On the Truth Movement and Irreducible Delusion

[johnny karate]

Ok, how about foreknowledge and LIHOP, somewhat more plausible?

Certainly. But LIHOP still requires evidence. In seven years, Truthers have presented exactly none. Nor have they managed to convince a single MSM outlet, law enforcement agency, or investigative body on the planet that this theory is compelling enough to warrant further investigation.

 

[gumboot]

I think LIHOP is even less plausible than MIHOP, unless you're willing to believe that the conspirators were willing to risk their very lives on the expectation that none of the various government agencies would ever connect the dots.

The only alternative to that is of course that all those government agencies were in on it, which just brings you back to the "impossibly vast conspiracy" conundrum.

 

[Pardalis]

Ok, how about foreknowledge and LIHOP, somewhat more plausible?

You'd be happy with anything right?

That's what bugs me about twoofers. You just want the US to be guilty of something, if it's not MIHOP then you casually move to LIHOP, and then back again to MIHOP when any anomaly turns up again.

 

[RedIbis]

I think LIHOP is even less plausible than MIHOP, unless you're willing to believe that the conspirators were willing to risk their very lives on the expectation that none of the various government agencies would ever connect the dots.

The only alternative to that is of course that all those government agencies were in on it, which just brings you back to the "impossibly vast conspiracy" conundrum.

Patsies or agents who believed they were participating in a drill is at least worthy of consideration.

 

[R.Mackey]

I think LIHOP is even less plausible than MIHOP, unless you're willing to believe that the conspirators were willing to risk their very lives on the expectation that none of the various government agencies would ever connect the dots.

The only alternative to that is of course that all those government agencies were in on it, which just brings you back to the "impossibly vast conspiracy" conundrum.

Personally, I feel anything that violates the laws of physics is about as implausible as it gets, closely followed by anything that breaks all known technological limits. LIHOP at least doesn't suffer from this problem, although it surely strains the imagination in others.

To fairly evaluate this, however, we would need an example of a coherent LIHOP hypothesis to see how plausible it really is.

Anyone got one?

Anyone?

Hello? Is this on..?

 

[pomeroo]

I'm still waiting to hear a fantasist propose a remotely plausible motive for the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy. To date, we've heard that a shadowy cabal plunged the U.S. economy into recession and murdered three thousand people in order to go to war with Afghanistan. Sorry, but this makes no sense. I mean, it doesn't even make a little bit of sense. Why should any sane adult take such nonsense seriously?

 

[RedIbis]

I'm still waiting to hear a fantasist propose a remotely plausible motive for the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy. To date, we've heard that a shadowy cabal plunged the U.S. economy into recession and murdered three thousand people in order to go to war with Afghanistan. Sorry, but this makes no sense. I mean, it doesn't even make a little bit of sense. Why should any sane adult take such nonsense seriously?

Did the US go to war anywhere else besides Afghtanistan, or was it just Afghanistan?

 

[R.Mackey]

Darn, I forgot an Irreducible Delusion recognition feature in my whitepaper: Answering questions with other, increasingly tangential questions.

Ah well. So it has a few wrinkles.

Please try to keep it on topic, gentlemen.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Ryan,

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

I'm kind of baffled at the fact that numerous conspiracies theorists keep trying to attribute this belief to debunkers...

 

[pomeroo]

Did the US go to war anywhere else besides Afghtanistan, or was it just Afghanistan?

Ah, so your imaginary conspiracy's goal was to transfer control of both houses of Congress from the Republicans to the Democrats. A bit of a sticky wicket, old bean. We understand that the Iraq War came within a whisker of costing Bush an otherwise slam-dunk re-election. We understand that the war will probably elect a Democratic President this time around. We understand that the tiny percentage of oil we used to import from Iraq has actually been reduced as a result of the war. We understand the "war for oil" has not actually provided us with any oil. Now, we can rave about Halliburton's conquest of the world, natural gas pipelines that are not being built, and the evil neo-cons' agenda to do whatever the hell you people pretend that they advocate doing, but the stuff I mentioned has a quality that renders it terribly inconvenient for you fantasists: it actually happened in the real world.

