Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 90 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-16-2018 10:45 AM
209 online now:
Diomedes, frako, GDR, PaulK, Percy (Admin), riVeRraT, Straggler, Tangle (8 members, 201 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 844,199 Year: 19,022/29,783 Month: 967/2,043 Week: 12/507 Day: 12/85 Hour: 3/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12345
6
78Next
Author Topic:   Conspiracy Theories: It's all in your mind!
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1769
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 76 of 110 (700379)
06-02-2013 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Panda
06-02-2013 1:27 PM


Re: A Test Subject
I had heard that the Bermuda Triangle had mysteriously disappeared....

Triangular is the aquatic manifestation of the phenomenon. Can you guess what shape it is on land?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Panda, posted 06-02-2013 1:27 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Panda, posted 06-02-2013 5:32 PM ProtoTypical has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1693 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 77 of 110 (700383)
06-02-2013 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by ProtoTypical
06-02-2013 4:29 PM


Re: A Test Subject
Prototypical writes:

Triangular is the aquatic manifestation of the phenomenon. Can you guess what shape it is on land?


*puzzled*
There appears to be a sub-text to this, but the underlying meaning eludes me.

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-02-2013 4:29 PM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-02-2013 5:53 PM Panda has acknowledged this reply

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1769
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 78 of 110 (700386)
06-02-2013 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Panda
06-02-2013 5:32 PM


Re: A Test Subject
Just to imply that the missing Bermuda Triangle has been found disguised as the Pentagon. Not so funny really.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Panda, posted 06-02-2013 5:32 PM Panda has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 110 (700387)
06-02-2013 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by ProtoTypical
06-02-2013 4:05 PM


Re: A Test Subject
You see I never claimed that it didn't.

Yes, you've been quite coy about that. On the other hand, we are talking about an event witnessed by about a dozen people, the witnesses including at least a few people who saw the AA markings on the plane.

So if you think there is some doubt about whether a plane hit the Pentagon, then you are talking about a conspiracy. I don't have to wait for you to say those words directly.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-02-2013 4:05 PM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16070
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 80 of 110 (700409)
06-02-2013 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by ProtoTypical
06-02-2013 3:49 PM


Re: How can you tell?
Obviously, as I provided the clarification. Do you still maintain that there is nothing odd about only getting one fuzzy picture from 85 cameras that could have potentially captured the event? You know, the cameras that you had no reason to believe were there.

Why did I have no reason to believe that they were there, and what do you mean by "potentially"? Were they all pointing in the right direction?

I agree that Velasquez's choice of words is pretty thin grounds for suspicion.

Indeed, especially as you haven't said what it would make you suspect and why.

You brought it up Doc.

No, this size of the hole was in fact your point. But we now know that the size of the hole a plane makes when it hits a building is less than the wingspan of the plane.

The bottom of the two windows are no more than 20 ft off of the ground. I find it astounding that a plane that big went into that hole. I suppose that is an argument from incredulity but the incredulousness of an event must have a threshold beyond which it becomes a valid reason for doubt.

No doubt that he does. Must be some pretty good stuff. They should have built the rest of the wall out of it.

Well, as I point out, whatever made the hole left intact the windows which were in fact left intact. Unless you propose that the hole was made by a gentle process such as the nibbling of a highly trained team of mice, the glass that survived the formation of the hole was indeed good at surviving catastrophic events. I guess that's why they call it "blast-proof".

Here is a list of pilots who support the summary that I quoted up thread.

* They don't say that they do. Those are members of an organization, not signatories to a statement.
* I note that a lot of them aren't actually pilots.
* Of those that do claim to have flown, and give their flight time, about 40 claim to have logged less flight time than Hanjour.
* Do you want me to make a list of pilots who don't support the summary and are called Steve?

Are your references somehow more valid than mine?

Yes.

Three reasons. Firstly, they are experienced commercial pilots, rather than (for example) someone who's spent a few hours in a light private plane. Or a flight attendant. Or a chemist. Or someone whose qualifications are given as "liar".

Second, they made actual statements that what Hanjour did was perfectly practicable, rather than having danced with a girl who danced with a man who said it wasn't.

Third, because the debris, DNA evidence, eyewitness accounts, etc, show that a plane did hit the Pentagon. So faced with a choice between people who say this could have happened, and people who say that it couldn't, I would listen to the former.

