Difference between revisions of "2010-01-29 Rebutting (Again!) the 9/11 Truthers/woozle"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(internal links for clarity (especially the one back to the article-link page)) |
(internal links for clarity (especially the one back to the article-link page)... and a category) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Very Brief Intro== | ==Very Brief Intro== | ||
| − | Adjectives are inadequate to express the degree of intellectual dishonesty in [[2010-01-29 Rebutting (Again!) the 9/11 Truthers|this piece]] – which might be understandable if it came from a [[US Republican Party|Republican]], but the author (Michael Shermer) is supposedly a skeptic and fierce advocate of [[skepticism]]. He even founded an international society dedicated to skepticism, called [[wikipedia:The Skeptics Society|The Skeptics Society]], and is editor of its magazine, called ''[[wikipedia:Skeptic|Skeptic]]''. (But of course Wikipedia is just a "crowdsourced" wiki that ''anyone'' can edit and clearly can't be trusted, so maybe I'm making this all up.) | + | [[category:commentary]]Adjectives are inadequate to express the degree of intellectual dishonesty in [[2010-01-29 Rebutting (Again!) the 9/11 Truthers|this piece]] – which might be understandable if it came from a [[US Republican Party|Republican]], but the author (Michael Shermer) is supposedly a skeptic and fierce advocate of [[skepticism]]. He even founded an international society dedicated to skepticism, called [[wikipedia:The Skeptics Society|The Skeptics Society]], and is editor of its magazine, called ''[[wikipedia:Skeptic|Skeptic]]''. (But of course Wikipedia is just a "crowdsourced" wiki that ''anyone'' can edit and clearly can't be trusted, so maybe I'm making this all up.) |
I'm going to take Shermer's article paragraph by paragraph to make sure I don't miss any valid points which might be buried in the rhetoric, and try to ignore the snide tone (I agree with PZ Myers that [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/numbers_herein_are_used_to_dem.php a hostile tone does not invalidate an argument] even if it can be extremely irritating). | I'm going to take Shermer's article paragraph by paragraph to make sure I don't miss any valid points which might be buried in the rhetoric, and try to ignore the snide tone (I agree with PZ Myers that [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/numbers_herein_are_used_to_dem.php a hostile tone does not invalidate an argument] even if it can be extremely irritating). | ||