammatory religious commentary, or ad hominem attacks in the future.

[Diamond Dave]

Oh Eric. If telling you theat Jesus is not real is "imflammatory material" then this conversation really is over. You can't have critical thinking & believe in Zeus or The Easter Bunny. By the way, Poseiden didn't create Katrina either.
Eric says:
"It would be wonderful if you could prove anything."
Please be specific. I would love to prove whatever it is you say I can't. But be specific.
"But sadly all you've proven is that you have no understanding of critical thinking. First, you cannot prove a negative. You cannot prove that something doesn't exist."
Then, by that notion, you also canot prove that 911 was not an inside job, correct? Am I right on that one, or is that one not allowed in your idea of that one? On the contrary, I CAN prove that something doesn't exist. I can prove to you that I can't fly from the top of building if I jump off it. Therefore, humans being able to fly based on t e faith they think they can by flapping their wings, does not exist.
"When engaged in a proof of something you much have evidence and a lack of evidence is not causal, nor is it proof. It is merely a lack of evidence."
I would to "prove" you wrong on this one. Some of the points I made were: William Rodriguez, The Pentagon, Osama Bin laden, flight manifests, what else... oh the 80+ camera that the Pentagon refuses to release because if they do release those tapes everyone will know a plane didn't hit it? I promise not to simply post links. I will physically write in the proof and site sources.
Eric goes on to say:
"Because I do not agree with you I am in denial? Enough with the ad hominem attacks already!"
ad hominem: consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
By that definition, I apologize for claiming you are in denial. I will save that for a more appropraite moment. If I tell you the sky is blue most days and you say it's not, then I will say you are in denial.
"Define a credible person? A credible person is a moderate person. Someone who can back up his assertions with evidence. A person who thinks critically. Who avoids ad hominem and shrill rhetoric."
Ok, sure. Why is Richard Gage, Stephen Jones PHD and other engineers and architects uncredible? Why is former CIA & FBI members that have come forth uncredible? Why is William Rodriguez? Why is Norman Mineta?
"You have cited not one shred of evidence for any of your assertions. You keep insising it is there, but so far have not produced the goods. I am willing to read any credible evidence. The site you listed is more of the same "prove it doesn't exist" crap. Conjecture does not make something evidence simply because it appears on the web."
Conjecture also does not make something evidence because it appears on TV, or from the mouth of anyone or thing that is from this government. What is your point? Further more, the United States government has not provided ONE SHRED of evidence linking Osama Bin Laden to 9/11. Not one shred. Shortly after the strike he said he did not do it. Then, in Dec, they magically found a tape of him admitting it. It is widely cited as a forgery. Why would he suddenly change his mind? What does Bin LAden have to gain from the attack. On that note, what does The Bush admin have to gain from the attack? Who gains more? Who profits more?
"And if you were at all a regular listener you would know that I am not a "Jesus guy." But there are guys here who are and we must respect that."
Do we? Religion is the root of the problems. It is the physcological soil that allows other myths to flourish. Even moderate Jesus folk are equally as guilty of this travesty. If I told you that you would meet a bunch of virgins if you blew yourself up at an airport would be reason to tell me I cannot be respected. Telling people that Jesus is real, WITH ZERO, NOT A SHRED OFF EVIDENCE TO PROVE IT SO, is equally as disrespectful.
"As far as I am concerned this subject of 9/11 is closed. We know how you feel and I think the horse is dead so you can stop beating it. Please refrain from inflammatory religious commentary, or ad hominem attacks in the future."
The subject of 9/11 is closed because based on my original comment you cannot fight or prove those things wrong. They are far too incriminating. You can't fight the truth Eric.

I'll tell you what. Let's start form the beginning. If you care to participate, i say we take ONE issue until we exhaust it. Let's start here:
** Do you believe there were no warnings of the attack? The US government said in it's final report that "it was a failure of the imagination". More specifically, they said they have never heard of or fathomed anyone using "airplanes as missles" to attack America before 9/11. They also said they were taken totally by surprise. No one in the White House or ties to the White House had a single idea that an attack was going to happen using American Airlines & United Airlines and the World Trade Center on Sept 11, 2001.
If you care to back this up, and say that it is true, I will provide a "credible" source to prove it wrong. I will also approve the nature of the source with you before revealing the proof and source.

How's that Eric?

[Eric Diamond]

You wrote: "Oh Eric. If telling you theat Jesus is not real is "imflammatory material" then this conversation really is over."

Dave, this is a Masonic blog. The validity of any religious point of view or lack thereof is off limits here. If you cannot respect that, you cannot play here. Obviously you are not a Freemason, because if you were, you would understand and respect that.

You wrote: "Some of the points I made were: William Rodriguez, The Pentagon, Osama Bin laden, flight manifests, what else..."

Points are not evidence. Do you have any idea what evidence is? Your points are not proof. They are ASSERTIONS.

You wrote: "Ok, sure. Why is Richard Gage, Stephen Jones PHD and other engineers and architects uncredible? Why is former CIA & FBI members that have come forth uncredible? Why is William Rodriguez?"

I never said that any of these gentlemen are credible or not. You never cited sources of their testimony so their credibility can be determined. Rodriguez is not credible because he has no expertise in demolitions or explosives, nor acoustics. For him to testify as to the casue of a sound that "sounds like an explosion" would require such expertise. I once heard a car crash that sounded like an explosion but it was only the sound of the impact of the crash.

When you compare his testimony to the NIST's along with his credentials vs NIST's, Rodriguez comes up lacking.

You wrote: "What is your point? Further more, the United States government has not provided ONE SHRED of evidence linking Osama Bin Laden to 9/11."

My point is that if you read the NIST report it is a cogent well-reasoned, credible source. They may not be ultimately right, but they are more credible than anyone else. In fact, the NIST is the only in-depth empirical investigation I have seen. Is it perfect? Perhaps not but it followed the conventions of critical thinking. If you have a source that is based on actually empirically examining the evidence and not on "It could not have happened like that" style conjecture, you had ample opportunity to produce it. But nope, just a lot of wind.

The NIST report also says nothing about Bin Laden and his culpability. It's conclusion was that the towers collapsed due to superheated jet-fuel weakening the structure of the building. READ THE REPORT.

You wrote: "It is widely cited as a forgery." Widely? WHO cited it, WHAT are their credentials, WHERE did they cite it? Specifics, man, specifics. You are using the common-sense fallacy. Saying something is "well-known," "common sense" or "widely cited" without specifics is a waste of keystrokes.

Finally you wrote: "...i say we take ONE issue until we exhaust it."

We did. This is about critical thinking not 9/11. I am sure that the other listeners and readers here are bored and ready to move on. We are done here, Dave. Why not go back to the conspiracy blogs? Im sure they will be much more receptive.

You wrote: "On the contrary, I CAN prove that something doesn't exist. I can prove to you that I can't fly from the top of building if I jump off it."

Please do.