What passes for 9/11 skepticism?
On the fifth anniversary of 9/11, Democracy Now! ran a debate between Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas, the makers of the film Loose Change, and James Miegs and David Dunbar, who were two of the editors at Popular Mechanics responsible for the book Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts. In case you've been living in a cave, Loose Change is the most popular film questioning the official version of the events of 9/11, while the Popular Mechanics study is the most prominent defense of the official version, receiving the imprimatur of "Skeptics" everywhere. (Michael Shermer, for example, gave it the thumbs-up in his own piece on 9/11 for Scientific American.)
The Loose Change folks were, sadly, shrill and incoherent. They rely heavily on what I've come to think of as "The Behe Maneuver." It goes like this: present a lot of arguments that clearly point in one and only one direction, but disavow any responsibility for the obvious conclusion. You know, like the way Michael Behe goes on and on about how his evidence supposedly proves that life on Earth was created by a superhuman intelligence of unlimited power which transcends space, time, and physical law... but gosh, he's not trying to imply anything about who that creator might be, and it's so unfair of the evolutionists to say that he's talking about God by another name. Avery and Bermas do the exact same thing. They claim that the World Trade Center was pre-rigged with demolition charges, that a missile was shot into the Pentagon, and that Cheney gave a stand-down order which prevented the planes from being shot down before they hit the WTC. Does that mean they think Cheney deliberately blew up the WTC with explosives and ordered a missile to be shot at the Pentagon? Oh, heavens no. Wherever did you get that idea? They're just saying that there are a few holes in the official story which suggest that we need to investigate further.
Meanwhile, the editors at Popular Mechanics are predictably condescending and dishonest by turns. Let's look at what passes for skepticism these days:
(emphasis added)
So, Bermas is tracing the events leading up to 9/11- specifically, something that happened a mere three months before. Miegs replies by declaring that ancient history like the Kennedy administration isn't relevant to people like him, who are only interested in the facts. Not only does he get to put words in Bermas's mouth, he gets the extra bonus of irrelevantly dragging JFK into a conspiracy debate.
So that's what has Michael Shermer all excited! And it isn't even the only time Miegs grossly misrepresents his opponents. To wit:
Avery and Bermas point out that a number of government agencies are potential suspects. Miegs responds as if they had claimed that all those agencies were involved. But, of course, that's an entirely different claim. Agatha Christie novels routinely present multiple suspects for a crime- but only in one case did Poirot claim that all of the suspects were collectively guilty. Not content with that bit of misrepresentation, he then falsely accuses Avery and Bermas of claiming that the editors of Popular Mechanics are part of a deliberate cover-up. He accuses them of claiming that the firefighters are part of the cover-up, even though Bermas specifically stated that he trusted the testimony of the firefighters. He even throws in David Corn, whom no one had previously mentioned in the debate at all!
A few other high points:
Isn't that just grotesque? I think I'll have to start using that one. Any time someone disagrees with me on a subject of importance, I can just tell them this isn't a parlor game, and thereby wrap myself in the mantle of the victims.
Remember, kids- pathologize, pathologize, pathologize! Miegs and Dunbar believe in a conspiracy theory. Avery and Berman dared to critique it. Ergo, Avery and Berman are the real "conspiracy theorists," and therefore are paranoid, and therefore have no more credibility than Holocaust Deniers, so there's no need to pay any attention to them, children.
While we're on the topic, let me note that a number of my readers like to routinely accuse me of pathologizing dissent. Their argument goes like this: "We Skeptics are just pointing out that conspiracy theorists and creationists are wrong because they're always driven by the same pathological thought patterns. But you routinely claim that Skeptics use bad thinking too! You have a total double standard!"
Since some of the primates apparently need it spelled out for them, let me explain in words of as few syllables as possible:
The Skeptics are using a fallacy called "refutation by labeling." They believe in conspiracies like Watergate. They believe that a shadowy, worldwide conspiracy called Al-Qaeda was behind the events of 9/11. Some people believe in conspiracies that the Skeptics don't believe in. Some people even dare to question the conspiracies that the Skeptics do believe in. The Skeptics respond to this by making an imaginary category of "conspiracy theorists," to whom they assign all those people they disagree with. Then they declare that the "conspiracy theorists" are sick people, no different from creationists and Holocaust Deniers. And, having thus pathologized dissent, they don't need to think so much. The next time someone questions the Skeptics' beliefs about conspiracies, they can just say, "Oh, these conspiracy theorists are all crazy."
