A Few Thoughts on Truthers and the Scientific Method
Just a short rant for the day.... I am getting rather annoyed at the truthers who come on this blog, like Jon Gold and John Albanese, along with "just-asking-questions" truther figures like David Ray Griffin, who are constantly complaining about "strawmen" arguments anytime we make a comment about their movement. Apparently we are not allowed to point out a single thing said by anyone in their movement unless it is universally held by every member, which would reduce the number of allowable beliefs to basically zero.
Listen you idiots. The scientific method is based on a number of core concepts regarding the strengths of hypotheses, such as the reproducibility, predictability, and falsifiability of your assertions. We are not talking about obscure facts like what was the name, rank, and service number of the pilot of the F-16 which took off from Langley here. The fact that truthers cannot agree on even the most basic facts, such as whether a freaking 200,000 pound airplane smashed into the Pentagon in broad daylight in front of hundreds of witnesses, is not a sign of strength and intellectual diversity in your movement.
Quite the opposite, it is a sign of the weakness of your argument, the fact that your interpretation of the facts is so (to quote ROD BLAGOJEVICH) F____ screwed up that even your own politically driven movement cannot vaguely agree on what to consider reality. A strong argument is based on the consistency of its supporting evidence. The fact that you can come up with 37 different and contradicting reasons why 9/11 was an inside job, is not better than the one coherent, consistent and well backed argument that Islamic terrorists did it. This is not a multiple choice test, you don't get credit for guessing.
This is not a good thing, this is not something to be proud about, this is not something to come on blogs to brag about as some sort of defense. This is something about which you should be profoundly embarrassed!
OK, that is the end of my rant.