On the Truth Movement and Irreducible Delusion

[Mobyseven]

Is there logic without humans?

There's certainly little logic with them...

 

[Mobyseven]

Meanwhile, at Truth Movement University...

I disagree, and....




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". So for now,

tl;dr

You are able to do better, R.

Ryan's papers? tl;dr

Gravy's papers? tl;dr

The 9/11 Commission Report? tl;dr

NIST report? tl;dr

Given the astounding lack of evidence provided by the debunkers, I must therefore conclude that 9/11 was an inside job.

 

[brumsen]

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.

I do think that cognitive dissonance is just the term for what you describe.
In the wikipedia article that you linked to it says:
The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a fundamental cognitive drive to reduce this dissonance by modifying an existing belief, or rejecting one of the contradictory ideas.
That does not really fit with your description of cognitive dissonance, imho. A troofer will consider the evidence you present to him (even if it appears that he does not); conclude that there is a contradiction; and then reject the evidence, or provide a contrived story of how your evidence can be made to fit with his version of events.

 

[gumboot]

I do think that cognitive dissonance is just the term for what you describe.
In the wikipedia article that you linked to it says:
The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a fundamental cognitive drive to reduce this dissonance by modifying an existing belief, or rejecting one of the contradictory ideas.
That does not really fit with your description of cognitive dissonance, imho. A troofer will consider the evidence you present to him (even if it appears that he does not); conclude that there is a contradiction; and then reject the evidence, or provide a contrived story of how your evidence can be made to fit with his version of events.

R.Mackey is quite right. To put it another way, irreducible delusion is the invalid method of avoiding cognitive dissonance.

(The valid method is of course "accepting reality" or similar.)

In this way cognitive dissonance and irreducible delusion are directly linked, yet discreet, psychological conditions.

ETA. To emphasise, the link you yourself cite states quite clearly:

"Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling or stress caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously."

(My bolding).

The sentence you cited is not a definition of cognitive dissonance, but an explanation for how people react to it.

 

[Orphia Nay]

A profound and thought-provoking article, Mr Mackey.

[...]

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.

[...]

Is that so? Well, congratulations on revising your beliefs! Well done.

I firmly believe being ridiculed was a turning point in my own woo beliefs, but posts like yours make me more certain that ridicule only plays a very small part in the process of debate... logic and civility should be the lion's share of it.

 

[DaN K. StAnLeY]

Darn you, and your smart-talk R-Mac. Now I have to go to Dictionary.com and read this post three more times, just to understand it. (Sigh) Anyone else ever think they are too dumb to be here?

I just wanted to add three more things to the post.

1) If you've had the same argument, with the same "truther", over and over again, eventually YOU become the idiot.

2) If the person you are debating appears to be high, wait at least 2 hours before you try and reason with them (and NEVER blame the weed).

3) Friends don't let friends hang up "9/11 Was An Inside Job" signs.....remember that!

 

[mrbaracuda]

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.

Well spoken, good sire of pomeroo descent!

 

[applecorped]

There's certainly little logic with them...

Isn't logic a human construct? Does logic exist outside the human mind?

 

[nicepants]

Great paper! I saw it the other day but finally sat myself down and read the whole thing. You've expressed quite eloquently what I've noticed time & time again with the truthers. Their entire view is (usually) based on one or more delusions, which flaw their logic to the very core.

Usually, in my discussions/debates with truthers (or anyone who appears to have such a delusion) I attempt to reduce the discussion to the core delusion...because as long as their foundation is skewed, nothing built on it is going to fare any better.

 

[johnny karate]

Looks to me all you've done is set up some high fallutin' explanation for why you won't debate your opponent.

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

So smugly chides the Fleer of Threads.

 

[R.Mackey]

R.Mackey is quite right. To put it another way, irreducible delusion is the invalid method of avoiding cognitive dissonance.

(The valid method is of course "accepting reality" or similar.)

In this way cognitive dissonance and irreducible delusion are directly linked, yet discreet, psychological conditions.

This is my understanding as well -- the Irreducible Delusion gives rise to Cognitive Dissonance, but they aren't quite the same thing.

There's another fine point: I believe Cognitive Dissonance only applies if the subject actually understands and accepts both conflicting facts. To choose a trivial example, if someone tells me the sky is green, that doesn't cause any Cognitive Dissonance; I simply reject it.

