Are Debunkers Just as Nutty as the Nuts They Debunk?

My favorite conspiracy theory is that 19 neanderthal hijackers with box cutters overcame all security measures, fooled NORAD, our military and intelligence agencies as well as the FAA on a day when there were drills and scenario exercises that would render us impotent to defend against an attack. The kicker is that if the US government wanted to defuse the growing questions of the people about these theories they could reopen the investigation and make fools of us all.

They can't do that because 9/11 was an inside job.

Worse in my oponion!

I've seen this go both ways. There is tons of crap presented as truth that needs debunking. And sometimes these fallacies are exposed properly. Other times the debunkers have closed minds, are very inflexible and they refuse to accept that things might be more complex than they think.

In general, the famous debunkers and some of the major debunking websites infuriate me because they are such humanists and rationalists. They refuse to accept that there are more layers of complexity to our universe than science understands.

So there is a balance between exposing inconsistencies, false assumptions, and bad science, and realizing that we understand very little about the true nature of the universe and we must therefore keep an open mind.

Exactly! I'm 'on this kick' for precisely some of the reasons you've mentioned. Neither 'side' can get at the truth--much less demonstrate it to anyone else--as long as both are put on the defensive by way of a battle of insults.

As ever, the best way to validate--or refute--an assertion is with the rational presentation of facts, points, counterpoints, evidence, etc.

I think it's too late for debunkers, though. They've been pretty much universally outed as zealots in their own right--and again, for precisely some of the reasons you've mentioned.

If there wasn't any conspiracies, there wouldn't be any theories, therefore there would be no debunkers. I go with fact and common sense and have been called a conspiracy theorist more than I care to remember. By people that have zero common sense.

Most debunkers are based in fact and rational analysis, unlike the conspiracy theories they fight.

See, IMO that last word says it all. Why the need for a 'fight'? Wouldn't rationality or critical thinking be enough to beat back bad ideas? Consider that, when a debunker makes it personal (as through combativeness or ridicule), she or he loses any chance of converting the fence sitters. (The fanatics' minds are already set, permanently, so you can take them out of the equation.) Whenever I'm faced with deciding between the more 'sane' explanations of any particular controversy and the more 'rabid,' I usually side with the sane ones. If that happens to be the conspiracy theorists, that means debunkers are wasting their time on me. I *suspect* this is true for others, but I'm not gonna be found guilty of ad populum here.

Never mind that the very definition of the word 'debunk' tends to argue against the a priori position that 'debunkers' base their derision on 'fact.' :-)

No. Because conspiracy theories are crazy, and so are their proponents usually.

There are some people that never believe anything and label people that do as wing nuts or tin foil hats.
I see them to be every bit as dangerous as any hardcore conspiracy theorist.

EXACTLY!

It's getting to the point where I take debunkers LESS seriously than the theorists. In essence, a theorist is just positing a more reasonable (to him or her) explanation for X. A debunker is a zealot.

It is one thing to debate or tell someone they are wrong but it is not right to make fun of them or call them names. There is alot we can learn from each other.

Absolutely!

Every time I think about the 'Truther' movement, I consider how simple everything would be if both sets of experts got together to ferret out the REAL truth about 9-11 once and for all.

. . .And 9-11 is just ONE example where this issue comes into play.

IMO if someone was trying to tell me something they see as ultra important it must be worth taking a look at.

Yes but calling people names and insulting them isn't the way to do it. I try to remember there is truth in both sides.

Yes but?

but?

I am questioning the "yes but" part of your response to my post.

More people are interested in being right then gaining the truth.

Not me man. I live to be wrong. That's the only way I learn anything new.

But as one might suspect, when you take that approach to new information and ideas, you find yourself being wrong less and less often. :-)

You also learn alot when you listen to other people's world views.

A lot of them are.What does that have to do with calling people names?

I don't think they are debating but if you say something they don't like they call you names.

No that is not debating.It's just name calling.

One must not confuse a skeptic for a debunker.

Exactly!

I agree.A bit of initial skepticism is always healthy.Trust but verify.
That is very different than just brushing them off as a nut job.

Right again!


Consider the following argument:

Theorist: "9-11 was an inside job because [reasons a, b and c]."

Debunker: "You're nuts! Everybody KNOWS the terrorist did it because [reasons d, e, f]!"

Rational observer: "9-11 happened just like the government said because [reasons g, h, i]."

Whose argument are you naturally more inclined to DISCOUNT right from the start?

A lot of times truth is way too scary to consider.At least it is where 9/11 is concerned.
Odd how once you believe that truth,you are more willing to have a look at other things,Gladio in particular.

Gladio. as in our state-sponsored terrorism of the NATO variety that overthrew democratically elected European leaders, murdered anyone to make sure left-leaning governments changed or were brought down, and still to this day is secretly molding nations and institutions across the continent?

Good explanation. And still,no one knows about it.

I had never heard of it either Holly. I always try to be informed about such things but you were the one who exposed me to the term Gladio. Thanks for the information. It's all part of the NWO agenda no doubt.

everyone is nutty.

Not me man. I'm the friggin' archetype of sanity. :-D

Got that right.I'm a flippin wreck.

I'm sure I'm worse.

Gawd I hope not.Wonder why I never noticed ........hmmmm