Why do sceptics care?

meglome

This have come up a number of times as to why us 'sceptics' should care about what people say in here. I'd seen a piece a while back from the guy behind 911myths.com about why etc he bothers to do it and it resonated with me. Worth reading the whole thing here. http://www.911myths.com/html/site_faq.html
Actually worth reading the whole site if you want some actual balance.

911myths.com wrote:

Why are you doing this?

It all started on an Internet message board, a couple of years ago. Someone was saying the WTC collapsed through demolition, and quoted the story of Kim White as partial evidence (she reported hearing a second explosion shortly after the other one).

This puzzled me. White said the second explosion occurred when she was on something like the 79th floor, yet she had time to get out. Demolition charges don't normally give you 30 minutes+ to escape, so how could this have anything to do with bringing the building down?

I decided to look into the story further, and headed off to Google. Searching for "Kim White" pulled up only the same reports, "Kim White" +explosion was no different. So I tried "Kim White" +80 +floor, and found an answer high on the first page. There was the story of Susan A.F., who apparently worked with White, and said of the second "ka-boom":

Susan A.F. wrote:

I thought some part of the plane or some part of the building that had been hit by the plane had exploded and debris was sliding down from the floors above us. I would later learn it was a second airplane diving into the other tower and it was debris from that explosion hitting the windows.
http://www.webscope.com/~larrygc/gra/wtc/sep11wtcdisaster.htm

This doesn't prove anything, obviously, but it's an interpretation that made more sense to me. So how many other sites had found it? I checked, and didn't find a single one. There were hundreds (at the time) using White's quote as evidence of bombs in the building, but no-one had done the two minutes research necessary to find an alternative explanation.

Why not? I began to realise that, despite the many claims of "finding the truth", that's not what most people really wanted to do. They thought they knew the truth already, and were simply seeking to prove it. As such they'd collect stories that seem to prove what they already believe, and republish them, without making any checks at all.

So I decided to begin looking into these claims for myself, and began to realise just how big this problem was. I found many stories that were entirely false, others distorted, more that left out important information. Soon I’d amassed a library of rarely heard qualifications to the usual conspiracy claims, more than I’d seen anywhere else, and eventually I decided this needed to be shared with others. And so here it is.

Why spend so much effort on this?

Why do you ask? Oh, I know. It’s the old one where anyone who spends a lot of time promoting a particular 9/11 theory is A Fearless Seeker After Truth (even if their site is packed with “Donate” buttons and invitations for you to “buy the book/ DVD/ video”), but anyone who spends the same amount of time on the other side of the argument is A Government Shill/ Paid Disinformation Agent, right?

Well, believe what you like, but I do this because I enjoy it. It’s an interesting exercise in collecting information online, and sharpens my research skills. Plus I didn’t see anyone else bothering to do the same thing (plenty of sites making these claims, not so many questioning them), so arguably the site is performing a useful function as well. Although that’s really just a side issue: I’m doing this for me, not for anyone else.

jackiebrown

So 9/11 is still a conspiracy? I think I'm in the wrong forum.

GhostInTheRuins

Interesting link, I've never seen that site before.

meglome

jackiebrown wrote: »

So 9/11 is still a conspiracy? I think I'm in the wrong forum.

We'll from what I've seen pretty much anything you can think of is a CT

meglome

GhostInTheRuins wrote: »

Interesting link, I've never seen that site before.

As I said above I think there's great balance in what he says.

bonkey

GhostInTheRuins wrote: »

Interesting link, I've never seen that site before.

Strange. 911myths was probably the most-referenced single "debunker" site during all of the various 911 threads.

Kernel

Irish Skeptics is over that way lads. *points*

GhostInTheRuins

bonkey wrote: »

Strange. 911myths was probably the most-referenced single "debunker" site during all of the various 911 threads.

Was it? I kind of gave up reading the 911 topics when that mega-thread was around a couple of years back, it eventually got a tad repetitive.

Nick_oliveri

It did, and I helped perpetuate that repeditive(ness). But thats beside the point, we all have something we are interested in for one reason or another. Be it 9/11 or whatever. I could ask why most skeptics would argue a supposed "stupid" alternative theory on 9/11, bu that would be biased, why do CT'ers do it? Whats the point in any of it? IMO, it was a social experiment, governed by all of us, not just one. A reality that there will always be alternative theorys and conclusions on any subject.

Take me for example, I've recently had a debate with a devout christian on boards, I cannot accept his side of the argument because I preconcieve it as "ignorant" or maybe even the CT terms "sheep" or "sheeple", and He or She will dismiss my argument because I am so anti religion....

