On the Truth Movement and Irreducible Delusion

[RedIbis]

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.

Looks to me all you've done is set up some high fallutin' explanation for why you won't debate your opponent. I'll try to break this down another way.

Your claim is that WTC 7 was a fully involved inferno, the largest office bldg fire in history. Is this accurate?

If I try to refute that claim, my argument suffers from Irreducible Delusion. If NIST does not agree with you and you cannot offer any support for your claim, it is you who suffers from the characteristics you describe.

Specifically these two:
"Refusal to change the belief at any cost, leading to increasingly improbable excuses"
"Dogged avoidance of direct discussion, either through distraction or total refusal to give debate"

Funny how it tends to work out that way with absolutist arguments.

 

[mrbaracuda]

Good grief. RedIbis is worse than I expected!

 

[R.Mackey]

Your claim is that WTC 7 was a fully involved inferno, the largest office bldg fire in history. Is this accurate?

If I try to refute that claim, my argument suffers from Irreducible Delusion. If NIST does not agree with you and you cannot offer any support for your claim, it is you who suffers from the characteristics you describe.

This is true. It is also a vacuous truth, because:

(a) I have offered support for my claim, as documented above; and
(b) I have also already acknowledged that my estimate is subject to change once better data become available.

Furthermore, the discussion isn't about my claim at all, but yours, and your claim is not dependent upon mine. You continue to grace me with a sterling example of distraction as a hallmark of Irreducible Delusion.

It is for this reason only that I entertain your commentary with a response. As I have already explained in a several thousand word thesis, I am not only justified in ignoring your delusion, but it is in fact the most productive course of actoin.

 

[Wowbagger]

Two comments, if you will:

1. I think a better term for "Irreducible Delusion" would be the already established "Cognitive Dissonance". I suspect your paper could be enhanced by placing it in terms of how CTers have resolved their dissonance. This might even have empirical implications we can test for.

2. I think it would be an act of personal incredulity to assume there is nothing that can be done to turn them around. I don't have any precise solutions, myself. But, the more we study about how the mind works, the better chance we have for developing possible solutions.
People have changed their minds, and dug themselves out of holes, in the past. It can happen in the future.

The best book I read, on the subject, (although not really related to CTers, but much of it still applies) was Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me), by Carol Travis and Elliot Aronson.

Disclaimer: I am NOT a psychologist. You might want to consult with a professional research psychologist on anything I say, here.

 

[R.Mackey]

1. I think a better term for "Irreducible Delusion" would be the already established "Cognitive Dissonance". I suspect your paper could be enhanced by placing it in terms of how CTers have resolved their dissonance. This might even have empirical implications we can test for.

2. I think it would be an act of personal incredulity to assume there is nothing that can be done to turn them around. I don't have any precise solutions, myself. But, the more we study about how the mind works, the better chance we have for developing possible solutions.
People have changed their minds, and dug themselves out of holes, in the past. It can happen in the future.

Both good points.

I believe there is a difference between Irreducible Delusion and Cognitive Dissonance. The latter is what happens when an individual tries to harbor both sides of the conflict. In my experience with the Truth Movement, when someone is in the grip of Irreducible Delusion, that person is quite firm and convinced, not at all holding on to both ideas. But there is of course a strong relationship between the two.

In my AI system model, Cognitive Dissonance is what happens when a false input leads to a contradiction. Depending on how the system is built, it may either freeze solid, scream for help, or actually enter an oscillating mode... The very best trigger heuristics based on probability or timing information.

Regarding the second point, you are correct and I do not wish to give the impression that, for certain, nothing will change some individuals' minds. I merely express my experience that logic and debate don't seem to work.

I don't feel qualified to represent or summarize those who have broken the deadlock and given up on the Truth Movement, or their reasons why, but it would be a valuable discussion. I seem to recall one or two here in the past, notably Mikey Metz who I referenced in the Introduction.

 

[RedIbis]

This is true. It is also a vacuous truth, because:

(a) I have offered support for my claim, as documented above; and
(b) I have also already acknowledged that my estimate is subject to change once better data become available.

Furthermore, the discussion isn't about my claim at all, but yours, and your claim is not dependent upon mine. You continue to grace me with a sterling example of distraction as a hallmark of Irreducible Delusion.

It is for this reason only that I entertain your commentary with a response. As I have already explained in a several thousand word thesis, I am not only justified in ignoring your delusion, but it is in fact the most productive course of actoin.

I think this several thousand word thesis is just a long winded goodbye to the 9/11 forum, an elaborate excuse to stop debating.

 

[applecorped]

I think this several thousand word thesis is just a long winded goodbye to the 9/11 forum, an elaborate excuse to stop debating.

Possibly.

 

[Brainster]

However, the “Terror Timeline” in question is little more than a remarkable collection of mined media quotes, all of them early and inaccurate or taken out of context, as has been demonstrated repeatedly.

Wonderful overall post, Mr M! However, I would quibble here that what you mean is that the contradictions cited by Griffin at the Terror Timeline amount to little more than.... etc. The Terror Timeline is certainly contaminated by Trooferism but it still contains valuable information and links to many original sources.

