A Call For Incredulity

in truth •  2 months ago

Pick your poison. 9/11 conspiracies, ancient aliens, Russian espionage, flat earth, spirit science, masons, the Illuminati, whatever. On the internet, you can find someone willing to tell you anything, and weave a tapestry of words and images to support it. If you don't take the time to seriously examine both the evidence presented and the reasoning applied to that evidence, especially if it is an advanced subject, it is easy to be duped.

Don't fall for confirmation bias. Just because something aligns with your preconceptions, that doesn't make it true. Test with the intent to discredit. Seriously consider alternate arguments for cause and effect. Remember that post hoc and cum hoc arguments are fallacious for a reason. Partisan or national allegiance also blinds us to reality as we toe the party line instead of considering the matter at hand dispassionately and rationally.

Conspiracy theories are fun, but the burden of proof falls on the one making the extraordinary claim, and extraordinary evidence is necessary to support such claims. Further, regardless of the validity of such claims, consider the ramifications. Is it something within your sphere of control? If not, knowledge is not worthless, but obsession can be unhealthy, and time used in pursuit of falsehoods or groundless speculation cannot be recovered.

Credulity is "readiness or willingness to believe especially on slight or uncertain evidence." Incredulity is the inverse, a trait of skepticism and disbelief. If your first instinct is to doubt, you are far better served when new ideas are presented. I do not mean to suggest a sort of belligerent refusal to accept truth, but that truth must be proven.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

One of the best posts Ive ever read on Steemit and possibly the one that 99% ought to read. Resteemed to probably no effect sadly but thank you, your effort is truly appreciated :-)


It is a very thoughtful post. Threw in a resteem as well. Think I saw this because of yours so it did have an effect. :)

Great post. Straight forward and concise. I'm learning to appreciate critical rationality more and more. It's difficult though, the old onoin analogy; just layers and layers, and I begin to wonder if there is going to be any core of absolute objectiveness when I get to the middle.

Posted using Partiko Android

Totally agree. Nowadays people doesn't confirm their believes and thoughts even though they have a huge quantity of information in their hands, which is a cellphone connected in the internet.
Fake news as spreading like disease and people are contaminated because they don't receive their vaccines, which is, research for 2 minutes to prove if that is real or not.


It's almost like schools teach people to trust perceived authorities unquestioningly rather than critically analyze what they are told...


Yeap, but nowadays our critical is based in "how much this person is talk as the same as me".
If I said that the sky is red, and you say that is read, so I will completely agree with you, but if I said that is blue, automatically you will disagree with me, without questioning.
That in todays society is the cancer of any good discussion.

I agree with the general idea but am not completely sold on how national allegiance leads to a skewed viewpoint.

It don't think it is necessarily true but certainly could be true it some instances especially when the nation-state engages in any kind of indoctrination of its citizenry. Take North Korea as an extreme example. With that, national allegiance and/or patriotism can lead to certain biases as such could render a person subject to being indoctrinated.

Ultimately, we all have a bias to some extent unless maybe one is a pure empiricist but even that has it's shortcomings (ie human error, fudged data, etc). Are certain truth claims beyond empirical proof? I think so which is why people conjecture regarding theories. The question is whether or not such inquiry is unprofitable. I guess that would tie into the person's values which would be related to presuppositions regarding the world around us.

Aside from whether or not these speculations are profitable or not, think when it boils down to if we able to ascertain truth in spite of our internal bias? I think so but it is crucial that we acknowledge our bias and presuppositions first.

Posted using Partiko Android


Nationalism is the hardest propaganda to overcome. I don't know where you are from, but in the US, it permeates the culture. Swear a loyalty oath to the magic skycloth. Sing the theme song before playing sportsball. The troops are "fighting for our freedom" no matter what. The police "serve and protect" regardless of the abuses that come to light. Legality defines morality. You may not like the politicians, but you gotta respect the office and support the system. Love it or leave it. And so on. If you don't think to look for it, it's invisible because we are so accustomed to it.

I suppose it's possible that 19 terrorists armed with nothing more than box cutters didn't completely overwhelm the military forces of the most advanced and heavily armed nation in the history of the world, but given how the event was used by proven liars and fascists to institute an Orwellian police state in the 'Land of the Free', justify wars and covert military coups and actions across the Middle East, and enrich various defense contractors that American politicians have vital financial interest in, that seems extremely likely to me.

I mean, when you follow the money all the indications are that it was the USG officials and their cronies themselves that created the terrorist attack so they could achieve the stated goals of the PNAC, and line their pockets. Also, the nature of the destruction resulting from the attack was not possible absent demolition charges having been previously planted, and the Patriot Act was prepared long in advance of the attack, so the devious ploys of the terrorists clearly either had infiltrated American defenses, the free press, and security at the World Trade Center - or were nothing more than vapid claims by the actual terrorists in the US Government.

It's not like the United States wasn't begun with false flags, like the Boston Tea Party, in which the protesters were in the uniforms of Native Americans, and hasn't continually and habitually conducted them throughout it's history as has been publicly acknowledged by USG officials, from the sinking of the Maine to the Gulf of Tonkin. In fact, I can hardly think of any war or military action involving the US in which a false flag didn't figure in the recruitment of public opinion.

But not 9/11! Surely we, unlike all other Americans throughout the history of our country, were unable to be fooled. Just because al Qaeda was created by Zbigniew Brzezinski under President Jimmy Carter and now is the obvious ally of the USG in it's aggressive war to destroy Syria doesn't mean those terrorists weren't acting independently in the 9/11 attack.

USG officials denied it. Surely the mere promises of politicians carry more weight than all the physical evidence, right?



I doubt the Boston Tea Party was a false flag. I don't think anyone thought the disguises were going to make the British think it was a native attack on ships in the harbor.

And even before 9/11, passengers on commercial planes were disarmed by law. Further, "duck and cover" was the tactic advised by experts when confronted with violence. Past hijackings didn't indicate a suicide attack motive would ever be used. Hindsight is always 20/20, but at the time, it really isn't entirely impossible to believe a coordinated attack like that by a decentralized non-state organization could be successful.


"I doubt the Boston Tea Party was a false flag."

Please. It was the very definition of a false flag - an attempt to blame the actions of one party on another through subterfuge.

"19 terrorists armed with nothing more than box cutters did[...] completely overwhelm the military forces of the most advanced and heavily armed nation in the history of the world..."

That's actually not possible, IMHO.

Further, public statement of George W. Bush was that government had never contemplated planes being flown into buildings. That's a provable lie.

You neglect that pools of molten steel were so hot that they remained molten for weeks underground - impossible from any source of heat except incendiary munitions. BBC reported that Building Seven had collapsed while it was visible over the reporter's shoulder in the background.

The official conspiracy theory is utterly unbelievable, and those that promulgated it proven liars. There's a reason that Aiding and Abetting, Misprision of a Felony, and Accessory After the Fact are crimes.

Those that cover up the crimes prevent apprehension of criminals, and the lies Americans are told to swallow about 9/11 are crimes themselves.