|
|
|
ktesibios
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
 Posted - 05/09/2007 : 11:10:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
I have been thinking, for a while now, of doing a piece on the thinking that drives a person to coming up with or accepting conspiracy theories almost without question. It seems to me that there are plenty of reasons to mistrust certain authorities. Especially, those in authority who have some power over us. I mean, you don#8217;t have to be paranoid to understand that current administration hoodwinked most of the country, including both houses of congress and a credulous media into accepting a stupid war. And that really was a conspiracy to control the information that we received.
It may only be a small step after such deceptions to give credence to larger and less likely (at least to those who do not default to critical thinking) conspiracies. If you accept the premise that we are constantly being lied to, and there is much evidence to support that, how does the lay-person know where to draw the line between the credible and the incredible? I have said before that crazy is only a matter of degree.
There are some tell-tale signs, I think. One is that when you see an argument taking the form of "they lied to us about dis, dat and de odda ting, so we should reject anything coming from them a priori" or lumping all the institutions and agencies of science or government into a single "them" who are assumed always to be dishonest, e.g. "Bush lied about WMD in Iraq, Bush is part of the government, NIST is a government agency, therefore the NCSTAR reports about the collapse of the WTC towers are irredeemably tainted", you're seeing classic examples of the fallacies of hasty generalization and composition, which ought to set off the BS detector right away.
Another is the attempt to substitute "common sense" for expertise in areas where genuine expertise is needed to understand a phenomenon, as so often seen in Moon Hoax and 9/11 PCTs.
Still another is the belief that if what is vilified as the "official story" isn't proven with the airtightness characteristic of a problem in 9th grade geometry, any and all competing hypotheses enjoy equal status with it.
Those are just a few of the things that are practically diagnostic of a paranoid conspiracy theory.
quote:
Conspiracy theories also empower those who subscribe to them. They seem to make sense of the senseless, which in turn means that those who control us loose power over us by being exposed for who they really are and what they have allegedly done. And that is a strong enticement if you feel powerless to change those forces, real or imagined.
But they rob the believer of any real power to accomplish anything towards changing the things they don't like about the society they live in. What accompanies the ego-massaging belief that one has "broken the code" and seen through the veil to the evil ones responsible for the state of things is an endless exercise in obsessing over minutiae to find the "real" meaning within it, and attempting to hammer and file the evidence until the grass-green puzzle piece fits in the sky-blue part of the puzzle, where one has already decided it has to go. The conspiracist is stuck going around in circles, a state of affairs that couldn't possibly suit the Powers That Be better.
quote:
There is also a cult like aspect to all of this that I will delve into later.
Adopting a belief system because it brings acceptance into a ready-made social circle is an all too human tendency.
I suspect that paranoid conspiracism could provide a lode of thesis topics for enterprising students of social psychology. |
"The Republican agenda is to turn the United States into a third-world shithole." -P.Z.Myers |
 |
|
|
j911ob
Skeptic Friend
223 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 12:06:36 [Permalink]
|
A new york times article regarding the report of 60 scientists including several noble laureates says this
quote:
The Bush administration has deliberately and systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad… Dr. Kurt Gottfried, an emeritus professor of physics at Cornell University who signed the statement and spoke in the conference call, said the administration had ‘engaged in practices that are in conflict with the spirit of science and the scientific method
The article is at: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/18/science/18CND-RESE.html?ex=1392526800&en=3a4ea036ff21604b&ei=5007
The report itself says
quote:
There is a well established pattern of suppression and distortion of scientific findings by high-ranking Bush administration political appointees across numerous federal agencies. These actions have consequences for human health, public safety, and community well-being.
There is strong documentation of a wide-ranging effort to manipulate the government's scientific advisory system to prevent the appearance of advice that might run counter to the administration's political agenda.
There is evidence that the administration often imposes restrictions on what government scientists can say or write about "sensitive" topics.
There is significant evidence that the scope and scale of the abuse of science by the Bush administration are unprecedented
Report at: http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/reports-scientific-integrity-in-policy-making.html
|
"Any pressurized can exposed to heat will explode like a grenade. Even a sealed bag of potato chips, if not melted by direct flame, can 'pop' with quite a report." - Kookbreaker at JREF, responding to reports of explosions in the towers. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 12:06:37 [Permalink]
|
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7971&whichpage=2#118648
Can I nominate kt's above post for post of the month?
Well said kt.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 13:29:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by j911ob
A new york times article regarding the report of 60 scientists including several noble laureates says thisquote:
The Bush administration has deliberately and systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad… Dr. Kurt Gottfried, an emeritus professor of physics at Cornell University who signed the statement and spoke in the conference call, said the administration had ‘engaged in practices that are in conflict with the spirit of science and the scientific method
The article is at: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/18/science/18CND-RESE.html?ex=1392526800&en=3a4ea036ff21604b&ei=5007
The report itself saysquote:
There is a well established pattern of suppression and distortion of scientific findings by high-ranking Bush administration political appointees across numerous federal agencies. These actions have consequences for human health, public safety, and community well-being.
