Legitimizing Woo | Pocketmags.com

Shopping Cart -

Your cart is currently empty.
Upgrade to today
for only an extra Cxx.xx

You get:

plus This issue of xxxxxxxxxxx.
plus Instant access to the latest issue of 300+ of our top selling titles.
plus Unlimited access to 27000+ back issues
plus No contract or commitment. If you decide that PocketmagsPlus is not for you, you can cancel your monthly subscription online at any time. Auto-renews at $14.99 per month, unless cancelled.
Upgrade Now for $14.99 Learn more
This website use cookies and similar technologies to improve the site and to provide customised content and advertising. By using this site, you agree to this use. To learn more, including how to change your cookie settings, please view our Cookie Policy
Pocketmags Digital Magazines
Pocketmags Digital Magazines
   You are currently viewing the Australia version of the site.
Would you like to switch to your local site?
Read anywhere Read anywhere
Ways to pay Pocketmags Payment Types
Trusted site
At Pocketmags you get
Secure Billing
Great Offers
Web & App Reader
Gifting Options
Loyalty Points

Legitimizing Woo

Benjamin Radford is a research fellow at the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and author or coauthor of ten books, including Bad Clowns.

Q: I was sent a link to your article about the Sandy Hook conspiracies (https://tinyurl.com/y747c2gf), and my question is: Why even give these people the time of day? I unfortunately watched the [pro-conspiracy] YouTube video before realizing what I had done: contributed to helping the creator make money off of YouTube. Why help drive traffic to these people’s business ventures?

A: You bring up a good question, one that I and other skeptics and media literacy educators struggle with. The answer is that it’s a no-win situation: If you ignore the claims (of UFOs, Bigfoot, ghosts, conspiracies, etc.) then believers say to themselves and others: “See? There must be something to it. . . . No one is refuting the claims or answering these questions. The skeptics can’t answer our arguments!” People will often assume that if they are not hearing a solid, categorical rebuttal that it’s not because scientists and skeptics think it’s too silly to bother with but instead that they can’t or won’t address the claims.

Purchase options below
Find the complete article and many more in this issue of Skeptical Inquirer - Nov/Dec 17
If you own the issue, Login to read the full article now.
Single Issue - Nov/Dec 17
Or 449 points
Getting free sample issues is easy, but we need to add it to an account to read, so please follow the instructions to read your free issue today.
Email Address
Annual Digital Subscription
Only $ 4.33 per issue
Or 2599 points

View Issues

About Skeptical Inquirer

Pizzagate and Beyond: Using Social Research to Understand Conspiracy Legends Becoming Fantastic Why Some People Embellish Their Already Accomplished Lives with Incredible Tales Is Eating Vegetables Truly Safe? An Examination into Contemporary Anti-Vaccination Arguments