Over the weekend, I read Popular Mechanics' newly published book length and updated version of their article Debunking 9/11 Myths. The book is everything James Lileks says that it is: "sane, logical, unemotional, sensible, comprehensive." It will debunk nothing, because this is not a matter for rational argument. I am particularly indebted to the Amazon reviewer "G. Duenas" for pithily capturing this dynamic: Nice Try. Two words [sic] Loose Change.Any [sic] one with half brain who dears [sic] to watch this movie(Loose change) [sic] will then know the truth about 9/11.
Rational argument never works unless the participants have, before hand, agreed to the rules by which they will be bound. They must agree, for example, to the mini-fascism of evidence-based argument. That George Bush planned 9/11 is an ideologically driven conclusion (for those of the appropriate ideology) that must eschew evidence. But if the evidence doesn't matter, how can there be an argument?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
A couple weeks ago, I stumbled over CSPAN broadcasting a 9/11 "truth" conference.
The conferees, their reasoning, and their attitude towards evidence, were perfect mimics of ID/Creationists.
Post a Comment