I rarely write such opinionated pieces, but this subject has been on my mind.
I find it interesting in how alike truthers and debunkers tend to be in their way of thinking. I hate to say that, but the psychology is remarkably similar. In particular, I find both often believe themselves to be skeptics. Truthers say they're skeptics because of their doubts about the official story whereas debunkers are skeptical towards conspiracy theories. I can't help but wonder how two groups who define themselves as skeptics can come to two entirely different conclusions.
What is a skeptic, really? A skeptic is not, as some on both sides seem to think, somebody who tries to disprove things. On the contrary, a true skeptic tries to believe things that he or she would otherwise find extraordinary or absurd. If someone is aiming to prove something then they're not looking at it objectively, which implies an agenda of some sort. Thus a skeptic, to be objective, must try to convince himself of something he has trouble believing. Only then can you adequately analyze the foundation of such an issue.
So who's the skeptic? The truthers or the debunkers? Well, I'd like to give an answer, but I really can't say I know. On one hand, I do my best to look at things objectively and I keep my mind open to things I'd otherwise find absurd. But on the other hand, how do I know I'm really objective? Maybe something subconscious in me is slanting me in one direction, a mental bias I can't be sure I'm controlling. Can anyone really know if they're skeptics? Any one of us are likely to be biased in one direction for whatever reason that may be affecting our decision-making deduction-drawing. Really, I'd love to say that the truthers are skeptics and the debunkers are simply delusional, but as I AM trying to be objective and all, I have to say that I don't think anyone is really capable of knowing that about themselves.
I entertain ideas all the time. I even take the time to read this no-plane and DEW crap because I can't help but think to myself "Hey, maybe this time they'll actually provide something substantial". A stone-cold atheist, I will even consider every now and then the existence of some deity, whether said deity be of any known religion or not, for the purpose of finding some kind of plausibility in the idea. I always fail to convince myself, but repeatedly I will wonder if I'm wrong in my viewpoint.
I think I am a skeptic. I'd definitely like to think I'm a skeptic. I'd like to think this very article, which implicitly gives debunkers possible legitimacy, solidifies me as someone who is able to look at both sides rationally. But as I'm only human and we're very good at self-deception, I can't be sure. I think it's perfectly plausible that debunkers, or at least some of them, are also skeptical, and the difference in our opinions is the result of intellectual differences as opposed to psychological ones. For that matter, it's also possible that neither truthers nor debunkers are skeptical, and we're all just following an inherent bias that's distorting our opinions.
Comment your thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Great opinion piece ... I share your dilemma.
ReplyDeleteI confess, I'm definitely biased, in favour of the truth. I like to think I use logic and reasoning and common sense in ascertaining the truth.
However, sometimes, given insufficient evidence, it can be difficult to arrive at truth, even with the best logic and reasoning.
And sometimes it is hard to suspend long held beliefs or opinions based on many years of research or experience.
Einstein, founder of relativity theory, had a hard time accepting quantum theory.
Yawn. This is probably the most poorly written entry to date.
ReplyDelete美女聊天av色情影片八國聯軍成人聊天室免費視訊MM共和國免費視訊聊天室免費視訊聊天室視訊聊天室免費視訊聊天室免費視訊聊天室免費視訊聊天室免費視訊聊天室免費視訊聊天室免費視訊聊天室聊天視訊聊天室視訊聊天免費視訊聊天
ReplyDeleteWell I finally had the chance to sit through a set of videos which some friends had told me to take a look at:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48XHVYeyb2s
Some things wghich stood out...
The ramblings about Jesus and Ludwig von Mises definitely gave this set of videos a certain ideological overtone which clouded the claim to scientific objectivity.
Around the third clip or so, the speaker listed what he claimed was a set of qualified people who had made a mention of "molten steel" specifically. It was clear that the speaker had not contacted any of these people. I believe that some references to The New York Post were made when citing these stories. This kind of digging through newspaper stories is something which might have been considered as "research" 8 years ago, but is outdated today.
That was the same thing which turned me off about David Ray Griffin some years ago. I'd seen all sorts of little news blurbs flashed across the internet which seemed to suggest things live hijackers alive, voice morphing, and all sorts of other stuff. When I was told that Griffin had written a book on the subject, it really made my hopes rise that some new authoritative source might be emerging. What a disappointment it was to see that Griffin had just recited the same media stories which I'd run across much earlier. That convinced me to drop the living hijackers meme.
Now this guy Derek Johnson comes along and gives a lecture where he implies that he's been in contact with a lot of people on all sides of the aisles in 911. Yet he just casually lists some media references to some people who supposedly were qualified to recognize molten steel and claimed such. Well that's not good enough. If truthers wish to make this a bone of contention with NIST, then they have the responsibility to track down the people who gave such original testimony and methodically interview them to find out what they claim to have seen.
It could be that some professional people became confused in the chaos of the day and claimed to have seen molten steel when they didn't. It could also be that the media simply misreported what some of them had said. I don't honestly know, but this is the type of thing which people like Johnson, Griffin et al are supposed to be working to clear when they claim to act as "investigators." This is why historians writing about a war years after do not like to depend upon simple media reports from the time. As long as truthers are depending upon a second-hand reference to The New York Post on something like this, and disavowal of molten steel by NIST will continue to stand as more authoritative.
Then in a later clip, Johnson shows a scene from China. If you look closely at the screen you can see a blurb there which says that the Chinese building had a concrete core. But Johnson doesn't mention this and the tenor of his speech suggests that if the Chinese building didn't collapse in the way of WTC 7, then neither should the latter have. Well, sorry, but WTC 7 did not have a concrete core. To the extent that one brings up the Chinese building for comparison, it is this absence of a concrete core in WTC 7 which needs to be underscored. Johnson was misleading his viewers by talking about the Chinese case as if it supported his demolition thesis.
How much else in these videos is misleading or incomplete? I'm sure you can get a better critique from someone trained in structural engineering. Those were just some obvious points which stood out to a non-professional observer like myself.
OK, I think I found something else that was deceptively misused by Derek Johnson. People maybe should check it themselves. In one of the later videos Johnson shows side-by-side a NIST model of how the collapse is supposed to have occurred and alongside of it the famous northwest-side video is shown. Johnson asserts to the audience that the NIST model does not match the video.
ReplyDeleteBut that's easily accounted for by the fact that the northwest video only shows a limited portion of the collapse. A better video of the collapse is given here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G86yuunRBIw
If you watch the part of the video where we see initially the collapse of the east penthouse, then this video does fit rather well with the NIST model as Johnson himself featured it. The discrepancy with the video that Johnson shows next to the NIST model is accounted for by the fact that the view from the northwest side is incomplete.