There will always be that alternative theory, the moral of this story is. you cannot win. Septics and Ct'ers alike. YOU CANNOT WIN. There is no feeling of victory at the end of a hard days anon posting, really its comparable to the "wars" of the Athiests and Agnostics Vs the Christians on boards. There is no leeway, there is no consideration of anothers argument. There is no middle ground.

Kernel

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

There will always be that alternative theory, the moral of this story is. you cannot win. Septics and Ct'ers alike. YOU CANNOT WIN. There is no feeling of victory at the end of a hard days anon posting, really its comparable to the "wars" of the Athiests and Agnostics Vs the Christians on boards. There is no leeway, there is no consideration of anothers argument. There is no middle ground.

Then the answer is clear to me. We must take up arms and kill the skeptics.

meglome

Kernel wrote: »

Then the answer is clear to me. We must take up arms and kill the skeptics.

I vote me last. I can be nice... probably.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

There will always be that alternative theory, the moral of this story is. you cannot win. Septics and Ct'ers alike. YOU CANNOT WIN. There is no feeling of victory at the end of a hard days anon posting, really its comparable to the "wars" of the Athiests and Agnostics Vs the Christians on boards. There is no leeway, there is no consideration of anothers argument. There is no middle ground.

Well it's not about winning for me. I gave up online games a long time ago because so many people were just interested in winning and nothing else. I've never even been interested in debating but I dislike it when people believe blindly and will not accept there can be other explanations. Now don't get me wrong we all make assumptions each and every day but I'd like to think personally that I'm open for correction in what I believe.

I believe that 'Truthers' and religious people have one very important thing in common, true belief. It's not about facts, or logic, or science it's just about what they want to believe or what they are conditioned to believe and nothing is going to change that. Not having a go at anyone here just being honest. With my personality I like to see more stability in the world but that doesn't change the fact I very much appreciate logic and evidence which I find lacking from the so called 'Truth Movement'. So in a 50/50 situation evidence wise I'm going to come down one way, the way which showa a more stable world. However at the end of the day I hope I don't make too many assumptions and will listen carefully to the facts then decide what I think happened.

911myths.com wrote:

Pah! Plainly you're just a shill/ Government stooge/ neo-con/ psyops site.

Yawn. Yes, I've heard that before, usually because it's much easier to smear people than dealing with the points they're making. But hey, if you believe that, then run along now, it's fine with me. There are plenty of other 9/11 sites that will tell you what you want to hear, and never even think of challenging any of your views.

Let's keep challenging.

Nick_oliveri

meglome wrote: »

I
Well it's not about winning for me. I gave up online games a long time ago because so many people were just interested in winning and nothing else. I've never even been interested in debating but I dislike it when people believe blindly and will not accept there can be other explanations. Now don't get me wrong we all make assumptions each and every day but I'd like to think personally that I'm open for correction in what I believe.

And here i am debating you....
There are those who are somewhat... open to correction, but there are many that are so engrossed in their beliefs that any alternative theory other than their own or their "ilk" will not be considered in any way, shape or form. You can convince yourself of the oppposite all you want, just dont say I didnt warn you when you are aged, incompetant and still posting on whatever side of any argument on boards...

I believe that 'Truthers' and religious people have one very important thing in common, true belief. It's not about facts, or logic, or science it's just about what they want to believe or what they are conditioned to believe and nothing is going to change that. Not having a go at anyone here just being honest. With my personality I like to see more stability in the world but that doesn't change the fact I very much appreciate logic and evidence which I find lacking from the so called 'Truth Movement'.

True belief is untouchable from a debate point of view IMO. Where is our middle ground? In this very forum. We are either tipping on one side or the other. Me... well im ninja, nobody knows wtf im going on about or who im with. But to me, there is no point in being "with" any cliché, you just fall into the drab postings and the circular arguements and such. I think its better to spectate.

So in a 50/50 situation evidence wise I'm going to come down one way, the way which showa a more stable world. However at the end of the day I hope I don't make too many assumptions and will listen carefully to the facts then decide what I think happened.

See, IMO where you say "the way that shows a more stable world", that you
are believing that humans or organisations cannot be so callous and horrible.
That is an opinion i have gained from one line in your posting, that may or may not bolster mine or others opinion against you. I will say to you now, the world is in no way, shape or form "stable", far from it IMO. But thats my opinion... And it would be incredibly hard to convince me otherwise. Its that one sentance that could turn people against your VALUABLE opinion, no considerations..... You shall not pass...

I really believe there is no middle ground and all the major players around here are either playing a losing battle or pandering to the crowd/lurkers/same side.

I do not believe or even consider in most (or all) CT's at the moment because i couldnt be arsed, or ive heard it all, or the subject that has been argued on this forum or others has been argued or dismissed so much that it has lost meaning.

