Do We Know What is Plausible?

A report by Jim Dwyer in the "New York Times" this morning says this:

"A nationwide poll taken earlier this summer by the Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University found that more than a third of those surveyed said the federal government either took part in the [September 11th] attacks or allowed them to happen. Sixteen percent said the destruction of the trade towers were aided by explosives hidden in the buildings."

I understand that after any major event there will be a certain amount (maybe 5%) of fanatical and permanent skepticism about how it happened (such as the Kennedy assassination) or indeed whether it happened (such as the July 1969 moon landing). But the fact that one-third of Americans seem to be this skeptical about 9/11 is deeply disturbing.

I don't know if there is a growth in generalized paranoia and suspicion. Perhaps. But it is very clear that no amount of evidence seems to shake this "permanent" skepticism. Each bit of data is dismissed by simply being questioned. It's as if the only thing that is trusted is our own paranoia. One out of three of us refuse to be "unconvinced" no matter what new facts are presented to us, and we feel no responsibility for offering data or facts to back up whatever our version of the story is. The important thing to us is simply that the most plausible, most reasonable and most carefully investigated version of the story is wrong.

We seem to be living in a sort of courtroom culture in which one-third of us are defense attorneys whose only job is to refute the evidence. Don't get me wrong--all evidence deserves to be questioned and examined. Most often, though, it seems that the mere act of questioning evidence has become reason enough to cast it aside. Are we not trusting our own eyes, ears and judgment anymore? If not, what or who do we trust?