skeptics

We need to start claming the word "Skeptic"

The recent debate on Thom Hartman's show between Kevin Ryan and Michael Shermer of the Skeptics Society got me thinking....

He and his kind, when it comes to 9/11, are not the skeptics. We are!

That's fine for "skeptics" to organize and debunk UFOs, Bigfoot, fortune tellers, and so on. But for them to hold the government's mythology as being rational and the 9/11 truth movement being a wacko consipiracy theory to defend is indefensible. I've had conversations with people who refuse to listen to questioning about 9/11 because they think of themselves as "skeptics" - they can't see the irony in that statement!

We are the skeptics here, and we need to start using that term for ourselves. In our websites, literature, lectures, and conversations, we need to use the word skeptic and related words like skeptical, questioning, not believing, not being convinced, doubting, disbelieving, challenging, and inquiry.

Language is very important, because it triggers mental models in the person hearing the words. (Many progressives are probably familiar with George Lakoff's work on "framing" as described in books like Don't Think of an Elephant.)

"Skeptics" or Dupes? - Skeptic Magazine Not So Skeptical on 9/11 Lies

Skeptic Magazine has come out with a half-assed response to the 9/11 Truth Movement. They cite Popular Mechanics' theories about the attacks, and not much else in their 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, the 9/11 Truth Movement in Perspective.

Someone should have told them that Professor David Ray Griffin has demolished the Popular Mechanics diatribe in his Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory.

Let's forego all of that -- pretend it never happened -- and get to the accusations of the article.

Click here to read more.

The Skeptinazi Credo: "Conspiracies Don't Exist"

This is one of what I call a "Skeptinazi / skeptifascist" fallacy. This is a sort of get out of jail free card that the fascist demeanored self-described "Skeptics" (note the capitol S) typically pull out when it's time to actually think (about the unthinkable). Usually they'll resort to pulling this card out after all else fails, but sometimes they even go the extra mile to actually pull this out from the onset of the debate or discussion to frame you as being a 'nutjob' pick-your-word to go for total victory by destroying you.

Fallacy: a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning

This argument destroys that claim / mindset, and can effectively make them wish they never tried framing you as being the "fantasy world" (this is Popular Mechanics terminology for anyone who's skeptical of the official 911 narrative) tinfoil hat wearing pick your word.

Smirking Chimp publishes fair "9-11 skeptics" analysis

American Thinker says 9/11 skepticism "extremely dangerous"

 

by PositronicDave | Dec 3 2006

This just in...

AmericanThinker.com's Michael Lopez-Calderon thinks that people who don't buy the government's line about 9/11 are "extremely dangerous" because they might "undermine our democratic nation's war against the theocratic forces of radical, Jihadi-driven Islam".

Ouch.

You can read the full article here:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/3624