Why Michael Shermer Believes Weird Things...

[osulliv1]

Shermer is both far smarter and more rationally/analytically capable than the poster here, who manages himself to prove Shermer's point by making a classic fallacy of assertion. It's a non-argument to claim Shermer's doing the same thing without providing any evidence other than opinion. But it's typical of right-wingers who appear to believe that opinion is as good as facts and analysis.

[CripplingDuality]

@osulliv1

I don't tihnk he is a right winger. But he is a Truther, which is retarded.

[magprob]

I believe that 90% of what 90% of the people believe, is 100% wrong. I believe, that 100% of what I alone believe, is 100% correct. You will not believe me, therefore, you are of the 90% of people, in which 90% of what you believe, is 100% wrong because, 10% of the people, believe 100% of what I know to be true.

[faithmichaels]

@SilencingTheMacine-U read a 911 truth book once?please go to the 911 debunkers blog and do indepth research...or firefightersfor911truth,or911t­ruthorg. siteafter that if U still disbelieve... it will not be because u did NOT do the independent in depth research

[faithmichaels]

@innersmile72 I hear ya talking ,calling people names,calling folks cult worshiper equivalents ect. so where are the facts to back up ur claims?so far all I have seen from u in the comments are lame strawman arguments,plus childish name calling..it seems the establishment did a great job on brainwashing u..for all I have heard is the same tired rhetoric of those who have never researched in depth anything they claim to believe beyond the government told us so

[ISamuelII]

Okay Schemer (I couldn't resist) tell us how a gov plotted out to follow a book, suddenly in the biggest crime that side of the Mississippi, the book is tossed out and everything the book calls basic police work is absolutely carried out in direct opposition to that book. Destroyed evidence should be a clue. Obstruction of justice and not forming a Grand Jury inquiry into the crimes for nearly two years is another fews clues. The 911 Con Mission.

The Book, What Happened To The Book Mikey.

[snackbox1989]

he's a reptilian demon clone of dan brown

[InnerSmile72]

Yeah I'm sure that you, as a truther and a vaccine skeptic, could teach Shermer a thing or too... "rolleyes" anyways he just linked to this from his twitter so he appreciates the effort.

[ScootleRoyale]

@InnerSmile72 I have never said for definite that I think vaccines are bad, and I'm not opposed to vaccine technology... I just don't buy into this rabid smear campaign against people like Dr Wakefield. is it wrong to even SUGGEST that there MIGHT be a problem?

Now I do believe 100% that the twin towers on 911 were demolished because we've actualy found some of the explosives used. I've made several videos on this ... please watch them.

[InnerSmile72]

@ScootleRoyale There's no smear against him. The journalism and official proceedings concentrate on the evidence. There's nothing wrong with suggesting or reserching, there's something wrong with asserting without evidence or committing willful, or unwllfull fraud.

They have not found any explosives used. Those scientists such as Jones and Harrit are cranks and have been debunked. I watched them. You're in a cult.

[ScootleRoyale]

@InnerSmile72 You really don't wanna challenge me on the 9/11 thermite issue... I post on the 9/11 debunkers blog and we deal with thermite denialism (yes, that's what we call it), often ...

911debunkers blogspot com

The 'journalism', by brian deer is some of the worst and most unethical I've ever seen. Funny how noone has ever interviewed any of the parents of the children in Wakefield study ... why? COZ THEY ALL KNOW BRIAN DEER IS TALKING BOLLOCKS!

Watch the movie 'selective hearing'.

[ScootleRoyale]

@InnerSmile72 Well I'm sure the 9/11 family members like those featured in the BuildingWhat? ad campaign would love to know that you think of the movement they started as a 'cult'.

watch?v=hHIj9wzbYGQ

[SilencingTheMachine]

@ScootleRoyale Perhaps not a cult but a way of grieving. Some seek out John Edwards others start clubs. I read a book on the 9/11 conspiracy once and it had me convinced until most of its foundations of evidence crumbled around small articles released by much more reputable authors.

I would sell Shermer's opinion so short either. His opinions seem pretty fair to me. The book he speaks of in this video is actually an interesting, sometimes comical, book.

[ScootleRoyale]

@SilencingTheMachine I agree with alot of what Shermer talks about, my point is he is guilty of employing the very fallacies and mental gymnastics he highlights. That's why I posted this video. Shemer's a smart guy and he believes things I consider to be weird. And the reason he does is because he is good at rationalizing things into his worldview.

[ar904]

@ScootleRoyale Except the weird things Micheal Shermer believes in are based on the most reasonable and logical explanations. To paraphrase, with ordinary evidence we can make ordinary claims. In general, he doesn't make claims that don't have a solid foundation in converging lines of evidence.

[ScootleRoyale]

@ar904 When it comes to 9/11, he does. His claims are no way based on the most reasonable and logical explanations.