There is strong documentation of a wide-ranging effort to manipulate the government's scientific advisory system to prevent the appearance of advice that might run counter to the administration's political agenda.
There is evidence that the administration often imposes restrictions on what government scientists can say or write about "sensitive" topics.
There is significant evidence that the scope and scale of the abuse of science by the Bush administration are unprecedented
Report at: http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/reports-scientific-integrity-in-policy-making.html
And not a single mention of 9/11 in it. Does something make you think that the Union of Concerned Scientists is particularly concerned about dodgy science in the 9/11 reports put out by the government? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
j911ob
Skeptic Friend
223 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 13:34:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by j911ob
A new york times article regarding the report of 60 scientists including several noble laureates says thisquote:
The Bush administration has deliberately and systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad… Dr. Kurt Gottfried, an emeritus professor of physics at Cornell University who signed the statement and spoke in the conference call, said the administration had ‘engaged in practices that are in conflict with the spirit of science and the scientific method
The article is at: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/18/science/18CND-RESE.html?ex=1392526800&en=3a4ea036ff21604b&ei=5007
The report itself saysquote:
There is a well established pattern of suppression and distortion of scientific findings by high-ranking Bush administration political appointees across numerous federal agencies. These actions have consequences for human health, public safety, and community well-being.
There is strong documentation of a wide-ranging effort to manipulate the government's scientific advisory system to prevent the appearance of advice that might run counter to the administration's political agenda.
There is evidence that the administration often imposes restrictions on what government scientists can say or write about "sensitive" topics.
There is significant evidence that the scope and scale of the abuse of science by the Bush administration are unprecedented
Report at: http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/reports-scientific-integrity-in-policy-making.html
And not a single mention of 9/11 in it. Does something make you think that the Union of Concerned Scientists is particularly concerned about dodgy science in the 9/11 reports put out by the government?
Not the point. If they will abuse science in this way and NIST are a government scientific organisation then there is every reason to be skeptical of NISTs reports. I thought the people here were skeptics. |
"Any pressurized can exposed to heat will explode like a grenade. Even a sealed bag of potato chips, if not melted by direct flame, can 'pop' with quite a report." - Kookbreaker at JREF, responding to reports of explosions in the towers. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 14:12:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by j911ob
Not the point. If they will abuse science in this way and NIST are a government scientific organisation then there is every reason to be skeptical of NISTs reports. I thought the people here were skeptics.
We are. The UCS, and other groups, have presented detailed and strong evidence that the Bush administration has ignored or distorted consensus science. What is the scientific consensus regarding the events of 9/11, and is there solid evidence that the Bush administration has ignored and/or distorted that consensus in its reports? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
j911ob
Skeptic Friend
223 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 14:18:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by j911ob
Not the point. If they will abuse science in this way and NIST are a government scientific organisation then there is every reason to be skeptical of NISTs reports. I thought the people here were skeptics.
We are. The UCS, and other groups, have presented detailed and strong evidence that the Bush administration has ignored or distorted consensus science. What is the scientific consensus regarding the events of 9/11, and is there solid evidence that the Bush administration has ignored and/or distorted that consensus in its reports?
Where does it say that? |
"Any pressurized can exposed to heat will explode like a grenade. Even a sealed bag of potato chips, if not melted by direct flame, can 'pop' with quite a report." - Kookbreaker at JREF, responding to reports of explosions in the towers. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 14:30:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by j911ob
Where does it say that?
Okay, so you don't actually know what the UCS report was based upon? Got it. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
j911ob
Skeptic Friend
223 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 14:39:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by j911ob
Where does it say that?
Okay, so you don't actually know what the UCS report was based upon? Got it.
Support your claim or retract it. Where does it say it was only referring to consensus science? |
"Any pressurized can exposed to heat will explode like a grenade. Even a sealed bag of potato chips, if not melted by direct flame, can 'pop' with quite a report." - Kookbreaker at JREF, responding to reports of explosions in the towers. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 15:03:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by j911ob
Support your claim or retract it. Where does it say it was only referring to consensus science?
It's the Union of Concerned Scientists, man, not the Union of Concerned Speculators. Look at the examples they use in the report. Are any of them criticizing the President for failing to support research into perpetual motion machines?
When did I use the word "only?" And why should I support my claim or retract it when you refuse to play by those rules yourself? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
j911ob
Skeptic Friend
223 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 15:18:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by j911ob
Support your claim or retract it. Where does it say it was only referring to consensus science?
It's the Union of Concerned Scientists, man, not the Union of Concerned Speculators. Look at the examples they use in the report. Are any of them criticizing the President for failing to support research into perpetual motion machines?
When did I use the word "only?" And why should I support my claim or retract it when you refuse to play by those rules yourself?
Yep, just as I thought, you made it up. You will notice in the report a section on tubes relating to Iraqs WMDs. Nothing to do with consensus science.
