Skeptisism vs Cynicism on 911

[SYLVESTER1592]

C'mon, man, tell us how you really feel.

Regarding the OP, there have been several thoughtful replies. Upon reflection, I believe the distinction between "skeptical" and "cynical" is being conflated with the quality of the opposing argument. Let me explain.

There is an ill-defined threshold in discourse, distinguishing thesis statements that at first contact, even before any analysis, are either "plausible" or "absurd." I'll illustrate with an example: Suppose we didn't know anything detailed about September 11th, being neophytes to the JREF Forum. If we encounter an argument that claims the attacks were orchestrated with the help of the CIA, at first glance this appears possible. If, on the other hand, we hear of space beams that cause steel to disintegrate, this appears absurd. A skeptical individual would politely challenge the first, but would be well within her rights to ignore or deride the second.

Carl Sagan approached this problem in his seminal text The Demon-Haunted World through the example of "The Dragon in My Garage." He describes a thesis statement that begins as merely unlikely ("I have a dragon in my garage" -- perhaps I own an alligator, or collect Chinese cultural artifacts), but gradually escalates into sheer idiocy ("it breathes heatless fire, floats, is invisible, and cannot be touched"). Exactly where this thesis crosses the line into absurdity is not completely clear, but it certainly does.

I propose that the reason this threshold is ill-defined is because the particular merits of any individual argument are tighly coupled with the source, and furthermore, few of the arguments seen here are new. The first time someone raised the question of "nearly free-fall collapse," it would have been appropriate for us to run some calculations quantifying the accuracy of this statement -- which we have, and found it to be false. The seven hundredth time such an argument is raised, it deserves no attention whatsoever.

Since the threshold of absurdity is ill-defined, I have considered attempting to formalize a test -- setting a so-called "Gravy line," if you will -- failing which an argument requires no refutation, being improperly stated or not satisfying a minimal burden of proof. For such poor arguments, no criticism could be considered cynic in nature. While there are some occasional new ideas brought here that deserve scrutiny, and some posters who are truly seeking education (perhaps knowing the invalidity of a given argument but lacking the expertise to refute it themselves), I suspect that the vast majority will fail this test.

It is important to keep in mind that no skeptic should be required to address every idea on an equal footing. To suggest this is to commit an error of equivocation.

I haven't done a word count, but hopefully the above meets the even more poorly defined requirement of "civility." I'll be even happier if it's useful.

Thank you Mackey. Great post, well argumented.
Nominated!

SYL

PS. A link to the Carl Sagan story is found here (for those who haven't read the book)

 

[Gravy]

It’s not that hard cuddles. I think you can understand that. Why not give it a real try…

Others in here have and have done a good job at it.
SYL

It's twoofer Tuesday. Less talk, more rock, please.

 

[SYLVESTER1592]

Wrong thread Gravy.
But if you feel you can outdo Mackey... Go for it

SYL

 

[ConspiRaider]

It's twoofer Tuesday. Less talk, more rock, please.

Eleven-fifty in the A.M. here at KJRF and time to turn over if you're getting some of that good old Southland sunshine down there in Huntington or Bolsa Chica or close by in Redondo or maybe up in Malibu. Use that sunblock! We're setting a record for the driest Los Angeles in history so don't soak up too much of the hot stuff, folks.

Hey the Blue Crew is in Chavez tonight looking to make it two in a row against the Mets. It'll be Hong-Chih Kuo going up against John Maine, should be a good one. And don't forget to pick up a nerf Dodger Blue Twoofer Bat by the concession stands next to Gate A, D and G when you show up at the ball park.

Here's Two fer Tuesday on KJRF, your station for music, news, traffic, sports and skepticism on 102.8 FM. Joan Baez and "The Night They Drove Old Dylan Down", and then Abba's "Super Twoofer"...

 

[beachnut]

...Oh, it's in your eyes...

That was "in your eyes", Peter Gabriel,

Moby is next with "run on", advice for truthers that are skeptical and cynical, or even cynical and skeptical, or even disbelieving and distrustful, or unconvinced and contemptuous just -

Run On

Lord God Almighty let me tell the news
my head got wet in midnight dew
great God i been down on my bended knees
talking to a man from galilee
michael spoke and he sound so sweet
i thought i heard the shuffle of angels' feet
He put one hand upon my head
great God Almighty let me tell you what He said

[bridge:]
go tell that lonesome liar
go tell that midnight rider [???]
tell the gamblin', ramblin' backslider
tell them God Almighty gonna cut 'em down

[chorus:]
you might run on for a long time
run on, ducking and dodging
run on, children [?], for a long time
let me tell you God Almighty gonna cut you down
you might throw your rock [?], hide your head
work in the dark with your fellow men
sure as God made you rich and poor
you're gonna reap just what you sow

[chorus] x3
some people go to church just to signify
trying to make a date with a neighbor's wife
brother let me tell you just as sure as you're born
you better leave that woman alone

[bridge]
[chorus] x8

next... (only 249 words, but if you do all the chorus, we be over.)

