This is kind of what I am getting at in my OP when I say I would like to categorically debunk various conspiracy theories. I don’t quite mean the philosophical sense of the word, more a legal sense. What am I talking about?
I devised a little list of categories of conspiracy theories surrounding this issue way upthread. For any particular category, it is theoretically possible that the entire category could be debunked, permanently ending discussion of that category. But even in my sense of the word it is a tough standard. How do we categorically debunk something?
-
Prove a case that is mutually exclusive with some other category. For example, if the standard version- radical Muslim hijackers crashed planes into the buildings and brought them down, along with building 7 and so on- were proved to be true, then other categories, like Jews did it, or the demolition theory, cannot also be true, but are in fact necessarily false. See what I mean?
-
Prove that a category is impossible. How to do this varies by case, but once it happens, that’s it.
If you know of other ways, I’d like to hear them.
In regard to this conversation, has the demolition theory been categorically debunked? Well… it is a high standard- our legal system uses the easier standard of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’- I would say ‘no’. There are still theoretically possible scenarios in which the demolition theory could be the case. For example, it hasn’t actually been disproved that the crashed planes were operated by remote control by some 3rd party and the whole thing blamed on Al Qaeda. BUT- while that case has not been categorically debunked, neither is there, AFAIK, any solid reason to believe that is what happened.
How one deals with a lack of categorical debunking is a matter of taste. Some people can argue that, even though there is a ton of evidence supporting a case mutually exclusive with the demolition theory, and also a ton of evidence suggesting that none of the demolition theories jive with the evidence, since it is not debunked beyond all conceivable scenarios, then the case is still open. And you never know- the world is full of unlikely occurrences. Teeming, really. Every millionth thing is one-in-a-million, out of gadzillions of daily occurrences, no?
For me, that isn’t the right way to use ‘maximum skepticism’ as I’ve called it. I think that is a tool properly used against some already-existing body of evidence. Take the whole she-bang, and line by line doubt every single thing, keeping track of which parts can stand up to the scrutiny. If there is anything left when you’re done, then you can have that much more confidence that it is actually true. This is more or less the debunking method I’m employing now against ‘the official version’- which itself is in fact a conspiracy theory. Notice- it can piss people off!
The other way to use ‘maximum skepticism’ would be to take a case like the Remote Controlled Planes theory, and on the basis that it hasn’t been categorically debunked, become a proponent of the theory and start fishing around for evidence. The difference is that there isn’t a body of evidence to begin with. This can also piss people off, but that part is a coincidence and no reason to confuse it with the first method!
So. I hope this helps people understand where I’m coming from, and also why, though I disagree with your position, I haven’t given you a bunch of crap for it.