Refuting the Hollow Arguments of the So-called 9/11 Debunkers & Truthers
Showing posts with label true skeptics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label true skeptics. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
Carl Sagan and Government - Charlie Rose Interview
Carl Sagan's view on science and government.
Carl Sagan makes some great points in this 2 minute clip especially about being able to think for yourself using logic ('the science way of thinking') - to be sceptical of those in authority.
Crucially he said "Science is more than a body of knowledge. It's a way of thinking".
The danger we face comes from false pseudo-scientific claims. We must be mindful of trick arguments or evidence-bereft arguments being pushed by those with hidden agendas, especially people with close ties to the US establishment.
The danger from false Government claims is that they tend to do great harm because they often serve interests that are not beneficial to ordinary people, tending to favour corporate profit over human wellbeing or the desires of various special interest groups or large scale geopolitical (war) ambitions.
If we can think for ourselves we should not fear any argument, whether it is considered a 'fringe' idea or Government dogma, because we will be able to interrogate the matter using reason and established scientific principles. If there is controversy we should be able to understand the essential arguments being put by the leading experts in the debate.
Monday, May 3, 2010
They Are the Ones Who Are Not Skeptics
In his post "They Are Not Skeptics," Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog informed his rearders today that we 9/11 skeptics do not fit the bill to be called as such. Here is the intro to Debunking the Debunkers blog contributor Scootle Royale's new blog, which refutes this assertion:
Scootle The Anti-Skeptic
December 31, 2010
SkepticDenialism.blogspot.com
Hi I'm Scootle Royale. I'm 20 years old and I'm from Wiltshire in England (The home of Stonehenge).
When I was a young teenager going through secondary school, I was very supportive of the scientific establishment. I was strongly anti-religious, I was pro-globalism, and I genuinely believed the only way to make poverty history was to genocide everyone living in poverty and start again! In the summer of 2007, as I was about to start a university course on the wonders of data-mining, I watched an episode of South Park that completely changed my life. It was called "Mystery of the Urinal Deuce" and it was a parody of 9/11 truth. Although the episode was basically a hitpiece, the writers inserted enough points in there to spark my interest in the subject.
Unlike most people however, I took a more neutral approach. I read the Popular Mechanics debunking piece quite early on and at first I fell for it as it seemed very authoritative and credible. When I did deeper research however, I realised that the piece was nothing more than propaganda. It was full of strawman arguments, ad-hominem attacks, arguments of ignorance/incredulity and appeals to authority. The biggest shock I got from studying 9/11 was the revelation that scientists lie! I never really trusted the government or the media, so I had no problem coming to terms with the idea that they were lying about 9/11, but I was very naive when it came to the scientific community. I always thought of it as as an open forum, free from political motivation, religious persecution and corporate control, where anyone can voice their dissent and put forward alternative theories. Oh, how wrong I was!
Most "skeptic" and "anti-denialist" arguments, seem to fit the following template: "9/11 truthers claim ___, science says ___", "global warming deniers claim ___, science says ___", "creationists claim ___, science says ___", "anti-vaxers claim ___, science says ___" etc. What they never seem to understand is that it's the so-called "science" that these groups are questioning! For one thing, it isn't "science" saying those things, it's scientists ... difference! I know the scientific method. I trust the scientific method. What I don't trust is scientific institutions. Investigators at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, a supposedly credible scientific authority, have been caught commiting so many blatant acts of scientific fraud in their so called "investigations" of the World Trade Center collapses, that it's hard to keep track of them all!
And when you look into other things as well, such as the climate change debate, the vaccine debate, and the intelligent design/evolution debate, you see more examples of fraud and persecution on the part of the scientific establishment. This is why, when it comes to these issues, one needs look at both sides equally from a more neutral perspective, and not invest yourself entirely in one side. I check out the 9/11 debunking sites just as often, if not more often, than I check out the 9/11 truth sites. And they do have alot of good points. They do a good job at debunking things like Pentagon no-jetliner claims and other stuff that I believe the truth movement needs to drop. But when it comes to the forensic evidence of demolition of the three World Trade Center buildings, they're completely full of shit! And again, it's the same story in the other debates.
