FREE TAPATALK APP

Thunder · 19th January 2010, 08:54 AM

All the time, we hear truthers talk about how they are skeptics. We also hear them accuse us of not being "true skeptics" because we accept most if not all of the official story and consider 9-11 truther ideas to be stupid and crap.

So, why are or why are not the 9-11 Truthers...true skeptics?

Scientific skepticism has a whole sort of generally accepted rules and guidelines as to collecting and analyzing evidence, developing theories, independent research, critical thinking, and how to accept or reject conclusions and findings.

For the most part, 9-11 Truthers FAIL to follow almost all of these rules.

"A scientific (or empirical) skeptic is one who questions the reliability of certain kinds of claims by subjecting them to a systematic investigation.[6] The scientific method details the specific process by which this investigation of reality is conducted. Considering the rigor of the scientific method, science itself may simply be thought of as an organized form of skepticism. This does not mean that the scientific skeptic is necessarily a scientist who conducts live experiments (though this may be the case), but that the skeptic generally accepts claims that are in his/her view likely to be true based on testable hypotheses and critical thinking.

Empirical or scientific skeptics do not profess philosophical skepticism. Whereas a philosophical skeptic may deny the very existence of knowledge, an empirical skeptic merely seeks likely proof before accepting that knowledge.
Scientific skepticism is itself sometimes criticized on this ground. The term pseudoskepticism has found occasional use in controversial fields where opposition from scientific skeptics is strong. For example, in 1994, Susan Blackmore, a parapsychologist who became more skeptical and eventually became a csicop fellow in 1991, described what she termed the "worst kind of pseudoskepticism":

"There are some members of the skeptics’ groups who clearly believe they know the right answer prior to inquiry. They appear not to be interested in weighing alternatives, investigating strange claims, or trying out psychic experiences or altered states for themselves (heaven forbid!), but only in promoting their own particular belief structure and cohesion..."[8]"

deep · 19th January 2010, 09:09 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhonism

Brainache · 19th January 2010, 10:21 AM

Not skeptics. They are just a bunch of internet tough guys trying to look clever and failing every time. They never acknowledge errors. They never offer proof. They never learn.

Yes, I am generalising.

Prove me wrong Truthers.

tfk · 19th January 2010, 11:20 AM

Truthers perform** the same perverse parody of functional skepticism that 3 years olds do.

But instead of the 3 year old's endless repetition of the the question "Why... ?" "Why... ?" "Why... ?", truthers offer an endless repetition of baseless answers, "Faked...!", "Cover-up...!", "Government shill...!", etc.

In both groups, zero percent of the answers penetrates back into their awareness. In one group's case, because they lack the mental development. In the other's, because they lack the emotional development.

Most 3-year-olds and under-22-year-old truthers will grow out of this stunted condition.

Tom

** And, yes, it is a performance. An act. A pantomime: "an absurdly exaggerated bit of theater".

Dave Rogers · 20th January 2010, 01:22 AM

The skeptic tests a theory against the evidence. The 9/11 truther adjusts the evidence to fit the theory. Therefore, they aren't skeptics; they're religious fundamentalists, who will reject evidence on the basis of a belief system rather than vice versa.

Dave

Scott Sommers · 20th January 2010, 02:09 AM

911 Truthing is not based around evidence. While it is possible that some have a sense of logic within reasonable bounds, the major issue is a complete lack of understanding of how to handle data. You find the same thing among young children with insufficient cognitive development. In its most pronounced phase, infants will act as though objects that they can't do not exist. Older children appear unable to comprehend that liquids conserve their volume when poured into different sized containers.

Likewise, Truthers act as though they are unable to comprehend that accounts of an event have different force and need to be weighted according to how convincing the account is. Here is a post from Dave Rogers responding to the new Truthing wonder vinniem. Here you can see that vinniem is unable to comprehend that investigators might be mistaken or confused or not completely informed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vinniem
The whole point of the thread is that one of the investigators, who personally inspected steel, said it had not just melted but "vaporized".
Reply from Dave Rogers
A first impression that has been corrected by later metallurgical studies of the exact same samples he inspected, which found it to be not vaporisation but eutectic melting. Rational people tend to understand that first impressions can be incorrect and that further detailed study gives far more reliable results. For some reason, when the incorrect first impressions are more convenient to the conspiracy theorists, this rather obvious point becomes incomprehensible to them. Strange, that.
Dave

I suspect this is a maturity problem. But unlike Piagetian development, this is not linked with growth. It's probably more like watching a kid the first time he or she picks up a baseball bat. There's no reason they can't learn how to do it. The issue is more like whether they want to invest the time and energy, what kind of payoff is available for doing so, or how they relate to people who do this or a competing activity.

