Skeptic Project

Muertos wrote:

Everybody knows what a conspiracy theory (non-legal definition) is.

Not so. The term "conspiracy theory" has many shades of meaning. For example, Ed's definition of "conspiracy theory" ("stupid unfounded illogical irrational claims of conspiracies"), which seems to be the sense in which the term is used by most people here on this message board, is apparently not the definition found in the leading dictionaries. On dictionary.reference.com I found the following, from the Random House dictionary:

1. a theory that explains an event as being the result of a plot by a covert group or organization; a belief that a particular unexplained event was caused by such a group.

2. the idea that many important political events or economic and social trends are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public.

And, from the American Heritage Dictionary:

n. A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act.

Muertos wrote:

The tinfoil hatters know full well that they're conspiracy theorists

Not if "conspiracy theory" is understoood as meaning "stupid unfounded illogical irrational claims of conspiracies." Nobody thinks of one's own beliefs as "stupid unfounded illogical irrational."

Debunkers did not invent the term "conspiracy theory."

Would you happen to know who did invent the term, and its history?

lofihigain wrote:

When you had truther leanings, do you think that it would have helped you to understand the "other side" if they didn't use the term "conspiracy theory"?

I had more than just vague "truther leanings." I delved deeply into arguments both for and against. I spent a lot of time reading the websites of both advocates and opponents of 9/11 inside job claims. And, for at least half a year, I was a regularly-attending member of New York 9/11 Truth.

I deeply distrusted those debunkers who relied heavily on ridicule and other rhetorical ploys. The one debunking site that I always took most seriously, from day one, was 9/11 Myths -- which, although it does use the term "conspiracy theory," nevertheless has a civil and rational tone overall. Thanks to this site I always understood, from day one, that a lot of "inside job" advocates were, at the very least, overstating their case.

However, the 9/11 Myths site did not address the specific inside-job arguments that I personally found most convincing. If more of the other debunker sites, addressing other issues, had a similarly civil and rational tone, I might have been convinced sooner that there is no real evidence for an inside job.

Every now and then I still discuss 9/11 with inside job believers. I know that if I were to adopt the typical rhetoric of "conspiracy theory" debunkers, most of these people would just stop listening to me, period. The term "conspiracy theory" itself is one aspect of that rhetoric.

I had vague CT leanings at one point myself, and the use of the term as a pejorative actually helped me to snap out of it.

This sounds to me like you were convinced against "CT's" primarily via social pressure rather than via rational argument. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) It also sounds like your "CT leanings" were never more than very "vague" in the first place.

Argument via social pressure (e.g. by portraying one's opponents as freaks) has always struck me as a fundamentally dishonest strategy. Not only that, but it just doesn't work in the long run, at least not against a determined opponent, though it might seem to work fine in the short run.

I feel this way, in part, because of my background in the GLBT rights movement. Back in the late 1970's, the religious right wing tried to quash the feminist and gay rights movement by calling themselves the "Moral Majority" and by portraying the GLBT community as a bunch of total freaks. The GLBT rights movement nevertheless gained a lot of strength and respectability since then, although the religious right wing still has not totally lost the ability to appeal to the inarticulate homophobia of many ordinary folks.

the idea that many important political events or economic and social trends are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public.

Diane the above definition you got from dictionary.com is clearly just being kind. However it still says crazy all over it, it just says it in a nice way.

"the products of secret plots"

If you look at something a little more forthcoming than just a dictionary, you find stuff like this:

Conspiracy theory is a term that originally was a neutral descriptor for any claim of civil, criminal or political conspiracy. However, it has become largely pejorative and used almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#cite_note-Barkun_2003-0</p>

"any fringe theory",
"a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning"

I know its Wiki, but I'm pretty sure any encyclopaedia will say the same kind of thing.

Bottom line is Peter knows what it means and just objects to it because we're saying he is believing in something stupid. Instead of simply saying something like "its not a conspiracy theory its a fact!" He decides to play semantics games and try to say that "conspiracy theory" is not really a negative term.

Diane, I don't think argument via social pressure is dishonest if the original claims made are so absurd to begin with. When I encountered ridicule, I was forced to ask myself, "can this many people be this wrong about reality? Are they only opposed to my theories because they are afraid to acknowledge the truth (sheeple)?"

when someone casually calls you crazy, and as an afterthought at that, chances are that you are crazy, or at least have crazy ideas.

so, it had something to do with social pressure for me, I ALWAYS had a problem with the word "sheeple"...the idea itself was one of the things that drove me away from the ideology. A sheep (a close friend, a smart guy) called my ideas loony, and at that moment, I snapped out of it. Only after that was I able to consider rational debate.

