All "CTers" lumped into one big tin-foil hatted group

[Thoth II]

I belong to different forums, and Jim's seems to be the only one dedicated to applying the principles of critical thinking, logic, and the scientific method in a CAREFUL way to drawn reasoned conclusions (for example, in his books on JFK he carefully sifts out the real from the fake evidence). Other forums seems to throw around the "Conspiracy Theorists" label to apply to anything that is not status quo.

For example, they throw together the following groups , mix them togethers as "CTers" (or nutjobs, whatever):
UFO believers, JFK CTers, 911 truthers, moon hoax (HB) believers, cattle mutilation theorists, cryptozoologists, and on and on.

I think each and every case must be dissected carefully and be true to the principles of critical thinking. Terms like "conspiracy theorist" are obvious ploys just to put a tin-foil hat on everyone with unconventional beliefs, but does not apply the scientific method.

And the higher up we go on the journalist ladder, the worse this gets, e.g. Hannity, so more people are being subjected to this rubbish (which is why their heads get filled with rubbish to the point they can't reason). And I seriously worry that this intellectual dishonesty is working its way into the minds of college students who are the future leaders.

[Thoth II]

Into the cults:

 

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/01/911-photographic-portfolio-...

 

Jim Fetzer and Nick Kollerstrom were recently talking about the above exchange with Judy Wood's "cult".  I am very troubled by this exchange.  It shows me again and again that Prof. Fetzer's use of rigid application of scientific method, avoidance of logical fallacies, etc., are the only way the 911 truth movement is going to gain any traction.  For this is the way to "truth", scientific method.  I am very troubled about how ignorant and ego driven these 911 truth leaders have become (just as I am troubled by the same thing in JFK research).

 

Why don't people understand a basic fact:  on 911 we were presented a very puzzling phenomenon.  Why then do they think they can just "wing" the "truth".  Don't they get it, it needs application of a tried and true method, and nothing is better than science.  I just don't get it.

[Thoth II]

I no longer consider Brad Meltzer an honest investigative journalist.  I consider his show a very clever disinfo op. and now he is using the Tin Foil Hat perjorative his latest season.

[Thoth II]

CRITICAL THINKING 101:  

 

I've always believed that there are many opportunities for american and international citizens to exercise their critical thinking skills and apply scientific method to come up with the best hypothesis to explain a puzzling phenomenon, and what could be more interesting than murder cases from JFK to Nicole Brown Simpson.  I am once again reminded of this today after watching opening statements in the Casey Anthony trial:  this is an excellent example for people to exercise critical thinking.  Of course, both prosecution and defense have laid out their theory (really we should call it hypothesis) of the case of murder of a small child, and are going to present witnesses and forensic evidence to back up their H's.  However, the trouble with lawyers are they are special pleading advocates.  This case will evolve over the next several days and will give the critical thinker a chance to weigh the credibility of witnesses and forensic evidence (explanandum) and see which H (explanans) can explain the evidence the best, although in real science the acceptable H is tentative but at the end of the trial the "verdict" is final, that is the difference, but still an excellent example.  All the lumaniries like Geraldo and Nancy Grace are there.  

[Thoth II]

An appearance by Michael Shermer founder of the skeptics group, on May 21 2011 coast to coast with Ian Punnett  increases my deep suspicions about this movement.  Shermer actually made 911 and JFK a target of his attack against "CT" people on this show, repeating earlier statements, and talks about them in a recent book.  I cannot for one second believe that a guy like him could seriously think Lee Oswald shot JFK unless his society is being funded by the intelligence apparatus.   I no longer trust the "skeptics" on any of their commentary, and I will now include Phil Plaitt plus Brad Meltzer in my suspicions.  All these guys are "skeptics" and they all have one thing in common: their attack and ridiculing of CT people.  Why?  I also am very concerned that this skeptic movement is drawing in legions of young people with pseudo scientific trendy stuff and 10 year old language and behavoir, although in Plaitt's case he is over forty which is young, but not that young.

[James H. Fetzer]

Taking the case of Michael Shermer, the editor of SKEPTIC magazine, he supports the "official account" of the assassination of JFK and the "official account of 9/11", very much in the mold of Noam Chomsky. See, for example, my radio debate with Shermer, which is archived on 911scholars.org on the home page and at

http://twilightpines.com/media/Shermer_Fetzer_Rd_1_09_11_07.mp3 (Round 1) and

http://twilightpines.com/media/Shermer_Fetzer_Rd_2_09_11_07.mp3 (Round 2)

I would submit that these are very peculiar positions for SKEPTIC to represent, especially given the massive available, relevant evidence that disproves both conclusively. I have drawn my own inferences about him. Listen for yourself and draw your own conclusions. I think this is not a difficult call, alas, which saddens me.

[Thoth II]

On the topic of Phil Plaitt, since he's committing the fallacies referred to in this blog; does anyone have an opinion of "skepticism". I bring this up because certain people, Phil Plaitt, James Randi, and Michael Shermer principles among them, have been promoting this idea to the public recently.

It bothers me to an extent because I think "skepticism" as they use it is really just debunkery and not true application of principles of critical thinking. Any ideas on this?

[James H. Fetzer]

Good observations, Thoth II. I could not agree more. Anyone who has never read "Thinking about 'Conspiracy
Theories': 9/11 and JFK", should take the time to fortify themselves in discussing this topic. It is archived here;
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/fetzerexpandedx.htm Should anyone wants a copy, let me know and I'll send it.

[Thoth II]

One popular science personality, Phil Plaitt, the Bad Astronomer, has a blog in which today he's quoted as:

"Oh, and to the Plasma/Electric Universe believers who always froth and foam about how "mainstream" scientists don’t understand magnetism and plasma: you’re looking increasingly marginalized, dudes. You might want to look into a new line of work, like UFOs, or 9/11 theories. Science makes progress while pseudoscience makes excuses… and your field ("field"! Oh man, I slay me!) is looking weaker every day."

So what this fairly famous scientist/science popularizer is doing is what I claim in this blog, he's lumping : UFOs, 911 theories, and pseudoscience all together.

What is sad is that otherwise very competent scientists (I've followed his blog and forum) are falling into this trap of lumping things together without careful examination. This is why I respect Jim, because having taught courses in critical thinking, logic,and scientific method, he wouldn't fall into this trap like those scientists are.

I must say, for educated men/women, they sure are not thinking things through clearly. Or else, and this worries me, many of them have their salaries tied up in federal government contracts and they dare not delve into the "unspoken subjects" like 911.