The conclusions of the report are clear. Almost as clear as your failed attempt at obsfucation. |
"Any pressurized can exposed to heat will explode like a grenade. Even a sealed bag of potato chips, if not melted by direct flame, can 'pop' with quite a report." - Kookbreaker at JREF, responding to reports of explosions in the towers. |
|
|
|
Hondo
New Member
USA
25 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 16:35:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by j911ob
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by j911ob
Support your claim or retract it. Where does it say it was only referring to consensus science?
It's the Union of Concerned Scientists, man, not the Union of Concerned Speculators. Look at the examples they use in the report. Are any of them criticizing the President for failing to support research into perpetual motion machines?
When did I use the word "only?" And why should I support my claim or retract it when you refuse to play by those rules yourself?
Yep, just as I thought, you made it up. You will notice in the report a section on tubes relating to Iraqs WMDs. Nothing to do with consensus science.
The conclusions of the report are clear. Almost as clear as your failed attempt at obsfucation.
I hope you can do better than this. There's a difference between discontent regarding the current administration's take on science and what you're trying to shoehorn here. If you're going to rely on links at least pick one that mentions 9/11 next time, OK?
Speaking of tubes and Iraqi WMDs, ever wonder why your evil PTB that perpetuated 9/11 couldn't even manage to plant one measly WMD in Iraq?
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 05/09/2007 : 17:08:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by j911ob
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by j911ob
Support your claim or retract it. Where does it say it was only referring to consensus science?
It's the Union of Concerned Scientists, man, not the Union of Concerned Speculators. Look at the examples they use in the report. Are any of them criticizing the President for failing to support research into perpetual motion machines?
When did I use the word "only?" And why should I support my claim or retract it when you refuse to play by those rules yourself?
Yep, just as I thought, you made it up. You will notice in the report a section on tubes relating to Iraqs WMDs. Nothing to do with consensus science.
The conclusions of the report are clear. Almost as clear as your failed attempt at obsfucation.
So lets see. The UCS layed out what they are concerned about and you think you get to add something to their list. We are completely aware of Bush's hostility and manipulations of science in his own commissioned reports, when he didn't like what they said. We are aware of how he has changed wording and downplayed that which doesn't fit his agenda.
But you don't get to take what we know about Bush and science and jump to a conclusion that was not brought up by the scientists themselves. That is the logical fallicy of a hasty generalization.
Jumping to conclusions based on that kind of evidence is exactly how you are not a critical thinker and how you operate from a confirmation bias that taints your worldview.
What's funny is you think we don't know this stuff about Bush. Think again. This is a science site…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 17:25:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Me:
Conspiracy theories also empower those who subscribe to them. They seem to make sense of the senseless, which in turn means that those who control us loose power over us by being exposed for who they really are and what they have allegedly done. And that is a strong enticement if you feel powerless to change those forces, real or imagined.
quote:
ktesibios:
But they rob the believer of any real power to accomplish anything towards changing the things they don't like about the society they live in. What accompanies the ego-massaging belief that one has "broken the code" and seen through the veil to the evil ones responsible for the state of things is an endless exercise in obsessing over minutiae to find the "real" meaning within it, and attempting to hammer and file the evidence until the grass-green puzzle piece fits in the sky-blue part of the puzzle, where one has already decided it has to go. The conspiracist is stuck going around in circles, a state of affairs that couldn't possibly suit the Powers That Be better.
Right! I didn't mean that these conspiracy theories like the one being promoted by j911ob actually does take power from those who have the power. I meant that in the mind of the conspiracy theorist, knowing what they think they know transfers some of the power back to them by outsmarting the evil that they think they're on to. And that is, at least in part, a delusion that drives them…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
ktesibios
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 17:49:20 [Permalink]
|
Funny, I describe a behavior that's characteristic of paranoid conspiracy theorists and one of them immediately proceeds to exhibit it in classic form. Maybe I should apply for the Randi Prize.
Another behavior that's consistently observed among PCT loons is batting the burden of proof around like a shuttlecock. This usually takes the form of making unsupported or thinly supported claims, demanding that they be proven wrong or taken as true by default (the classic argument from ignorance) and then, if a claim is proven to be wrong or unsupported by evidence, immediately trotting out another one and repeating the performance.
I gather that this is also a popular rhetorical trick among creationists.
They never seem to grasp that they don't have an inalienable right to hold up an infinite series of hoops and expect the reality-based to oblige by jumping through them.
I predict that we will see a lot of this behavior in this subforum in the immediate future.
They also never seem to grasp that the way a theory supplants an older theory is first, to have a coherent theory, demonstrate that it accounts for the entire existing body of data as well as or better than the existing theory and also demonstrate that it has superior predictive power.
I'll also predict that we'll see heavy use of certain logical fallacies besides the ones already highlighted: argument from ignorance, argument from false authority, argument from popularity, affirmation of the consequent, false dichotomy, causal fallacies (post hoc and cum hoc) and possibly appeal to consequences.
But of a coherent, self-consistent theory with a body of evidence in support we will most likely see nada |
"The Republican agenda is to turn the United States into a third-world shithole." -P.Z.Myers |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Zionists Commited 9-11