I, on the other hand, look at a subculture of people who have self-identified as Skeptics. I can't help but notice that these people exhibit pathological thinking- and they're nasty, rude little trolls to boot. It has nothing to do with their beliefs. Oftentimes I agree with their conclusions, however much I disagree with their logic. I happen to believe that WTC7 was not, repeat NOT rigged with explosives. (And as I say that, I have the sinking realization that, as usual, a few illiterate skeptics will fail to see the "not" in that sentence.) That doesn't change the fact that James Miegs is a lying, snotty little sack of excrement.
The difference between Skeptics and me is pretty simple:
When I criticise Skeptics, they routinely say things like, "Oh, you must believe in UFO's or Bigfoot or something. That's the only conceivable reason someone would criticise us."
That's pathologizing dissent.
To which I respond, "Actually, I agree with you about Bigfoot and UFO's. What we disagree on is the fact that you're an asshole."
That's pathologizing being an asshole.
Do you understand the difference now?
The Loose Change folks were, sadly, shrill and incoherent. They rely heavily on what I've come to think of as "The Behe Maneuver." It goes like this: present a lot of arguments that clearly point in one and only one direction, but disavow any responsibility for the obvious conclusion. You know, like the way Michael Behe goes on and on about how his evidence supposedly proves that life on Earth was created by a superhuman intelligence of unlimited power which transcends space, time, and physical law... but gosh, he's not trying to imply anything about who that creator might be, and it's so unfair of the evolutionists to say that he's talking about God by another name. Avery and Bermas do the exact same thing. They claim that the World Trade Center was pre-rigged with demolition charges, that a missile was shot into the Pentagon, and that Cheney gave a stand-down order which prevented the planes from being shot down before they hit the WTC. Does that mean they think Cheney deliberately blew up the WTC with explosives and ordered a missile to be shot at the Pentagon? Oh, heavens no. Wherever did you get that idea? They're just saying that there are a few holes in the official story which suggest that we need to investigate further.
Meanwhile, the editors at Popular Mechanics are predictably condescending and dishonest by turns. Let's look at what passes for skepticism these days:
JASON BERMAS: ...in June of 2001, Cheney signs a DOD memo putting shoot-down orders in his hands, Rumsfeld' hands and Bush's hands alone, where it was standard operating procedure if colonels were to intercept these planes and they saw a threat, they could do the shoot-down order.
JAMES MIEGS: ...We're not a political magazine. We're about facts. We're about what happens when airplanes crash, how buildings are built, and so we're not going back to conspiracies that might have been hatched, you know, during the Kennedy administration or other eras, but we are looking for physical evidence, positive evidence for any of these claims. Every time we get into detail on one, they fall apart...
(emphasis added)
So, Bermas is tracing the events leading up to 9/11- specifically, something that happened a mere three months before. Miegs replies by declaring that ancient history like the Kennedy administration isn't relevant to people like him, who are only interested in the facts. Not only does he get to put words in Bermas's mouth, he gets the extra bonus of irrelevantly dragging JFK into a conspiracy debate.
So that's what has Michael Shermer all excited! And it isn't even the only time Miegs grossly misrepresents his opponents. To wit:
AMY GOODMAN: And who do you believe blew up Building Seven?
DYLAN AVERY: We don’t want to try to implicate anybody. We’re just trying to tell people to go out and research for themselves. But, I mean, you have to ask yourself, who could have possibly placed explosives inside Word Trade Center Building Seven, secretly without anyone noticing, and especially the Twin Towers?
JASON BERMAS: Especially because the CIA, the DOD, the Secret Service are all located there.
DYLAN AVERY: Yeah, I mean, that building was a government hotspot.
AMY GOODMAN: Ten seconds, Jim Meigs.
