On the Truth Movement and Irreducible Delusion

[R.Mackey]

Author Feedback

Thanks to all who commented. It is pretty darn long, and I sympathize with those who don't find it interesting. But it summarizes something I've been thinking about for several months, actually thought of it while on the phone waiting for Hardfire. The bottom line for me is that people are complicated, and we all make mistakes. This is one category of mistake that seems almost tailor made for conspiracy theories.

Anyway, I hope some find it useful. It was useful to me just to organize it.

I don't know if you have ever read Paul Tillich's Dynamics of Faith ... The parallel I see between Tillich's argument and yours is that a minor point is often given far more weight than it really deserves (such as Griffin's obsession with Airfones). This adds weight to your argument that allowing such an Irreducible Delusion to be removed would have greater consequence on one's world view than the removal of a similar Non-irreducible Delusion (if such a beast exists).

I haven't read Paul Tillich but I think you're on to something. A "non-irreducible delusion" is a "reducible delusion" (mathematicians abhor double negatives!), i.e. if you work on it you can find a cause, and should tackle that instead.

I don't spend much time personally aiming at religion, partly because in my experience there is a fantastically broad diversity of it, almost enough to defy classification. But that's another topic entirely.

You've gone from "in general" in the summary to "many" right in the first sentence of your "paper". All the "leaders" you mention did enter the scene not before 2005. 9/11 skeptics don't have a leader at all and you have a real problem with selective picking of "evidence".

Yes, my initial summary is far too brief to be accurate. This is partly because I am simply not skilled enough to summarize a 7,000 word treatise in three lines without leaving out some critical details. If you read the text, you will see that I acknowledge not all 9/11 conspiracy theorists harbor Irreducible Delusions, and even those who do can sometimes still provide useful debate if properly handled; and I acknowledge that no one, "debunkers" included, is immune to this effect.

Regarding my choice of examples, I freely admit they all post-date 2005, and they are all "cherry-picked." This is not a flaw. I am not providing a proof-by-example, rather I am providing "textbook" examples to illustrate a process. Naturally I would focus on the cleanest examples I can find.

About your comment that "debunkers" do not have a leader, I agree. I'm not sure how this bears on my discussion.

I especially liked your admonition regarding the use of ridicule, which was thoughtful and kind on your part.

Congratulations, and thanks!

You are quite welcome. I honestly see no evidence that ridicule has had the desired effect of educating people and putting an end to spurious theories. I have, of course, sunk to that level myself plenty of times, but it really doesn't seem to help.

To me it seems to be faulty logic to conclude "Truth Movement numbers are declining, therefore most people are decided on 9/11". I think you'd find most people aren't even aware there's anything to decide, or have no interest in the matter at all.

As stated, I agree with you -- it seems to me that few people pay attention to this debate at all, and I cannot tell whether it's because they aren't exposed to it, don't care, their common sense kicks in instantly, or simply that the Truth Movement has gotten so specialized that it turns off newcomers. My point instead is that very few if any "fence-sitters" are going to the Truth Movement. I suppose it's possible that with a major retooling, the Truth Movement could again begin to swell in numbers, but frankly I see no likelihood of that occuring at this point. It is the effect that dictates my choice of strategy, not the theoretical potential.

Mackey... drink much?

In moderation, but never when operating a motor vehicle, firearm, or forum post dialogue. I should at this juncture mention in passing that, rather than the intended audience, you are instead precisely the sort of individual this essay is about. Thank you for providing your case as a example.

I thought you might have included some tips on how to counter when they accuse us of logical fallacies but perhaps that belongs to a different topic. Often times they throw out ad-hom and strawmen accusations willy-nilly and I would like to better address that when they are wrong. Have you or anyone else talked about this before (link maybe)?

I don't have a thread ready for this question. In general, the counter-attack is another standard diversionary tactic when one's core belief is threatened. This should in many cases be considered just another warning sign that you are facing a fruitless argument, and should start trying to find the Irreducible Delusion at the heart of it all. I would be tempted to ignore the accusations and try to avoid distraction.

