CONSPIRACY THEORIES AND THE NATURE OF SKEPTICISM

Q: Let’s talk about the meaning of skepticism.

A: One way to do that might be by looking at conspiracy theories.  

A while back I stumbled across an article posted on social media that claimed that the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001 was not caused by commercial passenger jets crashing into the towers.  This was a relatively recent article, by the way.  The article was followed by numerous comments from individuals who had embraced the belief, also voiced in the article, that there was some sort of coverup by the government or the media or both.  Frankly, I was shocked and dismayed and at the same time fascinated.

Q: So let’s start by asking you to describe your own thoughts regarding the events of 9/11.

A: Personally, I have no doubts about what happened.  I believe that the attacks occurred as the government and the media have always reported, that there was indeed a terrorist cell that hijacked four commercial jets, intent on crashing them into the Pentagon and into the Capitol or White House, as well as into the World Trade Center towers.  There was no government or media conspiracy and no coverup.

Q: It’s interesting that those who question the conventional understanding of the events of 9/11 also consider themselves to be skeptics.  They are, they say, skeptical of the government and media accounts of those events.  Obviously, those individuals’ views on what constitutes skepticism are very different from yours.  So who’s right?

A: It is certainly true that a component of skepticism includes the notion that statements should be subject to question or doubt.  But that is only the first step in the process.  The second and perhaps more important component of what I would call philosophical skepticism is the process by which we resolve that doubt.  It is entailed in what evidence we rely on and how we evaluate that evidence.  None of us goes through life questioning everything we hear and then maintaining those doubts about everything.  At the end of the day, we all wind up with beliefs of one sort or another.  So skepticism is not about doubt so much as it is about how we go about resolving doubt and forming beliefs.

Q: OK, so let’s get into the details a bit here.  What would you consider to be the fundamental hallmarks of philosophical skepticism?

A: First, statements should not be accepted or rejected simply on the basis of their source.  A statement should not be accepted just because it was made by, say, Bill Nye or Neil deGrasse Tyson or because it was written in the Bible.  By the same token, a statement should not be rejected simply because it was made, say, by a creationist or by a pundit on CNN or on FoxNews, or because it was an official statement of the U.S. government.

Q: Hold on a minute.  Realistically, aren’t you going to accept a statement about evolutionary theory made by an evolutionary biologist over a contrary statement made by a young earth creationist?

A: I’d be lying if I didn’t say yes.

Q: But that seems to contradict the first principle of skepticism that you just stated. How can you consider yourself a true skeptic if you are willing to accept, or at least prefer, statements by someone in the science community over those made by a fundamentalist Christian?  Aren’t you simply accepting one authority over another, based on what you already believe?  How is that approach any truer to skepticism than a fundamentalist Christian accepting a statement because it is written in the Bible?

A: So here’s the difference.  It’s because I am looking through the statements made by the two differing authorities to the supporting basis for their statements.  Generally, a creationist’s statement is going to be backed by reference to scripture or to an authority who has interpreted that scripture.  In effect, it is backed by evidence that I consider to be inferior, viz., the opinions of writers of two to three thousand years ago who had no knowledge of modern science.  On the other hand, a statement made by someone in the scientific community is backed by research based on objective evidence, the scientific method, and rational analysis.  If I wanted to, I could track down the research studies underlying the statement, consult other scientific opinions based on other research, and decide for myself.

Q: Do you actually do that?

A: Sometimes, yes, I do look at the primary research on which a statement is based.  But I will admit that I don’t always.  I do give deference to statements made by those in the scientific community, understanding that, in general, they have committed to basing their statements on peer-reviewed scientific research.

Q: Aren’t you then simply shifting acceptance of authority by one level?  Aren’t you saying that you are willing to accept scientific evidence over the evidence of scriptural authority?  

A: I am, but there is a basic difference between evidence based on scientific research and evidence based on scripture.  Science has actually advanced our fundamental understanding of the nature of the world; scripture has not.

Let me expand on that a bit.  I’m not saying that scripture is without value.  Some of it certainly has value as literature and some as history.  Moreover, scripture certainly can provide comfort for those who treat it as authority.  Where it fails is in providing us with an understanding of reality.  If we were to rely on scripture, we would still believe that the earth is only some 6,000 years old, that there was a flood that covered the entire earth and destroyed all life other than that on an ark built by Noah, and that epilepsy is caused by evil spirits rather than being a brain dysfunction.  One could go on and on.  Through science we know better.