Anyone here care to show me the middle ground? Im talking about Conspiracy Theories now not religion.. Its not that hard, is it?!!

bonkey

meglome wrote: »

I believe that 'Truthers' and religious people have one very important thing in common, true belief.

'Truthers' would say the same about many here who call themselves sketpics.

"They" have beliefs which are just blind. "We" have beliefs that are justifiable.

This "us vs. them" adds nothing.

Not having a go at anyone here just being honest.

I'd argue you're doing both. You are clearly targetting one type of poster with your comments, so you are "having a go". I don't question that you're being honest, but the two aren't mutually exclusive.

You're also offering your belief about others...whilst ironically suggesting that their position is weak because its based on belief.

Let's keep challenging.

The battle-cry of both sides, both of whom are convinced that its what they really do, and what the other side only thinks it does.

bonkey

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Anyone here care to show me the middle ground?

You allow all interested sides to express their opinions. You allow the interested reader to make up their own mind.

You don't treat it as something to win or lose. Its not about making converts. Its about the airing of ideas, even when the exchange of ideas fails to materialise.

See....I read the thread title and the first answer that comes to my mind is "what reason is there to suggest that skeptics have different reasons for caring than anyone else?" The question itself creates divisions that require a middle ground.

Why do people post here? I'd hope they do so because they want their voice to be heard in the topic they choose to add to. What more reason do we need? Does it matter if two individuals have the same personal reasons why they want to be heard, or different reasons? Both want to be heard, and thats all that should matter.

There is only a middle ground after we create divisions. If you want to find a middle ground, then you want divisions. Get rid of the divisions, and everyone is on common ground.

meglome

bonkey wrote: »

'Truthers' would say the same about many here who call themselves sketpics.

"They" have beliefs which are just blind. "We" have beliefs that are justifiable.

We'll I'd rather not call myself a sceptic at all but I think a sceptic is what others might call me. You're correct but time after time the sceptics come up with logic and evidence to back up what they say. Does it mean we don't make leaps, well no, but hopefully we make less leaps. I know personally I'm quite happy for someone to show I'm wrong.

bonkey wrote: »

This "us vs. them" adds nothing.

I'd argue you're doing both. You are clearly targetting one type of poster with your comments, so you are "having a go". I don't question that you're being honest, but the two aren't mutually exclusive.

No I don't suppose it does, I was hoping the thread would make all of us think. Again I don't see myself as having a side but it's difficult not to take sides when I see so much lying, misrepresentation and downright fantasy from the so called truth movement. It doesn't mean they are the only ones to do this but in my opinion they do far more of it. I'll support people who are more honest, however it won't make any of us perfect.

bonkey wrote: »

You're also offering your belief about others...whilst ironically suggesting that their position is weak because its based on belief.

Indeed. And I'm offering to change my views if anyone can show me why. I'm not even setting the bar too high.

bonkey wrote: »

The battle-cry of both sides, both of whom are convinced that its what they really do, and what the other side only thinks it does.

Yes it's ironic all right. Kinda amused me to say it.

meglome

bonkey wrote: »

You allow all interested sides to express their opinions. You allow the interested reader to make up their own mind.

You don't treat it as something to win or lose. Its not about making converts. Its about the airing of ideas, even when the exchange of ideas fails to materialise.

See....I read the thread title and the first answer that comes to my mind is "what reason is there to suggest that skeptics have different reasons for caring than anyone else?" The question itself creates divisions that require a middle ground.

The question of why has been asked to me directly and others so I thought I'd address it.

bonkey wrote: »

Why do people post here? I'd hope they do so because they want their voice to be heard in the topic they choose to add to. What more reason do we need? Does it matter if two individuals have the same personal reasons why they want to be heard, or different reasons? Both want to be heard, and thats all that should matter.

There is only a middle ground after we create divisions. If you want to find a middle ground, then you want divisions. Get rid of the divisions, and everyone is on common ground.

I don't really care why people post. But I can't help caring that people say really terrible things with only the flimsiest of evidence or none at all. It actually worries me how easily people can believe almost anything no matter how awful it is. I know that people are capable of terrible things, I don't doubt that for a second. I just hope that I can help keep some perspective between an interesting or scary story and actual fact.

Mahatma coat

Kernel wrote: »

Then the answer is clear to me. We must take up arms and kill the skeptics.

+1

DEATH TO THE NON BELIEVERS
:D:D:D:D

Kernel

Mahatma coat wrote: »

+1

DEATH TO THE NON BELIEVERS
:D:D:D:D

I believe in the Joe Cell MC, I believe.

meglome

And remember when the killing starts I bags being last to go.