After publishing my article “9/11 Pseudo-Science: A US Foreign Policy Built on Fraud” I asked for an official response from CFI as to why they support the fraudulent official story of 9/11 despite it having absolutely no scientific evidence for their proposed explanation of the key event of 9/11, the Twin Tower collapses. Since this request was ignored, perhaps Dr. Novella would like to respond here. Without committing any logical fallacies of course.

To address the question as to why more skeptics don’t post on multiple topics — that also has a lot to do with effective, intelligent marketing. “Marketing” as in telling a story that resonates with people spreads, not in the “sell-you-stuff” kind of marketing.

We are trying to spread (“sell” if you will) skepticism, and if you’re online, that usually means blogging and podcasting. Great blogs and podcasts focus on specific topics, or at least fairly specific ones. Otherwise, most people don’t read them.

We have to remember that people are browsing online usually because they’re trying to solve problem in their life (e.g. Science-Based Medicine solves problems related to making skeptical medical decisions and identifying pseudoscience in healthcare, something many people can and do benefit from). They usually aren’t looking for a new way of thinking, but if that new way of thinking solves problems for them, then they accept it.

Along those same lines, I think another key aspect of skepticism is that everyone is included. You don’t have to get a license, become approved, or reach a certain age to be a skeptic. You could say this is inherit to all major movements, we place a greater focus on scientific research, and a lot of people become intimidated and assume that others always know better.

This could be categorized under your point about neuropsychological humility, as it’s a self imposed appeal to authority, but people need to understand that as long as they honor the other key principles of skepticism such as critical thinking, they’re included.

Thanks again,

- Armi

I do think we need to be open and honest with the value judgements we have made before going on to show how they relate to empirical reality.

I think the human race has a long way to go with philosophy and psychology before we can start using empiricism to inform our value judgements, I think this is worth doing. However, we are not there yet. We are getting closer but we still make many assumptions and value judgements that aren’t empirical or widely shared.

Keep up the great work.

So, when limiting the sources of knowledge to the scope of scientifically certified facts, one might be seduced to install something like a filter between knowledge and the ways to deal with knowledge in a responsible and wise manner. My point is: there are sources of knowledge that cannot be scientifically falsified or verified (like emotional insights, sense of beauty, insights from meditation etc) that still can form an important part of a person’s wisdom.

Population genetics -> no Adam and Eve -> no original sin -> no need for redemption.
End of Christianity.

That has not been proven. Who’s to say that they can’t simply ignore the whispers whilst being unable to prevent their eyelids from being forced open. Whose to say that a bit of both won’t get them round.

Socioeconomic Humility – Being a functional skeptic requires knowledge of all the various ways in which our perception and opinions are influenced by the circumstances of our birth with regards to: race, gender, culture, economic status and educational opportunities. Our prejudices in forming values are affected by our social environment and financial standing in society perhaps as much as they’re affected our physiology. We should have an awareness of how these things affect ourselves and others as we approach topics of skepticism.