Having said that, it is also important to be very sure that your opposition is not correct, and you are not guilty of logical fallacies. We all make mistakes, and once things get heated those mistakes start to multiply. So you may also wish to take a step back and review the accusations critically, just in case you've missed something.

 

[Sizzler]

What the...this should be interesting. Thanks for the contribution Mackey. I hope to comment once I get the time to read it.

 

[LashL]

Excellent work, as usual, R.Mackey.

The minor nitpicks that I have with it are just that - minor nitpicks - so I'll just say:



Well done, sir.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I'm sorry Ryan, I missed the white paper, could you repeat that one more time?

 

[Hokulele]

A "non-irreducible delusion" is a "reducible delusion" (mathematicians abhor double negatives!), i.e. if you work on it you can find a cause, and should tackle that instead.

Good thing I ain't no non-mathematician.

 

[brumsen]

With all due respect, Mackey....
(and I do respect you, given that you've been the most consistently civil and helpful person I have come across on this forum)

I am less than impressed.

Firstly, I think there's nothing new under the sun, but you use many words, and jargon, to say it again.
If I've understood well what you wrote (but feel free to correct me if I have not), basically what you say is this: "if you find that there is persistent disagreement, try to isolate the premiss at the basis of that disagreement, and point out why and how it is false".
Basic logic, I would have thought?!
OK - and then there's some stuff on the different ways in which these premisses can be wrong, and how central they can be to anybody's belief system. All said before, I think.

(BTW, major nitpick: in part II, just above where you classify the 3 delusions, you say "no logic based upon a false premise is ever valid". What you ought to say here is, "... is ever sound". Read, for example, here.)

Secondly, I believe that you are barking up the wrong tree.
Although you are quite right, in principle, that the basic premiss - what you call, the irreducible delusion - needs to be attacked rather than all that follows from it, I believe that this has little chance of convincing many troofers.

In my personal experience, after having been branded a troofer here, the constant attacks and ridicule were of such an abrasive nature that anyone's natural reaction would be to dig their heels in. This way of debating - ridiculing even quite reasonable statements, which would have come in for far less ridicule coming from somebody else - makes it almost impossible to give up one's central premiss. I'd say therefore that your abovementioned consistent calls for civility are much more to the point, and much more likely to yield results.

In other words, I think the manner in which one debates with troofers is actually more important than how central the premiss that is being refuted.

Your civility - and I would admit, that of at least some others here - combined with the obvious lack of it among certain troofers, and the growing madness of the infighting among troofers, of which prof J Fetzer stands as a lighting example, are what convinced me that there was no point in further pursuing the troof.

Sorry to be so harsh. You've obviously put some work into it.

 

[gumboot]

I believe that you are barking up the wrong tree.
Although you are quite right, in principle, that the basic premiss - what you call, the irreducible delusion - needs to be attacked rather than all that follows from it, I believe that this has little chance of convincing many troofers.

I think you might have missed the point. Those whose position is based on an irreducible delusion cannot be convinced. R.Mackey's premise is that the above process can be used to identify those holding an irreducible delusion so that debate with said people can be avoided.

Thus the above is not proposed as a way to "convince" Conspiracy Theorists, but as a way for people to determine who they will discuss matters with, and who they will not.

R.Mackey's methodology is in fact precisely what I have been applying for some time now, although he has formalised the methodology whereas I was following it more on gut instinct.

I concur with you on the treatment of new arrivals to these forums. Some people just need to think a bit more before replying to posts - I've seen long standing "debunker" posters here get attacked by other long standing "debunker" posters because they asked a question that was interpreted as a standard Conspiracy Theorist tactic.

 

[bje]

In my personal experience, after having been branded a troofer here, the constant attacks and ridicule were of such an abrasive nature that anyone's natural reaction would be to dig their heels in.