Q: So at the end of the day it comes down to the nature of the underlying evidence.

A: Exactly.  Which brings me to my second point:  Not all evidence is created equal.  Some is better than other.  Objective evidence is better than subjective.  Evidence based on observation and scientific experimentation is better than evidence based on personal opinion, internal feelings, or received authority.

Q: There are an awful lot of Christians who would disagree with you on the question of objective versus subjective evidence.  They would argue that their faith is based on their powerful feeling of having a personal relationship with God and with Christ, a belief that is reinforced by prayer, by their experience of the beauty of God’s creation, etc.  Those, of course, represent instances of subjective evidence, but they are powerful, nevertheless.  Why do you argue that objective evidence is better than subjective evidence?

A: Of course, subjective evidence can be powerful.  I have subjective experiences just as do individuals of faith.  I too can experience a sense of wonder in the majesty of the night sky or in the elegance of a mathematical proof.  The problem is that subjective evidence, of itself, is unreliable and untestable.  That’s not to say that it is worthless, just that subjective evidence has been much less useful than objective evidence in furthering our understanding of the world.

Q: OK, let’s move on.

A: OK.  Third, statements should be tested against all available evidence.  Frankly, this should be a matter of common sense.  However, as I mentioned earlier, it is human nature for us to ignore or discount evidence that is inconsistent with our existing beliefs.  In the context of the events of 9/11, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to support the conclusion that there was an attack by a terrorist cell that included hijacked jetliners that were crashed into the World Trade Center towers.  There are videos, eyewitness accounts, post-attack engineering studies, missing persons presumed to have been killed in the attack, etc., etc.  All of that information needs to be included in any analysis.

Fourth, all beliefs should be held conditionally.  This is a fundamental hallmark of the scientific method.  Skepticism means continually reminding yourself that all knowledge is tentative.  The formation of beliefs needs to remain an active, lifelong process.  Think back to when you were a teenager.  Do you have the same set of beliefs today that you had then?  Do you think your beliefs will continue to evolve?

Finally, skepticism demands a generous application of Ockham’s Razor.

Q: Meaning what?

A: I have addressed this elsewhere, but, briefly, Ockham’s Razor states that in choosing explanations, the one requiring the fewest basic assumptions should be preferred.  In other words, one should look for mundane explanations over exotic ones.  If you see a strange object in the night sky, the initial working assumption should be that it is, say, a manmade satellite or an aircraft, not that it is an alien spaceship.  Another way of putting this is that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

Q: So how does this play in the context of 9/11 conspiracies?

A: Which is the more extraordinary claim, (a) one that accepts the thousands of eyewitness accounts, video evidence, and government and media statements or (b) one that assumes a vast conspiracy to cover up a different account of events, a conspiracy that would require the cooperation of and coverup by thousands of media and government personnel, one that has somehow remained in place without leaks for over 15 years?  

Q: A final question: Have you spoken with any individuals who subscribe to a 9/11 conspiracy theory?

A: No, at least not knowingly.  And perhaps it’s unfair of me to make any assumptions regarding the basis of their beliefs.  But I’m going to anyway.  I believe that key to such individuals’ point of view is a belief that the federal government is essentially nefarious, that it engages in conspiracies for purposes that are detrimental to the best interests of the country, and that it is naive for one to think otherwise.  This conspiracy belief is fundamental and irrefutable.  In that sense such conspiracy theorists, rather than being skeptics, violate a number of the fundamental hallmarks of philosophical skepticism.  (a) They begin with the premise that statements made by the government or by mainstream media are to be rejected simply on the basis of the source of the statements.  (b) They emphasize minor anomalies in the mainstream narrative, such as the perhaps surprising fact of the melting of the steel supporting structures of the towers.  But they ignore the overwhelming amount of evidence based on eyewitness accounts, engineering reports, records of missing planes, and of missing people, etc.  (c) They refuse to review their point of view in light of subsequent information. 

Am I being unfair?  I hope I am willing to listen to other points of view.


© 2018 John M. Phillips