Most truthers have to snap out of it before they are able to weigh ideas. Dishonest or not, it worked for me.

lofihigain wrote:

Diane, I don't think argument via social pressure is dishonest if the original claims made are so absurd to begin with. When I encountered ridicule, I was forced to ask myself, "can this many people be this wrong about reality?

That many people can easily be wrong. When I was growing up, overt homophobia was very commonplace even among educated people. And, to this day, it's still commonplace among the uneducated and among religious fundamentalists.

Are they only opposed to my theories because they are afraid to acknowledge the truth (sheeple)?"

Depends on whether they can give an articulate, coherent, rational reason for their beliefs. In my experience, most people have lots of irrational prejudices for which they cannot give coherent reasons.

when someone casually calls you crazy, and as an afterthought at that, chances are that you are crazy, or at least have crazy ideas.

In a fundamentalist-dominated town, apostates are often considered to be even worse than crazy. Doesn't mean the apostates are wrong.

so, it had something to do with social pressure for me, I ALWAYS had a problem with the word "sheeple"...the idea itself was one of the things that drove me away from the ideology.

I have a problem with the word "sheeple" too -- because, like the term "conspiracy theorist," it is (in my experience) counterproductive to rational dialogue between people of different points of view.

Ed wrote, quoting one of the dictionary definitions of "conpsiracy theory":

the idea that many important political events or economic and social trends are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public.

This is actually a description of what I call "grand conspiracy ideology," which is only a subset of what is commonly called "conspiracy theory."

Ed then quoted Wikipedia's definition:

Conspiracy theory is a term that originally was a neutral descriptor for any claim of civil, criminal or political conspiracy. However, it has become largely pejorative and used almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning.[1]

This confirms my point about the ambiguity of the term, because of the way it has evolved in meaning. Ed then singled out the phrase "any fringe theory." To me the term "fringe" clearly pertains to popular prejudice rather than rational argument.

The Wikipedia article also says:

The term is therefore often used dismissively in an attempt to characterize a belief as outlandishly false and held by a person judged to be a crank or a group confined to the lunatic fringe. Such characterization is often the subject of dispute due to its possible unfairness and inaccuracy.

This is exactly why the term "conspiracy theory" is counterproductive in dialogue. It inevitably gives rise to the above-described kind of dispute, which is a distraction from looking at the actual facts, evidence, and relevant epistemological principles.

The Wikipedia article also says:

In the United States of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, conspiracy theories have become commonplace in mass media. [...] According to anthropologists Todd Sanders and Harry G. West, "evidence suggests that a broad cross section of Americans today…gives credence to at least some conspiracy theories."[4] Belief in conspiracy theories has therefore become a topic of interest for sociologists, psychologists and experts in folklore.

Diane responded to my question with:

>>It is my opinion that Zeitgeist does promote both (1) grand conspiracy ideology and (2) unfounded allegations of government wrongdoing.

I refrain from using the term "conspiracy theory" simply because I consider it to be unproductive in dialogue. <<

zeitgeist didnt make itself and its group & webpage didnt magically appear from thin air. Peter J Merola made it all happen. So if zeitgeist does ergo Peter Joseph Merola does.

This is exactly why the term "conspiracy theory" is counterproductive in dialogue. It inevitably gives rise to the above-described kind of dispute, which is a distraction from looking at the actual facts, evidence, and relevant epistemological principles.

Irrelevant. That's not what Peter is saying, Peter is saying the term Conspiracy Theory doesn't really means what it means. Instead of just saying, no, the conspiracies discussed in the films are not conspiracy theories they are based on sound factual evidence we get some pseudo-intellectual redefinition of what "conspiracy theory" means.

Regarding the main such argument -- the one that got me into the topic in the first place -- please see the thread The "symmetry of collapse" argument. I can discuss more about the evolution of my beliefs some other time.

Did you happen to read Ryan Mackey's paper on Griffin?

http://www.911myths.com/images/playlists/dulles_security/Microsoft_Word__drg_nist_review_1_1.pdf</p>

I am curious as to why you said you didnt want to ask on the JREF? Were you banned or something? Or are you a well known truther there and they don't like you?

On a related topic, please see also the thread To Ed: When you were a 9/11 Truther.... I would be very interested in your reply.