 

[SYLVESTER1592]

This thread is about skepticism or cynicism (take another look at the OP).
I don't really know the song, so maybe I didn't get it completely.

Will check later

SYL

 

[Furcifer]

C'mon, man, tell us how you really feel.

Regarding the OP, there have been several thoughtful replies. Upon reflection, I believe the distinction between "skeptical" and "cynical" is being conflated with the quality of the opposing argument. Let me explain.

There is an ill-defined threshold in discourse, distinguishing thesis statements that at first contact, even before any analysis, are either "plausible" or "absurd." I'll illustrate with an example: Suppose we didn't know anything detailed about September 11th, being neophytes to the JREF Forum. If we encounter an argument that claims the attacks were orchestrated with the help of the CIA, at first glance this appears possible. If, on the other hand, we hear of space beams that cause steel to disintegrate, this appears absurd. A skeptical individual would politely challenge the first, but would be well within her rights to ignore or deride the second.

Carl Sagan approached this problem in his seminal text The Demon-Haunted World through the example of "The Dragon in My Garage." He describes a thesis statement that begins as merely unlikely ("I have a dragon in my garage" -- perhaps I own an alligator, or collect Chinese cultural artifacts), but gradually escalates into sheer idiocy ("it breathes heatless fire, floats, is invisible, and cannot be touched"). Exactly where this thesis crosses the line into absurdity is not completely clear, but it certainly does.

I propose that the reason this threshold is ill-defined is because the particular merits of any individual argument are tighly coupled with the source, and furthermore, few of the arguments seen here are new. The first time someone raised the question of "nearly free-fall collapse," it would have been appropriate for us to run some calculations quantifying the accuracy of this statement -- which we have, and found it to be false. The seven hundredth time such an argument is raised, it deserves no attention whatsoever.

Since the threshold of absurdity is ill-defined, I have considered attempting to formalize a test -- setting a so-called "Gravy line," if you will -- failing which an argument requires no refutation, being improperly stated or not satisfying a minimal burden of proof. For such poor arguments, no criticism could be considered cynic in nature. While there are some occasional new ideas brought here that deserve scrutiny, and some posters who are truly seeking education (perhaps knowing the invalidity of a given argument but lacking the expertise to refute it themselves), I suspect that the vast majority will fail this test.

It is important to keep in mind that no skeptic should be required to address every idea on an equal footing. To suggest this is to commit an error of equivocation.

I haven't done a word count, but hopefully the above meets the even more poorly defined requirement of "civility." I'll be even happier if it's useful.

Good Post. I nominated this post (I don't know where it went when I did?) In any event, I think the subjective nature of the Gravy line needs to be explored, and perhaps the name of the line as well.

 

[beachnut]

Good Post. I nominated this post (I don't know where it went when I did?) In any event, I think the subjective nature of the Gravy line needs to be explored, and perhaps the name of the line as well.

You mean here? http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2685038#post2685038 at post 145 ! hi

 

[T.A.M.]

"The Dragon In My Garage" is my favorite part of that book...which is an excellent text, and a "must read" in my books.

As for cynicism vs skepticism, I, unfortunately, have been more of the former as of late. I am seriously contemplating taking a break from the board, perhaps a return near the aniversary...I still haven't decided, but as of late I am more angry with the truthers, less sad for them, and this is not me.

TAM (potential cynic)

 

[SYLVESTER1592]

You mean here? [link was left out as it may be percieved as a violation of forum rules] at post 145 ! hi

Beachnut you can change your link to the right post. I recommend you do...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2684986#post2684986

Thank you

 

[SYLVESTER1592]

...As for cynicism vs skepticism, I, unfortunately, have been more of the former as of late. I am seriously contemplating taking a break from the board, ...

There are a lot of us leaning towards cynicism lately. Sad to loose a skeptic.
I think you'll be missed, so I hope you don't...