Ask yourself what came first: the chicken or the egg?

Perhaps you didn't notice that Truthers dug their heels in about 9/11 early in 2002 and no amount of reasoning, rational discussion, and pointing to facts has had any effect since. Truthers chose to throw the rules out. It should not surprise you that Truthers end up being made fun of and treated with the derision they earned.

 

[brumsen]

Truthers chose to throw the rules out. It should not surprise you that Truthers end up being made fun of and treated with the derision they earned.

Thank you for providing an example of the "us" and "them" thinking which renders debate with people who are at first inclined to take a reasonable approach so contrarious and persistent.

@gumboot, yes I was a bit careless there. But taking a civil approach and stopping to debate anyone who does not reciprocate would probably do fine, no?

 

[~enigma~]

Thank you for providing an example of the "us" and "them" thinking which renders debate with people who are at first inclined to take a reasonable approach so contrarious and persistent.

Since you are a truther it seems that you might be too close to be able to see their arguments. Look through the posts here and LCF and the comments at SLC blog plus the various myspace groups about 9/11 and the biggest common thread is that either you are with us or you are a paid government shill. Just open your eyes and you will see but if you choose to avoid seeing it, that is nobodys fault but your own and it does not mean it isn't true.

 

[bje]

Thank you for providing an example of the "us" and "them" thinking which renders debate with people who are at first inclined to take a reasonable approach so contrarious and persistent.

You certainly missed the point, Brumsen. It is not "us vs. them". What you see now is clearly a result of trying to be reasonable with "twoofers" (your word) who chose and continue to choose not to be. Perhaps you're new at this but a little research into early discussions, say with Dick Eastman and Gerard Holmgren, will help you see the issue a little better.

 

[bje]

As an example, this is an ongoing thread started by one Tanabear who states at the outset:

I have noticed that 9/11 debunkers appear to become irritated when truthers point out the fact that all they do is regurgitate government propaganda, regarding the events of 9/11.

Follow the responses, starting out reasonable and helpful. Follow Tanabear's responses and lack of responses.

Your thoughts, Brumsen?

 

[gumboot]

But taking a civil approach and stopping to debate anyone who does not reciprocate would probably do fine, no?

I think that probably is fine, but I don't think it's necessarily the end word.

I'll cite, for example, my recent exchange with Bio in the "Anomalies at the National Military Command Center" thread. Our exchange has been civil, however I have still decided to cease partaking because it was a waste of my time and energies - Bio suffers from a "irreducible delusion" and there's no point continuing.

R.Mackey's methodology can be useful for two reasons:

1) It can help establish why the debate has degenerated into insults and bickering (a degeneration of discussion into this level is often a sign that someone involved has an irreducible delusion)
2) It can help avoid the circumstances of 1) arising by identifying the "road block" early on and thus leading to suspension of debate before it can get personal.

I personally think there's two ultimate examples of irreducible delusion on these forums - the Killtown thread about UA93, and ChristopherA's "realistice" thread.

I participated heavily in both threads, and for the most part both ChristopherA and Killtown conducted themselves with civility (at least within the thread) however each still produced a gargantuan behemoth of a thread with utterly no value whatsoever, and not even the most remote advancement of the discussion. All of us who participated wasted many long hours in a pointless endeavour, that could have easily been avoided by applying R.Mackey's methodology.

 

[twinstead]

I personally think there's two ultimate examples of irreducible delusion on these forums - the Killtown thread about UA93, and ChristopherA's "realistice" thread.

Ah yes. Good times.

 

[RedIbis]

I recognize my posts in your analysis, such as this one:

There is no discernible inferno in WTC 7. Not a single photo shows inferno like conditions, as are seen in other hi rise fires.

In fact, both Shyam Sunder and Arthur Scheuerman describe WTC 7 as an ordinary office fire, severe yes, but not an inferno, and certainly not as you suggested "the single largest office fire in history." I asked you to post one report that calls WTC 7 this and you have not.