JAMES MEIGS: You know, conspiracies have a way of constantly expanding. You just listed a whole range of government agencies. Apparently the fire fighters we talked to, we at Popular Mechanics, other journalists, our friend David Corn at The Nation is accused to being part of this massive cover-up. The fact is, there are always little details that don't always add up until you finish your research.
Avery and Bermas point out that a number of government agencies are potential suspects. Miegs responds as if they had claimed that all those agencies were involved. But, of course, that's an entirely different claim. Agatha Christie novels routinely present multiple suspects for a crime- but only in one case did Poirot claim that all of the suspects were collectively guilty. Not content with that bit of misrepresentation, he then falsely accuses Avery and Bermas of claiming that the editors of Popular Mechanics are part of a deliberate cover-up. He accuses them of claiming that the firefighters are part of the cover-up, even though Bermas specifically stated that he trusted the testimony of the firefighters. He even throws in David Corn, whom no one had previously mentioned in the debate at all!
A few other high points:
"This is not a movie."
"People died. We're talking about real human beings here, you know. This wasn't a movie. This isn’t a parlor game."
Isn't that just grotesque? I think I'll have to start using that one. Any time someone disagrees with me on a subject of importance, I can just tell them this isn't a parlor game, and thereby wrap myself in the mantle of the victims.
"In the world of paranoid conspiracy theories -- there are no coincidences.'
"...we're not going back to conspiracies that might have been hatched, you know, during the Kennedy administration or other eras..."
"You know, this is a wonderful example of how conspiracy theories work. Any time there’s a little bit of doubt, a little bit of area where we don't know everything, then the answer immediately is, well, someone must have blown it up. It’s a form of argumentation that’s also used by creationists. If they can find one little gap in the evolutionary record, they say evolution’s a hoax. Or Holocaust deniers -- Holocaust denial works with very similar --"
Remember, kids- pathologize, pathologize, pathologize! Miegs and Dunbar believe in a conspiracy theory. Avery and Berman dared to critique it. Ergo, Avery and Berman are the real "conspiracy theorists," and therefore are paranoid, and therefore have no more credibility than Holocaust Deniers, so there's no need to pay any attention to them, children.
While we're on the topic, let me note that a number of my readers like to routinely accuse me of pathologizing dissent. Their argument goes like this: "We Skeptics are just pointing out that conspiracy theorists and creationists are wrong because they're always driven by the same pathological thought patterns. But you routinely claim that Skeptics use bad thinking too! You have a total double standard!"
Since some of the primates apparently need it spelled out for them, let me explain in words of as few syllables as possible:
The Skeptics are using a fallacy called "refutation by labeling." They believe in conspiracies like Watergate. They believe that a shadowy, worldwide conspiracy called Al-Qaeda was behind the events of 9/11. Some people believe in conspiracies that the Skeptics don't believe in. Some people even dare to question the conspiracies that the Skeptics do believe in. The Skeptics respond to this by making an imaginary category of "conspiracy theorists," to whom they assign all those people they disagree with. Then they declare that the "conspiracy theorists" are sick people, no different from creationists and Holocaust Deniers. And, having thus pathologized dissent, they don't need to think so much. The next time someone questions the Skeptics' beliefs about conspiracies, they can just say, "Oh, these conspiracy theorists are all crazy."
I, on the other hand, look at a subculture of people who have self-identified as Skeptics. I can't help but notice that these people exhibit pathological thinking- and they're nasty, rude little trolls to boot. It has nothing to do with their beliefs. Oftentimes I agree with their conclusions, however much I disagree with their logic. I happen to believe that WTC7 was not, repeat NOT rigged with explosives. (And as I say that, I have the sinking realization that, as usual, a few illiterate skeptics will fail to see the "not" in that sentence.) That doesn't change the fact that James Miegs is a lying, snotty little sack of excrement.
The difference between Skeptics and me is pretty simple:
When I criticise Skeptics, they routinely say things like, "Oh, you must believe in UFO's or Bigfoot or something. That's the only conceivable reason someone would criticise us."
That's pathologizing dissent.
To which I respond, "Actually, I agree with you about Bigfoot and UFO's. What we disagree on is the fact that you're an asshole."
That's pathologizing being an asshole.
Do you understand the difference now?
posted by Wintermute at 10:50 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home