tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8404578129431009593.post8985340074242057792..comments2021-02-01T01:52:16.492-08:00Comments on The Rational Reply: The Minimal Facts Approach<a href="mailto:jim.rational@gmail.com">Jim Rational</a>http://www.blogger.com/profile/16045497947114906748noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8404578129431009593.post-22662897830502416342008-06-27T09:32:00.000-07:002008-06-27T09:32:00.000-07:00Isn't the "minimal facts" approach the same thing ...Isn't the "minimal facts" approach the same thing that conspiracy nuts use? For example, the 9/11 conspiracy theorists pick out two or three odd clips and they find a couple of witnesses who recall hearing explosions. Then they say that any theory must explain their selected "facts" and it just so happens that the only theory that does so is their claim that the Twin Towers were brought down by controlled demolition.<BR/><BR/>Of course, when all the facts are considered, the evidence overwhelmingly proves that terrorists flew hijacked airplanes into the World Trade Center. To the extent that the conspiracy nuts facts can even be considered facts, they can reasonably be dismissed as anomalies with no explanation at all.Vinnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08955726889682177434noreply@blogger.com