Fake Skeptics

[applecorped]

Has anyone noticed that there are posts from some that start off claiming to be skeptics or non-CT's but eventually the troooth starts to creep in. If called on it by a JREF member the defenses go up and the claims of not being a CT are made again (they're just asking questions). Is this a relatively new tactic? It is rather transparent and silly but then again I put nothing past trooothers in their attempt to score points. This seems like a new kind of role playing game for trooothers.

[gumboot]

Nothing new. Truther MO number 457-A.

[Dave Rogers]

I thought we were the fake skeptics, because real skeptics accept everything Alex Jones says without question.

But yeah, what gumboot says. From "I believe the official story but there are one or two points I'm not happy with" to "Thermite! Pods! North of the Citgo! Pwn3d!!!!!" in five posts is the classic Mark of Woo.

Dave

[GreNME]

I think the whole idea of "real skeptics" and "fake skeptics" is patently ridiculous and setting up a whole new area of divisive arguing for all "sides" of a given conspiracy theory to use in accusations against the other. Frankly, it sounds pretty dumb.

Someone isn't a "real" skeptic or a "fake" skeptic based on what they believe, but on how they approach what they believe. A skeptic is someone for whom credulity on a subject is not a given, is often employed systematically, and whose default stance is doubt until given adequate evidence otherwise. A "real" skeptic isn't someone who disbelieves 9/11 conspiracy theories, and implying as much is misleading and is misusing the term 'skepticism' in the first place. Someone can be genuinely skeptical and question the events surrounding 9/11-- they might not be holding an accurate or factually-supported conclusion while employing this point of view, but honest and genuine skepticism on the part of the person will lead them eventually toward a conclusion that is based more on the facts and less on the emotional and paranoid appeals that often encapsulate conspiracy theories. Similarly, there are whole groups of people who display skepticism toward evolutionary theory, focusing still on the ever-shrinking list of current unknowns within evolutionary science and stating their incredulity to the concept of Evolution as completely (or at all) valid. That isn't to say that all of these individuals are being completely dishonest in their displays of skepticism, whether they are scientifically accurate or not-- though arguments could be made that any degrees of lacking scientific accuracy weaken the justification for skepticism, in my opinion.

The key aspects to a skeptic-- or someone whose outlook regularly employs skepticism-- are doubt and incredulity as a default approach to a subject. Skepticism is a point of view that is, figuratively, double-edged and can cut equally both ways. Someone can honestly and genuinely be skeptical of the events of 9/11 having been perpetrated by a terrorist organization without assistance from the United States government, and in turn I can honestly and genuinely be skeptical of their skepticism on the subject. That's pretty much how skepticism works. It sets up a model for debate where, under normal circumstances, at least one of a few things are likely to happen: 1) both sides claim that their skepticism trumps that of the other and refuses to budge on their level of dialogue; 2) evidence being brought to bear by both sides continues to escalate the skepticism of one over the other; 3) evidence being brought to bear actually improves the dialogue between the two sides of a debate and some agreements (even if not complete) can be reached; 4) a set of definitions for evidence is agreed upon early, brought forth by both sides, and one side or the other makes a convincing argument to the opposed side. There are probably a couple more seperate possibilities I could have mentioned, but they would mostly be a mixture of those to some degree or another, and they make up the bulk of the debate in this subforum and others.

So, while I appreciate the discussion of people who might bring up conversation pretending to be of one frame of mind and quickly showing a change to an extreme point of view, I think starting to label people as "real" or "fake" skeptics isn't conducive to intellectually honest conversation and is drawing arbitrary lines in the sand, expecting anyone who claims to hold a skeptical view to toe some rhetorical line instead of simply holding a skeptical point of view. Being a skeptic or having a skeptical point of view isn't some special club where only people who think similarly on certain subjects are welcome, and whether the OP means to or not that is exactly the implication that seems to be given. The OP may not be meaning to give that impression or to make that kind of argument, but the implications behind "real" or "fake" skepticism as being directly correlated to the conclusion itself is, as near as I can tell, a faulty assumption.

[boloboffin]

Personal incredulity should never be mistaken for skepticism.

[GreNME]

Personal incredulity should never be mistaken for skepticism.

Personal incredulity, by definition, is skepticism.

[gc051360]

I thought we were the fake skeptics, because real skeptics accept everything Alex Jones says without question.

But yeah, what gumboot says. From "I believe the official story but there are one or two points I'm not happy with" to "Thermite! Pods! North of the Citgo! Pwn3d!!!!!" in five posts is the classic Mark of Woo.

Dave

Mark of Woo? Is that a kung fu flick?

Anyway back to topic. People do it all the time with stuff. Not just conspiracy theorists.

The oddest one, is where they claim to be conservative to establish credibility. "Hey man, I used to be a conservative, but there are just too many questions" I believe one of the truth movement's "documentaries" starts that way.

[applecorped]

From GreNMe:
Someone isn't a "real" skeptic or a "fake" skeptic based on what they believe, but on how they approach what they believe.

__________________________________________________ ________________________

So someone can be a "real" or "fake" skeptic based on how they approach what they believe? Thank you.

[DGM]

I was called a "fake skeptic" because I didn't have an "open mind" and couldn't "think outside of the box". :rolleyes: Then I became a "shill" when I asked for back-up on a claim.

The whole exchanges was one long "Stundie".

[boloboffin]

Personal incredulity, by definition, is skepticism.

No, it is not. That is why different words are used for each.

ETA:

Personal incredulity: "I think that is wrong."

Skepticism: "I think that needs to be examined."

[Dave Rogers]

Personal incredulity: "I can't believe that the Twin Towers could have collapsed without explosives being used, so they must have been demolished."

Skepticism: "I find it hard to believe that the Twin Towers could have collapsed without explosives being used. What other evidence is there that can clarify whether or not explosives must have been used?"

We run into the first one all the time round here. Strangely, the second is rare, and when encountered often seems to be a cover story for people whose real position is actually the first.

Dave

[dudalb]

You also have another form of psuedo skepticism where you refuse to accept ANY thing as proven,leaving you free to believe just about anything. I note that 90% of the people using this tactic end up being firm believers in Woo.

[Horatius]

You also have to acknowledge that, as a practical matter, skepticism is simply the beginning of the process. You begin by doubting all conclusions, and seek evidence to prove or disprove any given conclusion. Once you have some evidence, you begin to give more weight to one concluson over another. Eventually you either run up against a limit of what you can know, and conclude you can't decide one way or another, or you reach a tipping point where the preponderance of the evidence supports one conclusion. At that point, you really should make a postive statement that you have reached a conclusion, even while still leaving open the possibility of finding new evidence that may change that conclusion.

The problem with most CTists I see is two fold: One, they are very bad at evaluating the evidence they do find, giving far too much weight to the bad evidence, and far too little to the good evidence, and two, that their threshold for believing a "woo" conclusion is absurdly lower than their threshold for believing a "non-woo" explanation.

[GreNME]

Dave Rogers and boloboffin: I'm not going to drop down to quoting directly from dictionaries, in part because each one words things differently, but as I said by definition skepticism is the same thing as personal incredulity. The only difference is in how it is expressed-- one might say "I don't believe" or "I find it hard to believe" and both terms (incredulity and skepticism) would apply to each statement. Why you are trying to draw an arbitrary line on this as concerning conspiracy theories strikes me as unnecessary and possibly poisoning the definition of skepticism in the first place.

Is someone who has had some convincing argument made to them regarding a 9/11 conspiracy theory incapable of being a skeptic? Does someone have to also be atheist to be considered a skeptic? Is one political party more skeptical than the other? Is skepticism a measure of personal intelligence?

At least one of those questions has popped up in another subforum here and the resulting conversation tended to be pretty insulting to a bunch of people. It seems to be drawing an unnecessary line for defining who falls into the positive group as opposed to all others, and to me sounds ridiculously exclusive or elitist for a definition of something that is pretty general in the first place.

For instance, let's look at the events of 9/11: I disagree with 9/11 conspiracy theories because, after having looked into many of the claims, I find that they not only don't hold water but because I skeptically have a difficult time believing that any government, let alone the heavily-bureaucratic US government, would even be able to pull such a thing off. Conversely, though, I also find it hard to believe that there was nothing that the government could have done to prevent it, which tends to be a regular consensus on the subject (to varying degrees). Regardless of that second bit of skepticism, though, I am not going to make a logical leap into trusting a conspiracy theory based solely on my skepticism of the effectiveness in preventing the events. For the average conspiracy theorist, it seems, events that followed 9/11 over the immediate years after seem to be enough for them to make that logical leap. However, that doesn't mean they aren't employing skepticism-- it means that they made a logical leap that I don't find to be supported by facts to reach their conclusion. The employment of skepticism is still present in many cases for conspiracy theorists or conspiracy theories, it just tends to either become over-applied (as if nothing could be "true") or under-applied (as in the example of the logical leap I mentioned).

What I'm basically getting at is that skepticism isn't a club, and skeptics by definition are neither more elite nor more intelligent overall than those who don't employ skepticism as much. I find the framing in the original post and, in some cases, other posts throughout this forum to be such that 'skeptics' or skepticism somehow made someone rhetorically and qualitively better than those with different points of view as if there was any actual solidarity of conclusions in the first place. In other words, how is this whole "real" and "fake" skeptic topic doing any more than the "us and them" crap that is typical for the enthusiastic conspiracy theorist in the first place?

[Tippit]

You also have another form of psuedo skepticism where you refuse to accept ANY thing as proven,leaving you free to believe just about anything. I note that 90% of the people using this tactic end up being firm believers in Woo.

You bring up a good point, which involves the credibility and the chain of custody of evidence. In fact, there is very little about 9/11 that I accept as "proven". Most of the so-called facts are just things which have been reiterated by the media and government, to whom I give little or no credibility.

I'm not a skeptic, I'm a cynic. Nothing can be known with certainty, and almost anything can be believed.

In a world of lies and damn lies, the only things I know with certainty are what I see and hear with my own eyes and ears.

[applecorped]

You bring up a good point, which involves the credibility and the chain of custody of evidence. In fact, there is very little about 9/11 that I accept as "proven". Most of the so-called facts are just things which have been reiterated by the media and government, to whom I give little or no credibility.

I'm not a skeptic, I'm a cynic. Nothing can be known with certainty, and almost anything can be believed.

In a world of lies and damn lies, the only things I know with certainty are what I see and hear with my own eyes and ears.

I can't see oxygen but it's there.

[Tippit]

Eventually you either run up against a limit of what you can know, and conclude you can't decide one way or another, or you reach a tipping point where the preponderance of the evidence supports one conclusion. At that point, you really should make a postive statement that you have reached a conclusion, even while still leaving open the possibility of finding new evidence that may change that conclusion.



This is another great point. How many people are willing to admit that there is a limit of what we can know with respect to 9/11? Not many. The whole issue exists in a politically polarizing context which has basic issues of survival at its core. You either believe we're in danger of imminent doom from "terrorists", or you believe in another kind of terrorist altogether. If the former, then you must believe the official story of 9/11 and defend yourself against the horde of jihadists.



The problem with most CTists I see is two fold: One, they are very bad at evaluating the evidence they do find, giving far too much weight to the bad evidence, and far too little to the good evidence, and two, that their threshold for believing a "woo" conclusion is absurdly lower than their threshold for believing a "non-woo" explanation.

The problem with most so-called skeptics at JREF, is their total lack of understanding of the economic and political context in which the New World Order can and does exist. They have a total misunderstanding of the subject of money and banking, and how it subverts and trumps conventional politics. See any of my threads on the Federal Reserve and the subject of inflation for evidence of this.

If your world view is constructed by CNN, it's hardly surprising you believe what you do. My world view is based on the reality of the money power that is the New World Order, and their most important institutions, the central banks. Most people barely understand what they do. Fewer still understand the scope and the implications.

[Hokulele]

Dave Rogers and boloboffin: I'm not going to drop down to quoting directly from dictionaries, in part because each one words things differently, but as I said by definition skepticism is the same thing as personal incredulity. The only difference is in how it is expressed-- one might say "I don't believe" or "I find it hard to believe" and both terms (incredulity and skepticism) would apply to each statement. Why you are trying to draw an arbitrary line on this as concerning conspiracy theories strikes me as unnecessary and possibly poisoning the definition of skepticism in the first place.


I disagree with your position as I see personal incredulity as a conclusion or as evidence, often presented as a statement. "This chair cannot possibly move by itself, therefore there is a ghost in the house." To me, skepticism is more of a starting point, often framed as a question. "Why does that chair seem to be moving by itself?"

And personally, I would call "false skepticism" cynicism.

ETA: In your example, I would say that the statements "I don't believe" or "I find it hard to believe" on their own are incredulity, not skepticism, unless they lead to evidence explaining why something is hard to believe.

[dudalb]

You bring up a good point, which involves the credibility and the chain of custody of evidence. In fact, there is very little about 9/11 that I accept as "proven". Most of the so-called facts are just things which have been reiterated by the media and government, to whom I give little or no credibility.

I'm not a skeptic, I'm a cynic. Nothing can be known with certainty, and almost anything can be believed.

In a world of lies and damn lies, the only things I know with certainty are what I see and hear with my own eyes and ears.

Wow.Just Wow.
Thanks for providing a wondeful example of the point I was trying to make.
But somehow I think you missed the ultimate point I was trying to make, which is that the people I was describing are total kooks.

[GreNME]

To further state my point, I'd like to point to the foreword to Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0805070893) by Michael Shermer. A couple quotes follow that I find to be quite relevant:
“In a very intelligent and thoughtful review, Reason magazine (November, 1997) took me to task for the statement that it is our job “to investigate and refute bogus claims.” That is wrong: we should not go into an investigation with the preconceived idea that we are going to refute a given claim, but rather “investigate claims to discover if they are bogus” (as the text has now been corrected). After examining the evidence, one may be skeptical of the claim, or skeptical of the skeptics. The creationists are skeptical of the theory of evolution. Holocaust “revisionists” are skeptical of the traditional historiography of the Holocaust. I am skeptical of these skeptics. In other cases, such as recovered memories or alien abductions, I am skeptical of the claims themselves. It is the evidence that matters, and as limited as it may be, the scientific method is the best tool we have for determining which claims are true and which are false (or at least offering probabilities of the likelihood of a claim being true or false).”

Note: that part may actually be Stephen Jay Gould, I can't remember and I don't have my copy here with me.

Another quote, same book:The key to skepticism is to navigate the treacherous straits between "know nothing" skepticism and "anything goes" credulity by continuously and vigorously applying the methods of science. The flaw in pure skepticism is that when taken to an extreme, the position itself cannot stand. If you are skeptical about everything, you must be skeptical of your own skepticism.

I agree with both of these quotes, and I think they illustrate quite well what I'm talking about with regard to attempts to define too strictly things like what a skeptic or what skepticism is as far as conclusions (like conspiracy theories) are concerned. Instead, it's a matter of degree and application as opposed to a set of acceptable conclusions, so while a conspiracy theorist might be appraoching something with skepticism that doesn't automatically mean that they are going to be correct or incorrect in their conclusions. Also, there are many types of conspiracy theorists, ranging from that "know nothing" overskepticism mentioned in the above quote to the "anything goes" credulity also mentioned. Trying to lump all conspiracy theorists into one blanket description is unnecessary and, more importantly, not intellectually honest.

[Loss Leader]

Personal incredulity, by definition, is skepticism.


No, it's not.

I am personally indredulous that my sister makes $170,000.00 a year. I do not believe it to be true. But I'll not skeptical about it because I have absolutely no interest in examining the facts of the issue.

Conversely, I am skeptical that life on earth was "seeded" by meteorites or comets from outer space. I want to see more evidence about the issue. But I am not incredulous of it; I think it may well be true.

[DGM]

You bring up a good point, which involves the credibility and the chain of custody of evidence. In fact, there is very little about 9/11 that I accept as "proven". Most of the so-called facts are just things which have been reiterated by the media and government, to whom I give little or no credibility.

I'm not a skeptic, I'm a cynic. Nothing can be known with certainty, and almost anything can be believed.

In a world of lies and damn lies, the only things I know with certainty are what I see and hear with my own eyes and ears.

You must live a very empty life then. You couldn't be married because you couldn't trust your wife. You must not know who your parents are unless you trust what they told you.

Your view on life sets you up for a lonely paranoid existence. Unless of course you don't really mean what you say.

[GreNME]

Real quick, Hokulele:
I disagree with your position as I see...

To me, skepticism is more of a starting point, often framed as a question. "Why does that chair seem to be moving by itself?"

And personally, I would call "false skepticism" cynicism.

