One of the other most common inferences in life is the inference to the best explanation (sometimes called abductive reasoning). We use this type of reasoning to infer what would best explain the things that we see. It might strike you as the sort of reasoning used in science–inductive reasoning–but it’s slightly different. Chapter 6 in our book demonstrates ways in which this type of reasoning helps us to explain the world around us.
Prepare: Review Section 6.5 of the course text on Inferences to the Best Explanation. Choose a topic that is difficult or controversial to explain. Some good topics include hoaxes, unusual sightings (e.g. UFOs, bigfoot, etc.), the supernatural or paranormal (ghosts, levitation, etc.), conspiracy theories, unsolved crimes, court cases, etc.
Reflect: Do a little research to find a specific topic and learn about explanations on both sides. Consider what you think might best explain the observed facts of the case.
Write: Explain the topic you chose and why it is interesting or controversial. Present good arguments on more than one side of the issue (e.g. competing explanations of the facts). Analyze both arguments that you have presented. Then present your own argument for your theory that you feel will best explain this phenomenon. Are there any holes in your theory? Is there any information that would be likely to strengthen or weaken your case?
Guided Response:
Post a minimum of three responses, two of which must be to your classmates. The third response could be to a classmate or your instructor. Be sure to post on three separate days throughout the week to promote further engagement and discussion. Each response should be a minimum 75 of words.
Evaluate the explanations that your classmates have presented in light of the material from the chapter. Is there anything about their explanation that you feel does not account for all of the data? Does their explanation seem to be plausible in light of everything else that is known about the world? What other explanation might better or more simply explain the issue in question?
Guided Responses
Jaret-
Explain the topic you chose and why it is interesting or controversial.
The topic that I have selected to talk about is the controversial debate on whether or not al-Qaeda is responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks on the North and South Towers (Twins Towers), and The Pentagon. There are many conspiracy theories claiming that parties other than al-Qaeda were involved in the planning and execution of the September 11th attacks against the United States of America.
Present good arguments on more than one side of the issue (e.g. competing explanations of the facts).
One opposing theory of how the twin towers burned and fell is that a controlled demolition was orchestrated by the United States which caused the collapse of the North and South Towers because the buildings fell so quickly and collapsed into their own footprints. After the collapse of the towers, theorists raised evidence in the form of witness testimonies, citing reports of explosions being heard before the towers collapsed and debris was seen shooting out from the lower levels of the buildings.
One opposing theory of what struck The Pentagon on September 11th is that the pentagon was not struck by a plane which is known as Flight 77, but it was struck by a missile or unmanned drone instead. Theorists argue that the structural damage to the building was too minor to have been made by a commercial airliner and question why the plane was even allowed to crash into the headquarters of the United States Department of Defense. To add to the conspiracy, early video footage and photos taken from the scene did not seem to show much evidence of plane wreckage, as per witnesses from the scene of the accident.
Analyze both arguments that you have presented.
For the North and South Tower conspiracy theory, I have seen multiple videos of the North and South tower collapsing and the illusion that the towers fell straight down in its own footprint does seem a little suspicious. Although I do not believe that there were explosive devices planted. I believe that the jet fuel definitely accelerated the burn and the strength of the fire.
For The Pentagon conspiracy theory, I too question why a plane was allowed to fly that close to the heart of the headquarters of the United States Department of Defense. Although I do not believe that the United States and the military would do that to its own “heart” because if so, they just embarrassed themselves on the world stage because how are you supposed to be the #1 military in the world if you let a plane get that close to the headquarters of the United States Department of Defense.
Then present your own argument for your theory that you feel will best explain this phenomenon.
For the North and South Tower conspiracy theory, I believe that the jet fuel accelerated the burn and the strength of the fire to where the metal beams that were meant to withstand a conventional fire, eventually gave way and collapsed. There was essentially no horizontal force that was going to push the towers over, but there was the weight of the building and everything inside the building that was “pushing down” and eventually the structures just imploded straight down.
For The Pentagon conspiracy theory, I believe that the 5 known hijackers indeed took over the flight and stormed the cockpit. I believe this because the old planes did not have cockpit door like we have today nor were the old cockpits as secure as they are today. In regards to the plane being able to get so close to the headquarters of the United States Department of Defense, I believe that it was too late before the U.S. Military could any action to deter or shoot down the plan which would prevent it from hitting The Pentagon.
Are there any holes in your theory?
Personally, after a lot of research and a thorough thought process, I do not believe that there are any holes in my theories for both conspiracies.
Regina-
Did Russia interfere with the 2016 Presidential Election?
Effective involvement will depend largely on a campaign’s cyber security and denying Russian agents a place in the campaigns. Neither of these is subject to FBI oversight. There is not much we can do as a nation, if a campaign does not protect its own emails and if the campaign decides to give away secrets to foreign countries.
They didn’t “hack” anything. They appear to have spent a few hundred thousand dollars on social media trying to influence opinions. If that’s all it takes to “hack” an election, we’re all in deep trouble.
Every country tries to influence elections. The United States does it to other nations all the time. We just take it a step further and stage coups to install puppets friendly to our interests or launch military invasions on the premise that we’re only trying to protect the people from a terrible dictator.
Whether the Russians were able to craft together a bit of influence by strategically placed social media entries or disclosures of the crooked nature of Hillary Clinton, a fact that all of us already know, and was already overlooked by her supporters and pointed out repeatedly by her opponents, what remains to be true to this very day is that there was no collusion to do any of these things between the Trump campaign and Russia, as all of the evidence has amply shown to date.
It is therefore impossible for something that did not happen to have had any influence whatsoever on anything.
However, there was some influence against Trump engendered by Hillary Clinton during the campaign when she falsely claimed that “all 17 intelligence agencies of the United States government were simultaneously investigated the Trump-Russia connection”. It turns out that a few Clinton supporters in three or four agencies were attempting to do a hatchet job on Trump from inside governmental agencies which are meant to be completely neutral during political campaigns.
will attach third response soon
