Volconvo Debate Forums - View Single Post

Jim · Sep 9, 2003, 09:25 pm

I did look into it. A lot. Read my post on the thread about the 9/11 conspiracy.

Infowars is very, very poor research and speculation. It's unscientific and counterproductive. There are plenty of real reasons that various leaders need to go to prison; there's no need to make up anything.

Here is a Skeptical Inquirer article on many 9/11 hoaxes. The first part deals with those who believe that the Pentagon wasn't hit by a plane, but rather a bomb of some sort. This is the kind of thinking that Infowars (and others like it) partake in.

CSICOP

My problem with conspiracy theorism is that questions are used as proof of something. Like saying about the Pentagon, "Why did they put sand on the ground if they weren't trying to cover something up?!" The question poses as logic, when in it's really just a lack of knowledge of the questioner. It's easy to make these statements because it just requires a little imagination and no effort. If you try and convince yourself of anything, you're gonna find evidence. If you're really trying to find an objective truth, you have to collect knowledge and then interpret, not the other way around.

Sep 9, 2003, 09:25 pm	#18 (permalink) (top)
Jim Sedimentary Rock Posts: 24	I did look into it. A lot. Read my post on the thread about the 9/11 conspiracy. Infowars is very, very poor research and speculation. It's unscientific and counterproductive. There are plenty of real reasons that various leaders need to go to prison; there's no need to make up anything. Here is a Skeptical Inquirer article on many 9/11 hoaxes. The first part deals with those who believe that the Pentagon wasn't hit by a plane, but rather a bomb of some sort. This is the kind of thinking that Infowars (and others like it) partake in. CSICOP My problem with conspiracy theorism is that questions are used as proof of something. Like saying about the Pentagon, "Why did they put sand on the ground if they weren't trying to cover something up?!" The question poses as logic, when in it's really just a lack of knowledge of the questioner. It's easy to make these statements because it just requires a little imagination and no effort. If you try and convince yourself of anything, you're gonna find evidence. If you're really trying to find an objective truth, you have to collect knowledge and then interpret, not the other way around.