When True Sceptics Fight Back

As one commenter on the BBC's recent article When sceptics fight back noted...

"I really despair at the way everybody has to be lumped into polar opposite pigeon holes. I firmly believe SOME of the so-called conspiracy theories in your article are true, but it seems if I speak out about them, I'm also declaring a firm belief in spiritualism and homeopathy ("conspiracy theories - and their close cousins pseudoscience and medical quackery")."

I certainly don't believe ALL the conspiracy theories on this page. Why should I then have to be herded into a convenient holding pen with a loose grouping of not only genuine truth-seekers, but also various assorted nutters too? If any of the popular 'conspiracy theories' do have a basis in fact, those who have something to hide will be delighted at this blanket ridiculing of healthy scepticism." - Nick Hughes, Bushey, UK

Thank the god known as James Randi that this true skeptic got his word in early on in the comments! Lumping things together as this article does is essentially employing the logical fallacy of guilt by association, not very befitting of an article about those who pride themselves on critical thinking. In addition to its underhanded tactics, the article also fails to provide enough information on any issue presented for a true skeptic to do what what true skepticism demands; evaluate things based on their own merits. These tactics are nothing new from the BBC, which leads me to ponder if there is an agenda, but I'll refrain from theorizing as to their motives. Although I will say that a friend of mine that is made of straw thinks it is a blatant attempt to "keep his people down."

The article makes reference to "conspiracy theory believers," then quotes Adam Savage, of the television program Mythbusters, as stating...

"They want to believe desperately that someone is in charge. Even if it is someone who is working against us."

Is Adam suggesting that there is some form of psychotic illness affecting said conspiracists? A recent Psychology Today hit piece certainly did, using this same type of argument. However Paul Joseph Watson of InfoWars.com pointed out that...

"What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. The greatest purveyors of myths and 'conspiracy theories' about political events have and always will be authorities and governments. Scientists who recently investigated why so many people believed the falsehood that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 found that Americans wanted to believe that Iraq was connected to 9/11 because it helped them make sense of current reality. How is that any different from the claim that conspiracy theorists invent connections to help them better comprehend current events?

Beyond the accusations of who invents what to justify their worldview – conspiracists and debunkers alike – are the facts. History is littered with political conspiracies that actually happened and were not the manifestation of unstable minds."

Indeed, facts are the issue at hand, not delusions. As a blogger by the name Jolly Roger pointed out in January of 2005...

"There were no conspiracy theories arising from the explosion of flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, and there were no conspiracy theories arising from the work of the uni-bomber, so the newly invented psycho-babble that tries to explain the malady of conspiracy theorists, also needs to explain why millions of conspiracy theorists all decided not to theorize about those events. There is no psychological malady. There was simply no evidence to indicate a conspiracy."

Furthermore, many mental health professionals have concluded that the official 9/11 story is bunk.

And as an article published Tuesday on PrisonPlanet.com, which demolished the BBC piece, pointed out...

"Presumably the 9/11 commissioners themselves should be a target for the debunkers, given that six of the ten have openly questioned the Commission’s findings and described the whole thing as a whitewash."

But that fact doesn't fit into Adam Savage's black and white theory about conspiracy theorists.

Savage recently admitted to Debunking the Debunkers blog contributor Stewart Bradley that there is indeed a skeptical bias against 9/11 truth. When Adam made his statement to the BBC he must have just been suffering from his admitted condition, we'll let it slide. So, when you have time Adam, take a true skeptical look at this information please...

Thermitic Pyrotechnics in the WTC Made Simple: Three Points of Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe that Anyone Can Understand - A concise non-technical summary of three key points about recently documented unexploded pyrotechnics from the Twin Towers

Two Seconds That Will Live in Infamy

Related Info...

BBC Attack Piece Promotes Cottage Industry Of 911 Debunker Quacks