 

[boloboffin]

Ryan, excellent article, and I am honored by the reference.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Personally, I feel anything that violates the laws of physics is about as implausible as it gets, closely followed by anything that breaks all known technological limits. LIHOP at least doesn't suffer from this problem, although it surely strains the imagination in others.

To fairly evaluate this, however, we would need an example of a coherent LIHOP hypothesis to see how plausible it really is.

Anyone got one?

Anyone?

Hello? Is this on..?

Hold on, let me go look through some screen plays.

 

[Mobyseven]

Members of the 9/11 Truth Movement offered to debate the scientists at NIST. No scientist at NIST took up the offer.

In other news, the Moscow Ballet still refuses to compete in a dance off with Blaine community theatre.

 

[applecorped]

Did the US go to war anywhere else besides Afghtanistan, or was it just Afghanistan?

Happy Birthday Red. I will be 40 this year as well. 1968 rocks!

 

[Orphia Nay]

I came across this today, and it reminded me of Irreducible Delusion:

http://dictionary.reference.com/wordoftheday/archive/2007/02/07.html

Word of the Day Archive
Wednesday February 7, 2007

idee fixe \ee-day-FEEKS\, noun:
An idea that dominates the mind; a fixed idea; an obsession.

The reality of obsession -- its incessant return to the same few themes, scenarios and questions; its meticulous examination and re-examination of banal minutiae for hidden meanings that simply aren't there; the cancerous way an idee fixe usurps other, more interesting thoughts -- is that it is confining, not rebellious, and not fascinating but maddeningly dull.
-- Laura Miller, "The Streetwalkers of San Francisco", New York Times, August 20, 2000

[...]

It became an idee fixe that he stubbornly adhered to in spite of the plain evidence . . . that obviously contradicts it.

-- Edwin G. Pulleyblank, "Prosody or pharyngealization in old Chinese?", The Journal of the American Oriental Society, January 12, 1996

 

[RedIbis]

Happy Birthday Red. I will be 40 this year as well. 1968 rocks!

Thanks Apple, it was quite a day.

 

[ImANiceGuy]

I thought he was a rocket scientist, not a philosopher....

Is Ryan Macky a JREF God? He looks like Buddha a bit....

 

[Edx]

I thought he was a rocket scientist, not a philosopher....

I thought David Ray Griffin was a theologian, not an engineer.

 

[jhunter1163]

Mackey is held in such high esteem here because he's the smartest guy in the room. He's definitely the smartest guy I've ever interacted with.

 

[Quiproquo]

Recognizing and Classifying Irreducible Delusion

An Irreducible Delusion has two defining characteristics. First, as the name implies, it is irreducible, meaning that it is a belief that stands on its own and is not dependent on any other information; and it is a delusion, or in other words a belief that is demonstrably false or untenable. It is important, though often difficult, to isolate the Irreducible Belief from other, consequential beliefs. When it is found, it is usually surprisingly simple. It also may be recognized based on typical responses to criticism, which include the following:

Refusal to change the belief at any cost, leading to increasingly improbable excuses

So how does this apply to members of the 9/11 Truth Movement? Almost all the member of Truth Movement, including myself, believed the official story at one time. We later came to doubt it by looking at the evidence or the lack thereof. It is the debunkers who have refused to change their beliefs, therefore, this point applies to them, not the Truthers.

The glaring hole in that theory of yours is that you don't even know what the "Government's Story" is -- therefore, your beliefs never were founded on evidence to begin with. A quick search of your posts reveals startling confusions about even the most basic features of the near-universally accepted hypothesis, such as your continued lack of understanding regarding collapse initiation in the WTC Towers even after being given very specific answers by myself and others.

That is why it applies to you, and not to the "debunkers." Not all "debunkers" understand the full hypothesis either, but they are at least aware that there is one, whereas the Truth Movement neither has nor displays any inclination to produce a hypothesis of its own.

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