Regnad Kcin said:
I think yours is a generalization not based in fairness. I don't know of too many "skeptics who will never believe no matter what evidence is shown." Certainly not on these boards. What I do see here, if I may say so, is a high level of rigorous thinking. Frankly, I'll suggest there's no such animal as a "skeptic." Skepticism is a frame of mind. And it comes in various degrees, often depending on the topic.
You see, there are people today who are "skeptical" of the official 9/11 story, and people who are "skeptical" of the whole or parts of the various conspiracy theories which are being discussed. The difference is that there is a very modest default position: the perfectly logical and reasonable official story. I, nor others I'm aware of, are, to use your words, "attached to this point of view" any more than I'm attached to the view that there are only two Beatles left alive; it's pretty much common sense. Rather, it is up to the alternate theorist(s) to present a case, if they feel they have one, for the quite remarkable theories they're floating. Allegations on a par with the possibility John and George are breathing at the moment. However, so far, they've done next to nothing, except engage in conjecture and float allegations.
So it's not, as you put it, "the same phenomena in both cases, a refusal to look at the facts due to an attachment to one's point of view." You're certainly welcome to name or list the "facts" presented by the CTers. The reason I haven't looked at them, much less refused, is because I have yet to see any.
So if I understand you correctly, the difference between those skeptical of the official story and those skeptical of a conspiracy is that the default position is to believe that Osama Bin Laden orchistrated the attacks because it makes the most sense.
It makes the most sense because of the evidence at hand. Plus, it leaves Occam's Razor sharp as ever.
I would assume the reasoning which makes this stance logical and reasonable is that Osama claimed responsibility, and perhaps that it's strange that a governing body would kill it's own people.
That, as well as the entire collection of other information.
One may work under the paradigm that the government doesn't care about you, that politicians tend to lie, and that there's a lot going on behind the scenes besides what we're fed from Fox News. With that premise it may be just as logical and reasonable to believe the government screwed us over instead of a small terrorist group who's leader has alledged connections with the CIA.
No. It is not in any way "just as logical and reasonable." No, no, and...no.
One has to specifically show where "the government doesn't care about you," not just suggest it.
One has to show the specific lie, not just suggest that "politicians tend to" engage in the practice.
One has to show evidence of whatever portion of "a lot going on behind the scenes," not just allege it.
Thus the difference between the "skeptic" and the "CT" is more a matter of world view than of how one thinks.
World view can color or alter perceptions. That's why I love those adorable little facts. They're cuddly, fuzzy, and don't soil the carpet.
I don't actually believe that's the whole difference, but I do believe that it's a part of it. I also think that one who identifies with the term "skeptic" has some history of going through the questioning process. Most likely a labled skeptic has some training in epistomoligical scrutiny. Thus one who's been the butt of a joke, a sheep led astray, doesn't buy into the same rouse twice and therefor applies thier powers of discernment towards anything suspicious.
No comment.
Under that deffinition I don't doubt that some people within the 9/11 Truth Movement are skeptics as well...
I've already made the point that skepticism is a practice, rather than a specific thing, such as a person. Everyone practices skepticism to some degree.
However there is a difference between skepticism and prejudice, such as when you continue on:
...and are activly involved in scrutinizing the governments "outlandish" claims that they wheren't involved in 9/11...
Stating that it is nearly beyond belief ("outlandish") someone -- and the "government" is made up of people -- couldn't have been involved, is prejudicial reasoning. It is not up to a person to show his innocence,
it is up to the accuser to show his guilt!
...despite the fact that we're the most powerful nation and where duped by some small terrorist group...
I certainly hope you're not serious.
...that the government capatalized immediately on the situation, and that they started seemingly inventing reasons to invade a country which had nothing to do with the event. (that for some would be a reasonable and logical position based on thier experience with the governemnt).
You are speculating and, frankly, straying from the central point: If you, or anyone, thinks 9/11 was an inside job, prove it. As I've said earlier in this epic thread,
Seeing as how that would make it the largest and most complex undertaking of its kind in human history, it should be pretty easy to do.
I personally think, therefor, that there are skeptics on both sides.
No. There are people applying varying degrees of the skeptical process, and not always with precision, regardless of "sides."
I also think that there are numerous non skeptics (sheep) on both sides of the issue.
In so far as "sheep" has come to be a pejorative, perhaps you'd like to clarify.
I would actually go so far as to claim that a real skeptic is one who is able to transcend thier own premise of what is logical and reasonable and is willing to look skeptically at both sides, or rather entertain within thier minds the possibility of an alternate reality besides thier own.
No. A "real skeptic" (even though I've stated why I believe the term is erroneous) is content to be shown whatever is relevant and modify his/her stance accordingly. There is no "alternate reality," there is only the one.
I suppose they simply don't realize that well-poisoning, non sequitur, and guilt by association are fallacious arguments.