I just want to point out that it would be impossible for me to argue with you or anyone what the terms skepticism and incredulity mean to you on a personal level, as any of you know yourselves better than I know you. I am going by more generally-accepted and the more objective definitions of the terms, not by those that might contain subjectivity. My impression of the OP is my own subjective interpretation, but the definition by which I am getting that impression is based on the wider definition of the term skepticism.

[applecorped]

According to the Encarta dictionary incredulity is synonymous with skepticism.

[applecorped]

Interesting definition of skepticism from Encarta:

the doctrine that holds that true knowledge is not possible

[Hokulele]

Real quick, Hokulele:


I just want to point out that it would be impossible for me to argue with you or anyone what the terms skepticism and incredulity mean to you on a personal level, as any of you know yourselves better than I know you.


Fair enough, although I would argue interpretation is as important as definition in any discussion.

I am going by more generally-accepted and the more objective definitions of the terms, not by those that might contain subjectivity. My impression of the OP is my own subjective interpretation, but the definition by which I am getting that impression is based on the wider definition of the term skepticism.


Fine, if you want to go the definition route, skepticism by definition requires uncertainty (go back to Pyrrho), whereas incredulity indicates that the person is certain something cannot be true.

ETA: applecorped, yes, read up on Pyrrho for the origins of skepticism as a school of thought.

[GreNME]

Personal incredulity, by definition, is skepticism.
No, it's not.

Yes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism), it is (http://mw4.m-w.com/dictionary/skepticism).

[GreNME]

Fair enough, although I would argue interpretation is as important as definition in any discussion.

I agree. Agreeing on definitions is definitely a good place to start.

Fine, if you want to go the definition route, skepticism by definition requires uncertainty (go back to Pyrrho), whereas incredulity indicates that the person is certain something cannot be true.

Except that you're skipping nearly two thousand years of philosophical meandering of the term. Yes, if we want to go back to the "classical" Greek form (which I'm betting Loss Leader was talking about), then we have to go back to uncertainty. In more contemporary usage, however, skepticism has become synonymous with not simple uncertainty but with doubt based on known properties. Now, the difficulty as applied to many conspiracies (like "no other steel framed building") is that the problem lies not with the application of skepticism but in the misunderstanding (or lack of understanding) of actual known properties and thus altering the conclusions.

In a perfect world, equal application of skepticism would lead to more accurate and agreed-upon levels of defining things people debate to at least come to a better understanding of each other, but the world is far from perfect. I'm just saying that the error is in assuming that only one side of a debate can be employing skepticism.

[uk_dave]

I'm not a skeptic, I'm a cynic.

No you're not. A cynic would be laughing at your overblown fantasy about a sooper seekrit all encompassing conspiracy.....

"What? They did all that and managed to avoid anyone involved spilling the beans? Give me a break!"

[uk_dave]

No you're not. A cynic would be laughing at your overblown fantasy about a sooper seekrit all encompassing conspiracy.....

"What? They did all that and managed to avoid anyone involved spilling the beans? Give me a break!"

Or better yet.....

"You mean they managed to fake the events of that day sufficiently to fool seasoned investigators and professional structural engineers around the world, but it was a rag tag bunch of fearless internet investigators who managed to see in youtube videos what everyone else missed? Yeah, like that sounds believable."

[Par]

I'm not a skeptic, I'm a cynic. Nothing can be known with certainty...The problem with most so-called skeptics at JREF, is their total lack of understanding of the economic and political context in which the New World Order can and does exist...


Well, those two statements are in direct contradiction.

[slyjoe]

From the wiki article GreNME linked:

"The word skepticism can characterize a position on a single claim, but in scholastic circles more frequently describes a lasting mindset and an approach to accepting or rejecting new information. Individuals who proclaim to have a skeptical outlook are frequently called skeptics, often without regard to whether it is philosophical skepticism or empirical skepticism that they profess."

The difference between philosophical and empirical skepticism seems to be causing some confusion (see Tiipit's post. well, you probably don't want to - I got dizzy. As dudalb said, Wow.).

[johnny karate]

I think the difference we're looking for between "personal incredulity" and "skepticism" is the manner in which we use the terms in debate.

We say an argument from personal incredulity is fallacious, because that's usually as far as the one making the argument takes it: "I don't believe it, so it must not be true."

Whereas a "skeptic" will rarely say "I'm skeptical of that, therefore it must not be true". Skeptics seek out facts and evidence to support their arguments.

So while the terms themselves may be synonymous, it's the context in which they are used that makes the difference.

[dudalb]

Your view on life sets you up for a lonely paranoid existence. Unless of course you don't really mean what you say.


I don't know about lonely, but Tippit's post in other Conspiracy Theory threads certainly prove he is more then a little paranoid.

[johnny karate]

I'm not a skeptic, I'm a cynic. Nothing can be known with certainty, and almost anything can be believed.

In a world of lies and damn lies, the only things I know with certainty are what I see and hear with my own eyes and ears.

Based on this rather myopic world view, I defy you to prove to me, a person who has never been to Paris, that the Eiffel Tower exists.

Good luck with that.

[applecorped]

You bring up a good point, which involves the credibility and the chain of custody of evidence. In fact, there is very little about 9/11 that I accept as "proven". Most of the so-called facts are just things which have been reiterated by the media and government, to whom I give little or no credibility.

I'm not a skeptic, I'm a cynic. Nothing can be known with certainty, and almost anything can be believed.

In a world of lies and damn lies, the only things I know with certainty are what I see and hear with my own eyes and ears.

I guess blind and deaf people are screwed by his definition.

[dudalb]

I am still a little amazed that Tippit missed my point that people who behaved the way I described in my first post here are fools.

[defaultdotxbe]

In a world of lies and damn lies, the only things I know with certainty are what I see and hear with my own eyes and ears.
your eyes can be quite decieving at times, i recall once seeing a tuxedoed man pull a rabbit from an empty top hat, i saw it with my own eyes

now, plenty of people have explained to me what sleight of hand is and even shown me how that very trick could be done, however i saw no sleight of hand on that day and no one and prove to me it was used, trusting only my own eyes that man produced a live rabbit from thin air

[uk_dave]

however i saw no sleight of hand on that day and no one and prove to me it was used, trusting only my own eyes that man produced a live rabbit from thin air

to the north of CITGO?

....thought so.

[T.A.M.]

This is another great point. How many people are willing to admit that there is a limit of what we can know with respect to 9/11? Not many. The whole issue exists in a politically polarizing context which has basic issues of survival at its core. You either believe we're in danger of imminent doom from "terrorists", or you believe in another kind of terrorist altogether. If the former, then you must believe the official story of 9/11 and defend yourself against the horde of jihadists.



The problem with most so-called skeptics at JREF, is their total lack of understanding of the economic and political context in which the New World Order can and does exist. They have a total misunderstanding of the subject of money and banking, and how it subverts and trumps conventional politics. See any of my threads on the Federal Reserve and the subject of inflation for evidence of this.

If your world view is constructed by CNN, it's hardly surprising you believe what you do. My world view is based on the reality of the money power that is the New World Order, and their most important institutions, the central banks. Most people barely understand what they do. Fewer still understand the scope and the implications.

1. If you wish to dig deeper and deeper into the irrelevant minutia of any event, any topic, 9/11 included, then the end to detail and knowledge, if there is one, is very deep down. So what.

2. I see no political context to 9/11. Sane people versus kooks is not political.

3. your dichotomy is false. You are presenting two extremes (imminent danger from terrorists, OR, another kind of terrorist altogether), and there are many other options, variations, besides these two. If you believe we are in danger, imminent or otherwise, you would consider defending against them, REGARDLESS of your view on 9/11. You simplistic black and white scenario is that of a 2nd grader.

4. The NWO (New World Order) as defined by most 9/11 truthers and Alex Jones Cultists is a defined Entity, an association of powerful and wealthy overlords that rule the world...this exists only in their (and perhaps your) minds. If you refer to the NWO as the way world business and trade is run now, as compared to 60-80 years ago, as a New World Order, then yes I suppose that exists.

5. We all get our news from somewhere. Claiming CNN is worse then any of your "tom Dick and harry" Blogs is silly. There is as much, if not more, agenda within the blogs and small or alternative websites, as there are with the big wig news stations...the only difference is the slant.

----

Clearly, just as expected, and just as we often see, your world view is tilted towards you having some "sekrit knowledge" that only you and a select few know and understand, the rest of the world are just ignorant sheeple.

