If, like me, you read copious amounts of news, then you couldn't have possibly avoided reading numerous articles about the 10th anniversary of September 11th. "This is supposed to be a science blog" you may be telling yourself, and you'd be right to do so. I have no intention of turning this into a political blog/post/argument, but the two most interesting articles I read (at Slate and Popular Mechanics) were of scientific relevance so I thought it worthy of discussion.
Plain and simply, the articles that I cited lay out the arguments against 9/11 conspiracy theorists. I think that we're all by nature susceptible to conspiracy theories (Moon landing, JFK, etc.) and perhaps that susceptibility stems from the fact that some of them are actually true. Perhaps. But how do we uncover the real truth? Therein lies the scientific question.
Think what you may about the facts of the 9/11 conspiracy theorist case, either for or against U.S. government involvement and/or prior knowledge. I don't aim to convince you either way. What I do aim to convince you of, is a gigantic flaw in the conspiracy theorist way of thinking. Namely, by refuting facts that support the predominant opinion, you strengthen the case for the minority opinion.
Allow me if I may to generalize the case so as not to break down the minutiae of 9/11. A historical event occurred, and A and B represent multiple narratives as to how it unfolded. The best route to the truth would be to lay out all of the facts, and to conclude the most probable course of events. What conspiracy theorists do, however, is start with the assumption that B must be true. And rather than strengthen facts supporting B, casting doubt on the facts that support A must automatically lead you to conclude that B is indeed correct. Refutation of null hypothesis, however, is only useful when you have carefully enumerated all the null hypothesis (C, D, E, ...). In a complex system such as 9/11, this would be impossible and rather than refute explanations, the only way to 'prove' a historical truth is to bolster your hypothesis with facts.
Another great flaw of conspiracy theorists is that they know their opinion before looking at the facts and are thus able to support their opinion against any mountain of facts by casting doubt. Scientifically, this is unacceptable. Medical trials for instance, are predicated on the fact that individuals do not know whether they have received treatment, and those who analyze the data are also blind as to who received a drug and who didn't. While this system has its own flaws, the crucial point is that people who analyze data evaluate facts without prior knowledge. If the doctor analyzing data on whether his drug worked knew the identity of who received the drug and who didn't, it would be tremendously easy to spin the data to prove the result that he wanted to see, most likely that the drug he discovered works wonders!
We find this unacceptable scientifically, and it should be unacceptable logically. Of course, its impossible not to have an opinion on matters of political importance. So we all approach facts with a certain bias, but those whose opinions I trust most are those who clearly try to limit their bias and be as objective as possible. Sometimes its not so obvious to tell the difference, but sometimes its glaringly obvious.
Perhaps the truest test is to envision what amount of facts it would take to convince someone to change their mind. If all of those facts, purely imaginary at this point, could be twisted and refuted to fit the opinion that they purport to refute, it becomes obvious that nothing will change some people's minds; their opinions, are thus, of little significance to me.
A healthy dose of skepticism is a fantastic thing, and I'm always glad that people are digging for truth and not accepting what their government tells them. I just hope they can recognize that truth when they find it, even if it doesn't support their preconceived opinion.