SYL

 

[Furcifer]

First times a charm. Thanks Beachnut

 

[SYLVESTER1592]

Good luck

I have now stuck in this thread for 24 hours straight.
I think all questions about the OP have been answered sufficiently to understand the purpose. I have presented my opinion and supporting explanations to all of those who requested it.

I have seen many good posts and 2 of the 90 posts got nominated within 24 hours of the start of the thread. So much for anyone thinking that no one would put time or effort in writing a comprehensive post according to the OP. I guess not everyone is cut out for this, but I since I'm not a cynic... I don't underestimate the members of this forum. I have seen many other good posts as well. Thanks for all the supporting comments and for all the good contributions to this thread, ...

Keep it up.
I will check back into this thread from time to time to read the thread and comment if needed.

Please remember the OP ... ( that means keep it in mind, stick to it, not Rest in Peace )

I think Mackey won thus far, but anyone who can write a better post is more then welcome. I would really like to read it

Thanks so far and good luck,

SYL

 

[hellaeon]

C'mon, man, tell us how you really feel.

Regarding the OP, there have been several thoughtful replies. Upon reflection, I believe the distinction between "skeptical" and "cynical" is being conflated with the quality of the opposing argument. Let me explain.

There is an ill-defined threshold in discourse, distinguishing thesis statements that at first contact, even before any analysis, are either "plausible" or "absurd." I'll illustrate with an example: Suppose we didn't know anything detailed about September 11th, being neophytes to the JREF Forum. If we encounter an argument that claims the attacks were orchestrated with the help of the CIA, at first glance this appears possible. If, on the other hand, we hear of space beams that cause steel to disintegrate, this appears absurd. A skeptical individual would politely challenge the first, but would be well within her rights to ignore or deride the second.

Carl Sagan approached this problem in his seminal text The Demon-Haunted World through the example of "The Dragon in My Garage." He describes a thesis statement that begins as merely unlikely ("I have a dragon in my garage" -- perhaps I own an alligator, or collect Chinese cultural artifacts), but gradually escalates into sheer idiocy ("it breathes heatless fire, floats, is invisible, and cannot be touched"). Exactly where this thesis crosses the line into absurdity is not completely clear, but it certainly does.

I propose that the reason this threshold is ill-defined is because the particular merits of any individual argument are tighly coupled with the source, and furthermore, few of the arguments seen here are new. The first time someone raised the question of "nearly free-fall collapse," it would have been appropriate for us to run some calculations quantifying the accuracy of this statement -- which we have, and found it to be false. The seven hundredth time such an argument is raised, it deserves no attention whatsoever.

Since the threshold of absurdity is ill-defined, I have considered attempting to formalize a test -- setting a so-called "Gravy line," if you will -- failing which an argument requires no refutation, being improperly stated or not satisfying a minimal burden of proof. For such poor arguments, no criticism could be considered cynic in nature. While there are some occasional new ideas brought here that deserve scrutiny, and some posters who are truly seeking education (perhaps knowing the invalidity of a given argument but lacking the expertise to refute it themselves), I suspect that the vast majority will fail this test.

It is important to keep in mind that no skeptic should be required to address every idea on an equal footing. To suggest this is to commit an error of equivocation.

I haven't done a word count, but hopefully the above meets the even more poorly defined requirement of "civility." I'll be even happier if it's useful.

For Sly1592, this is exactly what I was trying to say but in a much better control of language!

 

[hellaeon]

"The Dragon In My Garage" is my favorite part of that book...which is an excellent text, and a "must read" in my books.

As for cynicism vs skepticism, I, unfortunately, have been more of the former as of late. I am seriously contemplating taking a break from the board, perhaps a return near the aniversary...I still haven't decided, but as of late I am more angry with the truthers, less sad for them, and this is not me.

TAM (potential cynic)

I think this is just a reflection on the recent posters and arguements put forth TAM, as R.Mackey wrote, some arguements dont deserve a skeptical analysis because they start off absurd.

TS1234 - no planes - absurd.
Lyte Trip - plane flew over pentagon - absurd.
and to a lesser posting extent - MaGZ - missles that no one saw - abusrb.

The first two are heavy posters of the forum and so its not that your critical, its just that the arguements and theories put forth are completely stupid and they are sprouted regularly by these two morons.

My two cents.

 

[deep]

Despite claims to the contrary, I very rarely see the regulars of this forum evaluate 9/11 evidence objectively.. and believe it or not, I don't fault them for it, because I can somewhat relate to their perspective.