What ever floats your paranoid, rebellious boat.

TAM:)

[GreNME]

From the wiki article GreNME linked:

"The word skepticism can characterize a position on a single claim, but in scholastic circles more frequently describes a lasting mindset and an approach to accepting or rejecting new information. Individuals who proclaim to have a skeptical outlook are frequently called skeptics, often without regard to whether it is philosophical skepticism or empirical skepticism that they profess."

The difference between philosophical and empirical skepticism seems to be causing some confusion (see Tiipit's post. well, you probably don't want to - I got dizzy. As dudalb said, Wow.).

I think that's a pretty good distinction to point out. Thanks for bringing that up.

I think this difference between the two approaches might be a point of contention in the individual interpretations of the term. While I'm beginning from the contemporary philosophical view (as opposed to the classical philosophical view), I'm referring also to the more common forms of skepticism as well because I think they are quite relevant to discourse today. In that, maybe I'm being to general in terms of my definition for the preferences of other individuals here. I can explain why I'm doing so, but whether or not it would be viewed as acceptable overall is probably debatable.

[slyjoe]

GreNME: I think I understand where you are coming from. And I tend to agree at times.

But you also have to remember that many posters here have a LONG history with what the OP was referring to. Taking the OP by itself, it comes across as you have described.

However, sometimes people use a shorthand without necessarily thinking how it will appear to those maybe not familiar with the issues. How long since there has been anything of real substance in this subforum? I think most posters are just tired of the same old second grade debating tactics, obfuscation and general trolling we see in this subforum.

Just a little rant. :)

[Nick Terry]

Some extras to throw onto the table in this discussion

- only the other week we had LastChild labelling his opposition 'pseudosceptics'. This was mercilessly crushed when it was shown how every form of woo seems to have labelled its opposition 'pseudosceptics'. It shows that mislabelling is already going on from "the other side".

- the selfsame "other side" often arrogates the title of sceptic to itself anyway. The word is seriously in danger of becoming corrupted through overuse by various woos, loons and CTs. This has already happened with some other terms, e.g. revisionist is now a dirty word among historians because it has been hijacked by any number of axe-grinders for the past sixty-plus years. We all know, after all, that any self-proclaimed "truthseeker" is interested only in obfuscation and fraud, without fail.

- Sometimes the giveaway is in the capitalisation - if you meet a Revisionist, you have just encountered a Holocaust denier. In similar fashion, if you meet a self-styled capital-S "Skeptic" you have very probably met a gullible moron who has fallen for some form of woo.

[applecorped]

GreNME: I think I understand where you are coming from. And I tend to agree at times.

But you also have to remember that many posters here have a LONG history with what the OP was referring to. Taking the OP by itself, it comes across as you have described.

However, sometimes people use a shorthand without necessarily thinking how it will appear to those maybe not familiar with the issues. How long since there has been anything of real substance in this subforum? I think most posters are just tired of the same old second grade debating tactics, obfuscation and general trolling we see in this subforum.

Just a little rant. :)

Agreed, well stated.

[Tippit]

I am still a little amazed that Tippit missed my point that people who behaved the way I described in my first post here are fools.

I didn't miss your point. I'm describing why I can be cynical about knowledge certified by so-called experts and the media and not be a fool. It's merely a recognition of my own limitations combined with a profound, perhaps misanthropic distrust of people and their motives. For example, if you want to drown yourself in anti-depressants and drink fluoridated water because you believe you have absolute knowledge about the risks and benefits of these types of medications as dictated to you by science, feel free. I will continue to distrust the "experts" at my leisure. I'm wealthier, healthier, and happier than most people I know. I take responsibility for my decisions, and I'm skeptical of virtually everything I hear, unless it comes from the people I trust.

[Tippit]

your eyes can be quite decieving at times, i recall once seeing a tuxedoed man pull a rabbit from an empty top hat, i saw it with my own eyes

now, plenty of people have explained to me what sleight of hand is and even shown me how that very trick could be done, however i saw no sleight of hand on that day and no one and prove to me it was used, trusting only my own eyes that man produced a live rabbit from thin air

I once saw three buildings knocked down by two airplanes, though not with my own eyes, but on television.

[dudalb]

I take responsibility for my decisions, and I'm skeptical of virtually everything I hear, unless it comes from the people I trust.

People you trust being any nutjob with a kook website or a wacko video on YouTube.

[gumboot]

Dave Rogers and boloboffin: I'm not going to drop down to quoting directly from dictionaries, in part because each one words things differently, but as I said by definition skepticism is the same thing as personal incredulity.


This is false.

Let's use belief in God as an example.

An Atheist position - "I don't believe in God because I can't believe a giant sky fairy exists, that's ridiculous" - personal incredulity

An agnostic position - "If you want me to believe in God I'm afraid you're going to need to provide some proof" - skepticism

Skepticism, by its very definition requires intellectual agnosticism - a refusal to form a conclusion without evidence.

Personal incredulity, by its very definition requires one to form a conclusion without evidence.

Personal incredulity and skepticism are, in fact, direct opposites.

[stateofgrace]

I take responsibility for my decisions, and I'm skeptical of virtually everything I hear, unless it comes from the people I trust.

That would be people who agree with you, right?

[applecorped]

How about this then:
"I don't believe in God because I can't believe a giant sky fairy exists, that's ridiculous, therefore you're going to need to provide some proof"

[gumboot]

How about this then:
"I don't believe in God because I can't believe a giant sky fairy exists, that's ridiculous, therefore you're going to need to provide some proof"


Personally I think skepticism requires that you don't adhere to any position unless evidence supports it. Therefore the above would not be skepticism.

If we take the events of 9/11 for example, I hold a default position that the official account is more or less accurate, and anyone proposing any significant deviation from this would need to provide evidence. However my default position is itself based on a large body of evidence, that I feel satisfactorily indicates what happened.

In contrast in relation to the existence of a deity, there is no default position which is supported by evidence (at least as far as I am aware of) therefore to hold a default position that there is no god is not skepticism.

To reiterate, skepticism requires evidence to establish a conclusion, personal incredulity requires a lack of evidence. In the above scenario you have established a conclusion based on a lack of evidence, therefore it is not skepticism. The "therefore you're going to need some proof" is a red herring.

[GreNME]

This is false.

Let's use belief in God as an example.

An Atheist position - "I don't believe in God because I can't believe a giant sky fairy exists, that's ridiculous" - personal incredulity

An agnostic position - "If you want me to believe in God I'm afraid you're going to need to provide some proof" - skepticism

Skepticism, by its very definition requires intellectual agnosticism - a refusal to form a conclusion without evidence.

Personal incredulity, by its very definition requires one to form a conclusion without evidence.

Personal incredulity and skepticism are, in fact, direct opposites.

In your opinion, maybe. Are you actually saying that skepticism requires one to be atheist or agnostic? I'd really appreciate an answer on that.

incredulous (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incredulous)

1 : unwilling to admit or accept what is offered as true : not credulous : skeptical (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/skeptical)

This gets really old having it demanded of me that common definitions for pretty general concepts (like incredulity and skepticism) be redefined to ridiculously tight and restrictive versions for the sake of discourse here. Check the definitions of the words, their etymologies, their common popular and general culture usage today. Check the first chapter of the book I linked above (I believe a few people here already have it, as I think it was first brought to my attention on the JREF).

I think what slyjoe stated definitely has merit, and I understand the people here for whom the history of pretenders saying one thing only to attempt a "gotcha" five posts later has become an annoying and frustrating thing. I genuinely do. However, if the effect those people are having on you personally is affecting the way you look at the definition-- whether it be truthers coming here pretending to honestly be looking for answers or whether it's someone who is religious making a case for why they have faith, or even some Holocaust denier who is arguing that there isn't enough proof that the Holocaust actually happened (three very different examples which I totally do not imply are related to one another)-- then you are making the same mistake those with whom you disagree are making by letting your emotions color your overall conclusion instead of facts. "But I'm right" isn't an adequate defense of that kind of leap on a logically consistent level. It's just a more complex way of stating that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid and inferior.

[Loss Leader]

Yes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism), it is (http://mw4.m-w.com/dictionary/skepticism).


No, it's not.

[GreNME]

Oh. Okay then.

[applecorped]

No, it's not.

Could you please elaborate?

[PhantomWolf]

I once saw three buildings knocked down by two airplanes, though not with my own eyes, but on television.