I did notice, I will get to it. I'm busy, I just get roped into stuff again.

Jeez. Debunking sure has become complicated since Diane got here, hasn't it? I'm not allowed to call Dr. Babs with her pink hair and her Star Wars space beam theory a raving lunatic, I have to advocate for a new 9/11 panel to waste taxpayers' money investigating nothing and searching for documents that don't exist, and I can't even use the words "Conspiracy Theory." All in the name of "dialogue" with Truthers and so I don't look "biased and irrational."

I would recommend the following two, much more precise terms, which cover different aspects of what is commonly called "conspiracy theory": (1) grand conspiracy ideology and (2) unfounded allegations of government wrongdoing.

Neither of these terms are precise, and the distinction doesn't make sense in any event. You hate what you call "grand conspiracy ideology" as much as we hate all conspiracy theories, and you've expended great effort here to try to convince us that getting in bed with Truthers, coddling them and letting them spew their ridiculous bullshit theories is somehow "the lesser of two evils" and is somehow productive in defeating "grand conspiracy ideology."

I am also amused by the frequency with which you suggest that the nuttier Truthers out there, the ones who do wallow in the crazy with their space beams and such, are "hoaxters" the way Dr. Zaroff and I have occasionally hoaxed the conspiracy crowd. This indicates to me not only a fundamental failure on your part to understand how the conspiracy underground works, but also a desperate desire to exonerate conspiracists and apologize for their more egregious excesses in favor of talking up people like Nick Levis--whose only difference with the obvious nutbars lies not in what he believes or the conclusions he endorses, but the 50-cent words he uses to try to explain his ridiculous theories. By that logic I can see why you want to give Merola a pass.

I'd like to hear Edward's thoughts on changing the name of his website to "Unfounded Allegations of Government Wrongdoing Science." That kind of has a ring to it, doesn't it?

And I still dont understand what you don't you understand about the "symmetry of collapse". What did you expect to happen? The thing to fall over like some kind of cartoon tree? Unlike your favourite truther Nick claims it didn't fall into its own footprint in a perfect free fall fashion. We have absolutely no reason to think explosives of any sort were used and what he calls squibs are blinds billowing in the wind, they don't look anything like actual squibs.

The fact is truthers that even consider explosives after they have been told why its nonsense really ARE stupid or insane. For example, absolutely no one suffered any injuries consistent with explosives, that single thing alone should be enough to tell them they are wrong,

Muertos wrote:

I'm not allowed to call Dr. Babs with her pink hair and her Star Wars space beam theory a raving lunatic

The "Star Wars space beam theory" is not representative of the beliefs of most 9/11 Truth activists. None of the more reasonable people in the movement endorse it.

I have to advocate for a new 9/11 panel to waste taxpayers' money investigating nothing and searching for documents that don't exist

Obviously, you don't "have to advocate for" something you don't believe in.

However, there are even quite a few "9/11 conspiracy theory debunkers" who would not agree with your rejection of the idea of a more independent follow-up to the 9/11 Commission. When I was on Democratic Underground back in 2008, nearly all the debunkers conceded that a new investigation was a good idea; they just weren't interested in setting a positive example of how to advocate for one. Ditto for Chip Berlet, as quoted in the 2006 Washington Post article The Disbelievers.

To me, it seems self-evident that the 9/11 Commission's unfinished job should get finished. And, for any debunker who does agree with that idea, setting a positive example would be a great way to open a dialogue.

Regarding my distinction between grand conspiracy ideology and unfounded allegations of government wrongdoing, you wrote:

You hate what you call "grand conspiracy ideology" as much as we hate all conspiracy theories, and you've expended great effort here to try to convince us that getting in bed with Truthers, coddling them and letting them spew their ridiculous bullshit theories is somehow "the lesser of two evils" and is somehow productive in defeating "grand conspiracy ideology."

My recommendation is not that 9/11 debunkers do exactly what I am doing, focusing just on grand conspiracy ideology while de-emphasizing any critique of other unfounded claims. The point of my distinction between grand conspiracy ideology and unfounded allegations of government wrongdoing is not that people shouldn't oppose the latter. Different people have different priorities, and that's fine. If you prefer to specialize in debunking 9/11 claims, that's fine.

However, whatever your priorities might be, breaking the perceived problem of "conspiracy theory" down into smaller, more precisely-defined parts -- rather than lumping it all together as one big undifferentiated mass -- will make dialogue a whole lot easier between people of different points of view. Another thing that will make dialogue easier is finding whatever common ground you honestly can with the person you are talking to. The latter is just basic human psychology.

