How "skepticism" been hijacked to mean its opposite

[Twain Shakespeare]

Aftter last post, froozen internet. Shut down, told had acessed secretss was bkocked. Reboot, total failure. Reduced to ebook. No music. Expletives bleeping deleted

[Scepcop]

[Scepcop]

Kevin Ryan, a 9/11 truther who was fired when he blew the whistle on NIST using fraudulent methods in their testing, debated Michael Shermer and realized the same thing about his "skepticism". He writes in his blog about Shermer's behavior during their debate:

http://digwithin.net/2011/09/25/skeptic ... ving-brain

"Additionally, my opponent’s performance showed that he is not what most people would call a skeptic, at least not in matters that are important to people. I had suspected this myself, and had to check the definition of skepticism to be sure. What I found was that skepticism is about questioning claims that are generally accepted, or are given by supposedly authoritative sources. Skeptics are not people who simply take contradictory positions without regard for evidence, however, and after rational discussion skeptics usually agree with the case that best fits the evidence.
....................
My opponent was clearly not skeptical of any of the claims made by the only authoritative source on the topic, the U.S. government. He had no response when I asked how each and every member of the U.S. chain of command could have been indisposed for just those two hours on September 11th, or how al Qaeda could have been behind the effective stand-down of the nation’s air defenses during that time. He could not say why the 9/11 Commission left so many of the most important facts out of their report, or what it meant for US government scientists to finally admit that they could not explain the “collapse” of the Twin Towers. His final plea was that we just accept that al Qaeda did it because they said they did it, and we should take them at their word.

This strange approach to skepticism is a good example of the growing attempt by some government and corporate media representatives (Shermer also works for FOX TV) to convince us to believe the opposite of what we see and hear. We’re told that the best way to stop terrorism is to start endless wars in the Middle East, and the best way to protect our freedoms is to give up our freedoms. We’re also led to believe, paradoxically, that anyone who questions the government’s conspiracy theory is a “conspiracy theorist”.
------------------
It is only on this absurd playing field that we can possibly accept Michael Shermer as an exemplary skeptic. His Skeptics Society is not skeptical of authoritative claims that affect the lives of average people, like 9/11 or electronic voting machines or corporate media consolidation. Instead, Shermer and his group are skeptical of random non-authoritative claims, like those about UFOs, or the belief in God. It seems possible that his skepticism has more to do with supporting business interests than it has to do with reason."

[Arouet]

[really?]

[Scepcop]

[Arouet]

What does any of that (even if it were accurate) has anything to do with skepticm.

Scepcop: modern philosophical skepticm is basically accepting proposition only when they are sufficiently evidenced based. Whether that is consistent with the original greek skeptics I don't know, but who really cares? Words evolve over time, that's the nature of language.

As for your other points, I've countered them before and you've ignored it, so I'm not going to bother doing it again.

[Arouet]

[Arouet]

Ha! Just noticing that this thread has my very first post on this site on it!

[NinjaPuppy]

[Arouet]

[NinjaPuppy]

[Arouet]

[NinjaPuppy]

[Arouet]

But do they do it on purpose?