If I were to sum up my world view in one word it would be "anti-skeptic". I am a skeptic, a true skeptic. But unlike so-called professional skeptics like James Randi, Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins, the SGU people etc, I don't violate my own rules and commit blatant logical fallacies when it's convenient. It is they who are the real denialists, and I guess that makes me a skeptic denialist!
This is my personal blog. After contributing to the 9/11 debunkers blog for more than a year, I decided to start my own blog so I can talk about things outside the scope of that blog. On this blog I'll discuss all kinds of things, including 9/11, other conspiracies, the Illuminati, mind control, intelligent design and evolution, unexplained mysteries, the nature of reality and other random stuff I find interesting or entertaining, such as music and pop culture.
If you wish to contact me you can do so either through my YouTube account or my Prison Planet Forum account. I'm on these sites pretty much all the time and I check my private messages more often than I check my emails.
___________________________________________________________
Pat does mention one thing that could convince him:
"I can remember at least one occasion when I actually did wonder if they had something; when Barry Jennings' story came to light. But it wasn't long until I realized that Jennings just had his timeline wrong, which explained the difference between his experience and everybody else's."
Well if that's all it takes, then please take a detailed look at the matter Pat and join the ranks of the true skeptics!
Related Info:
Debunking PseudoSkeptics - CSICOP, James Randi, Michael Shermer, etc
Why James Randi, Michael Shermer and other Pseudoskeptics are NOT real skeptics!
How Pseudoskeptics hijack "Skepticism" to mean its opposite: Disinformation, Mind Control and Suppression
I have seen the light! [Satire]
Circular Rationalism
JREF Forum posts: "Comprehensive characteristics of the pseudoskeptic"
911 Truth: Michael Shermer's Amateur Disinformation Attempt Fails (again!)
Debunking Myths on Conspiracy Theories
Scootle The Anti-Skeptic
December 31, 2010
SkepticDenialism.blogspot.com
Hi I'm Scootle Royale. I'm 20 years old and I'm from Wiltshire in England (The home of Stonehenge).
When I was a young teenager going through secondary school, I was very supportive of the scientific establishment. I was strongly anti-religious, I was pro-globalism, and I genuinely believed the only way to make poverty history was to genocide everyone living in poverty and start again! In the summer of 2007, as I was about to start a university course on the wonders of data-mining, I watched an episode of South Park that completely changed my life. It was called "Mystery of the Urinal Deuce" and it was a parody of 9/11 truth. Although the episode was basically a hitpiece, the writers inserted enough points in there to spark my interest in the subject.
Unlike most people however, I took a more neutral approach. I read the Popular Mechanics debunking piece quite early on and at first I fell for it as it seemed very authoritative and credible. When I did deeper research however, I realised that the piece was nothing more than propaganda. It was full of strawman arguments, ad-hominem attacks, arguments of ignorance/incredulity and appeals to authority. The biggest shock I got from studying 9/11 was the revelation that scientists lie! I never really trusted the government or the media, so I had no problem coming to terms with the idea that they were lying about 9/11, but I was very naive when it came to the scientific community. I always thought of it as as an open forum, free from political motivation, religious persecution and corporate control, where anyone can voice their dissent and put forward alternative theories. Oh, how wrong I was!
Most "skeptic" and "anti-denialist" arguments, seem to fit the following template: "9/11 truthers claim ___, science says ___", "global warming deniers claim ___, science says ___", "creationists claim ___, science says ___", "anti-vaxers claim ___, science says ___" etc. What they never seem to understand is that it's the so-called "science" that these groups are questioning! For one thing, it isn't "science" saying those things, it's scientists ... difference! I know the scientific method. I trust the scientific method. What I don't trust is scientific institutions. Investigators at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, a supposedly credible scientific authority, have been caught commiting so many blatant acts of scientific fraud in their so called "investigations" of the World Trade Center collapses, that it's hard to keep track of them all!