I hope I've clarified my position.

Why does my distinction between grand conspiracy ideology and unfounded allegations of government wrongdoing not make sense to you?

I am also amused by the frequency with which you suggest that the nuttier Truthers out there, the ones who do wallow in the crazy with their space beams and such, are "hoaxters" the way Dr. Zaroff and I have occasionally hoaxed the conspiracy crowd.

I don't know how many of them are hoaxters. I don't claim that all of them are hoaxters, although I do suspect that at least some of them are. What I do know is that there is a qualitative difference between them and other 9/11 Truthers.

I don't understand why you insist on ignoring what to me is a glaringly obvious difference. I can only guess that you are doing so as part of the common human tendency to lump all of one's perceived enemies into one box.

This indicates to me not only a fundamental failure on your part to understand how the conspiracy underground works

And the basis of your implied claim of superior knowledge of how the "conspiracy underground" works is ...?

but also a desperate desire to exonerate conspiracists and apologize for their more egregious excesses in favor of talking up people like Nick Levis--whose only difference with the obvious nutbars lies not in what he believes or the conclusions he endorses, but the 50-cent words he uses to try to explain his ridiculous theories. By that logic I can see why you want to give Merola a pass.

What you see as a "desperate desire to exonerate" is simply a refusal to demonize and dehumanize.

And, no, I am not proposing that Edward change the name of his website (whose name does not contain the phrase "conspiracy theory" to begin with), although I do think it would be an improvement to his site to categorize different kinds of "conspiracy theories," with somewhat different approaches to each kind.

To Ed: I'd really prefer not to have further discussion with you about 9/11, or about the 9/11 Truth movement, until after you've told me (as requested in this thread) your story of how you became a 9/11 Truther, how you were eventually dissuaded, and how you felt about your dealings with both Truthers and debunkers during the time when you were a Truther.

As I said earlier: I'm especially curious about your own history because of your insistence that any and all 9/11 Truthers are ipso facto not just wrong but insane and incapable of rational thought. Aren't you, thereby, judging yourself rather harshly, given that you were once a 9/11 Truther yourself?

In the meantime, just a brief comment about Nicholas Levis vs. Mark Roberts: I should point out that Mark Roberts varies quite a bit in how he presents himself. Back in 2007, his posts in the JREF forum made an extremely bad impression on me. But then, when I saw him on a DVD of his "Hardfire" debate with the Loose Change kids, he made a much better impression on me, and indeed played a key role in helping me to understand what was wrong with the "symmetry of collapse" argument. Also, Nicholas Levis's encounter with Mark Roberts apparently took place back in September 2006, when Roberts was -- if I'm not mistaken -- fairly new to 9/11 debunking. If so, it's understandable why he might have been perceived as a "lightweight."

Re: Mark Roberts and 2007 - Look how many threads he started on 911 in 2006:
http://forums.randi.org/search.php?searchid=425216&pp=25&page=4

The fact is Nick is a douchbag too arrogant to debate Mark properly yet complains that he only debates crazy people.

Ed wrote:

You brought Nick up in a thread dealing with legitimate questions about 911.

Wrong. I brought him up in the thread on Different sectors of the 9/11 Truth movement. Subsequently you, not I, brought him up in the thread on Legitimate topics for a follow-up to the 9/11 Commission.

using him as a good example of a truther that asks legitimate questions

In the post where I first mentioned him, I said nothing about his "questions." I was replying to Sky, who had written:

In MY experience, the more "agnostic" type 9/11 truthers who really just want a new investigation are usually morons who have been duped by the more hardcore truthers who would believe in a conspiracy no matter what.

I brought Nicholas up as a counterexample to the above statements. Nicholas takes an agnostic stance but is intelligent (not a moron) and not a dupe (he was a pioneering leader). In the post where I first mentioned him, I said nothing about the questions in the 2004 petition, many of which are out-of-date, as I subsequently conceded here.

Edit: Ed wrote:

Re: Mark Roberts and 2007 - Look how many threads he started on 911 in 2006:
http://forums.randi.org/search.php?searchid=425216&pp=25&page=4

I can't read that page because I'm not a member of the JREF forum. Anyhow, the question most relevant to how new he was in 2006 is not how many threads about 9/11 he started in 2006, but, rather, when he started his first thread about 9/11.