One of the threads on the Calgary Skeptics forum is about 911 conspiracy theories. Michael came across the calgary911truth.org website a few months ago, and there’s been an ongoing discussion of conspiracy theories since then. Recently, Wakeup, a new member of our forum, posted a response to everyone’s comments in which he (I’m just guessing here that Wakeup is a “he”…) said he didn’t want to “argue that either side of this debate is right” – and then proceeded to make several claims for the conspiracy theorists’ side. I just wanted to take a few minutes to respond to his post, since there are several errors, especially in his definition of skepticism.
Wakeup responded to another user’s post that “education, awareness, and the willingness to face our biggest fears or uncertainties are just some of the areas we need to campaign for as skeptics, realists, factitioners” with the following statement:
This argument can go either way. The “conspiracy theorists” march under the same mandate.”
He’s partially right about this – conspiracy theorists do claim they advocate for awareness. Unfortunately the “awareness” they fight for is a false awareness. Skeptics seek the truth, not the easiest way out. Skepticism is not about defending a minority position. Just because we “defend the version of truth that is more widely agreed upon” doesn’t mean that version is wrong. Skeptics examine evidence, they consult experts, and they determine what the consensus is by talking with professionals in the field. In many cases, certainly, “the version of truth that is more widely agreed upon” by the public (for example, over half of Americans are creationists, and I would bet that the majority of people believe in at least one form of alternative medicine) is the one which the evidence refutes – in these cases we are skeptical of the claims made by the majority, despite the fact that we are outnumbered. Skepticism has nothing to do with choosing the side fewer people are on.
He goes on to say
All I want you to do, is question what you see, and pursue complete disclosure of the facts. All most of us want is for the government to stop dodging questions and obscuring the details… I just want you to ask questions, as ’skeptics’ do.
He “just want us to ask questions” – we’ve already done that. We’ve asked what the most reasonable explanation is and where the evidence points. And we drew the conclusion that the World Trade Centre disaster was indeed a conspiracy – several members of Al Qaeda conspired to hijack planes and fly them into highly populated buildings that symbolize America’s capitalism and freedom. Dozens of people were involved in the planning and execution of this event, but none of them were members of the United States Government.
Most REAL conspiracy theorists do not completely believe their own theories. They merely wish to exhaust all possibilities before accepting a story about 3000 people dying because “they hate our freedom”, when there is so much that suggests there may be more too [sic] it.
Accepting a story doesn’t mean you’re not skeptical. If it’s a story based on a consensus of legitimate expert opinions and on the available evidence, then it’s most certainly the story that should be accepted. I disagree with the statement that conspiracy theorists don’t completely believe the theories they spout – I’ve read the Calgary911Truth.org website, and visited forums with conspiracy theorists, and I have a feeling they whole-heartedly believe everything they’re saying. I’m sure there are some who shout “conspiracy!” just for the sake of it, but I think “most REAL conspiracy theorists” definitely believe what they’re saying.
What exactly is there that “suggests there may be more to it”? None the statements I’ve seen about government involvement in the September 11 disaster hold any merit – they either commit a logical fallacy or are easily proven wrong. Rather than list a bunch of them here, see the Skepdic entry on 911 Conspiracies.
Not only does Wakeup not remain neutral, he seems to be confused about what exactly skepticism is. Conspiracy theories, not just about 911 but also including the moon landing or the “New World Order” (note: that website is super credulous), are interesting in that those that call themselves “skeptics” are simply people who believe something different than what the government, or the media, or the public tells them. Believing the opposite of what those in authority say just for the sake of it is not skepticism – it’s spite. Disagreeing with someone is not at all the same thing as skepticism. Certainly, skepticism is called for with any claim the government or the media makes, but landing at the same conclusion these institutions did is not a bad thing and doesn’t make you unskeptical.
Don’t you think it’s time the 911 conspiracy theories were laid to rest?
