Essay on 9/11: Controversial Views and Skepticism by the Public

The release of the 9/11 commission by the government in July 2004 was met with a lot of controversial views and skepticism by the public. Expression of dissatisfaction by the public was shown by the public opinion poll in which people doubted the accuracy and the veracity of the report. Also unconvincing were the testimonies from the government and the military officials concerning the released report. In May 2006, the Zogby poll revealed that 42 % of Americans believed that the United States government and the report concealed or refused to investigate the critical evidence that showed contradictions with their explanations of the 9/11 terror incident. Similarly, in August 2006, Ohio University poll revealed that 32% of Americans believed that the government were hiding something or was not explicit enough with the report and the commentaries involving the 9/11 incident. The same stance was held by 16% of Americans in the CBS poll of October 2006. In October 2004, a story ran in Harpers Magazine described the report as whitewash or cheat and fraud, as liberal critics and analysts showed discontentment. The progressive media launched 9/11 Truth Movement two years later to champion critical investigation supported by viable evidence. As the stories subsided, the humorous responses and skeptical views remained online issues which resulted in the funny internet cartoon videos. The funniest cartoon film, Was 9/11 An Inside Job (911Cartoon, 2007) went viral online circulating the conspiracy theories. Humor has since surrounded the 9/11 narrative, showing a feeling of futility, implicit anger and doubt in a crucial matter that was believed to involved cover-up and inside plan, that is how the skeptics who did not support the report felt. Those who supported the report depicted the skeptics as conspiracy theorists using humor as well (Gournelos & Greene, 2011).

Skepticism theory

Epistemology refers to the study of justified knowledge and justified belief. According to the skepticism theory, the limits of what you know are narrower than what you would like to know. Sometimes one might think they know, yet they fail to recognize that they do not know ("Epistemology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)," n.d.). For instance, an individual thinks that they know they have ears, yet in fact, they do not. It is an awkward situation when the skeptics can make such conclusions. They have a protocol of coming into such propositions. First, they will concentrate and highlight a point, an argument or proposition that one is likely to admit that they do not know. Secondly, they will use the logic that, since one does not know the second part of the proposition, in the same case, they are not aware of the first part of the proposition, that they have ears.

The skeptical hypothesis is what the skeptics refer to when they focus ones mind on what they think they do not know. As per this hypothesis, things are deemed to be radically dissimilar to what people believe they are. Additional information includes: Im being deceived by an evil spirit or Im living in oblivion. In essence, the skeptics will point out what they think you will easily agree with, that, for any of the specific examples mentioned here, one does not know that it is untrue. The experiences one undergoes when acting normal and the experiences one goes through while under the influence of an evil spirit are similar. The possible evidence and experiences do not differ much. As a result, one cannot argue for or against the possibility of acting out of the influence of a spirit or just as an average person. Following this uncertainty, skeptics conclude that the individual does not know whether they are influenced by superficial powers to act in a particular way or not. This conclusion builds on the first step of skepticism.

The second part of the proposition holds that if one cannot determine whether or not they are influenced by evil spirits to act in a particular way, they do not have ears. This thought is logical enough. If one cannot distinguish between normalcy and compulsion, for example, they cannot know whether they have ears or not. The conclusion the follows, that,1: I do not know whether I am acting normal or under the influence of a spirit. 2: If I do not know whether I am acting normal or under the influence of a spirit, then do not know that I have ears. Therefore, 3: I do not know that I have ears.

Rationalism theory

Rationalism theory debates on whether or not individuals sense of experience depends on the individuals efforts to acquire knowledge. Rationalists believe that the sense of experience, in some way, does not dictate the concepts and knowledge of a person. The argument is that the content of an individuals concepts or knowledge outdoes the information that comes from the sense of experience. Secondly, the aspect of reason provides an additional perception of the world ("Rationalism vs. Empiricism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)", n.d.). Rationalists utilize three basic concepts when exploring how people believe in particular propositions from particular fields of knowledge. Such include the Intuition or deductive thesis which asserts that some propositions in specific subject areas are knowable to us by intuition alone, while in some cases we become aware of some propositions from deducing from what is intuited.

Intuition is recognized by rationalists as a form of rational insight whereby we see something and believe it to be true. From the intuited principles, deductions can be made in the form of conclusions based on valid arguments. Logically, if the intuitions are right, then the conclusions deducted are similarly true. For example, 3 is a prime number, and three is bigger than 2, leading to the deduction that there is a prime number greater than 2. The knowledge that comes from intuition and deduction is acquired without the sense of experience. The innate knowledge thesis claims that a persons rational make-up or nature guarantees particular knowledge from certain fields or subject matter. Similar to intuition/deduction thesis, the innate knowledge gained is independent of experience. The third concept, the innate concept thesis, states that each person has some concepts which they employ in particular fields of knowledge or experience.

Personal View

While skepticism is considered logic, there is a predicament or void especially when senses replace reasoning. Skeptics can easily sway the truth to the wrong side when they insist that what people do not know the truth since anything based on feelings is bound to be false. Knowledge is strengthened by evidence or justification. Skepticism builds a sense of doubt and can spread falsified propaganda. Rationalism validates the power of reasoning to determine the truth of the real world, unlike skepticism that is fully dependent on senses. Moreover, some I conquer with some other philosophers (Gournelos & Greene, 2011) who think that reason sometimes, in some way, outdoes the knowledge of experience as the empiricists claim. Some people have decades of experience in some fields, yet their careers of areas of operation have been marred by constant failures due to insufficient reasoning. The best way to reason should borrow bits from every proposition from either of the two. There is instability in sticking to either mode of reasoning.

References

\ 911Cartoon. (2007). KING 4 NEWS - Was 9/11 An Inside Job Cartoon. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69H2dq-LOm8

Epistemology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Plato.stanford.edu. Retrieved 7 July 2017, from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/#SKE

Gournelos, T., & Greene, V. (2011). A decade of dark humor: How comedy, irony, and satire shaped post-9/11 America. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi.

Rationalism vs. Empiricism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Plato.stanford.edu. Retrieved 7 July 2017, from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/#Rati