Did the calculations you provide assume that every floor of the WTC 7 was on fire, or did you update your calculations to reflect the most recent assessments of which floors were on fire and which floors' fires extinguished before collapse?

Dare I say that your insistence (solely your own since you could not provide a report which called WTC 7 the largest office bldg fire in history) is an example of the Strong Delusion complete with the mined quote:

It is also worth pointing out that Firefighter Papalia, interviewed by the BBC in their recent Conspiracy Files report, refers to the fire in WTC 7 as “an inferno” without prompting.

 

[applecorped]

Is there logic without humans?

 

[R.Mackey]

Firstly, I think there's nothing new under the sun, but you use many words, and jargon, to say it again.
If I've understood well what you wrote (but feel free to correct me if I have not), basically what you say is this: "if you find that there is persistent disagreement, try to isolate the premiss at the basis of that disagreement, and point out why and how it is false".
Basic logic, I would have thought?!

Yes, but it's what happens after this point that is important -- in logic, one gets stuck here, and has no choice but to hammer the error over and over and over again. What I'm calling for, at this point, is a leap of logic, rather the simple acceptance that such errors exist. Logic, much like AI systems, doesn't do a very good job of proceeding with faulty data.

Secondly, I believe that you are barking up the wrong tree.
Although you are quite right, in principle, that the basic premiss - what you call, the irreducible delusion - needs to be attacked rather than all that follows from it, I believe that this has little chance of convincing many troofers.

This is why the departure is needed: Some people simply cannot be convinced through logic, others cannot be convinced at all. One has to just let this go.

In my personal experience, after having been branded a troofer here, the constant attacks and ridicule were of such an abrasive nature that anyone's natural reaction would be to dig their heels in. This way of debating - ridiculing even quite reasonable statements, which would have come in for far less ridicule coming from somebody else - makes it almost impossible to give up one's central premiss. I'd say therefore that your abovementioned consistent calls for civility are much more to the point, and much more likely to yield results.

In other words, I think the manner in which one debates with troofers is actually more important than how central the premiss that is being refuted.

Your civility - and I would admit, that of at least some others here - combined with the obvious lack of it among certain troofers, and the growing madness of the infighting among troofers, of which prof J Fetzer stands as a lighting example, are what convinced me that there was no point in further pursuing the troof.

I agree with this completely, as described in the Conclusion. This is also why departing from the endless back-and-forth is so important. Arguing logically when one party rejects a basic fact will try the patience of a saint. It is important to keep it civil, simply because someone who cannot be convinced logically may be convinced emotionally. Not to mention, anger shortens one's lifespan... I believe you and I are closer than you picked up on first read.

And no need to apologize, criticism is welcome.

 

[R.Mackey]

I recognize my posts in your analysis, such as this one:

Did the calculations you provide assume that every floor of the WTC 7 was on fire, or did you update your calculations to reflect the most recent assessments of which floors were on fire and which floors' fires extinguished before collapse?

All of those assumptions were declared explicitly in the calculation that you so studiously ignored. There's little point trying to reopen a question when you refuse to even read the answer.

As with Homeland Insurgency, thank you for providing another working example. Your beliefs regarding the fires in WTC 7 are unarguably false. Any conclusion you draw therefrom is unreliable. No further argumentation with you on this point is warranted until you accept this, and convincing you is not my responsibility.

Dare I say that your insistence (solely your own since you could not provide a report which called WTC 7 the largest office bldg fire in history) is an example of the Strong Delusion complete with the mined quote:

Dare if you wish, but you would be wrong. The quote is not my sole source of information. I only included it to counter any possible semantic argument.

 

[DavidJames]

Well done Ryan and if I understand correctly, if everyone adhered to your recommendations this forum would pretty much become inactive, no?

 

[applecorped]

Well done Ryan and if I understand correctly, if everyone adhered to your recommendations this forum would pretty much become inactive, no?

This forum is illogical.