It was a question. What magnitude of discrepancy would it take for you to reassess your position that all of the facts have been laid bare and that no one is concealing anything?

Who said that that was my position? I am always open to new evidence. But based on the evidence we have, Flight 77 hit the Pentagon on 9/11.

Do you disagree?

'Cos on the one hand, we have:

* The eyewitness accounts.
* The debris found by first responders, including the black box.
* The phone calls from the hijacked plane.
* The DNA evidence.
* The evidence that a bunch of radical Islamists boarded the plane, including one with a commercial pilot's license.
* Al Qaida claiming responsibility for 9/11.
* The otherwise inexplicable disappearance of flight 77 and everyone on it.

On the other hand, I'm presented with "discrepancies" of such "magnitude" as:

* Policemen collected evidence of a crime.
* The plane didn't obey the laws of cartoon physics as taught by Professor Wile E. Coyote.
* Blast-proof windows behaved just like their supplier thought they would.
* Hanjour performed a maneuver which experienced commercial pilots describe as "fairly easy".
* Despite merely having a commercial pilot's license, Hanjour was able to crash into something ten times wider than the runways that commercial pilots land on.

... etc, etc.

I am not familiar with any scale for the "magnitude" of discrepancies, but these would rate a 0 on any sensible scale.

When Slick Willy was denying his oral interactions in the oval orifice at what point did you wonder if he was telling the truth?

I don't know. It was some time ago, and I didn't take notes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-02-2013 3:49 PM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Theodoric, posted 06-02-2013 9:29 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded
 Message 82 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-03-2013 7:32 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5777
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 81 of 110 (700415)
06-02-2013 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Dr Adequate
06-02-2013 8:15 PM


Pilots(and anyone else that wants to sign up) for truth
More yucks from the Pilots For Truth List.

Not surprisingly many of them are not pilots.
Also it seems anyone could sign the list. Even fictional characters.

quote:
Lije Baley
Chemist/mathematician
State University of NY

I guess this could be a real person but it is also the exact name of the main character in some of the books from Isaac Asimov's Robot Series.

quote:
James Sorrentino
"... employed by the Airline Industry, I am a long time aircraft enthusiast, and have flown extensively on private and commercial aircraft.

Well heck he flys alot. I am sure he can tell us all about the ability to fly into the Pentagon.

14 flight attendants, 6 air traffic controllers. How is their opinion relevant?

Here is the kicker. Anyone with a remote connection to the aviation industry can join and have their name added to this prestigious list.

quote:
If you have as many questions as our members have regarding 9/11, the catalyst which changed the world, please feel free to join us in speaking out. Pilots For 9/11 Truth welcomes anyone with experience in Aviation. Pilots, Mechanics, Flight Attendants, CSR, Ramp, Ticket Agents, Engineers, or College Students studying same.

Join Pilots For 9/11 Truth

Come on. Does anyone actually think these guys have some legitimate argument to stand on? They are misrepresenting themselves form the get go.

Yup. When I want to know the intricacies about flying a commercial jet, I make sure I talk to those ramp attendants and ticket agents.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-02-2013 8:15 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Panda, posted 06-03-2013 9:31 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1769
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 82 of 110 (700437)
06-03-2013 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Dr Adequate
06-02-2013 8:15 PM


Re: How can you tell?
Why did I have no reason to believe that they were there, and what do you mean by "potentially"? Were they all pointing in the right direction?

Well you seemed to be arguing that a building with lots of soldiers had no use for cameras and that I had no reason to think that there was more than a couple of parking lot cameras filming at 1fps. Did you not make those points?

If I said that a camera was 'potentially responsive' to a request for film that captured an event it would mean that the camera was pointed in the right direction as opposed to being on the other side of the building. I guess that I can not say what the FBI meant by 'potentially responsive'.

Indeed, especially as you haven't said what it would make you suspect and why.

Proto writes:

If I had used that expression it would mean that the FBI were there within 15 minutes or so. If the FBI were there within 15 minutes I would say that that was odd. If it was an hour later then it was not so odd.

How many minutes would strike you as odd? Anything less than one?

Three reasons. Firstly, they are experienced commercial pilots, rather than (for example) someone who's spent a few hours in a light private plane. Or a flight attendant. Or a chemist. Or someone whose qualifications are given as "liar".

When I look at these first few names on the list I would have to say that they do not match your description of them. What is that? 80,000 hrs of flight time between them? I will certainly concede that they could all be fictitious as I did not take the time to vet them.