You did? When did that happen? I must have been asleep that day. I do recall 2 buildings with damage from planes hitting them collapse from additional fire damage and I recall 2 buildings collapsing from being hit by the debris of two falling buildings. I even recall 2 building partially collapsing from being hit by 2 other buildings, but three buildings being knocked down by two planes, I don't recall that one happening.

[gumboot]

In your opinion, maybe. Are you actually saying that skepticism requires one to be atheist or agnostic? I'd really appreciate an answer on that.

I was using existence of God as an example. What constitutes evidence obviously varies from person to person.

If you maintain there is acceptable evidence of God, you can believe in a God and be skeptical. If you maintain there is acceptable evidence that no God exists, you can be Atheist and be skeptical. If you maintain that there is no acceptable evidence one way or the other (as I personally do) you must be Agnostic in order to be skeptical.

In counter to that, you can of course maintain there is no evidence either way, yet still choose to be Atheist or a Theist, however this position cannot be classified as skeptical.

I think it's worth noting that I do not believe for a second that anyone can be universally skeptical (this is based primarily on my own observation of the behaviour of "skeptics". A person who is skeptical on one particular subject is quite capable of not being skeptical on another. Thus I find the non subject specific label of "I am a skeptic" to be entirely meaningless.


incredulous (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incredulous)

1 : unwilling to admit or accept what is offered as true : not credulous : skeptical (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/skeptical)


One of my pet peeves is people who think synonyms must have identical meanings. They do not.

Take for example "car" and "automobile". They are synonyms, however they do not have identical meaning.

Another pet peeve is people who fail to recognise that the meaning of a word in the English language changes depending on its context - this is why dictionaries typically give multiple meanings for a word.

In some contexts, incredulity and skepticism can be synonyms. That does not mean their meanings are identical. In other contexts they simply are not synonyms.

[GreNME]

I was using existence of God as an example. What constitutes evidence obviously varies from person to person.

If you maintain there is acceptable evidence of God, you can believe in a God and be skeptical. If you maintain there is acceptable evidence that no God exists, you can be Atheist and be skeptical. If you maintain that there is no acceptable evidence one way or the other (as I personally do) you must be Agnostic in order to be skeptical.

In counter to that, you can of course maintain there is no evidence either way, yet still choose to be Atheist or a Theist, however this position cannot be classified as skeptical.

I think it's worth noting that I do not believe for a second that anyone can be universally skeptical (this is based primarily on my own observation of the behaviour of "skeptics". A person who is skeptical on one particular subject is quite capable of not being skeptical on another. Thus I find the non subject specific label of "I am a skeptic" to be entirely meaningless.

So, in other words, you're agreeing with my overall point but disagreeing with what you personally feel is the definition of a skepticism or incredulity?

Can you answer with just a yes or no whether someone who has religious faith can display skepticism? What about someone who believes in UFOs?


One of my pet peeves is people who think synonyms must have identical meanings. They do not.

Have you read my other posts? It appears I actually have to copy-paste some content instead of expecting someone to simply click and check themselves. Wikipedia says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism):skepticism or scepticism (Greek: skeptomai, to look about, to consider; see also spelling differences) refers to

1. an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object,
Which was taken from Merriam-Webster (http://mw4.m-w.com/dictionary/skepticism) which states the same for its firs part of the entry.

Another pet peeve is people who fail to recognise that the meaning of a word in the English language changes depending on its context - this is why dictionaries typically give multiple meanings for a word.

Which is why I posted two quotes from Shermer's book, Why People Believe Weird Things (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0805070893), to establish context of what I'm talking about.After examining the evidence, one may be skeptical of the claim, or skeptical of the skeptics. The creationists are skeptical of the theory of evolution. Holocaust “revisionists” are skeptical of the traditional historiography of the Holocaust. I am skeptical of these skeptics. In other cases, such as recovered memories or alien abductions, I am skeptical of the claims themselves. It is the evidence that matters, and as limited as it may be, the scientific method is the best tool we have for determining which claims are true and which are false (or at least offering probabilities of the likelihood of a claim being true or false).”
The key to skepticism is to navigate the treacherous straits between "know nothing" skepticism and "anything goes" credulity by continuously and vigorously applying the methods of science. The flaw in pure skepticism is that when taken to an extreme, the position itself cannot stand. If you are skeptical about everything, you must be skeptical of your own skepticism.

I pointed out, in that context, that while I believe that skepticism there are degrees and steps that follow the skepticism that can and normally do determine the conclusions involved. My point is not that all skepticism and all incredulity is always exactly the same, but that the terms are each far too generalized in modern usage to try to claim that only one side of any given debate is capable of skepticism based on the conclusions instead of based on the approaches taken in the first place.

In some contexts, incredulity and skepticism can be synonyms. That does not mean their meanings are identical. In other contexts they simply are not synonyms.

Since that isn't what I said, I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at. I've put what I was actually saying several posts back, but true to form those parts laying the context of what I'm saying have been ignored by some and pedantics over out-of-context (or dare I say quote-mined) statements have been focused on with a magnifying glass while ignoring the context I was putting it in.

My pet peeve is having what I am actually saying ignored while sentences I've used are lawyered to absurdity.

[gumboot]

So, in other words, you're agreeing with my overall point but disagreeing with what you personally feel is the definition of a skepticism or incredulity?

I'm agreeing with boloboffin's post.

I'm inclined to think the miscommunication here may be as a result of your unfamiliarity with the nature of 9/11 CT arguments. This was the context of the OP, and I took this to be the context in which boloboffin's post was offered - that personal incredulity (a common trait of 9/11 CT arguments) should never be confused with skepticism.

I took issue with your claim that personal incredulity was skepticism, which in the context of 9/11 CTs, I believe is incorrect.


Can you answer with just a yes or no whether someone who has religious faith can display skepticism? What about someone who believes in UFOs?

Yes.

Whether a specific individual with these beliefs is actually displaying skepticism or not would depend on context, but it is possible. (I think I made this very clear from my previous post).


Since that isn't what I said, I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at. I've put what I was actually saying several posts back, but true to form those parts laying the context of what I'm saying have been ignored by some and pedantics over out-of-context (or dare I say quote-mined) statements have been focused on with a magnifying glass while ignoring the context I was putting it in.

The context of this discussion is established by the OP, and is specifically about the posting behaviour of believers of 9/11 CTs in this subforum. If you are not familiar enough with this context to comment specifically on it, I suggest you refrain from contributing to the debate as you are merely taking it off topic.

To return to the topic... here's the OP:

Has anyone noticed that there are posts from some that start off claiming to be skeptics or non-CT's but eventually the troooth starts to creep in. If called on it by a JREF member the defenses go up and the claims of not being a CT are made again (they're just asking questions). Is this a relatively new tactic? It is rather transparent and silly but then again I put nothing past trooothers in their attempt to score points. This seems like a new kind of role playing game for trooothers.

Many conspiracy theorists posting at these forums claim to be a skeptic only to reveal later that their position is not drawn from skepticism. "the troooth starts to creep in" refers not to their beliefs but to their method of approaching the various arguments. Examples of their "troooth" includes blindly accepting unsourced claims that support their view, ignoring evidence contrary to their view, and arguments drawn from personal incredulity. These are, in my opinion, the three primary trademarks of "troooth" and they have nothing to do with what a person believes and everything to do with how they came to that conclusion.

An important point to note here is that someone displaying "troooth" cannot, by definition, be new or underexposed to 9/11 arguments. A key mark of "troooth" is that they have been exposed to the evidence and have rejected it.


Your initial response:

I think the whole idea of "real skeptics" and "fake skeptics" is patently ridiculous and setting up a whole new area of divisive arguing for all "sides" of a given conspiracy theory to use in accusations against the other. Frankly, it sounds pretty dumb.

Fails to address any of the points of the argument. Indeed the OP tends to agree with you - this fake skepticism is pretty dumb, as we can see straight through it.

[Dave Rogers]

I once saw three buildings knocked down by two airplanes, though not with my own eyes, but on television.

Have you tried to book a room at the Marriott lately, or pray in St. Nicholas's church?

Dave

[Loss Leader]

Could you please elaborate?


No.

[GreNME]

The context of this discussion is established by the OP, and is specifically about the posting behaviour of believers of 9/11 CTs in this subforum. If you are not familiar enough with this context to comment specifically on it, I suggest you refrain from contributing to the debate as you are merely taking it off topic.

