9/11 Debate

[LP]

My perspective is, that I can only trust my own eyes, and my own ears, and everything else is hearsay be it double blind and tested, because ultimately, all we are doing is putting our faith in one organisation or  set of people over another.  Then you introduce corruption, or even a simple formula used commonly in manufacturing processes, and you end up with a cost benefit analysis occurring.

The first part of good science is doing the exact opposite, not making assumptions about the validity of your personal perceptions and not trusting your common sense perceptions.

Good science in the double blind is designed to ignore personal human bias, most problems with science arise when individuals refuse to believe the results of studies because they fly against common sense experience.

The last bit, the cost benefit part, often has little to do with science, I've seen many times good science ignored because of an economic analysis. It's not part of the science. A good example is choosing short term benefits over long term benefits, the good science is ignored all the time like in the climate change debate.

This is universally a human problem, nature always obeys the science it's just that it takes humans a long long time to work it out!