I just skimmed over a recent article at Debunking the Debunkers about the curious case of Dr. Frank Greening, who originally supported the official accounts of the collapses of the WTC buildings on 9/11, but has since become more doubtful about them. This explains why I have seen his name on both papers supporting the offical versions and disputing them.
Apparently he has some rather nasty things to say about a particular forum that a friend of mine frequents, as well.
6 comments:
I actually don't frequent JREF, but very briefly participated there as an experiment in violating my own epistemological principles about how a layperson should adjudicate expert disputes.
And how do you feel now after your epistemological principles have been so violated?
I feel fine, since there are worse ways to waste one's time.
It's one of the great things about epistemic norms. Violate a moral norm, you're really in trouble. But an epistemic norm? Then you're just irrational!
I was just afraid that maybe you felt dirty and used. Glad you haven't taken it so hard.
Only used by myself. But perhaps a little dirty for interacting with individuals like that "beachnut" fellow.
Post a Comment