Ah, so if I'm not equally frustrated by the tactics some truthers are taking I should shut up instead of pointing out that twisting definitions to support a tighter and more restrictive definition actually damages debate. Gotcha. Because that was what I've been saying.

Honestly, gumboot, the only thing I'm seeing here, from a view outside of the cliquish nature of not only the truthers but also of a noticable number of regular posters here, is that creative ways of arguing that the "other side" of the argument is inherently stupid and inferior are at least common enough (once again, on both sides) that much of the actual debate is muddied at best or poisoned at worst.

What the OP seems to be talking about is just another take on the whole "you know what the real conspiracy theory is-- that 19 Arabs with boxcutters took down the towers" argument. Those "fake skeptics" are just a long form of such a claim, and while some may mention skepticism (and some of those might even mention it honestly) the arguments are in essence a flawed method of trying to turn the onus of the argument on its head (the onus being were they terrorists or was this a government operation). Apparently, the tactic pisses some people off. I submit that if someone's getting that emotionally worked up about it that perhaps it isn't me that needs to avoid discussion but the person for whom emotions are flaring up. You're not going to be able to detect people who are using the tactic ahead of time in all cases, so the choice is either to accept that it's going to happen and get over it or to get nine kinds of worked up about it as truthers continue to try it. There are middle ground reactions between those two poles, but they're still only variations of those two I mention.

ETA: And I don't know if you noticed, but the original poster seems to be agreeing with my comments about the actual skepticism, and I've already agreed that the frustration with the constant use of this rhetorical tactic is frustrating it's a good idea to not muddy things too much while pointing out the tactic and its flaws. Just thought I'd point that out.

[Loss Leader]

Could you please elaborate?


No.

[applecorped]

Ah, so if I'm not equally frustrated by the tactics some truthers are taking I should shut up instead of pointing out that twisting definitions to support a tighter and more restrictive definition actually damages debate. Gotcha. Because that was what I've been saying.

Honestly, gumboot, the only thing I'm seeing here, from a view outside of the cliquish nature of not only the truthers but also of a noticable number of regular posters here, is that creative ways of arguing that the "other side" of the argument is inherently stupid and inferior are at least common enough (once again, on both sides) that much of the actual debate is muddied at best or poisoned at worst.

What the OP seems to be talking about is just another take on the whole "you know what the real conspiracy theory is-- that 19 Arabs with boxcutters took down the towers" argument. Those "fake skeptics" are just a long form of such a claim, and while some may mention skepticism (and some of those might even mention it honestly) the arguments are in essence a flawed method of trying to turn the onus of the argument on its head (the onus being were they terrorists or was this a government operation). Apparently, the tactic pisses some people off. I submit that if someone's getting that emotionally worked up about it that perhaps it isn't me that needs to avoid discussion but the person for whom emotions are flaring up. You're not going to be able to detect people who are using the tactic ahead of time in all cases, so the choice is either to accept that it's going to happen and get over it or to get nine kinds of worked up about it as truthers continue to try it. There are middle ground reactions between those two poles, but they're still only variations of those two I mention.

ETA: And I don't know if you noticed, but the original poster seems to be agreeing with my comments about the actual skepticism, and I've already agreed that the frustration with the constant use of this rhetorical tactic is frustrating it's a good idea to not muddy things too much while pointing out the tactic and its flaws. Just thought I'd point that out.

Actually, I was more interested in how some people have taken to posting here as a game of sorts wherein different personalities can be assumed and truth is subserviant to the "gotcha" one upmanship mentality.

[Drudgewire]

Time to come clean. I'm a fake skeptic.

I'm really a hologram. :cool:

[Dave Rogers]

Actually, I think the "fake" and the "skeptic" bit can be decoupled. What's really irritating is the way many truthers claim one set of views in their original post then make it clear that they held a diametrically opposite set all along by their fifth. It's nothing to do with skepticism, and everything to do with being a fake.

Dave

[GreNME]

Actually, I was more interested in how some people have taken to posting here as a game of sorts wherein different personalities can be assumed and truth is subserviant to the "gotcha" one upmanship mentality.

Yeah, but that tends to be almost all of the opposing (in support of a conspiracy theory) arguments, don't you think? What I mean is that the tactic you describe is taking that attempt to twist the "know what is a conspiracy theory" claim (which is a gotcha) and drawing it out over multiple posts before showing it. It's not actually skepticism at all, whether feigned or otherwise.


ETA: Or what Dave Rogers said in the post just above mine. :)

[uk_dave]

Actually, I think the "fake" and the "skeptic" bit can be decoupled. What's really irritating is the way many truthers claim one set of views in their original post then make it clear that they held a diametrically opposite set all along by their fifth. It's nothing to do with skepticism, and everything to do with being a fake.

Dave

Yep, because they don't come here to set out their well reasoned, evidence backed, logical theory about what happened on 9-11.......

....they come here for an argument and that's all that matters to them.

[applecorped]

A PM to me from godisenergy:

hey

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know this is going to be difficult for you to digest.But the evidence for it being an inside job or having some element of inside job overwhelming.these skeptics are cultish they could debunk absolutely anything.

Firstly let me say something about the american media for a start they act like your leaders are decent people there not there criminals they could Cure the World hunger crisis with ones years Military budget !


Americans are good people but its skeptics like these who keep you from electing a decent human being.And questioning the Political process in USA ,like Bill clinton is a smart guy or something sorry if your a fan but DEPLETED URANIUM is NOT A SMART AND GOOD THING TO SHOOT ARABS WITH !


I REPEAT THEY COULD CURE HUNGER IN AFRICA WITH ONE YEARS MILITARY BUDGET,INSTEAD THEY CREATE FEAR FOR COMMUNISM OR TERRORISM BECUASE IT GIVES THEM MORE POWER.

__________________________________________________ ________________

You heard it! It is all you JREF's fault!

[Loss Leader]

A PM to me from godisenergy:
------------------------

I REPEAT THEY COULD CURE HUNGER IN AFRICA WITH ONE YEARS MILITARY BUDGET



How much do you have to willfully misunderstand about politics in order for this statement to seem true?

[Drudgewire]

these skeptics are cultish they could debunk absolutely anything.
Well it helps when we have the grade A bunk to work with you guys have provided for the last seven years. :p

[applecorped]

I've heard of troothers changing their mind and abandoning their untenable positions but has there ever been a JREFer that crossed over to the troooth?

[Drudgewire]

I've heard of troothers changing their mind and abandoning their untenable positions but has there ever been a JREFer that crossed over to the troooth?
We had one just a week or so back, but it happened on April 1. :p

Bottom line is if you're totally ignorant to the facts of 9/11 and someone starts spouting their garbage it can sound pretty good. But to change the minds of people here who have actually looked at both sides would require solid evidence... meaning evidence that hasn't already been presented repeatedly, looked at, and then become the punchline of a joke because of its silliness.

It's possible every one of us could eventually cross over, but it would require presenting something that none of us have seen already... because everything we have seen is wrong and/or stupid.

[ktesibios]

Any chance of reaching a consensus that "Fake Skeptics" would be a good name for a rock band?

[applecorped]

Any chance of reaching a consensus that "Fake Skeptics" would be a good name for a rock band?

If that happens I want a cut of the earnings!

[alfaniner]

Any chance of reaching a consensus that "Fake Skeptics" would be a good name for a rock band?

Hey, man!! I saw the Real Skeptics back in '72. Awesome concert, dude. These tribute bands nowadays ain't got nuthin' on the real thing! :stone028:

[applecorped]

Hey, man!! I saw the Real Skeptics back in '72. Awesome concert, dude. These tribute bands nowadays ain't got nuthin' on the real thing! :stone028:

Do you have proof that you saw them?

[Alareth]

The problem with most so-called skeptics at JREF, is their total lack of understanding of the economic and political context in which the New World Order can and does exist. They have a total misunderstanding of the subject of money and banking, and how it subverts and trumps conventional politics. See any of my threads on the Federal Reserve and the subject of inflation for evidence of this.

If your world view is constructed by CNN, it's hardly surprising you believe what you do. My world view is based on the reality of the money power that is the New World Order, and their most important institutions, the central banks. Most people barely understand what they do. Fewer still understand the scope and the implications.

Economic and polictical context have nothing to do with science and physics yet those that argue for the "inside job" cannot seem to grasp that.

