Huh? You are the conspiracy theorist. You believe in the Bush adm. conspiracy theory. We don't, we are the sceptics.
The Bush adm conspiracy theory is what is on the table. Nothing else. We truthers use our critical faculties to debunk this conspiracy theory that you try to defend. You are the believer we are the sceptics.
Our debunking activities of this official theory has resulted in the conclusion that it is false on many accounts. So we have strong suspicions that it was an inside job.
But, we don't have any proofs who did it. To determine that we need further investigations.
You are mudding the waters here. The semantics is on our side. We are the sceptics, you are the believer in a conspiracy theory.
A "conspiracy theory" is not equivalent to a "theory which contains a conspiracy therein".
A "conspiracy theory" is a very specific thing. Definitions include, but are not limited to
Quote:
A
conspiracy theory attempts to explain the ultimate cause of an event or chain of events (usually
political,
social, or
historical events) as a
secret, and often
deceptive, plot by a
covert alliance of powerful or influential people or organizations. Many conspiracy theories claim that major events in history have been dominated by conspirators who manipulate political happenings from behind the scenes.
The first recorded use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" dates back to an economics article in the 1920s, but it was only in the 1960s that it entered popular usage. It entered the supplement to the
Oxford English Dictionary as late as 1997.
[1]
The term "conspiracy theory" is used by mainstream scholars and in
popular culture to identify a type of
folklore similar to an
urban legend, especially an explanatory narrative which is constructed with particular
methodological flaws.
[2] The term is also used
pejoratively to dismiss claims that are alleged by critics to be misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish, irrational, or otherwise unworthy of serious consideration. For example "Conspiracy nut" and "conspiracy theorist" are used as pejorative terms. Some whose theories or speculations are labeled a "conspiracy theory" reject the term as prejudicial.
The term "conspiracy theory" may be a neutral descriptor for any
conspiracy claim. However, conspiracy
theory is also used to indicate a
narrative genre that includes a broad selection of (not necessarily related) arguments for the existence of grand conspiracies, any of which might have far-reaching social and political implications if true.
Whether or not a particular conspiracy allegation may be impartially or neutrally labeled a conspiracy theory is subject to
some controversy. Conspiracy theory has become a highly charged political term, and the broad critique of 'conspiracy theorists' by
academics,
politicians,
psychologists, and the
media cuts across traditional left-right political lines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
Quote:
Main Entry:
conspiracy theory
Function:
noun
: a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators
-
conspiracy theorist noun
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conspiracy%20theory
Quote:
conspiracy theory
- belief that event is plot: a belief that a particular event is the result of a secret plot rather than the actions of an individual person or chance
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpag...spiracy+theory
This is different from a theory (in the scientific sense) that contains a conspiracy
Quote:
Conspiracy*
Conspiracy, in law, agreement between persons to do something illegal or criminal. In this offense, the mere agreement of the conspirators is...
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpag...x?q=conspiracy
Quote:
Main Entry:
con·spir·a·cy 
Pronunciation: k&n-'spir-&-sE
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural -cies
Etymology: Middle English
conspiracie, from Latin
conspirare
1 : the act of
conspiring together
2 a : an agreement among
conspirators b : a group of
conspirators
synonym see
[SIZE=-1]PLOT[/SIZE]
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conspiracy
Quote:
In the
criminal law, a
conspiracy is an agreement between two or more
natural persons to break the law at some time in the future, and, in some cases, with at least one overt act in furtherance of that agreement. There is no limit on the number participating in the conspiracy and, in most countries, no requirement that any steps have been taken to put the plan into effect (compare
attempts which require proximity to the full offence). For the purposes of
concurrence, the
actus reus is a continuing one and parties may join "the plot" later and incur joint liability and conspiracy can be charged where the co-conspirators have been acquitted and/or cannot be traced. Finally, repentance by one or more parties does not affect liability but may reduce their
sentence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_%28crime%29
To equate the two terms is equivocation.
To further expound on my point that "a conspiracy theory" <> "a theory containing a conspiracy"
Quote:
SKEPTIC
November 2006 issue
Wronger Than Wrong
Not all wrong theories are equal
By Michael Shermer
In belles lettres the witty literary slight has evolved into a genre because, as 20th-century trial lawyer Louis Nizer noted, "A graceful taunt is worth a thousand insults." To wit, from high culture, Mark Twain: "I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it." Winston Churchill: "He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire." And from pop culture, Groucho Marx: "I've had a perfectly wonderful evening. But this wasn't it." Scientists are no slouches when it comes to pitching invectives at colleagues. Achieving almost canonical status as the ne plus ultra put-down is theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli's reported harsh critique of a paper: "This isn't right. It's not even wrong." I call this Pauli's proverb.
Columbia University mathematician Peter Woit recently employed Pauli's proverb in his book title, a critique of string theory called Not Even Wrong (Basic Books, 2006). String theory, Woit argues, is not only based on nontestable hypotheses, it depends far too much on the aesthetic nature of its mathematics and the eminence of its proponents. In science, if an idea is not falsifiable, it is not that it is wrong, it is that we cannot determine if it is wrong, and thus it is not even wrong.
Not even wrong. What could be worse? Being wronger than wrong, or what I call Asimov's axiom, well stated in his book The Relativity of Wrong (Doubleday, 1988): "When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Asimov's axiom holds that science is cumulative and progressive, building on the mistakes of the past, and that even though scientists are often wrong, their wrongness attenuates with continued data collection and theory building. Satellite measurements, for instance, have shown precisely how the earth's shape differs from a perfect sphere.
The view that all wrong theories are equal implies that no theory is better than any other. This is the theory of the "strong" social construction of science, which holds that science is inextricably bound to the social, political, economic, religious and ideological predilections of a culture, particularly of those individuals in power. Scientists are knowledge capitalists who produce scientific papers that report the results of experiments conducted to test (and usually support) the hegemonic theories that reinforce the status quo.
In some extreme cases, this theory that culture shapes the way science is conducted is right. In the mid-19th century, physicians discovered that slaves suffered from drapetomania, or the uncontrollable urge to escape from slavery, and dysaethesia aethiopica, or the tendency to be disobedient. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, scientific measurements of racial differences in cognitive abilities found that blacks were inferior to whites. In the mid-20th century, psychiatrists discov-ered evidence that allowed them to classify homosexuality as a disease. And until recently, women were considered -inherently inferior in science classrooms and corporate boardrooms.
Such egregious examples, however, do not negate the extraordinary ability of science to elucidate the natural and social worlds. Reality exists, and science is the best tool yet employed to discover and describe that reality. The theory of evolution, even though it is the subject of vigorous debates about the tempo and mode of life's history, is vastly superior to the theory of creation, which is not even wrong (in Pauli's sense). As evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins observed on this dispute: "When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong."
Simply wrong. When people thought that science was unbiased and unbound by culture, they were simply wrong. On the other hand, when people thought that science was completely socially constructed, t hey were simply wrong. But if you believe that thinking science is unbiased is just as wrong as thinking that science is socially constructed, then your view is not even wronger than wrong.
Michael Shermer is publisher of Skeptic (
www.skeptic.com). His new book is Why Darwin Matters.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?cha...mber=2&catID=2