MikeW · 20th January 2010, 02:40 AM

Skeptics? I don't think so.

Over on abovetopsecret right now is a thread titled "911 Commission Senior Counsel: Report is a lie", referring to John Farmer's book.

Now, as we've discussed before, this isn't true. At all. A few posters in that thread try to point out that actually Farmer believes the Commission was presented with lies, but came to the truth, which is a very different thing.

What do truthers do when presented with this evidence, though? They cherry-pick, obfuscate, twist, handwave, bluster, and do everything possible to try and maintain their fiction. As per usual, 9/11 truth turns out not to be about "thinking for yourself", and it's certainly not about being a skeptic, or trying to find the truth: all that falls before the main aim, to prove "inside job".

Thunder · 20th January 2010, 05:51 AM

Originally Posted by MikeW

They cherry-pick, obfuscate, twist, handwave, bluster, and do everything possible to try and maintain their fiction.

so this isn't real skepticism?

Edx · 20th January 2010, 05:54 AM

Creationists claim they are skeptics as well, they say all the same kind of nonsense. All woo believers will talk about how you're close minded and you cant think outside the box and so on. Its just standard woo stuff.

Thunder · 20th January 2010, 05:55 AM

Originally Posted by Edx

Creationists claim they are skeptics as well, they say all the same kind of nonsense. All woo believers will talk about how you're close minded and you cant think outside the box and so on. Its just standard woo stuff.

pretty much. just like a true Patriot, true skeptics don't run around boasting how "skeptical" they are and how their enemies are not the true "skeptics".

19th January 2010, 08:54 AM	#1
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	Are 9-11 Truthers really "skeptics"? All the time, we hear truthers talk about how they are skeptics. We also hear them accuse us of not being "true skeptics" because we accept most if not all of the official story and consider 9-11 truther ideas to be stupid and crap. So, why are or why are not the 9-11 Truthers...true skeptics? Scientific skepticism has a whole sort of generally accepted rules and guidelines as to collecting and analyzing evidence, developing theories, independent research, critical thinking, and how to accept or reject conclusions and findings. For the most part, 9-11 Truthers FAIL to follow almost all of these rules. "A scientific (or empirical) skeptic is one who questions the reliability of certain kinds of claims by subjecting them to a systematic investigation.[6] The scientific method details the specific process by which this investigation of reality is conducted. Considering the rigor of the scientific method, science itself may simply be thought of as an organized form of skepticism. This does not mean that the scientific skeptic is necessarily a scientist who conducts live experiments (though this may be the case), but that the skeptic generally accepts claims that are in his/her view likely to be true based on testable hypotheses and critical thinking. Empirical or scientific skeptics do not profess philosophical skepticism. Whereas a philosophical skeptic may deny the very existence of knowledge, an empirical skeptic merely seeks likely proof before accepting that knowledge. Scientific skepticism is itself sometimes criticized on this ground. The term pseudoskepticism has found occasional use in controversial fields where opposition from scientific skeptics is strong. For example, in 1994, Susan Blackmore, a parapsychologist who became more skeptical and eventually became a csicop fellow in 1991, described what she termed the "worst kind of pseudoskepticism": "There are some members of the skeptics’ groups who clearly believe they know the right answer prior to inquiry. They appear not to be interested in weighing alternatives, investigating strange claims, or trying out psychic experiences or altered states for themselves (heaven forbid!), but only in promoting their own particular belief structure and cohesion..."[8]"
	Last edited by Thunder; 19th January 2010 at 08:55 AM.

19th January 2010, 09:09 AM	#2
deep Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 1,367	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhonism
deep Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 1,367

19th January 2010, 11:20 AM	#4
tfk Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 2,978	Truthers perform the same perverse parody of functional skepticism that 3 years olds do. But instead of the 3 year old's endless repetition of the the question "Why... ?" "Why... ?" "Why... ?", truthers offer an endless repetition of baseless answers, "Faked...!", "Cover-up...!", "Government shill...!", etc. In both groups, zero percent of the answers penetrates back into their awareness. In one group's case, because they lack the mental development. In the other's, because they lack the emotional development. Most 3-year-olds and under-22-year-old truthers will grow out of this stunted condition. Tom And, yes, it is a performance. An act. A pantomime: "an absurdly exaggerated bit of theater".
tfk Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 2,978	Last edited by tfk; 19th January 2010 at 11:22 AM.

