Here's an 
article  on a 9/11 conspiracy physicist that brings up a number of issues  we're discussing in class (specifically 
appealing  to authority and 
confirmation  bias).     I've quoted an excerpt of the relevant section on the  lone-wolf     semi-expert (physicist) versus the overwhelming consensus of  more     relevant experts (structural engineers):
While   there are a handful of   Web sites that  seek to debunk the claims of  Mr.  Jones and others in   the movement, most  mainstream scientists, in  fact,  have not seen fit   to engage them.
"There's  nothing to  debunk,"  says Zdenek P. Bazant, a professor of   civil and  environmental   engineering at Northwestern University and   the author of  the first   peer-reviewed paper on the World Trade Center   collapses.
"It's  a   non-issue," says Sivaraj Shyam-Sunder, a lead investigator   for the    National Institute of Standards and Technology's study of the   collapses.
Ross    B. Corotis, a professor of civil engineering at the University   of    Colorado at Boulder and a member of the editorial board at the   journal    Structural Safety, says that most engineers are pretty   settled on what    happened at the World Trade Center. "There's not   really disagreement  as   to what happened for 99 percent of the   details," he says.
And  one more excerpt on reasons to be skeptical of conspiracy theories in  general:
One   of the most  common   intuitive problems people have with conspiracy   theories is that  they   require positing such complicated webs of secret   actions. If the   twin  towers fell in a carefully orchestrated  demolition  shortly after    being hit by planes, who set the charges? Who  did the  planning? And   how  could hundreds, if not thousands of people  complicit  in the   murder of  their own countrymen keep quiet? Usually, Occam's razor  intervenes.
Another   common problem with conspiracy theories is  that they tend to   impute   cartoonish motives to "them" — the elites who  operate in the   shadows.   The end result often feels like a heavily  plotted movie   whose   characters do not ring true.
Then there are  other cognitive Do   Not Enter signs: When history   ceases to resemble a  train of conflicts   and ambiguities and becomes   instead a series of  disinformation   campaigns, you sense that a basic   self-correcting  mechanism of thought   has been disabled. A bridge is   out, and paranoia  yawns below.
No comments:
Post a Comment