Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
A chance remark I made to Scott Sommers some time ago in another thread has led me to wonder whether there isn't an element of cognitive dissonance to the behaviour of debunkers in this forum, not least myself. It's not what the truthers like to think it is; they have a typically half-formed belief that cognitive dissonance is responsible for the conclusion that 9/11 was not an inside job, even though that belief more or less contradicts any rational definition of cognitive dissonance. It's more to do with how we engage with truthers, and how that relates to our belief systems concerning evidence, rationality and human behaviour.
We're all familiar with the pattern of posting on a typical thread here. A truther makes a claim that appears on the face of it to support a 9/11 conspiracy theory. Several regulars point out internal inconsistencies within the claim, inconsistencies between the claim and other related claims made by the same truther, inconsistencies between the claim and the evidence, and inconsistencies between the claim and any possible rationally constructed narrative. As we can all predict, the truther will then handwave away any responses on the flimsiest of pretexts, will rapidly change the subject to a completely different claim, will misrepresent all the responses so as to construct spurious counter-refutations, or in some other way avoid addressing the objections raised to his claim. Having done so, at some point he will declare himself unconvinced by the objections, and imply that an inside job is proven. We all know it's going to happen, and it almost always does.
There are, as far as I can see, only three reasons why we do it. One is that "almost always"; every now and then a truther is intellectually honest enough to re-examine his claims in the light of counter-arguments, and finds them to be untenable. We have a few posting here who have made that leap, and no longer believe in the conspiracy theories. Another is the commonly voiced argument that we're only doing it for the lurkers. Again, now and then we see a post from someone who was initially swayed, whether completely or partially, by the conspiracy theories, but on seeing debunkers' responses was able to recognise the flaws in them. These are both rare occasions, though, and there is little reward to be had from either.
The third, then, is this: we are, in some sense, trying to reconcile the deeply held belief that all reasonably intelligent people are capable of rational analysis of evidence, with the obvious observation that some truthers, intelligent enough to frame grammatically correct sentences and post them on a discussion forum, are nevertheless completely unable to see beyond their prejudices, however glaringly obvious they may be to the rest of us. We are confronted with information that is inconsistent with our beliefs, and we respond by trying ever harder to convince truthers, who almost by definition cannot be convinced. For the most part, it's futile and unrewarding. There is little new material of interest available to debunkers, because there is little or nothing new from the truth movement (see R.Mackey's "Lost in Space" thread for a justification of this assertion). So we find ourselves repeating the same explanations to the same people who have repeatedly rejected them for inadequate reasons, and perhaps wondering why we bother.
If this is true, I'm not sure exactly what the solution is, other than simply ignoring the 9/11 truth movement, a solution most of the world has adopted quite successfully. But what it does explain, I think, is the ongoing fascination amongst people dedicated to critical thinking for the pointless act of trying to address those incapable of it through rational debate, despite more often than not failing. This is also consistent with the periodic debates on whether or not we should shut down this forum; we are conflicted on whether any of it is worthwhile or not, because we believe it should be worthwhile but observe that it tends not to be.
It's an explanation, of course, that's equally applicable to any other part of the forum, but I think I see it often here.
Thoughts? Not just from debunkers; I'd be interested to see what truthers think, if only because I expect an entertaining level of misrepresentation from them of everything I've tried to say. And, of course, there's always the chance that my cognitive dissonance will compel me to try to respond.
Dave
We're all familiar with the pattern of posting on a typical thread here. A truther makes a claim that appears on the face of it to support a 9/11 conspiracy theory. Several regulars point out internal inconsistencies within the claim, inconsistencies between the claim and other related claims made by the same truther, inconsistencies between the claim and the evidence, and inconsistencies between the claim and any possible rationally constructed narrative. As we can all predict, the truther will then handwave away any responses on the flimsiest of pretexts, will rapidly change the subject to a completely different claim, will misrepresent all the responses so as to construct spurious counter-refutations, or in some other way avoid addressing the objections raised to his claim. Having done so, at some point he will declare himself unconvinced by the objections, and imply that an inside job is proven. We all know it's going to happen, and it almost always does.
There are, as far as I can see, only three reasons why we do it. One is that "almost always"; every now and then a truther is intellectually honest enough to re-examine his claims in the light of counter-arguments, and finds them to be untenable. We have a few posting here who have made that leap, and no longer believe in the conspiracy theories. Another is the commonly voiced argument that we're only doing it for the lurkers. Again, now and then we see a post from someone who was initially swayed, whether completely or partially, by the conspiracy theories, but on seeing debunkers' responses was able to recognise the flaws in them. These are both rare occasions, though, and there is little reward to be had from either.
The third, then, is this: we are, in some sense, trying to reconcile the deeply held belief that all reasonably intelligent people are capable of rational analysis of evidence, with the obvious observation that some truthers, intelligent enough to frame grammatically correct sentences and post them on a discussion forum, are nevertheless completely unable to see beyond their prejudices, however glaringly obvious they may be to the rest of us. We are confronted with information that is inconsistent with our beliefs, and we respond by trying ever harder to convince truthers, who almost by definition cannot be convinced. For the most part, it's futile and unrewarding. There is little new material of interest available to debunkers, because there is little or nothing new from the truth movement (see R.Mackey's "Lost in Space" thread for a justification of this assertion). So we find ourselves repeating the same explanations to the same people who have repeatedly rejected them for inadequate reasons, and perhaps wondering why we bother.
If this is true, I'm not sure exactly what the solution is, other than simply ignoring the 9/11 truth movement, a solution most of the world has adopted quite successfully. But what it does explain, I think, is the ongoing fascination amongst people dedicated to critical thinking for the pointless act of trying to address those incapable of it through rational debate, despite more often than not failing. This is also consistent with the periodic debates on whether or not we should shut down this forum; we are conflicted on whether any of it is worthwhile or not, because we believe it should be worthwhile but observe that it tends not to be.
It's an explanation, of course, that's equally applicable to any other part of the forum, but I think I see it often here.
Thoughts? Not just from debunkers; I'd be interested to see what truthers think, if only because I expect an entertaining level of misrepresentation from them of everything I've tried to say. And, of course, there's always the chance that my cognitive dissonance will compel me to try to respond.
Dave
). But if the idea is one of the other possibilities I've posted above, then it's not. Does that make sense?