Assuming then that they are actual people with the listed experience I guess that I am also assuming that they wouldn't join an organization that promoted things that they did not agree with.

quote:
Robert Balsamo
4000TT Commercial, Instrument, Multi, CFI II MEI
Corporate Chief Pilot
135 Capt
121 FO Independence Air/Atlantic Coast Airlines
King Air C-90/200, Dornier 328JET

Captain Russ Wittenberg (ret)
30,000+ Total Flight Time
707, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777, DC-8, L-1049, Learjet 24/25, L-188
Ground Instructor, Advanced Ground Instructor, Instrument Instructor, Flight Engineer Turbojet
Aircraft Dispatcher
Pan Am, United
United States Air Force (ret)
Over 100 Combat Missions Flown
Command time in:
- N591UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 93)
- N612UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 175)

Captain Ross Aimer
United Airlines, Retired
B-777/767/757/747/737/727/720/707, DC-10/-9/-8 Type ratings
Command time in:
- N591UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 93)
- N612UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 175)

Commander Ralph “Rotten” Kolstad
23,000 hours
27 years in the airlines
B757/767 for 13 years mostly international Captain with American Airlines.
20 years US Navy flying fighters off aircraft carriers, TopGun twice
civilian pilot flying gliders, light airplanes and warbirds
Command time in:
- N644AA (Aircraft dispatched as American 77)
- N334AA (Aircraft dispatched as American 11)

John Lear
Son of Bill Lear
(Founder, creator of the Lear Jet Corporation)
More than 40 years of Flying
19,000+ TT
23 Type ratings
Flight experience includes 707, DC-8, 727, L10-11

Jeff Latas
-Over 20 years in the USAF
--USAF Accident investigation Board President
--Flew the F-111, T38, and F-15E
--Combat experience in the F-15E includes Desert Storm and four tours of duty in Northern and Southern Watch
--Weapons Requirements Officer, USAF HQ, Pentagon
--Standard and Evaluations Flight Examiner, Command level
-Currently Captain for JetBlue Airways

Guy S. Razer, LtCol, USAF (Ret)
3,500+ Hours Total Flight Time
F-15E/C, F-111A/D/E/F/EF, F-16, F-18, B-1, Mig-29, SU-22, T-37/38, Various Cvilian Prop
Combat Time: Operation Northern Watch
USAF Fighter Weapons School Instructor
NATO Tactical Leadership Program Instructor/Mission Coordinator
USAF Material Command Weapons Development Test Pilot
Combat Support Coordination Team 2 Airpower Coordinator, South Korea
All Service Combat Identification Evaluation Team Operations Officer
Boeing F-22 Pilot Instructor
MS Aeronautical Studies, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University


Who said that that was my position?

Well if anything is concealed there must be a conspiracy right? If you question anything regarding the official account you must be a batshit crazy CTist who thinks that we didn't land on the moon.

I am always open to new evidence. But based on the evidence we have, Flight 77 hit the Pentagon on 9/11.
Do you disagree?

No I do not disagree. Does this mean that I should not question the submission of the one blurry photo produced by 85 cameras? If I question that submission does that mean that I think the planes that hit the towers were holographic projections? Apparently, the FDR on flight 77 recorded an altitude of 480ft one second before impact. Should I conclude that because it is obvious that the plane hit the Pentagon then the FDR must have been in error? Does that happen often?

Can I not make the point that just because someone questions the official narrative this does not mean that they are a paranoid, delusional cave dweller?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-02-2013 8:15 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Percy, posted 06-03-2013 8:20 AM ProtoTypical has not yet responded
 Message 85 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-03-2013 10:47 AM ProtoTypical has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17995
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 83 of 110 (700441)
06-03-2013 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by ProtoTypical
06-03-2013 7:32 AM


Re: How can you tell?
I don't think anyone is arguing that you're alone in your conspiracy beliefs. In fact, it is the regularity with which conspiracy-style beliefs are accepted that makes it a fertile area of psychological study.

So of course there are many others who share your pathology, some of whom are experienced armed forces and commercial pilots. They also share your lack of evidence for "what really happened."

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Improve clarity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-03-2013 7:32 AM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 1693 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 84 of 110 (700447)
06-03-2013 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Theodoric
06-02-2013 9:29 PM


Re: Pilots(and anyone else that wants to sign up) for truth
Theodoric writes:

quote:
Lije Baley
Chemist/mathematician
State University of NY

I guess this could be a real person but it is also the exact name of the main character in some of the books from Isaac Asimov's Robot Series.

