On the Truth Movement and Irreducible Delusion

[dc1971]

deleted

 

[Dave Rogers]

R. Mackey claims proponents of the alternate conspiracy narrative suffer from irreducible delusion because they never change their belief in regard to the conspiracy narrative of a particular event. Tanabear provided proof that they do, and that is supporters of the mainline conspiracy narrative who do not.

But Tanabear's statement doesn't tell the full story. In fact, we see that there are up to three stages of belief people go through, always in the same order, but that not everybody goes through all three. Firstly, there is uncritical acceptance of the generally accepted account, which is where most people start out. Secondly, there is rejection of the generally accepted account, based either on perceived inconsistencies in the evidence or on a desire to believe a narrative that goes against the mainstream. Finally, there is critical acceptance that, although the generally accepted narrative is not a perfect account of the actions and motivations of the people involved, it's a sufficiently close approximation to serve as a basis for understanding.

As I said, not everybody goes through all three stages. Most people will remain at stage 1 because they simply have no interest in examining the details of history. Truthers are those who get stuck at stage 2, because they refuse to accept that their belief system is unfounded. We on JREF are those who have progressed from stage 1 to stage 3, whether by way of stage 2 or not. It's fairly clear that it's impossible to regress from stage 2 or 3 to stage 1, because that would require unlearning learned information. However, what's most significant is the absence of anyone who can verifiably have been seen to move from stage 3 to stage 2.

In other words, there are uninvolved people who have become truthers, uninvolved people who have become debunkers, and uninvolved people who have become truthers and then gone on to become debunkers. However, there are very few, or perhaps no, debunkers who have become truthers; certainly there is nobody who has been active on the debunking side of the debate who has then switched to the truther side, whereas the reverse move is fairly common.

I'm not suggesting that as positive proof that we're right, but it should at the very least give pause for thought.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

So R. Mackey, how do you explain that truthers do "switch sides" if, according to you, they suffer from "Irreducible delusion"?

Most of us would describe this as "recovery".

Dave

 

[RedIbis]

It's rather hilarious that Mackey's proof of Thompson's bias and irresponsible research are the two paltry links he provides here:

The reasoning process above illustrates the effect of Irreducible Delusion. Originally, the evidence of the Truth Movement was not “convincing” to Dr. Griffin; however, upon receiving the critical piece of information from Paul Thompson, his entire world view apparently changed, and he then embraced their interpretations. This is an example of the Conditional Irreducible Delusion, in that it is conditional on a great many facts – those alleged by Mr. Thompson – being valid. 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.

Thompson complied the single best 9/11 resource on the web. I sense that Mackey is jealous of Thompson's well organized, concise and thoroughly searchable Timeline. Talk about delusion.

 

[Horatius]

I guess you could say I was a truther who switched sides, although I wasn't parroting Loose Change word for word and I sure as heck wasn't as far gone as WTC Dust... (is there a cuckoo clock smile?)

I'm not sure there is a phrase for someone like me (or Joe911) who realized the Truther movement is nothing but conspiracy theories! Maybe you could call us "Switchers"!!

I think the answer lies in this part of Mackey's post:

Abstract

In this whitepaper the author defines and applies the idea of Irreducible Delusion, which is the concept of a central element of illogic underlying many conspiracy theorist belief structures, and an artifact demonstrably present in the statements of many leaders and members of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

"Many" =/= "All". It's possible to be a Truther who doesn't display an Irreducible Delusion, but because of that, such Truthers actually respond to the arguments and evidence that is presented to them.

It's been said before that Skepticism, at its base, is a process of coming to provisional conclusions on the basis of incomplete information. If one were only to have access to the limited information presented in typical CT presentations like Loose Change, one could reasonably conclude that the "Inside Job" hypothesis was likely the correct explanation for the events of 9/11. But after being presented with counter-arguments and more complete evidence, someone truly interested in the truth would re-evaluate their stance, and conclude that the Inside Job hypothesis is likely false.

Of course, we've all seen the guys who don't re-evaluate their position after being presented with new evidence, and it's their behaviour that Mackey is trying to explain - what is it about them that makes them different from you or joe911? Mackey's answer is the existence of an Irreducible Delusion - some core idea that they cannot, or will not, re-evaluate.

Understanding why they won't re-evaluate this core idea is quite difficult, but recognizing that they refuse to re-evaluate it is quite easy. Mackey has provided a diagnostic tool that can be used to determine when were dealing with this type of Truther, so we can make a reasonable estimate of the likelihood of our having any affect on them. If the Truther has an ID, we might as well stop wasting our time with them, as it's almost certain that nothing we say, and no evidence we provide, will ever alter their position.

 

[Edx]

Interesting.

So now you believe in the OCT?

I said the same thing, I used to be a truther. I guess no one read my post!

 

[Edx]

There's nothing to BELIEVE! There is an outstanding preponderance of evidence to back up the events that happened that day! This is not a religious debate!

Actually I do see it as a religious debate. We are on the side of science and the truthers on on the side of religion. Like evolution vs Creationism. See? I didnt used to see it that way, but after a while they act exactly like any Creationist I've ever debated.

 

[Horatius]

Here's a good example of an Irreducible Delusion, going on right now. bill smith is holding up a case of Heiwa losing his "Heiwa Challenge" as an example of "Heiwa consistently wip(ing) the floor with the poor best that the debunkers here ha(ve) to offer".

It's this kind of behaviour that is being described by R.Mackey.

 

[brazenlilraisin]

That kind of behavior can much more simply be described as a troll making a wind-up comment.

 

[Baylor]

Is Ryan Macky a JREF God?

No. He explains technical concepts to the layman very effectively. There are many others in the JREF forums who are highly skilled in the physical sciences (Sol Invictus for exmaple) but they don't communicate their knowledge as well as Mackey does.

 

[Horatius]

That kind of behavior can much more simply be described as a troll making a wind-up comment.

It's tempting to believe that, but based on some PM contacts I've had with bs, I believe he is sincere. We're had Fake Truther Trolls here before, and if he is one of those, he's way more dedicated to his art than any other I've ever seen.

 

[Prometheus]

This is a fascinating thread. Thank you to all who have contributed. This is exactly what I was looking for when I came to JRED! Thank you!

I know it is old, but I read through it and would like to point out that R.Mackey never offered a logical response to this rational rebuttal of his theory which attempts to explain the psychology of proponents of the alternate conspiracy narrative:

In effect, Tanabear provided a critique of R. Mackey's theory, demonstrating a logical fallacy in his argument.

R. Mackey claims proponents of the alternate conspiracy narrative suffer from irreducible delusion because they never change their belief in regard to the conspiracy narrative of a particular event. Tanabear provided proof that they do, and that is supporters of the mainline conspiracy narrative who do not.

R. Mackey, in turn, replied with ad hominem attacks against Tanabear's character (ad hominem attacks emphasized in bold).

So R. Mackey, if you care, could you please provide a logical rebuttal to Tanabear's debunking of your theory (and allow me to finally get some sleep by laying the 9/11 alternate conspiracy to rest)?

Thank you

The parts you bolded are not Ad Hominems. I suggest you look up the definition of the term before attempting to use it.

 

[NutCracker]

The parts you bolded are not Ad Hominems. I suggest you look up the definition of the term before attempting to use it.

Agreed. There's a member here, sorry, forgot who, who has some nice, and relevant, lines in his signiture, saying something like "Saying you are ugly is not an ad hominem, saying you are wrong because you are ugly is an ad hominem."

The OP doesn't seem to know the distinction.