I personally don't believe in anything considered paranormal, so whenever I come across someone who claims to have 'proof' that a ghost is haunting their barn (or whatever), I evaluate the situation similarly to how the people here evaluate evidence related to 9/11. If they have photographic evidence that has been checked out by a professional, I question the credentials of the professional. If someone suggests a one-in-a-million occurrence that would explain what the person saw, I assume that's what happened and (personally) dismiss the original claim. Since I know deep down that true paranormal events are impossible, I'm really only seeking a possible explanation.

In reading through past threads here, I see the same thing over and over again. Experts opinions are discredited & ignored solely because those experts don't agree with the official 9/11 explanation. Credentials are demanded left & right whenever a statement is made supporting a CT, yet there are countless less-scientific (or purely speculative) statements supporting the official story that not only go unquestioned, but have responses like, "hmm, yes- you know, that would make sense" (which sounds like me in the scenario mentioned above).

In this forum, people are going to believe what they want to believe, which is why I don't really see much of a point in arguing. Maybe I'm just cynical..

One thing I was curious about- in the history of this forum, has there ever been a topic where everybody here was skeptical at first, but then changed their opinion after new evidence was presented? Has that opinion ever differed from the mainstream (i.e., majority) opinion, in either direction?

 

[Gravy]

In reading through past threads here, I see the same thing over and over again. Experts opinions are discredited & ignored solely because those experts don't agree with the official 9/11 explanation.

How do you know that? Can you give an example?

Credentials are demanded left & right whenever a statement is made supporting a CT,

You should avoid making such extreme exaggerations.

yet there are countless less-scientific (or purely speculative) statements supporting the official story that not only go unquestioned, but have responses like, "hmm, yes- you know, that would make sense" (which sounds like me in the scenario mentioned above).

Perhaps you can give an example of such a supporting statement that does not make sense.

In this forum, people are going to believe what they want to believe, which is why I don't really see much of a point in arguing. Maybe I'm just cynical..

It strikes me that the "debunkers" here believe what is overwhelmingly supported by evidence. Do you disagree? Can you give an example of a conspiracy theory that was dismissed here without examination or cause?

One thing I was curious about- in the history of this forum, has there ever been a topic where everybody here was skeptical at first, but then changed their opinion after new evidence was presented? Has that opinion ever differed from the mainstream (i.e., majority) opinion, in either direction?

I can't think of a major conspiracy theory, or a major portion of one, that's been validated by the introduction of new evidence here, nor do I assume that such a thing should have happened.

 

[deep]

How do you know that? Can you give an example?

Sure, ironically, there's one in the first section of your Loose Change critique. I can't find the link right now, but I just read it less than 48 hours ago. You were referring to the pilot who claimed it would be very hard for a novice pilot to navigate a 757 like the official story claims, and said, "but so-and-so is a conspiracy theorist ....", and dismissed what he said.

It strikes me that the "debunkers" here believe what is overwhelmingly supported by evidence. Do you disagree? Can you give an example of a conspiracy theory that was dismissed here without examination or cause?

No, you certainly do examine them, but you don't use the same standards to evaluate evidence that doesn't support your argument when compared to evidence that does. There are examples of this everywhere, including throughout your Loose Change critique. You don't reference sources to the same degree you demand that they do, etc.

Look, like I said, I'm really not interested in arguing this. I made a contribution to this essay thread, and it is what it is. Feel free to disagree with it.. which I know you will, because that was really my whole point -- you can't see your own cognitive bias.

I can't think of a major conspiracy theory, or a major portion of one, that's been validated by the introduction of new evidence here, nor do I assume that such a thing should have happened.

Thanks.

 

[Gravy]

Sure, ironically, there's one in the first section of your Loose Change critique. I can't find the link right now, but I just read it less than 48 hours ago. You were referring to the pilot who claimed it would be very hard for a novice pilot to navigate a 757 like the official story claims, and said, "but so-and-so is a conspiracy theorist ....", and dismissed what he said.

Nope. Here's what I said:

Yes, Wittenburg is a pilot. He is also a conspiracy theorist who does not believe that ANY aircraft hit the Pentagon, which makes him stupid or insane. Too bad, because his former co-workers were on that plane. I wonder what he thinks happened to them. He believes a missile hit the Pentagon. He has not produced a single piece of evidence to back that belief. He has not attempted to account for the dozens of eyewitnesses who saw the crash. He also believes that the other 3 flights were not piloted by Arabs, because they wouldn't have the skills. I believe that Russ Wittenburg wouldn't have the skills to be an investigator.

