***A Must Read*** On Pseudo-Skepticism - A Commentary by Marcello Truzzi (former Professor of Sociology at E. Michigan U.)

Pseudo-Skepticism is so important for people to understand because it is quite possibly the strongest force preventing 911 truth from breaking wide open (although what an amazing achievement for the movement to have made it this far in the face of such seemingly insurmountable odds). Pseudo-Skepticism is the greatest enemy of 911 truth and as the great Sun Tzu remarked in his classic book, "The Art of War,"
"Know Your Enemy"

There is also a bit of advice at the end of the article that could certainly apply to 911 truthers and how they should conduct themselves when debating "debunkers."

PS - Michael Shermer is perhaps the greatest example of a Pseudo-Skeptic and he has been at the forefront of 911 truth debunking.

On Pseudo-Skepticism

A Commentary by Marcello Truzzi*

Over the years, I have decried the misuse of the term "skeptic" when used to refer to all critics of anomaly claims. Alas, the label has been thus misapplied by both proponents and critics of observed anomalies. "Skepticism" properly refers to doubt rather than denial--nonbelief rather than belief--critics who take the negative rather than an agnostic position but still call themselves "skeptics" are actually pseudo-skeptics and have, I believe, gained a false advantage by usurping that label.

In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis, he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.

Critics who assert negative claims, but who mistakenly call themselves "skeptics," often act as though they have no burden of proof placed on them at all, though such a stance would be appropriate only for the agnostic or true skeptic. A result of this is that many critics seem to feel it is only necessary to present a case for their counter-claims based upon plausibility rather than empirical evidence.

Showing evidence that is unconvincing is not grounds for completely dismissing it. If a critic asserts that the result was due to artifact X, that critic then has the burden of proof to demonstrate that artifact X can and probably did produce such results under such circumstances. Admittedly, in some cases the appeal to mere plausibility that an artifact produced the result may be so great that nearly all would accept the argument; for example, when we learn that someone known to have cheated in the past had an opportunity to cheat in this instance, we might reasonably conclude he probably cheated this time, too. But in far too many instances, the critic who makes a merely plausible argument for an artifact closes the door on future research when proper science demands that his hypothesis of an artifact should also be tested. Alas, most critics seem happy to sit in their armchairs producing post hoc counter-explanations. Whichever side ends up with the true story, science best progresses through laboratory investigations.

On the other hand, proponents of an anomaly claim who recognize the above fallacy may go too far in the other direction. All of us must remember science can tell us what is empirically unlikely but not what is empirically impossible. Evidence in science is always a matter of degree and is seldom if ever absolutely conclusive. Some proponents of anomaly claims, like some critics, seem unwilling to consider evidence in probabilistic terms, clinging to any slim loose end as though the critic must disprove all evidence ever put forward for a particular claim. Both critics and proponents need to learn to think of adjudication in science as more like that found in the law courts, imperfect and with varying degrees of proof and evidence. Absolute truth, like absolute justice, is seldom obtainable. We can only do our best to approximate them.

*Marcello Truzzi was a professor of sociology at Eastern Michigan University.

Before one can let this in, fear must be dispelled

This is a very good, insightful, and logical essay. The problem is that the logical fallacies that are illuminated are clinged to by persons acting under the emotional compulsion of fear. I have friends who are scientists, and are therefore conversant with the scientific method, but are none-the-less overwhelmed by fear when it comes to actually looking at 9/11. To really look at 9/11 one must be open to the idea that one's own trusted "protectors" have not only brutually murdered their own countrymen, but have engineered these brutal atrocities as a springboard to launch more brutal atrocities on their fellow human beings (not to mention the animals and plants that get poisoned and incinerated in the process). AND even more frightening is the acceptance of the fact that YOU and I and our families and friends, mean nothing at all to the people who orchestrated and carried out 9/11 -- absolutely nothing.

To actually contemplate that this is the world that one lives in, is simply too much for a great many people to bear - notwithstanding the fact that those people may be scientists, or hold other positions requiring the exercise of logic.

So, this is a very good essay for those who are not blinded by fear. But fear and emotion trumps reason - and that is the problem. Before one can let this in, fear must be dispelled.

The fact is, that in a material sense, this is a fearful world. All material - even mountain ranges, suns and galaxies are subject to dissolution. The only real antidote to fear cannot be found in science or logic or rationality. The only real antidote to fear is Faith. Faith in what? That is up to each of us, as individuals to discover.

Blessings to all.

Love, zmzmzm

More on the septic Skeptic

"9/11 "Truthers" a Pack of Liars" by Michael Shermer

The Shermer shtick

The thing to understand about Shermer and his magazine -- I invite anyone reading here to look into how that magazine and its research institute is funded, by the way -- is that his "skepticism" is *always* directed against the unconventional, against those who challenge the official government line, the MSM line, the health Establishment line, and the academic consensus line. There are no exceptions to this.

(Bear in mind, I'm not saying the conventional assertions of the political and intellectual establishments are always wrong. But it's interesting when an intellectual not only consistently upholds all Establishment thinking, but makes much fanfare of taking after the critics of such thinking, and does so with a vengeance.)

Genuine skepticism is about challenging positive claims, but Shermer and his outfit are all about attacking critics of Establishment thought. They're never skeptical about the claims of the MSM (unless they're scolding its newspapers for publishing horoscopes, the latter an offense, however justified, against the science/academic Establishment), the AMA, and the like. Since many half-educated (i.e. dis-educated by our government-run and/or -accredited schools) people fancy it as cool to engage in what they imagine to be tough-minded skepticism, there are quite a few who're easily seduced by the implicit flattery that the likes of Shermer and *Popular Mechanics* offer them.

Never mind that the professional "skeptics" are exceedingly selective in their skepticism, and aren't really skeptical anyway, because real skepticism revolves around withholding judgment -- while these self-styled skeptics are merely about upholding the Establishment by planting doubts about the challengers to Establishment orthodoxies.

There is a cultural urge for such pseudo-skepticism. In our contemporary Zeitgeist, it's held to be desirable (or, in our slang, "cool") to be a rebel or an "outlaw" of the metaphorical sort. Yet most people are secretly terrified of being the lonely outsider, or of having to face up to deeply disturbing truths about our societal organization. One way of resolving this is merely to pose as an iconoclast by only directing this icoclasm against those who lack the power of Establishment forces. It's the intellectual equivalent of the schoolyard bully who tries to prove his toughness by picking solely on weaklings and loners.

V. Shermer

I never was nor will I ever

I never was nor will I ever fear the truth..

the first reply by ZMZMZMZM is genius. I wish I could say it that well. ...........The extreme weapons of Earth`s nations is a symbol of Human Failure

Did you ever wonder?

Did you ever wonder whether you were accomplishing anything at all by sitting at your keyboard and typing into the vast unknown? I certainly have asked myself, "Why an I doing this? Is anyone listening? Is this a meaningful use of my time?"

And so, when I read Johnny Angel's response to my post, I got my answer.

One sentence of appreciation means more to a stranger, than you can imagine. So, when you read (or hear) something that moves you, let the author (or speaker) know. He or she will really appreciate it.

I would like to add to three words to Johnny's comment so that it would read "The extreme weapons of Earth`s nations is a symbol of Human Failure " --- UP UNTIL NOW.

As the great author Yogi Berra once said: "It ain't over till it's over."

"Together we will see how lovely heaven will be."