And when you look into other things as well, such as the climate change debate, the vaccine debate, and the intelligent design/evolution debate, you see more examples of fraud and persecution on the part of the scientific establishment. This is why, when it comes to these issues, one needs look at both sides equally from a more neutral perspective, and not invest yourself entirely in one side. I check out the 9/11 debunking sites just as often, if not more often, than I check out the 9/11 truth sites. And they do have alot of good points. They do a good job at debunking things like Pentagon no-jetliner claims and other stuff that I believe the truth movement needs to drop. But when it comes to the forensic evidence of demolition of the three World Trade Center buildings, they're completely full of shit! And again, it's the same story in the other debates.
If I were to sum up my world view in one word it would be "anti-skeptic". I am a skeptic, a true skeptic. But unlike so-called professional skeptics like James Randi, Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins, the SGU people etc, I don't violate my own rules and commit blatant logical fallacies when it's convenient. It is they who are the real denialists, and I guess that makes me a skeptic denialist!
This is my personal blog. After contributing to the 9/11 debunkers blog for more than a year, I decided to start my own blog so I can talk about things outside the scope of that blog. On this blog I'll discuss all kinds of things, including 9/11, other conspiracies, the Illuminati, mind control, intelligent design and evolution, unexplained mysteries, the nature of reality and other random stuff I find interesting or entertaining, such as music and pop culture.
If you wish to contact me you can do so either through my YouTube account or my Prison Planet Forum account. I'm on these sites pretty much all the time and I check my private messages more often than I check my emails.
___________________________________________________________
Pat does mention one thing that could convince him:
"I can remember at least one occasion when I actually did wonder if they had something; when Barry Jennings' story came to light. But it wasn't long until I realized that Jennings just had his timeline wrong, which explained the difference between his experience and everybody else's."
Well if that's all it takes, then please take a detailed look at the matter Pat and join the ranks of the true skeptics!
Related Info:
Debunking PseudoSkeptics - CSICOP, James Randi, Michael Shermer, etc
Why James Randi, Michael Shermer and other Pseudoskeptics are NOT real skeptics!
How Pseudoskeptics hijack "Skepticism" to mean its opposite: Disinformation, Mind Control and Suppression
I have seen the light! [Satire]
Circular Rationalism
JREF Forum posts: "Comprehensive characteristics of the pseudoskeptic"
911 Truth: Michael Shermer's Amateur Disinformation Attempt Fails (again!)
Debunking Myths on Conspiracy Theories
Saturday, February 13, 2010
JREF Forum posts: "Comprehensive characteristics of the pseudoskeptic"
Richard Gage
911blogger.com
February 12, 2010
Here is the excellent post on the JREF forum (Feb 6th) that actually exposes all of their 9/11 Debunking tactics in one convenient tidy package - from their own master. It can be seen as the bible of the true skeptic - by the ultimate skeptic, Proff Truzi. Use this to expose the debunkers with their own "Comprehensive characteristics of the pseudoskeptic and the skeptic". (I have added the numbers for your future use). Use it liberally!
(Thanks go to Dan Noel)
RG
Comprehensive characteristics of the pseudoskeptic and the skeptic
I have noticed that there appears to be two main types of skeptics. One an admirable role, one quite the opposite.
Therefore we have a skeptic, and a pseudoskeptic.
Points courtesy of Proff Truzi,
Characteristics of a pseudoskeptic:
1. The tendency to deny, rather than doubt.
2. Double standards in the application of criticism.
3. The making of judgments without full inquiry.
4. Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate.
5. Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks in lieu of arguments.
6. Pejorative labeling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.
7. Presenting insufficient evidence or proof.
8. Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof.
9. Making unsubstantiated counter-claims.
10. Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence.
11. Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it.
12. Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims.
13. Asserting that claims which have not been proven false must be true, and vice versa (Argument from ignorance).
14. They speak down to their audience using 'arguments from authority'.
15. They put forward their assumptions as if they were universal truths.
16. No references to reputable journal material.
17. If the pseudo-skeptic has a monetary interest (such as maintaining a funding stream or a salary) his criticisms often become vituperative.
