All the time, we hear truthers talk about how they are skeptics. We also hear them accuse us of not being "true skeptics" because we accept most if not all of the official story and consider 9-11 truther ideas to be stupid and crap.
So, why are or why are not the 9-11 Truthers...true skeptics?
Scientific skepticism has a whole sort of generally accepted rules and guidelines as to collecting and analyzing evidence, developing theories, independent research, critical thinking, and how to accept or reject conclusions and findings.
For the most part, 9-11 Truthers FAIL to follow almost all of these rules.
"A scientific (or empirical) skeptic is one who questions the reliability of certain kinds of claims by subjecting them to a systematic investigation.[6] The scientific method details the specific process by which this investigation of reality is conducted. Considering the rigor of the scientific method, science itself may simply be thought of as an organized form of skepticism. This does not mean that the scientific skeptic is necessarily a scientist who conducts live experiments (though this may be the case), but that the skeptic generally accepts claims that are in his/her view likely to be true based on testable hypotheses and critical thinking.
Empirical or scientific skeptics do not profess philosophical skepticism. Whereas a philosophical skeptic may deny the very existence of knowledge, an empirical skeptic merely seeks likely proof before accepting that knowledge.
Scientific skepticism is itself sometimes criticized on this ground. The term pseudoskepticism has found occasional use in controversial fields where opposition from scientific skeptics is strong. For example, in 1994, Susan Blackmore, a parapsychologist who became more skeptical and eventually became a csicop fellow in 1991, described what she termed the "worst kind of pseudoskepticism":
So, why are or why are not the 9-11 Truthers...true skeptics?
Scientific skepticism has a whole sort of generally accepted rules and guidelines as to collecting and analyzing evidence, developing theories, independent research, critical thinking, and how to accept or reject conclusions and findings.
For the most part, 9-11 Truthers FAIL to follow almost all of these rules.
"A scientific (or empirical) skeptic is one who questions the reliability of certain kinds of claims by subjecting them to a systematic investigation.[6] The scientific method details the specific process by which this investigation of reality is conducted. Considering the rigor of the scientific method, science itself may simply be thought of as an organized form of skepticism. This does not mean that the scientific skeptic is necessarily a scientist who conducts live experiments (though this may be the case), but that the skeptic generally accepts claims that are in his/her view likely to be true based on testable hypotheses and critical thinking.
Empirical or scientific skeptics do not profess philosophical skepticism. Whereas a philosophical skeptic may deny the very existence of knowledge, an empirical skeptic merely seeks likely proof before accepting that knowledge.
Scientific skepticism is itself sometimes criticized on this ground. The term pseudoskepticism has found occasional use in controversial fields where opposition from scientific skeptics is strong. For example, in 1994, Susan Blackmore, a parapsychologist who became more skeptical and eventually became a csicop fellow in 1991, described what she termed the "worst kind of pseudoskepticism":
"There are some members of the skeptics’ groups who clearly believe they know the right answer prior to inquiry. They appear not to be interested in weighing alternatives, investigating strange claims, or trying out psychic experiences or altered states for themselves (heaven forbid!), but only in promoting their own particular belief structure and cohesion..."[8]"
Last edited:
