Skeptic - Paranoia Strikes Deep - Why people believe in conspiracies
September 2009; Scientific American Magazine;
by Michael Shermer; (senior sciam contributer and founder of www.skeptic.com)

Preview: "After a public lecture in 2005, I was buttonholed by a documentary filmmaker with Michael Moore-ish ambitions of exposing the conspiracy behind 9/11. "You mean the conspiracy by Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to attack the United States?" I asked rhetorically, knowing what was to come."That's what they want you to believe," he said. "Who is they?" I queried. "The government," he whispered, as if "they" might be listening at that very moment. "But didn't Osama and some members of al Qaeda not only say they did it," I reminded him, "they gloated about what a glorious triumph it was?"

Stating people are misled by 'patternicity' and 'agenticity'
http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ARTICLEID_CHAR=0FE9690C-237D-9F22-E87564F8BE278A35
---

Michael Shermer should know better. In his book 'Science and Skepticism' (2002) he states:
"Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to test natural explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions. Some things, such as water dowsing, extrasensory perception, and creationism, have been tested and have failed the tests often enough that we can provisionally conclude that they are false. Other things, such as hypnosis, lie detectors, and vitamin C, have been tested but the results are inconclusive, so we must continue formulating and testing hypotheses until we can reach a provisional conclusion. The key to skepticism is to navigate the treacherous straits between "know nothing" skepticism and "anything goes" credulity by continuously and vigorously applying the methods of science."

Please don't let Michael Shermer and Scientific American get away with this. They deserve enlightening answers.

Best' - John E. Kroll - Denmark