True Skeptics / Open-Minded Skeptics
A. Does not show any of the characteristics of a pseudoskeptic.
B. Inquires and asks questions to try to understand things
C. Applies open inquiry and investigation of both sides
D. Is nonjudgmental, doesn't jump to rash conclusions
E. Has honest doubt and questions all beliefs, including their own
F. Seeks the truth, considers it the highest aim
G. Fairly and objectively weighs evidence on all sides
H. Acknowledges valid convincing evidence
I. Possesses solid sharp common sense and reason
J. Is able to adapt and update their paradigms to new evidence
Just a nice guide to fall back on, the skeptics bible in a way. Its not amazingly consistent (ie, skeptics should not give people a stereotype and dismiss them due to that, so immediately labelling the pseudoskeptic, so has an early issue)
Related Info:
Gordon Ross is pretty sure he exists.
Debunking PseudoSkeptics - CSICOP, James Randi, Michael Shermer, etc
How Pseudoskeptics hijack "Skepticism" to mean its opposite: Disinformation, Mind Control and Suppression
They Are the Ones Who Are Not Skeptics
I have seen the light! [Satire]
Circular Rationalism
JREF Forum posts: "Comprehensive characteristics of the pseudoskeptic"
911 Truth: Michael Shermer's Amateur Disinformation Attempt Fails (again!)
Debunking Myths on Conspiracy Theories
911blogger.com
February 12, 2010
Here is the excellent post on the JREF forum (Feb 6th) that actually exposes all of their 9/11 Debunking tactics in one convenient tidy package - from their own master. It can be seen as the bible of the true skeptic - by the ultimate skeptic, Proff Truzi. Use this to expose the debunkers with their own "Comprehensive characteristics of the pseudoskeptic and the skeptic". (I have added the numbers for your future use). Use it liberally!
(Thanks go to Dan Noel)
RG
Comprehensive characteristics of the pseudoskeptic and the skeptic
I have noticed that there appears to be two main types of skeptics. One an admirable role, one quite the opposite.
Therefore we have a skeptic, and a pseudoskeptic.
Points courtesy of Proff Truzi,
Characteristics of a pseudoskeptic:
1. The tendency to deny, rather than doubt.
2. Double standards in the application of criticism.
3. The making of judgments without full inquiry.
4. Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate.
5. Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks in lieu of arguments.
6. Pejorative labeling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.
7. Presenting insufficient evidence or proof.
8. Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof.
9. Making unsubstantiated counter-claims.
10. Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence.
11. Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it.
12. Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims.
13. Asserting that claims which have not been proven false must be true, and vice versa (Argument from ignorance).
14. They speak down to their audience using 'arguments from authority'.
15. They put forward their assumptions as if they were universal truths.
16. No references to reputable journal material.
17. If the pseudo-skeptic has a monetary interest (such as maintaining a funding stream or a salary) his criticisms often become vituperative.
True Skeptics / Open-Minded Skeptics
A. Does not show any of the characteristics of a pseudoskeptic.
B. Inquires and asks questions to try to understand things
C. Applies open inquiry and investigation of both sides
D. Is nonjudgmental, doesn't jump to rash conclusions
E. Has honest doubt and questions all beliefs, including their own
F. Seeks the truth, considers it the highest aim
G. Fairly and objectively weighs evidence on all sides
H. Acknowledges valid convincing evidence
I. Possesses solid sharp common sense and reason
J. Is able to adapt and update their paradigms to new evidence
Just a nice guide to fall back on, the skeptics bible in a way. Its not amazingly consistent (ie, skeptics should not give people a stereotype and dismiss them due to that, so immediately labelling the pseudoskeptic, so has an early issue)
Related Info:
Gordon Ross is pretty sure he exists.
Debunking PseudoSkeptics - CSICOP, James Randi, Michael Shermer, etc
How Pseudoskeptics hijack "Skepticism" to mean its opposite: Disinformation, Mind Control and Suppression
They Are the Ones Who Are Not Skeptics
I have seen the light! [Satire]
Circular Rationalism
JREF Forum posts: "Comprehensive characteristics of the pseudoskeptic"
911 Truth: Michael Shermer's Amateur Disinformation Attempt Fails (again!)
Debunking Myths on Conspiracy Theories
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)