I backed up my statements with a mountain of evidence in the following 30 pages of that paper. Wittenburg has backed his no-plane claim with no evidence.

No, you certainly do examine them, but you don't use the same standards to evaluate evidence that doesn't support your argument when compared to evidence that does. There are examples of this everywhere, including throughout your Loose Change critique. You don't reference sources to the same degree you demand that they do, etc.

As I said, an example would be helpful. I'm trying to learn.

Look, like I said, I'm really not interested in arguing this. I made a contribution to this essay thread, and it is what it is. Feel free to disagree with it.. which I know you will, because that was really my whole point -- you can't see your own cognitive bias.

I appreciate that you're responding to the OP, but if you want to be taken seriously you'll be able to do more than express an opinion. I did what skeptics are supposed to do: asked you to support your positive claims with evidence.

 

[Orphia Nay]

You make it sound like cynicism is bad. Obviously, I speak only for myself (for, who in their right mind would agree with me?), but one can only be "skeptical" of claims of flying microwave ovens for so long.

Let's be honest: The 9/11 conspiracy meme is the dumbest thing to come down the pike since Scientology. THAT is quite an accomplishment.

The microcephalic mouth-breathers who eagerly bend over and take every single word ever printed on websites like prisonplanet.com and the LC forums demonize everyone who dares to disagree with them by calling them sleeping sheeple or whatever the hip agitprop phrase is these days. They divide the world (more accurately, they divide a few hundred people who read certain internet forums) into Us vs. Them, where of COURSE everything BRAVE and NOBLE is Us, the free-thinking faithful slurpers of the Alex Jones nozzle and the Dylan Avery spigot. Heretics are excommunicated at best, or accused of being "disinfo" (i.e. "in league with the devil") at worst. So far, apostate ex-truthers aren't actually being murdered as far as I know, but that's probably only because the Faithful are too lazy. In this, they are exactly like every single religious cult ever to infest the earth.

Never for half a picosecond will the CTers ever stop to wonder just how it could be that a website like prisonplanet -- hosted on servers in the US, served by ISPs in the US, and paying taxes to the US Internal Revenue Service off its significant merchandise sales can continue to function without so much as a 30 minute-long DDOS attack, "convenient" DNS resolution problems, or even slow ping times, never mind IRS audits, trumped-up child porn raids, or mysterious accidental deaths attributed to auto-erotic asphyxiation gone wrong.

Right this very moment, BUSH'S OWN ATTORNEY GENERAL IS CURRENTLY UNDERGOING A FAR MORE THOROUGH ANAL PROBE THAN ALEX JONES OR ANY OTHER SNOT-GURGLING "TRUTHER" EVER HAS.

I could drive you to a neighborhood in my city where ratting out a small-time coke dealer would land you in some serious hurt. You can find neighborhoods like this all over the US, I'm sure. Your dead ass could turn up in pieces in an industrial park, and the police would get bored investigating after a while, because it's "just another drug deal gone bad". After a while, you'd fade from the back pages and that would be that. Yet SOMEHOW CTers think that they can BLOW THE WHOLE THING WIDE OPEN OMG LOLZ, and not only do they not get poisoned by every waitress, they don't get driven to an out-of-the-way place by every cab driver, they don't get beaten within an inch of their lives on the way out of the convenience store and warned to keep their flap shut.

In China, people go to Hard Core, No-S[rule8] Prison for merely suggesting in blog posts that their government doesn't in fact poop tulips and fart talcum powder.

Yet it never crosses the little peanut minds of CTers that they're getting away with accusing what they apparently believe to be the single most evil and omnipotent power ever to grace the earth of savage crimes they only the CTers have noticed.

I speak for nobody but myself, but here is my humble curse upon you CT types:

MAY YOU DIE SLOWLY OF INSATIABLE RECTAL ITCH.

There is very little more fitting for the CT cultists than to end up as heaps and piles of dead, hemorrhaging Troofers in a black-shirted pile, each one with cheese graters, brillo pads, rusty iron shards, and discarded syringes jammed uselessly into their unquenchable itching aft port, their "INSIDE JOB LOLZ" banners smeared with bloody, finger-painted pleas to "make it stop" and "please kill me".

That's just me, of course. I'm a little cynical.

Just read this, and nominated it for The Language Award straight away.