Truthers Versus Debunkers

Douglas Herman, who seems to be making a hobby out of attacking "debunkers", writes another unintentionally hilarious article for Rense.com. Pot, meet kettle.

Debunkers resemble that rich and well-educated fellow at the rail of the doomed Titanic who exclaimed: 'This ship cannot possibly sink!' Meanwhile the uneducated coal stokers stand beside him, shaking their grimy heads, having seen torrents of water gushing into the ship, and thinking what idiots these educated people are because they want--NO, DEMAND!--unscientific things to be true.

Most Truthers are like scientists, researchers, and good detectives. Most debunkers resemble stubborn alchemists, having devised a pet hypothesis, that is 'a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified,' and several lofty mathematical equations, they continue trying--and failing--to melt pot metal into gold.

Truthers believe, most of us anyway, that science is empirical, that is, 'relying upon or derived from observation or experiment.' Debunkers believe a thing is true ecause they wish it to be so and say it is so, or because their powerful and dictatorial government tells them it is so. Debunkers rely less on science and more upon those with advanced degrees, hired by that powerful, dictatorial government, to say 911 happene [sic] exactly as the government says it did.

Unfortunately he is missing the obvious point, that based on truther logic the Titanic could not have sunk. It was the unsinkable ship after all. It was designed to withstand iceberg hits. Are you telling me that ice is stronger than steel?