Here's my two cent's worth:
...1) Has skepticism about the conspiracy theories reached the level of cynicism?
I don't think so. However, you may have a stronger point if you're referring to skepticism about conspiracy
theorists. When I see a new one posting here, I have to fight off the impulse to automatically think, "Here we go again." Not that it's an entirely unfounded impulse -- after all, just how many times have we seen CTers come here and do one of the following: (1) come out with both guns blasting, all conjecture and insults, or (2) start off with some "I'm a skeptic, I'm just asking questions" ruse, which quickly morphs into full frontal denier mode as soon as the poster is challenged. The one thing both approaches have in common is an utter disregard for actual dialogue; the goal apparently is for us to listen and agree, nothing else. See this enough times, and it's virtually inevitable to conclude all 9/11 CTers are like this, so the next new one gets painted with the same old brush. That's cynicism of a sort I suppose, but it may be arguably justified.
2) To what extent are we still skeptics and where do we start becoming missionaries for what we perceive to be true?
"Missionaries" is sort of a loaded word in a skeptic forum. I think we're missionaries when we're so invested in our views, we're no longer open to logical, verifiable information. I for one believe few if anyone here has reached that point. Show us some actual, solid evidence that the CTers are right, and I believe most here would seriously consider it. The thing is, the CTers don't have any -- real evidence that is. All they present is the same tired, old speculation, misinformation, misinterpretation, errors, and plain old lies that have been debunked 1000 times over. We have every right to continue to reject this stuff until something new and far more solid comes along, something that can stand up to scrutiny. Hasn't happened yet, not by a long shot.
...For reference of the definitions:
The dictionary:
Cynical
Cynic
Skeptical
Skeptic
Thanks, I think I get it.
...Now, which one do you feel applies? I think after 6 years, everyone already made up his/her mind in many cases, based on previous experience, background knowledge, personal reasons and scientific review. Some of the conclusions are detailed and well founded some are based on a general perception and everything in between. I agree that it may be very frustrating to hear twoofers speak, but we give them a chance anyway. That is amendable but to what extent are we still skeptics and where do we start becoming missionaries for what we perceive to be true.
I think I already answered this above.
...The obvious question is how many chances we should give to a conspiracy theory. Based on the definitions presented above, I would say at least one until it has been disproven beyond any doubt… regardless of the person presenting it.
This is where we seriously diverge. We are under
zero obligation to give any idea a chance until it has been disproved beyond any doubt. In fact, the exact opposite is true. As skeptics -- indeed, as rational thinkers, however we may refer to ourselves --
it is our duty not to give any theory any consideration whatsoever until and unless there is a reason to believe it may be true. Simply because a theory hasn't been disproved "beyond any doubt" is absolutely no justification to give it even a second's worth of attention. There are literally an infinite number of ideas that haven't been disproven beyond any doubt. Theories that have actual facts to back them up, now that's a much rarer and more valuable commodity. As others have pointed out -- innumerable times -- the burden of proof rests with the theorist, not with the debunker. Failure to understand this simple but critical concept is probably the ultimate reason CT theories exist at all.
...True skeptics are in some way, to some level, really fence sitters in my opinion, as opposed to a true cynic.
I'm not sure I agree. There's nothing wrong in believing one thing is true and another untrue, if there's evidence to back that up. An open mind is not a sieve; thoughts and beliefs are allowed to stay in once in a while.
...I am looking for well written civil responses only (400-1000 words) that can stand on their own without direct reference to the OP or other posts.
Well, I hope I've given you civil, anyway.