 

[R.Mackey]

I think this several thousand word thesis is just a long winded goodbye to the 9/11 forum, an elaborate excuse to stop debating.

Think what you please.

 

[R.Mackey]

However, I would quibble here that what you mean is that the contradictions cited by Griffin at the Terror Timeline amount to little more than.... etc. The Terror Timeline is certainly contaminated by Trooferism but it still contains valuable information and links to many original sources.

True, there is a subtlety there that I did not explore. I was focused on Dr. Griffin and not Mr. Thompson, and I'd already blown my word budget several times over.

The "Terror Timeline" is not wrong, per se, but instead often used incorrectly. Its omissions are also significant and constitue bias. However, it would be correct to state that bias is hardly the same thing as deception or error. Used properly and mindful of its bias, the "Terror Timeline" does have value as a resource. Hope that clarifies.

 

[GlennB]

...
Regarding the second point, you are correct and I do not wish to give the impression that, for certain, nothing will change some individuals' minds. I merely express my experience that logic and debate don't seem to work.

Logic and debate can certainly work, especially in the case of those who have some scientific background. But, curiously, some major figures in the Twoof movement have a very strong scientific background. So I imagine it becomes a tug-of-war between the pull of the undeniability of science and the pull (for some) of the overwhelming desire for attention.

 

[beachnut]

I think this several thousand word thesis is just a long winded goodbye to the 9/11 forum, an elaborate excuse to stop debating.

Why do you never use evidence to support your veiled position on 9/11, which remains elusive and undefined, like a theory from p4t, or some vaporware waiting for more funding.

There is no debate on 9/11 involving 9/11 truth, there is hearsay spewed continuously and false ideas from 9/11 truth. No evidence. Your posts contain no evidence. Why is the 9/11 truth movement buried in ignorance on 9/11 topics with no evidence?

Why was the 9/11 truth movement, stillborn?

 

[applecorped]

Why do you never use evidence to support your veiled position on 9/11, which remains elusive and undefined, like a theory from p4t, or some vaporware waiting for more funding.

There is no debate on 9/11 involving 9/11 truth, there is hearsay spewed continuously and false ideas from 9/11 truth. No evidence. Your posts contain no evidence. Why is the 9/11 truth movement buried in ignorance on 9/11 topics with no evidence?

Why was the 9/11 truth movement, stillborn?

It does?

 

[applecorped]

It's not transparent or elusive or undefined. It is fabricated.

 

[OldTigerCub]

A lot of good points and an excellant analysis of the nature of the arguments presented by truthers. Thanks, Ryan!

This whitepaper is the considered opinion of the author alone and does not represent the James Randi Educational Foundation or any other agency or organization, public or private. All work performed with the author’s own materials on the author’s own time. All excerpts, sourced and anonymous, conform to Fair Use guidelines. This whitepaper contains no medical or psychological opinion or suggested course of treatment of any kind. You’ve been sitting there far too long, get out and enjoy the day.

Actually I have been out doing yardwork all weekend. My ISP lost their backbone connection Friday and is still down. If it wasn't for my aircard, I would still be completely disconnected. Thanks to Verizon, I got plenty of fresh air the last couple of days!

 

[pomeroo]

Ryan's thread is fascinating and important in ways that no twoofer could possibly comprehend. I much prefer reading the contributions of our gaggle of loons to hearing myself pontificate, but I do want to offer, in greatly truncated form, an illuminating anecdote. I have been involved in a protracted e-mail exchange that includes Dr. Greening, the no-planers Ace Baker, Morgan Reynolds, Paula Gloria, "genghis," and assorted other fantasists such as the virulent Jew-hater Dick Eastman, and the distressingly reasonable Anthony Lawson (why is he a fantasist at all?). The new kid on the block is Rasga Saias, an America-hater who posted on YouTube a spectacularly inept video purporting to demonstrate through the use of shadows the nonexistence of the planes that hit the Towers.

I made the extremely banal point to Saias that a single genuine video of a plane hitting the South Tower proves that a plane really hit the Tower. He hotly denied this. I tried again: If someone contends that all swans are white, the existence of a single non-white swan refutes his contention. He raved about the "authorities" and who is qualified to judge. Once more into the breach: Rasga, if you find a thousand videos of the crash of Flight 175 that have been faked and one that has not, that one demonstrates that Flight 175 hit the building. He continued to babble until Ace Baker (!!!!) chimed in that, yes, a single genuine video proves that a plane hit the building.

Now, what are we to conclude? Is Rasga one the dumbest humans on the planet? That conclusion is always tempting, but I think it misses the key to the situation, which is: ANY concession to reality, however small, is potentially deadly to the fantasy movement.

Think about that for a moment. It is the reason why a conspiracy liar MUST embrace the whole crazy quilt of crackpot nonsense and absurd, preposterous speculations. If he allows that the air traffic controllers really did track planes into NYC where they suddenly vanished, he's opened a can of worms. If he entertains the possibility that the FBI didn't fabricate the flight manifests, then he is left with real Islamo-terrorists on the planes that crashed. If the forensic examiners at the Dover Port Mortuary really did identify the remains of passengers and crew from Flight 77, well, the consequences for the fantasy movement are devastating.