It is possible to discuss the subject devoid of politics but those such as yourself are unerringly incapable of doing so and as a result all of your veiws are clouded.

The melting point of steel or the volume of available fuel are in no way affected by the identity of the man sitting in the Oval Office.

[dudalb]

Ever notice how every wack conspiracy theory has a political motivation behind it?

[gumboot]

Ah, so if I'm not equally frustrated by the tactics some truthers are taking I should shut up instead of pointing out that twisting definitions to support a tighter and more restrictive definition actually damages debate. Gotcha. Because that was what I've been saying.

No, what I'm saying is you should post within the context of the OP... words, as we know, have different meaning depending on context, ergo by changing the context you are changing the meaning. Let's stick with the context of the original post, and apply our meanings to that.

It's not that I don't think your discussion is necessarily correct or interesting, in fact I mostly agree with it, hence why I always give new posters the benefit of the doubt, I just don't think it's very useful to this specific discussion.


Honestly, gumboot, the only thing I'm seeing here, from a view outside of the cliquish nature of not only the truthers but also of a noticable number of regular posters here, is that creative ways of arguing that the "other side" of the argument is inherently stupid and inferior are at least common enough (once again, on both sides) that much of the actual debate is muddied at best or poisoned at worst.

This simply isn't true, if you bothered to take notice of the discussions here. For every confrontational, dismissive response a new poster gets here, they get a good half dozen or more genuine logical responses to their posts. The majority of discussion about inherent stupidity and inferiority is around posters who have been here for a long period of time and have been established to be full of the "woo".

The problem here, as far as I can see it, is you're working from an assumption that these "fake skeptics" are labelled as "inherently stupid and inferior" based on what they believe - that is there's a mentality that if you don't accept the official account of 9/11 you are automatically a complete moron.

There's one or two people who post here who feel that way, but you're totally wrong to think this is the norm, and I think totally wrong to attribute that to the OP. As I have myself said repeatedly, it is not what they believe but how they came to the conclusion.



What the OP seems to be talking about is just another take on the whole "you know what the real conspiracy theory is-- that 19 Arabs with boxcutters took down the towers" argument.

No it's not. The OP is talking about people who come into the forum arguing from one position only to reveal they actually hold an opposite position.


Apparently, the tactic pisses some people off. I submit that if someone's getting that emotionally worked up about it that perhaps it isn't me that needs to avoid discussion but the person for whom emotions are flaring up.

Well I tend to agree that a lot of people here get too emotionally caught up in things and need to step back and cool down, but you'd be wrong to think that tactic you described is what pisses them off - it's the fact that they're pretending to hold a position that they do not really hold. It's the fact that they're lying.

[gumboot]

Time to come clean. I'm a fake skeptic.

I'm really a hologram. :cool:


I'm actually a robot.

[applecorped]

Sorry, I'll need proof that your a robot. I'm just asking questions.

[Magenta]

Sorry, I'll need proof that your a robot. I'm just asking questions.


Perhaps this will convince you:

Some of us are taken offline for maintenance and upgrades, but sleep is unnecessary.


;)

[Dave Rogers]

I've heard of troothers changing their mind and abandoning their untenable positions but has there ever been a JREFer that crossed over to the troooth?

I ran a poll a while back to find out. There were a few responses from former conspiracy theorists turned debunkers, and one that claimed to be a former debunker turned conspiracy theorist. However, the person who made that response didn't post anything to say who s/he was or give any further details despite being asked politely, so I've drawn the tentative conclusion that it was just another truther lie as usual.

Dave

[GregoryUrich]

I think GreNMe and Gumboot have made some really good points.

Personally, I think it is more important to try and understand what someone is trying to say rather than getting stuck on the definitions of words. Synonyms are not always equivalent and some words have different connotations for different people especially depending on context. On the hand, common definitions help us to understand each other and stretching words too far inhibits this. One of my favorite questions is "when you use the word *****, what do you mean by that?"

That said, I hope the following is relevant to this discussion.

Both "skeptical" and "incredulous" commonly imply a provisional rejection of an idea or experience based on a lack of sufficient knowledge (either experiential or empirical) with which to confirm the idea or experience. If we have sufficient knowledge we can neither be skeptical or incredulous and we simply either accept or reject the idea or experience. Furthermore, in common usage, neither word implies a propensity to seek knowledge. Thus, if it is knowledge that we seek, it is not really motivated to value one over the other.

Incredulity is commonly used to as reaction to a particular idea or experience and involves provisional rejection of the idea or experience. It doesn't make much sense to say that someone is generally an incredulous person. Also, I think common usage almost always implies a temporary stance. People don't usually remain incredulous for a long period of time. I think it is safe to say that once a more permanent conclusion is drawn, a person can no longer be incredulous (in that context anyway). In terms of common usage, I think the real difference is that one could however remain generally skeptical and skepticism is often used to describe a personal disposition toward provisional rejection of all theses.

To put this in context, I have seen suggested here that "arguing from personal incredulity is fallacious". Clearly, arguments from incredulity are not valid arguments and are legitimately rejected as meaningless. However, one can be both incredulous and correct. Thus, it is not possible to prove someone wrong based on the sole fact that they are arguing from incredulity.

I think the "real skeptic" vs "fake skeptic" dichotomy misses the real issues which people are trying to get at here. I think the real issues here are being aware when we lack knowledge, honestly pursuing knowledge and reserving judgement until we have sufficient knowledge. Is this the definition most "skeptics" would like to have? Maybe they should call themselves "knowledgists".

[beachnut]

This is another great point. How many people are willing to admit that there is a limit of what we can know with respect to 9/11? Not many. The whole issue exists in a politically polarizing context which has basic issues of survival at its core. You either believe we're in danger of imminent doom from "terrorists", or you believe in another kind of terrorist altogether. If the former, then you must believe the official story of 9/11 and defend yourself against the horde of jihadists.



The problem with most so-called skeptics at JREF, is their total lack of understanding of the economic and political context in which the New World Order can and does exist. They have a total misunderstanding of the subject of money and banking, and how it subverts and trumps conventional politics. See any of my threads on the Federal Reserve and the subject of inflation for evidence of this.

If your world view is constructed by CNN, it's hardly surprising you believe what you do. My world view is based on the reality of the money power that is the New World Order, and their most important institutions, the central banks. Most people barely understand what they do. Fewer still understand the scope and the implications.
word; tripe
I think ...
more; tripe

[GregoryUrich]

word; tripe

more; tripe

Arguing from personal incredulity.

[gumboot]

I think the "real skeptic" vs "fake skeptic" dichotomy misses the real issues which people are trying to get at here. I think the real issues here are being aware when we lack knowledge, honestly pursuing knowledge and reserving judgement until we have sufficient knowledge. Is this the definition most "skeptics" would like to have? Maybe they should call themselves "knowledgists".


I wonder if the OP is regretting using the term "fake skeptic". I think their point was to address posters who pretend to hold a stance that they do not actually hold, only to reveal their deception through the content of their later posts.

It's perhaps best to emphasise the "fake" aspect and put the "skeptic" aspect to one side.

[applecorped]

I wonder if the OP is regretting using the term "fake skeptic". I think their point was to address posters who pretend to hold a stance that they do not actually hold, only to reveal their deception through the content of their later posts.

It's perhaps best to emphasise the "fake" aspect and put the "skeptic" aspect to one side.

Yes, that was the point.

[Tippit]

Economic and polictical context have nothing to do with science and physics yet those that argue for the "inside job" cannot seem to grasp that.

It is possible to discuss the subject devoid of politics but those such as yourself are unerringly incapable of doing so and as a result all of your veiws are clouded.

The melting point of steel or the volume of available fuel are in no way affected by the identity of the man sitting in the Oval Office.

Science and physics are useless if you cannot trust the evidence itself, its chain of custody, those performing the investigation, or the media reporting on it.

[GreNME]

I wonder if the OP is regretting using the term "fake skeptic". I think their point was to address posters who pretend to hold a stance that they do not actually hold, only to reveal their deception through the content of their later posts.

It's perhaps best to emphasise the "fake" aspect and put the "skeptic" aspect to one side.

I agree with this.

-----

It doesn't make much sense to say that someone is generally an incredulous person. Also, I think common usage almost always implies a temporary stance. People don't usually remain incredulous for a long period of time.

Not in general, I agree, but there are things that many people tend to remain incredulous on for quite long periods of time. Often they are either political issues, cultural issues, or in the case of conspiracy theories they can also tend to be toward any particular topic. But in general, overall outlook to the world, I agree that most people do not maintain incredulity for long periods of time.