But he was an excellent detective!
If anyone could find out what really happened, he could.

But there are some inconsistencies with his past that could be indicative of a cover-up.
I am not sure we can trust him.


"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Theodoric, posted 06-02-2013 9:29 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16070
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 85 of 110 (700457)
06-03-2013 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by ProtoTypical
06-03-2013 7:32 AM


Re: How can you tell?
Well you seemed to be arguing that a building with lots of soldiers had no use for cameras and that I had no reason to think that there was more than a couple of parking lot cameras filming at 1fps. Did you not make those points?

No.

If I said that a camera was 'potentially responsive' to a request for film that captured an event it would mean that the camera was pointed in the right direction as opposed to being on the other side of the building. I guess that I can not say what the FBI meant by 'potentially responsive'.

No, you can't. But if, for example, there was a filing cabinet labelled "Pentagon Footage, 9/11/01", then the tapes in that would be potentially responsive until you looked at the tapes, or the labels on the individual tapes.

How many minutes would strike you as odd? Anything less than one?

That would certainly be odd.

When I look at these first few names on the list I would have to say that they do not match your description of them.

I wasn't describing the first few names on the list, I was describing the list.

Assuming then that they are actual people with the listed experience I guess that I am also assuming that they wouldn't join an organization that promoted things that they did not agree with.

But that's not an official standpoint of their organization. Officially they don't have one! Look at their homepage. It says "We do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time [...] we ask for a true, new independent investigation into the events of 9/11." No-one's asked to sign up to every bit of nonsense that Truthers have ever written about 9/11.

Well if anything is concealed there must be a conspiracy right? If you question anything regarding the official account you must be a batshit crazy CTist who thinks that we didn't land on the moon.

I didn't say that either.

No I do not disagree.

Splendid.

Does this mean that I should not question the submission of the one blurry photo produced by 85 cameras? If I question that submission does that mean that I think the planes that hit the towers were holographic projections? Apparently, the FDR on flight 77 recorded an altitude of 480ft one second before impact.

Great Galloping Gish, here's another CT argument! No, it didn't.

Should I conclude that because it is obvious that the plane hit the Pentagon then the FDR must have been in error? Does that happen often?

I don't know that any more than you do; but I know that the CTs who fed you this stuff can be in error, 'cos that does happen often.

However, if they were right about what the altimeter showed, then you would of course conclude that the altimeter must have been in error. Because you have agreed that based on the evidence we have, Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon; so this would lead you to identify instrumental readings suggesting that it didn't as being erroneous.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-03-2013 7:32 AM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-04-2013 11:25 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16070
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 86 of 110 (700504)
06-03-2013 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by ProtoTypical
06-02-2013 3:05 AM


Re: How can you tell?
Here is a pilots description of what Hanjour acheived.

BTW, looking back, the post you refer me to is unsigned. As we now know, people who post on that website don't have to be pilots. Am I missing something, or is there any reason whatsoever to think that the author of that screed was a pilot?

That particular blog post begins:

First let me say i offer no theory or speculation. I definitely do NOT offer that is was a missle, global hawk or otherwise. All the following will be facts (according to reports) and questions.

So, i started with NTSB, since they are the "go-to" guys when you want a report.. right?

This is what i get...

Call me a snob, but I would not like to be flown around the sky by someone who writes like that. But this aside, why do you say that he's a pilot at all?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-02-2013 3:05 AM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1769
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 87 of 110 (700553)
06-04-2013 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Dr Adequate
06-03-2013 10:47 AM


Re: How can you tell?
No.

So....anyway.

Would you say that the population at large is prone to having opinions that they have no evidenced reason for having? Or is it just those that have low self esteem? Is a CTer more likely to suspect that their spouse is cheating on them?

It seems to me that there is no essential difference in the process that people use to form their opinions only a critical difference in the threshold at which they accept something as fact.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-03-2013 10:47 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Taq, posted 06-04-2013 1:12 PM ProtoTypical has acknowledged this reply
 Message 89 by Percy, posted 06-04-2013 1:13 PM ProtoTypical has acknowledged this reply
 Message 90 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-04-2013 1:21 PM ProtoTypical has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7631
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 88 of 110 (700560)
06-04-2013 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by ProtoTypical
06-04-2013 11:25 AM


Re: How can you tell?
It seems to me that there is no essential difference in the process that people use to form their opinions only a critical difference in the threshold at which they accept something as fact.

