The Money Quote
As we have long been saying, the 9/11 denial movement is more representative of a religion, than a science. In their recent debate, Avery and Bermas provide the perfect example of this:
Wieck: I want to ask both of you quickly, what would falsify your beliefs? What would it take? What would we need to change your mind about this?What does this mean though? Well, for those of you who fell asleep during high school science class, Bermas and Avery apparently among them, let's have Sir Karl Popper explain it for us:
Avery: There is nothing. I have talked to so many rescue workers, I have talked to people who crawled out of the Pentagon. I have talked to people who ran away from building 7. I have talked to people who were affected by 9/11. I have talked to the victims. I have talked to countless people.
Wieck [to Bermas]: Anything that would falsify your belief?
Bermas: I gotta tell you, maybe before I really started looking into controlled demolition, but after you really take a look at 1,2, and 7 and I feel that you if you spend the time there, there is no way around it.
1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory — if we look for confirmations.
2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory.
3. Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.
4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.
5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.
Something which cannot be logically falsified is not a theory, it is dogma.