It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Does Dr. Steven Jones hold any credibility?

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 06:32 AM

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The critical issue is the question of applicable expertise. For instance if a physics professor were to write a paper about structural engineering, that is then “peer reviewed” by a theologian, well it just doesn’t cut it for me. Maybe it does for you, but I have my own personal criteria.

The paper was a physics paper and it was peer reviewed by two physicists. So your criteria should've been met.

To think that you cannot see the collapses from any scientific perspective but a structural engineer's is borderline retarded. Firstly, structural engineers don't professionally study collapses, but they plan out buildings on paper to make them stand. And secondly, physics is the basis of all engineering.

posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 12:55 PM

Originally posted by AceWombat04
That I disagree does not imply lack of thought or consideration. One could argue that such constitutes a conceit, but I don't think that's how you meant it (at least I hope not.) You don't seem the type to flame anyone. Your posts are both courteous and well thought out, so I doubt you intended any offense. Can I assume that's the case?

Absolutely! To my mind, it seemed you had merely been rash in your statement that "I do not feel that religion calls one's credibility into question any more than non-religious beliefs."
To me, it's a given that a person's beliefs can call their credibility into question. But I don't mean to say that one's beliefs completely undermine one's credibility. "Call into question" is a fairly mild term, I'd say.

Of course, it depends on what the person is attaching their credibility to. I mean, if Jones had published a Mormonism-based paper claiming that the structural integrity of a skyscraper is directly proportional to how many Mormons occupy the building at any one time, then his credibility is kaput when it comes to collapsing buildings!

But that's not what he said, and that's not what we are discussing. I have to say that were it not for his rant on the PNAC in his PDF, the Christ in the Americas paper would be far less applicable. The fact that he is willing to allow his philosophical leanings to lead him to disregard scientific evidence (in the Maya paper) only becomes troubling when you begin to see the outlines of other philosophical points in his belief system, namely his political philosophy.

In this way, I feel that his ignoring the evidence in the Maya paper could be symptomatic of a willingness to distort, mischaracterize, ignore or even purposefully misstate real scientific evidence when it serves the purpose of whatever point he is trying to make.

Originally posted by AceWombat04
I would counter with the points others attempted to make earlier. If Einstein believed he were God, could he still not fashion mathematically sound equations?

Although Einstein did not believe he was God, he was incorrect in many of his ideas mainly because he could not conceive of the reality that was laid out before his eyes in his own mathematical equations. Namely, he thought the Universe could not possibly be expanding, and he had nothing but disdain for quantum mechanics. Both situations can be at least partially traced to his religious philosophy.

Originally posted by AceWombat04
Likewise, if he were racist, would that necessarily invalidate his theory/theories?

It might very well sway his judgement, as has occured in the past with racism in science.
Einstein was a victim of anti-Semitism himself. If he had lived a hundred or two years earlier, he might have been completely ignored. All because he was Jewish.

But racism is not a good example to use, it was just one of the first ones off the top of my head. I used it to try to show that a person's non-religious beliefs can certainly call into question that person's credibility. It's not particularly applicable to the field of science these days, although it most certainly was applicable in the not too distant past.

...he completely ignored every pertinant fact in his Christ in the Americas paper, just to advance his religious philosophy. Why shouldn't I expect him to do the same thing regarding his political philosophy?

Originally posted by AceWombat04I don't believe you shouldn't expect that. I will never be found to say that you or anyone else should expect, believe, or conclude anything, one way or the other. I simply - personally, and with limitation to myself, and only myself - choose not to believe that this must be the case, or that he is necessarily less credible than anyone else. That isn't to say I believe he is necessarily just as credible as anyone else, either.

As I said, I didn't mean to imply that he had no credibility. "Called into question" is a mild characterization.

Sure, but another HUGE difference is that science develops new theories if new data are observed. Religion certainly cannot make the same claim.

Originally posted by AceWombat04In my view, this falls under the issue of the greater amount and complexity of scientific evidence. There is more of it, it is more complex, and what is and is not accepted as fact (or reasonably probable) changes with new or (seemingly) better input. I simply choose to believe that this does not necessarily make it more correct, reliable, or credible.

I believe if you nose around, you'll find a post on ATS where I have expounded on this very subject, the fact that there is no such thing as "Scientific Proof." I maintain that there is only evidence which either supports, or does not support, a given scientific theory. So, in this sense, we agree.

Science, hard science anyway, can only construct models of what we observe. The measurements we can make when we observe reality can be used to refine these models. But we can never really know whether these models actually correspond to the realities they represent. For example, everybody knows the Bohr model of the atom. Most people assume that this is what an atom actually looks like. But the truth of the matter is that we don't know the truth of that matter. Nobody knows what an atom "really" looks like. Or if it has any "real" look at all. For all we know, an atom could look like Popeye the Sailor and Poopdeck Pappy surrounded by a cloud of Goons. It doesn't matter though, because science itself is not really interested in reality per se, but in forming theories about (or models of) reality that are good enough to be used in lieu of actual knowledge of reality.

This is the main difference between science and religion, and the primary reason that science does not exactly rest on faith. Religion purports to actually describe reality, while science is basically only interested in obtaining usable models of reality.

Anyway, you are always welcome to your opinion. My personal opinion on the events of 9/11 rests on many things, and not just the catastropic collapes and subsequent theories put forward to explain them. I won't be swayed one way or the other by Jones, and not just because I feel his credibility is called into question by his previous misuse of science in the name of his religion. Fact is, I just can't find anything convincing at all in any of his papers that I've read.


posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 05:26 PM
None here really have a clue to this answer , non deniers included. Here are some who have cred in thier fields who don't sound like they believe him. It is just a few ,but quite a start. These people , I believe all worked in departments with him !

Critiques of Jones' paper by experts in the field
1) Jones' paper does not have the backing of the academic or professional communities:


"I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims" "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." - A. Woodruff Miller, Department Chair, BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

"The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones." - The College of Engineering and Technology department

The page above has all kinds of off topic info about the deniers as well, half way down the page is the info on Steven Jones.

Side note; SJ told of his chain of evidence ,for his piece of mystery metal, that he claim proves Thermate/miite/super ! It was given to him by a woman who picked up some dirt at a memorial. Does not sound to cred? He mentioned it on the "C-Span Debacle" !

<< 1  2   >>

log in