For conspiracy theorists, that threshold seems very, very low to non-existent for things that they want to be true.

Can you imagine the work it would take to fake the impact? It would be much easier just to crash the damn plane into the Pentagon.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-04-2013 11:25 AM ProtoTypical has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17995
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 89 of 110 (700561)
06-04-2013 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by ProtoTypical
06-04-2013 11:25 AM


Re: How can you tell?
Prototypical writes:

It seems to me that there is no essential difference in the process that people use to form their opinions only a critical difference in the threshold at which they accept something as fact.

I think the key issue is when resort is made to unseen or unknown forces or agents for which there is no evidence. So when you ask, "Is a CTer more likely to suspect that their spouse is cheating on them?" the answer is that whenever they do suspect things of going awry, they're more likely to assign blame to unseen or unknown forces or agents.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-04-2013 11:25 AM ProtoTypical has acknowledged this reply

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16070
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 90 of 110 (700562)
06-04-2013 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by ProtoTypical
06-04-2013 11:25 AM


Re: How can you tell?
Would you say that the population at large is prone to having opinions that they have no evidenced reason for having?

Well, now and then. I used to believe that baby giraffes don't have spots, I have no idea how that got into my head. We're all prone to picking up false information.

A CT is a different sort of thing. It's a cognitive trap. You see, having entered into a CT, then all the evidence one doesn't like can have been faked. And any tiny apparent anomaly (which may not be an anomaly at all, but a result of one's misunderstanding of the subject on the lines of "why are there still monkeys" or "why doesn't the hole in the Pentagon correspond to the wingspan of the plane") is a demonstration of a crack in the facade. (To this the CT-ist can add the normal human faults of confirmation bias and laziness.)

A CT-ist, in short, constructs an unfalsifiable hypothesis. No amount of disconfirmatory evidence can shoot it down; and it has in fact no predictive power --- the hypothesis does not predict that such-and-such a guy at the FAA should be having his first day on the job, or that police should have collected evidence from the Citgo gas station within (some unspecified number of) minutes rather than hours, but they seem ... odd ... which is sufficient.

And it is doubly unfalsifiable because the CT doesn't have to construct a hypothesis as such --- nothing further than that THEY are not telling us the truth, that a conspiracy happened, but not any particular conspiracy. He doesn't have to put up any particular hypothesis that one can examine, he just has to say: "Larry Silverstein used the word "pull", isn't that ... odd?"

With respect to expert testimony, if experts say he's wrong, then they are lying, or brainwashed, or afraid to confront the truth, or would lose their jobs if they speak out ... whereas the handful of cranks on his side are brave fighters for truth, and not the statistically expected bunch of nuts that you always get.

And so on and so forth. As I say, it's a cognitive trap --- once you start thinking like that, there is no evidence that will talk you out of it. The trick is not to get into it.

As to whether there are fundamental differences in psychology, I would guess that these would be purely statistical in nature. The reason why CTs succeed as memes is, as I've tried to explain, because of the nature of the proposition itself.

Are there psychological factors, inclinations of character, that make people more likely to accept CTs? Probably. I have formed no opinions as to what they are, but the OP contains some research on this issue. But we should remember that correlation is not cause. For example, other research shows that conservatives are tidier and more punctual than liberals, but surely that doesn't make them conservatives.

I think the essential reason people become CTs is that they are confidently offered "evidence" that they don't know how to refute. It overwhelms them. For example, with 9/11, they are told: "The collapse of the Twin Towers looks just like a controlled demolition, and the Towers fell perfectly into their own footprints", and so they get argued into CT-ism. There's evidence, y'see, albeit completely made-up evidence. They get this statement from a trusted source, they start being CT-ists.

Six months later, when you show them what a controlled demolition looks like and that bits of the Towers fell all over the damn place, they'll say: "Well of course They took great care to make sure that it didn't look in any way like a controlled demolition". Because now they are CT-ists, they've got themselves into an unfalsifiable position. Having entered into the cognitive trap, they can't be talked out of it by refuting the evidence that talked them into it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-04-2013 11:25 AM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Tangle, posted 06-04-2013 2:32 PM Dr Adequate has responded
 Message 94 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-07-2013 7:30 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Prev12345
6
78Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018