20th January 2010, 01:22 AM	#5
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: In a world lit only by fire. Posts: 17,907	The skeptic tests a theory against the evidence. The 9/11 truther adjusts the evidence to fit the theory. Therefore, they aren't skeptics; they're religious fundamentalists, who will reject evidence on the basis of a belief system rather than vice versa. Dave
	__________________ "We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy." - Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo SSKCAS, covert member

20th January 2010, 02:09 AM	#6
Scott Sommers Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 3,667	911 Truthing is not based around evidence. While it is possible that some have a sense of logic within reasonable bounds, the major issue is a complete lack of understanding of how to handle data. You find the same thing among young children with insufficient cognitive development. In its most pronounced phase, infants will act as though objects that they can't do not exist. Older children appear unable to comprehend that liquids conserve their volume when poured into different sized containers. Likewise, Truthers act as though they are unable to comprehend that accounts of an event have different force and need to be weighted according to how convincing the account is. Here is a post from Dave Rogers responding to the new Truthing wonder vinniem. Here you can see that vinniem is unable to comprehend that investigators might be mistaken or confused or not completely informed. Quote: Originally Posted by vinniem The whole point of the thread is that one of the investigators, who personally inspected steel, said it had not just melted but "vaporized". Reply from Dave Rogers A first impression that has been corrected by later metallurgical studies of the exact same samples he inspected, which found it to be not vaporisation but eutectic melting. Rational people tend to understand that first impressions can be incorrect and that further detailed study gives far more reliable results. For some reason, when the incorrect first impressions are more convenient to the conspiracy theorists, this rather obvious point becomes incomprehensible to them. Strange, that. Dave I suspect this is a maturity problem. But unlike Piagetian development, this is not linked with growth. It's probably more like watching a kid the first time he or she picks up a baseball bat. There's no reason they can't learn how to do it. The issue is more like whether they want to invest the time and energy, what kind of payoff is available for doing so, or how they relate to people who do this or a competing activity.
	Last edited by Scott Sommers; 20th January 2010 at 02:11 AM.

19th January 2010, 10:21 AM	#3
Brainache Nasty Brutish and Tall Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Behind you! Posts: 9,182	Not skeptics. They are just a bunch of internet tough guys trying to look clever and failing every time. They never acknowledge errors. They never offer proof. They never learn. Yes, I am generalising. Prove me wrong Truthers.

20th January 2010, 02:40 AM	#7
MikeW Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 1,911	Skeptics? I don't think so. Over on abovetopsecret right now is a thread titled "911 Commission Senior Counsel: Report is a lie", referring to John Farmer's book. Now, as we've discussed before, this isn't true. At all. A few posters in that thread try to point out that actually Farmer believes the Commission was presented with lies, but came to the truth, which is a very different thing. What do truthers do when presented with this evidence, though? They cherry-pick, obfuscate, twist, handwave, bluster, and do everything possible to try and maintain their fiction. As per usual, 9/11 truth turns out not to be about "thinking for yourself", and it's certainly not about being a skeptic, or trying to find the truth: all that falls before the main aim, to prove "inside job".
MikeW Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 1,911

20th January 2010, 05:51 AM	#8
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	Originally Posted by MikeW They cherry-pick, obfuscate, twist, handwave, bluster, and do everything possible to try and maintain their fiction. so this isn't real skepticism?

20th January 2010, 05:54 AM	#9
Edx Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 4,323	Creationists claim they are skeptics as well, they say all the same kind of nonsense. All woo believers will talk about how you're close minded and you cant think outside the box and so on. Its just standard woo stuff.
Edx Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 4,323	__________________ http://www.youtube.com/user/TheSkepticalIdealist

20th January 2010, 05:55 AM	#10
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	Originally Posted by Edx Creationists claim they are skeptics as well, they say all the same kind of nonsense. All woo believers will talk about how you're close minded and you cant think outside the box and so on. Its just standard woo stuff. pretty much. just like a true Patriot, true skeptics don't run around boasting how "skeptical" they are and how their enemies are not the true "skeptics".