In many conversations with the Truth Movement, I believe that our counterarguments frequently fail to reach this level. I have told people at various times things like "only 25 kg of jet fuel could have caused the destruction in the WTC Towers basement" and "Boeing 767's can fly at 600 MPH at sea level, are easy to steer into a building, but are very hard to fly by remote control," only to see these comments rejected out of hand. It's unusual for one in the thrall of Irreducible Delusion to seriously consider a contradicting fact. At least that's how it has appeared to me.

 

[dudalb]

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.

I also think you have to factor in political opinions here. I think some of the Truthers who have a background in science have,sadly, allowed their political opinions to overrule their knowledge of science.

 

[Max Photon]

The conspiracy to cloak conspiracies

Conspiracy theories in general and 9/11 conspiracies in particular are not logical, so debating with folks who believe in them is usually pointless and leads to a lot of yelling. It's better to just find the root mistake, point it out for everyone, and let it go. Humans are simply not logical creatures.​

Ryan,

Am I reading this correctly? Are you implying all conspiracy theories are not logical because all conspiracies never actually happen?

Max

 

[~enigma~]

Ryan,

Am I reading this correctly? Are you implying all conspiracy theories are not logical because all conspiracies never actually happen?

Max

Another truther with reading comprehension problems...how surprising.

 

[Max Photon]

My reading comprehension was good enough to get me a job with the FIB

Another truther with reading comprehension problems...how surprising.

enigma,

I have dyslexia, and am actually quite proud of how well I manage.

Max


c. 2008

All rights reversed

 

[mrbaracuda]

Man, now this, this was funny. Now and then I have a look at one of the German twoofer forums I know, and for some coursework one of the tardy twoofer members came across - shock horror ! - the concept of cognitive dissonance. You can guess where it went from there.

 

[R.Mackey]

Ryan,

Am I reading this correctly? Are you implying all conspiracy theories are not logical because all conspiracies never actually happen?

Max

No. That isn't what I said at all.

I said that conspiracy theories in general are not logical, and in the body of the text, I define the test for logical quality, and the root cause of illogic when it is found, in rigorous detail. Take another look.

 

[Open Blinded]

Ryan,

Am I reading this correctly? Are you implying all conspiracy theories are not logical because all conspiracies never actually happen?

Max

Correct me if I am wrong anyone. Isn't a conspiracy theory not a theory once it is just a conspiracy? This kind of goes against the scientific use of theory, however "conspiracy theory" is just vernacular for some unproven idea or alternate explanation for an event.

What truthers call the "official story" is actually the most widely accepted narrative of what happened but we don't still call it a conspiracy theory do we?

 

[pomeroo]

Ryan,

Am I reading this correctly? Are you implying all conspiracy theories are not logical because all conspiracies never actually happen?

Max

Max, the temptation is great to reply that of course you are not reading Ryan's statement correctly. In fairness, I should say a bit more.

Generally, conspiracy theories are promoted by people who, for subjective reasons, feel the need to shoehorn reality into a factitious worldview. What is of paramount importance to such types is the comfort provided by the conspiracy theory, the reinforcement of the worldview. Whether or not the belief in question can stand critical scrutiny is completely irrelevant. Time after time, we have seen fantasists on this forum recycle ancient, thoroughly discredited rubbish without making the slightest effort to engage the other side. They simply don't care if they are right. The resulting debate is a simulacrum, not the real thing.

Conspiracy theories are not logical because they are designed to overturn conclusions reached through evidentiary reasoning. It is their purpose, not their probability of being true, that makes them illogical. The conspiracist is not merely illogical: he assaults logic. As suggested by the behavior of Rasga Saias, the conspiracist seeks to deny that the laws that govern formal logic have any connection with the world.

A fastidiously objective person, who demands incontrovertible evidence and is rigorous in his application of reason, could conceivably ferret out a real conspiracy. He would, however, be following the Truth wherever the trail happened to lead. Unlike 9/11 fantasists, he would be doing something qualitatively different from slamming the square peg of his desires into the round hole of reality.

Conspiracies can't be ruled out a priori. Nevertheless, when they have failed every empirical test, they should be discarded. Conspiracy theorists should be regarded as unreliable guides: their approach tells us little about reality, but far more about themselves.

 

[Max Photon]

Homo Logikos

No. That isn't what I said at all.

I said that conspiracy theories in general are not logical, and in the body of the text, I define the test for logical quality, and the root cause of illogic when it is found, in rigorous detail. Take another look.

Actually, I hadn't even taken one look. I was responding to your abstract.

And I know that's not what you said. I asked what you were implying.

Anyway, I look forward to reading your piece.


By the way, what are some good examples of logical conspiracy theories? (Does the check-kiting scheme between the US Treasury and the FED count?)


Max