Difference between revisions of "2010-01-29 Rebutting (Again!) the 9/11 Truthers"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (gaaah) |
(converted to v3) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<hide> | <hide> | ||
| − | < | + | {{page/link|article}} |
| − | + | [[title/short::Rebutting (Again!) the 9/11 Truthers}} | |
| − | + | </hide> | |
| − | + | * '''when''': [[when posted::2010-01-29]] | |
| − | + | * '''author''': [[author::Michael Shermer]] | |
| − | + | * '''source''': [[site::True/Slant]] | |
| − | + | * '''topics''': [[topic::9-11/truth/antipathy]] [[topic::9-11/anomalies/debate]] [[topic::9-11/anomalies/straw men]] | |
| − | + | * '''link''': [[URL::http://trueslant.com/michaelshermer/2010/01/29/rebutting-again-the-911-truthers/]] | |
| + | * '''title''': [[title::Rebutting (Again!) the 9/11 Truthers]] | ||
| + | * '''summary''': [[Summary::“The belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (that includes, in addition to Holocaust denial, creationism and crank theories of physics), and is easily refuted by noting that beliefs and theories are not built on single facts alone, but on a convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry. All of the "evidence" for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy.”]] | ||
| + | <blockquote> | ||
<p>Like unsinkable rubber duckies, everytime you push down the fatuous arguments of the 9/11 "truthers," who believe that the U.S. government was complicit in the attacks on that fateful day in September, they just pop back up. In response to my blog here, [http://trueslant.com/michaelshermer/2009/12/28/911-truthers-foiled-by-1225-attack/ 9/11 Truthers Foiled by 12/25 Attack], the "truthers" have fired back with a series of questions for me, not about [[Al Qaeda]] and [[bin Laden]] taking credit for the Xmas day underwear bomber, or for [[7/7]], or Lisbon, or the [[1993 WTC bombing|attack on the World Trade Center buildings in the early 1990s]], but on specific "[[9-11/anomalies|anomalies]]" in the [[9-11/anomalies/collapse|collapse]] of the WTC buildings, in the mistaken belief that if I cannot address each and every anomaly they believe they have found, then this is proof positive that Bush, Chaney, Rumsfeld, and company are guilty. Here is their challenge to me: http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2010/01/response-to-michael-shermer.html</p> | <p>Like unsinkable rubber duckies, everytime you push down the fatuous arguments of the 9/11 "truthers," who believe that the U.S. government was complicit in the attacks on that fateful day in September, they just pop back up. In response to my blog here, [http://trueslant.com/michaelshermer/2009/12/28/911-truthers-foiled-by-1225-attack/ 9/11 Truthers Foiled by 12/25 Attack], the "truthers" have fired back with a series of questions for me, not about [[Al Qaeda]] and [[bin Laden]] taking credit for the Xmas day underwear bomber, or for [[7/7]], or Lisbon, or the [[1993 WTC bombing|attack on the World Trade Center buildings in the early 1990s]], but on specific "[[9-11/anomalies|anomalies]]" in the [[9-11/anomalies/collapse|collapse]] of the WTC buildings, in the mistaken belief that if I cannot address each and every anomaly they believe they have found, then this is proof positive that Bush, Chaney, Rumsfeld, and company are guilty. Here is their challenge to me: http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2010/01/response-to-michael-shermer.html</p> | ||
<p>The belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (that includes, in addition to Holocaust denial, creationism and crank theories of physics), and is easily refuted by noting that beliefs and theories are not built on single facts alone, but on a convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry. All of the "evidence" for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy.</p> | <p>The belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (that includes, in addition to Holocaust denial, creationism and crank theories of physics), and is easily refuted by noting that beliefs and theories are not built on single facts alone, but on a convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry. All of the "evidence" for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy.</p> | ||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
| − | + | ===Commentary=== | |
* [[/woozle]]: Shermer is supposedly an advocate of skepticism. Call me skeptical about that... | * [[/woozle]]: Shermer is supposedly an advocate of skepticism. Call me skeptical about that... | ||
| − | + | ===Reprints=== | |
| − | |||
* '''2010-01-31''' [http://www.911blogger.com/node/22483 911Blogger] (with reader comments) | * '''2010-01-31''' [http://www.911blogger.com/node/22483 911Blogger] (with reader comments) | ||
| − | + | {{page/link/footer}} | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Latest revision as of 12:38, 4 July 2020
- when: 2010-01-29
- author: Michael Shermer
- source: True/Slant
- topics: 9-11/truth/antipathy 9-11/anomalies/debate 9-11/anomalies/straw men
- link: http://trueslant.com/michaelshermer/2010/01/29/rebutting-again-the-911-truthers/
- title: Rebutting (Again!) the 9/11 Truthers
- summary: “The belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (that includes, in addition to Holocaust denial, creationism and crank theories of physics), and is easily refuted by noting that beliefs and theories are not built on single facts alone, but on a convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry. All of the "evidence" for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy.”
Like unsinkable rubber duckies, everytime you push down the fatuous arguments of the 9/11 "truthers," who believe that the U.S. government was complicit in the attacks on that fateful day in September, they just pop back up. In response to my blog here, 9/11 Truthers Foiled by 12/25 Attack, the "truthers" have fired back with a series of questions for me, not about Al Qaeda and bin Laden taking credit for the Xmas day underwear bomber, or for 7/7, or Lisbon, or the attack on the World Trade Center buildings in the early 1990s, but on specific "anomalies" in the collapse of the WTC buildings, in the mistaken belief that if I cannot address each and every anomaly they believe they have found, then this is proof positive that Bush, Chaney, Rumsfeld, and company are guilty. Here is their challenge to me: http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2010/01/response-to-michael-shermer.html
The belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (that includes, in addition to Holocaust denial, creationism and crank theories of physics), and is easily refuted by noting that beliefs and theories are not built on single facts alone, but on a convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry. All of the "evidence" for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy.
Commentary
- /woozle: Shermer is supposedly an advocate of skepticism. Call me skeptical about that...
Reprints
- 2010-01-31 911Blogger (with reader comments)