[ar904]

@ScootleRoyale What, then, are the most logical and reasonable explanations about 9/11? Shermer's stance is to look at the evidence, not the *lack* of it. In his argument, there is no plausible "inner circle" conspiracy, only a conspiracy of like-minded suicide/homicide airplane hijackers. If there is evidence, other than conjecture, I'd certainly be willing to look at it, as I believe most people would. Skeptics, for lack of a better word, LOVE evidence, solid and concrete. Prove him wrong.

[whitenightf3]

@ar904 The problem with appealing to logic is sooner or later you run into Godel. And of course the sceptics run into smarter scientists and philosophers than themselves. I find it amusing that people like you and others here appeal to the Cogito when most of you have never heard of it. I even had one Atheist douchbag telling me you can regress beyond the First Cause. Materialistic ideology is wrong because its based on the false paradigm of Newtonian physics.

[ar904]

@whitenightf3 A few things. 1. I admit ignorance to Godel and how he destroys logic and reason. Explain 2. I don't see how your second sentence has any relevance to your argument. 3. By Cogito, I assume you mean a position starting from doubt, a la Descartes. Again, no relevance. 4. Ad hominem attacks are useless and boring. 5. Newton was not privy to the advances made after - and in no small part because of - him. His theories were incomplete, at worst. To call them false, is disingenuous.

[whitenightf3]

@ar904 1 Its always nice to know others learn something in their interactions with me. "2 You are a little myopic if you cant assimilate the point being made. 3 People appealing to the Cogito are Naive Realist, they believe the world they see out there is as it looks. In effect people are appealing to their senses to create mental maps of the world, but Neuroscientists and others know the senses do lie. Pointing out someone is a douchebag is not an ad hominem 5 QP trumps Newton every time.

[ar904]

@whitenightf3 Five points regarding your five points.

1. I never said I learned anything from you. I said I was ignorant of Godel and his deflation of logic and reason. I then asked you to explain what you meant by that. You did not do this so I am still in the dark on this one.

[whitenightf3]

@ar904 You admitted you had never heard of Godel so it seems I taught you something. And its quite simple Godel's theorem shows us that logic eventually breaks down so although logic is a useful tool like all tools it has its limitations.

[ar904]

@whitenightf3 I never said I have never heard of Godel. I only said I haven't understood how he completely negates logic. I was hoping you could elucidate. Also, you may have missed my other posts regarding your response. Check the youtube page and please respond. I am anxious to hear what you have to say on the matter.

[whitenightf3]

@ar904 You said you were ignorant of Godel. Godel’s incompleteness theorm, which demonstrated the impossibility of proving all True statements. Shows us that at some point logic breaks down and those of us who have studied philosophy are aware of this. I have no idea what other post you are talking about maybe you can send it to my inbox and I will take a peek.

[ar904]

2. My vision has nothing to do with the fact that there are smarter people in the world than I. Everywhere you turn you will find someone with more knowledge than you on any given subject. This does not make a compelling argument as to why this is the problem with being skeptical. If you have the glasses to fix my myopia on this then I am more than willing to wear them.

[ar904]

3. Yes, the universe is mysterious and we don't know everything about it. I agree with you that our senses are limiting. You appeal to neuroscience (and "others", whatever that means) but don't acknowledge the fact that these discoveries are made using the scientific method, and the tools provided by millennia of discovery, and the powerful application of logic and deductive reasoning. It is not fair for you to cry foul only when it suits your needs.

[ar904]

4. I will accept that the atheist to whom you refer is not actually a bag of douche. If that were so then you would be considered insane to be having two-way conversations with inanimate objects. I think this is not the case. That only leaves the possibility that you called a person with whom you disagree a "douchebag" in order to deride his character, and not as a factual statement. This is *the* definition of Ad Hominem.

[ar904]

5. I accept Richard Feynman's take on QP "If you think you understand Quantum Mechanics, then you do not understand QM". I know very little to nothing on the subject and I suspect the same goes for you. What I won't do is accept the philosophical wanking of people like Deepak Chopra that cherry pick QP data in order to bolster a premise they already believe in. How can you trust such a person? How can you know their intentions are in finding the real truth? Faith does not impress me.

[ISamuelII]

@ScootleRoyale I've heard about this guy from my involvement with American Athiest so long ago. At first I thought he was on the straight and narrow for truth in all its forms, but as we've seen he is not. The track record of what it really is he objects to leads back to a,, lets call it a cold cave of a few like minded folk. It is as if he is running as a blocker for their team.

[SilencingTheMachine]

@ScootleRoyale Thermite isn't used just an explosive. And you're correct, they were demolished by two big planes hitting them.

[transhuman71]

It all boils down to two types of people. One type begins with a premise (a belief, ideology, dogma, etc.) and looks for reasons & evidence to justify it. The other type examines the evidence & logic, and uses that to arrive at a conclusion, regardless of what that conclusion may be. The former tends to stick to their beliefs no matter what, while the latter is willing to change their mind and admit they were wrong if and when warranted. Critical thinking is more about HOW you think, not WHAT.

[DrInfidel]

So smart doesn't always mean intellectually honest