Sure, we rationalists relish the hopeless logical tangles the liars enmesh themselves in. But, what is their alternative? Logic to a fantasist is similar to sunshine to a vampire: No amount is insignificant.

 

[Dave Rogers]

For some reason my browser won't reply to this thread with a quote, so I'll have to paste in DavidJames's comment:

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

Firstly, absolute agreement on the "Well done Ryan" bit, I find your analyses of the truth movement very illuminating, and this is no exception. As for the forum becoming inactive, though, I would beg to differ. The main function of debunking, as I see it, is not to convince the people advancing conspiracy theories that they are misinterpreting and misunderstanding the evidence, but to convince their potential converts that this is the case. However, even when the evidence has been clarified, there may still be a lingering doubt in the mind of the neutral observer that, since supposedly intelligent and well-educated people have subscribed to the conspiracy theories, there must somewhere be some merit in them. The best counter to this is, I suspect, to identify the central unfalsifiable beliefs at the heart of the conspiracist's error, and these are the irreducible delusions referred to. In a way it's a logical fallacy, in that it involves using an argumentum ad hominem to counter an inappropriate appeal to authority. However, on an emotional level, it's sometimes necessary, having addressed the argument, to counter the belief in the authority of the arguer. Therefore, engaging with even Ace Baker levels of delusional thinking is valuable, because only by exploring the conspiracist's beliefs can we point out, to others so far undecided, the underlying source of their error.

Some debunkers - and I have occasionally flirted with them myself, something I rather regret - like to invoke anti-semitism as an irreducible delusion of the truth movement. This is, I suspect, itself something of an irreducible delusion, bolstered by the understanding that there is no more powerful way of undermining the credibility of an individual than a successful accusation of anti-semitism. Certainly, though, there is one poster on this forum whose otherwise beguiling hypotheses become much easier to dismiss when one learns that he is simply unable to conceive of any act of evil being carried out by anyone other than Jews. Once one understands this, his power of persuasion is gone. With other truthers the source is harder to uncover, and usually far less reprehensible, but once it's exposed then it becomes very difficult to take the individual seriously any more.

This suggests, then, that a valuable role of this forum is not just to counter the truthers' arguments, but to uncover the source. Once that's done, any outside observer can clearly see, not only how the truther's arguments are flawed, but why.

Dave

 

[A W Smith]

The new kid on the block is Rasga Saias, an America-hater who posted on YouTube a spectacularly inept video purporting to demonstrate through the use of shadows the nonexistence of the planes that hit the Towers.

I made the extremely banal point to Saias that a single genuine video of a plane hitting the South Tower proves that a plane really hit the Tower. He hotly denied this. I tried again: If someone contends that all swans are white, the existence of a single non-white swan refutes his contention. He raved about the "authorities" and who is qualified to judge. Once more into the breach: Rasga, if you find a thousand videos of the crash of Flight 175 that have been faked and one that has not, that one demonstrates that Flight 175 hit the building. He continued to babble until Ace Baker (!!!!) chimed in that, yes, a single genuine video proves that a plane hit the building.

I followed R Mackey's redirection link in the op and then to 911blogger and Reprehensors change of direction notice. Which amongst other things, had a link to a video debunking the no planer film September Clues. It appears they will no longer allow debate about 911. And closed the blog to 911 debate they will be focusing on false flag terrorism instead.

That's all for now. Sorry to be so blunt about content, but some arguments do not need to be replayed over and over in our comments section. Bringing these topics up here will result in your user account being added to the moderation queue, effective immediately. A blocking of the account may follow.
Thanks.
-rep.

Off topic but I found this debunking of September clues interesting pomeroo/Ron, Which is why I quoted a portion of your post.

Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

 

[rwguinn]

The organizers and contributors to the Journal are under the delusion that it is the process, and not the content, that determines quality of research.

In the words of Rufo (Oscar Gordon's valet, squire, etc)
"a Wart Seven!"
I've been practicing your philosophy a while....

 

[Bobert]

I think this several thousand word thesis is just a long winded goodbye to the 9/11 forum, an elaborate excuse to stop debating.

Debate what?
The truth movement does nothing but recycle the same arguments that have been debunked time and time again.
Besides wasnt 2008 or 2007 or 2006 or 2005 supposed to be the year of "action" for the truth movement?
What little evidence the truth movement claims to have has been dismissed in court how many times now?
I mean LOL Judy Woods was pretty much laughed out of the courtroom.
CIT claims to have evidence but has been sitting on this evidence for 2 years and seems to refuse to bring it to any court.
I mean lets put politics out of this and drop truther versus skeptic and just ask each other what type of researcher sits on evidence of mass murder?
Why is that the members of the truth movement arent friggin DEMANDING that its own members who claimm to have evidence arent bringing it to a court of law?