Re: Top Ranking CIA Operatives Admit Al-qaeda Is a Complete Fabrication
Criticism
Critics of these conspiracy theories say they are a form of conspiracism common throughout history after a traumatic event in which conspiracy theories emerge as a mythic form of explanation (Barkun, 2003). A related criticism addresses the form of research on which the theories are based. Thomas W. Eagar, an engineering professor at MIT, suggested they "use the 'reverse scientific method'. They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-165>[166]</SUP> Eagar's criticisms also exemplify a common stance that the theories are best ignored. "I've told people that if the argument gets too mainstream, I'll engage in the debate." This, he continues, happened when Steve Jones took up the issue. The basic assumption is that conspiracy theories embody a set of previously held or quickly assembled beliefs about how society works, which are then legitimized by further "research". Taking such beliefs seriously, even if only to criticize them, it is argued, merely grants them further legitimacy.
Michael Shermer, writing in Scientific American, said: "The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking. All the evidence for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy. Such notions are easily refuted by noting that scientific theories are not built on single facts alone but on a convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry."<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-166>[167]</SUP>
Scientific American,<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-SciAm_167-0>[168]</SUP> Popular Mechanics,<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-168>[169]</SUP> and The Skeptic's Dictionary<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-169>[170]</SUP> have published articles that rebut various 9/11 conspiracy theories. Proponents of these theories have attacked the contribution to the Popular Mechanics article by senior researcher Ben Chertoff, who they say is cousin of Michael Chertoff ? current head of Homeland Security.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-170>[171]</SUP> However, U.S News says no indication of an actual connection has been revealed and Ben Chertoff has denied the allegation.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-171>[172]</SUP> Popular Mechanics has published a book entitled Debunking 9/11 Myths that expands upon the research first presented in the article.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-172>[173]</SUP> Der Spiegel dismissed 9/11 conspiracy theories as a "panoply of the absurd", stating "as diverse as these theories and their adherents may be, they share a basic thought pattern: great tragedies must have great reasons."<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-173>[174]</SUP>
Criticism
Critics of these conspiracy theories say they are a form of conspiracism common throughout history after a traumatic event in which conspiracy theories emerge as a mythic form of explanation (Barkun, 2003). A related criticism addresses the form of research on which the theories are based. Thomas W. Eagar, an engineering professor at MIT, suggested they "use the 'reverse scientific method'. They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-165>[166]</SUP> Eagar's criticisms also exemplify a common stance that the theories are best ignored. "I've told people that if the argument gets too mainstream, I'll engage in the debate." This, he continues, happened when Steve Jones took up the issue. The basic assumption is that conspiracy theories embody a set of previously held or quickly assembled beliefs about how society works, which are then legitimized by further "research". Taking such beliefs seriously, even if only to criticize them, it is argued, merely grants them further legitimacy.
Michael Shermer, writing in Scientific American, said: "The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking. All the evidence for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy. Such notions are easily refuted by noting that scientific theories are not built on single facts alone but on a convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry."<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-166>[167]</SUP>
Scientific American,<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-SciAm_167-0>[168]</SUP> Popular Mechanics,<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-168>[169]</SUP> and The Skeptic's Dictionary<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-169>[170]</SUP> have published articles that rebut various 9/11 conspiracy theories. Proponents of these theories have attacked the contribution to the Popular Mechanics article by senior researcher Ben Chertoff, who they say is cousin of Michael Chertoff ? current head of Homeland Security.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-170>[171]</SUP> However, U.S News says no indication of an actual connection has been revealed and Ben Chertoff has denied the allegation.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-171>[172]</SUP> Popular Mechanics has published a book entitled Debunking 9/11 Myths that expands upon the research first presented in the article.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-172>[173]</SUP> Der Spiegel dismissed 9/11 conspiracy theories as a "panoply of the absurd", stating "as diverse as these theories and their adherents may be, they share a basic thought pattern: great tragedies must have great reasons."<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-173>[174]</SUP>