[funk de fino]

Science and physics are useless if you cannot trust the evidence itself, its chain of custody, those performing the investigation, or the media reporting on it.

We do not all watch CNN. You are very scarily paranoid, you need to do something about it.

Just some friendly advice, but you sound like you dont even trust the guy looking at you in the mirror in the morning

[1337m4n]

Yoo-hoo. Boys.


<----------that way = Religion & Philosophy subforum. Stick to the topic.

[1337m4n]

Science and physics are useless if you cannot trust the evidence itself, its chain of custody, those performing the investigation, or the media reporting on it.

Stundie!

[Dave Rogers]

Science and physics are useless if you cannot trust the evidence itself, its chain of custody, those performing the investigation, or the media reporting on it.

And yet so many truthers are unwilling to question the provenance of Steven Jones's dust samples, the credentials of Richard Gage, or the work background of Torin Wolf. Choosing to be skeptical of sources that disagree with one's own position while accepting uncritically those that agree with it is possibly a valid definition of the term "fake skeptic".

Dave

[Hokulele]

Yoo-hoo. Boys.


Ahem!

[applecorped]

Perhaps I should have said Faux Debunker instead of fake skeptic. Or erzatz JREFer.

[slyjoe]

And yet so many truthers are unwilling to question the provenance of Steven Jones's dust samples, the credentials of Richard Gage, or the work background of Torin Wolf. Choosing to be skeptical of sources that disagree with one's own position while accepting uncritically those that agree with it is possibly a valid definition of the term "fake skeptic".

Dave

Well said Dave. For excellent examples, see the R&P subforum. Maybe "Da Twoof" is the next, best religion. :rolleyes:

[Tippit]

And yet so many truthers are unwilling to question the provenance of Steven Jones's dust samples, the credentials of Richard Gage, or the work background of Torin Wolf. Choosing to be skeptical of sources that disagree with one's own position while accepting uncritically those that agree with it is possibly a valid definition of the term "fake skeptic".

Dave

I'm no more qualified to be skeptical of Steven Jones than I am someone like Thomas Eagar.

We live in a highly specialized world dependent upon expert knowledge. We rely on experts to make safe buildings, prescribe safe medicine, engineer safe automobiles, and conduct monetary policy. Yet the vast majority of the public will never have the resources or the knowledge to qualify these experts, or hold them to account. Their jobs are complex and in some cases arcane, so we're left to assume that they either have our best interests at heart, or they are accountable in some way, presumably by other experts. How am I supposed to be skeptical of Steven Jones when I'm not a physicist? How am I supposed to check the equations of someone like Apollo 20? They may as well be high priests, and we the congregation.

I think most of the "skeptics" here at JREF are really just pseudo-scientist groupies, clinging to the coattails of scientific consensus, certain of things they can't possibly understand, knowing the outcomes of things they can't possibly know.

Consensus, scientific or otherwise, has been wrong before, and will most certainly be wrong in the future.

[Dave Rogers]

How am I supposed to be skeptical of Steven Jones when I'm not a physicist? How am I supposed to check the equations of someone like Apollo 20? They may as well be high priests, and we the congregation.

Then you're at a terrible disadvantage in trying to understand the world, and you need some education, at least to the point where you can tell plausible lines of argument from outright BS. I am a physicist, with a doctorate and over twenty years' experience in industry, and I can see through Steven Jones. One thing I've tried to do on this forum is point out some of the gaping holes and irreconcilable contradictions in his arguments in language that's accessible to a non-specialist, although I'm not sure I've often succeeded. However, there's one key question you should ask yourself, and this is: Why doesn't Steven Jones have equations for you to check? He talks about conservation of momentum, but he doesn't show his working. That's the big difference between Jones and Greening; Greening gives you equations to check, whether or not you have the expertise. What's Jones hiding? I already know, and you need to put yourself in a position where you're able to work it out.

Dave

[DC]

Sane people versus kooks

how sane is that black and white thinking?
im right, you'r stupid.

[Rika]

I am a "Fake" skeptic, I'm merely a plushie.

In any case. I can confirm what gumboot said. I have just recently returned to browsing the CT fourm, and it was well... the lying that annoyed me.

[gumboot]

I'm no more qualified to be skeptical of Steven Jones than I am someone like Thomas Eagar.

We live in a highly specialized world dependent upon expert knowledge. We rely on experts to make safe buildings, prescribe safe medicine, engineer safe automobiles, and conduct monetary policy. Yet the vast majority of the public will never have the resources or the knowledge to qualify these experts, or hold them to account. Their jobs are complex and in some cases arcane, so we're left to assume that they either have our best interests at heart, or they are accountable in some way, presumably by other experts. How am I supposed to be skeptical of Steven Jones when I'm not a physicist? How am I supposed to check the equations of someone like Apollo 20? They may as well be high priests, and we the congregation.

I think most of the "skeptics" here at JREF are really just pseudo-scientist groupies, clinging to the coattails of scientific consensus, certain of things they can't possibly understand, knowing the outcomes of things they can't possibly know.

Consensus, scientific or otherwise, has been wrong before, and will most certainly be wrong in the future.


So because you're ignorant of science, everyone else must be too?

There's a famous quote by Sir Ernest Rutherford - the father of nuclear physics;

"If you can't explain your physics to a barmaid it is probably not very good physics."

Much as it might stun you, there's not only a good many people here who do have relevant expertise, and therefore are in a position to address the claims of other experts, but are capable of explaining their arguments in language and form that a non-expert is quite capable of understanding.

This notion that we all blindly believe experts because they say so, and have no idea what they're saying, is totally without substance. For the most part we do understand and can assess their working. The fact that you cannot is a reflection of your ignorance, not ours.

[applecorped]

I'm no more qualified to be skeptical of Steven Jones than I am someone like Thomas Eagar.

We live in a highly specialized world dependent upon expert knowledge. We rely on experts to make safe buildings, prescribe safe medicine, engineer safe automobiles, and conduct monetary policy. Yet the vast majority of the public will never have the resources or the knowledge to qualify these experts, or hold them to account. Their jobs are complex and in some cases arcane, so we're left to assume that they either have our best interests at heart, or they are accountable in some way, presumably by other experts. How am I supposed to be skeptical of Steven Jones when I'm not a physicist? How am I supposed to check the equations of someone like Apollo 20? They may as well be high priests, and we the congregation.

I think most of the "skeptics" here at JREF are really just pseudo-scientist groupies, clinging to the coattails of scientific consensus, certain of things they can't possibly understand, knowing the outcomes of things they can't possibly know.

Consensus, scientific or otherwise, has been wrong before, and will most certainly be wrong in the future.

Thank you for being an example of the OP. You helped illustrate the point quite nicely.

[applecorped]

I'm no more qualified to be skeptical of Steven Jones than I am someone like Thomas Eagar.

We live in a highly specialized world dependent upon expert knowledge. We rely on experts to make safe buildings, prescribe safe medicine, engineer safe automobiles, and conduct monetary policy. Yet the vast majority of the public will never have the resources or the knowledge to qualify these experts, or hold them to account. Their jobs are complex and in some cases arcane, so we're left to assume that they either have our best interests at heart, or they are accountable in some way, presumably by other experts. How am I supposed to be skeptical of Steven Jones when I'm not a physicist? How am I supposed to check the equations of someone like Apollo 20? They may as well be high priests, and we the congregation.

I think most of the "skeptics" here at JREF are really just pseudo-scientist groupies, clinging to the coattails of scientific consensus, certain of things they can't possibly understand, knowing the outcomes of things they can't possibly know.

Consensus, scientific or otherwise, has been wrong before, and will most certainly be wrong in the future.

Thank you for illustrating the OP.

[sts60]

Then you're at a terrible disadvantage in trying to understand the world, and you need some education, at least to the point where you can tell plausible lines of argument from outright BS. I am a physicist, with a doctorate and over twenty years' experience in industry, and I can see through Steven Jones....

I'm not a physicist (just an undergraduate degree in physics), and I only have 16 years as an engineer, but I saw through Steven Jones when he identified a chunk of discolored concrete with rebar sticking out as some sort of exotic metal slag. Dr. Jones may be well-qualified inside his own narrow field, but outside it he is merely a crackpot.

[applecorped]

bump

[twinstead]

So it appears that Tippit has become a caricature. Lovely.