Jump to content
The Education Forum

Proof that a PhD in and decades of teaching ‘critical thinking’ doesn’t mean one thinks critically


Len Colby
 Share

  

8 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you think the 1st responders not digging for survivors is evidence 'the ?Official Account? of 9/11 is Wrong'?

    • Yes
      1
    • No
      7
    • Unsure/other
      0


Recommended Posts

Dr. Fetzer, repeatedly touts his decades teaching “critical thinking” to buttress his view on various topics, he has done so 8 times this year just on this forum including some of the examples below. He doesn’t actually have a doctorate in critical thinking or AFAIK ever claimed he did, rather it is in the history and philosophy of science, but he similarly has lauded his advanced degree to legitimize his claims.

Fetzer cites his experience teaching philosophy 3 of 8 examples in 2012 on the EF:

“I taught courses in logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning for 35 years”

“I spent 35 years teaching logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, Daniel.”

“A “9/11 Truth” movement, after all, has to be based on truth, where science is our most reliable method for distinguishing between what is true and what is false, where I can apply my background and the 35 years I spent offering courses in logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning.”

I assume everyone has head the joke “those who can’t do teach…” This certainly applies to Dr. Fetzer. He recently represented a 2011 article titled ‘20 Reasons the “Official Account” of 9/11 is Wrong’ at a truther confab. in Vancouver. It was needless to say a grand collection of logical and factual errors about as far removed from critical thinking as Calcutta is from the South Pole.

http://www.911vancouverhearings.com/

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/09/10/20-reasons-the-official-account-of-911-is-wrong/

With such a parade of inanity it is hard to choose the worst example but #18 takes the prize:

“If Flight 93 crashed into an abandoned mine shaft, as the government maintains, then they should have brought out the heavy equipment and the bright lights and dug and dug, 24/7, in the hope that, by some miracle, someone might possibly have survived. But nothing like that was done. Even the singed trees and shrubs were trimmed, apparently to make it impossible to subject them to chemical analysis.”

LOL Fire and rescue services of course are carried out by local not state, let alone federal agencies, so does Fetzer think the various local FDs etc., several of which were volunteer were ‘in on it’?

And how far removed from ‘critical thinking’ does someone have to be to think it possible there could have been survivors at the crash site pictured below?

Flight-93-crater.jpg

crashpennsylvania9ba.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Evidence the first responders did not dig for survivors is evidence they did not dig. Nothing more, nothing less.

The possibilities why they did not do so are many : for example, but not limited to: (and purely for speculative purposes...) :

  • No equipment for safe, deep excavations;
  • No training in such procedures;
  • Did not see any possibility of any survivors;
  • Ordered not to;
  • Awaiting NTSB officers to arrive, preserving the scene for Accident Investigators.

To infer anything other than "they did not dig..." out of such a slim piece of non-evidence is a lesson in futility, and assuming facts not in evidence. Critical failure!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evidence the first responders did not dig for survivors is evidence they did not dig. Nothing more, nothing less.

The possibilities why they did not do so are many : for example, but not limited to: (and purely for speculative purposes...) :

  • No equipment for safe, deep excavations;
  • No training in such procedures;
  • Did not see any possibility of any survivors;
  • Ordered not to;
  • Awaiting NTSB officers to arrive, preserving the scene for Accident Investigators.

To infer anything other than "they did not dig..." out of such a slim piece of non-evidence is a lesson in futility, and assuming facts not in evidence. Critical failure!

Excuse me but what subject do YOU have a in PhD?

When and where did you ever teach critical thinking?

The esteemed Dr. Fetzer is one of the world's most accoplished academics, who are you to doubt his conclusions?

:);):o :0 :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Fetzer may have outdone his Flight 93 crash site claim. In 2006 he backed Judy Woods 'calculations' that a grand piano dropped from the top of the WTC would have taken 30 seconds to hit the ground, more than 3x the time something falling at free-fall acceleration would have taken.

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/GrandPiano.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...