On the Truth Movement and Irreducible Delusion

[Edx]

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.

This is just like Creationists that claim they were once atheists, but then started thinking stuff like bananas were evidence god created them just for humans to eat and changed their minds.

They werent really atheists, or they were atheists mindlessly. They didnt learn about the Bible, learn about the logical fallacies of religion, learn about evolution and why Creationists lie and distort the science and then decided that actually Creationists were right all along. In the same way we have claims of truthers that once "believed the official story", but what evidence did they get that made them think hijackers were still alive or that hijackers werent on flight manifests or that thermite cut columns or that Marvin Bush helped smuggle bombs in? The same evidence I was given, none.

See, I used to be a truther, so you could say I changed my mind when I watched Zeitgeist. But thats not really true. I didnt start out as a debunker, having learnt all I could and THEN became a truther after that. What happened is that I just didnt know anything about the subject at all and Zeitgeist/Loose Change/Alex Jones told me things and I believed it without question because I was naive. It was only AFTER I looked into all the things they were saying did I realise how wrong I had been to believe them.

Now, if you want to claim that me changing my mind to thinking truthers are ignorant incompetent fools and wrong about just about everything back to front proves Mackey wrong then you can take that victory, but Im pretty certain thats rather a hollow one because I think I should point out that I am now not a truther.

I guess, to actually answer Mackey's OP I could point out truthers that dont believe in various forms of trutherisms. Such as, some truthers dont believe there were planes on 911. Some truthers believe direct energy space weapons were used. Some truthers dont actually believe explosives were used. But obviously Mackey doesnt deny truthers believe different things I think the point is that Mackey's "Irreducible Delusion" is correct on a case by case basis on a claim by claim basis. One truther I finally got to accept that the "famous" column was not cut by thermite, but that didnt stop him promoting all other claims about thermite even though they were just as stupid. Or when people said they were fooled by the cruise missile claims at the Pentagon for a while, but then realised that a plane flying over was the better argument. Out of one stupidity and into another. Again, if you want to call that a victory, please take it.

 

[R.Mackey]

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.

This is not what I claim. I define Irreducible Delusion in the paper very carefully, and your synopsis is wrong. I suggest you read it again.

If I recall correctly, tanabear was the Truther who couldn't understand that there was a rubble layer between the surviving upper and lower portions of WTC 1 and 2 during collapse, because she couldn't see it -- and she couldn't understand that the reason she couldn't see it was because of dust in the way. It's difficult to respond to that level of thinking without somehow impugning the ability of the observer.

 

[Quiproquo]

This is not what I claim. I define Irreducible Delusion in the paper very carefully, and your synopsis is wrong. I suggest you read it again.

The fact is that proponents of the alternate theory obviously do change their minds. Your theory is false.

 

[R.Mackey]

The fact is that proponents of the alternate theory obviously do change their minds. Your theory is false.

The above is not my theory. I can't say it any simpler than that.

 

[The Almond]

The above is not my theory. I can't say it any simpler than that.

Just re-read the paper. Grade A stuff Mr. Mackey, simply superb work.

 

[Quiproquo]

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

Or could truthers actually be... sane?

 

[dafydd]

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

Or could truthers actually be... sane?

I think that the odds are heavily stacked against that,judging by the truthers we get here.

 

[R.Mackey]

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

Or could truthers actually be... sane?

False dilemma logical fallacy. You'll note in the text -- if you ever get around to reading it -- that I posit Truthers are not the only ones who may harbor Irreducible Delusions. Nor do I propound that all Truthers do.

Seriously, you really should try to understand something before attempting to criticize it.

ETA: And on further review, I don't see that tanabear has commented in this thread at all. I suggest that Quiproquo should take this opportunity to find the source of the confusion. It isn't at all clear to me that he is even reading this thread.

 

[Sabrina]

Interesting thread to bump, considering the presence of one of the newest members of the Truth Movement on the board, who can't even seem to define her theory in a way that anyone can understand and who, despite every speck of evidence presented to her, persists in expounding a thoroughly debunked theory that couldn't possbly obey the laws of physics. Kudos to whoever did bump it; I rather hope that WTC Dust reads this white paper and starts to think a little bit.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

ETA: And on further review, I don't see that tanabear has commented in this thread at all. I suggest that Quiproquo should take this opportunity to find the source of the confusion. It isn't at all clear to me that he is even reading this thread.

Quiproquo is clearly... unwell. Your suggestion for him or her may require external, professional help.

 

[Homemade psycho]

Wow I thought this was new.Then I saw Pomeroo posts.....I miss Ron.

Quality work Ryan.It took a while, but worth the read.

 

[uke2se]

ETA: And on further review, I don't see that tanabear has commented in this thread at all.

(S)he actually did comment as Q quoted a page back. My guess is that this particular problem lies with your ignore list.

 

[dc1971]

The following multi-part post is my longest post ever on the JREF Forums. As this is an original work it does not violate Rule 4 guidelines to the best of my understanding. But coming from me, this is no idle threat.

For those who disapprove of wordy Forum posts, or those who live life three steps at a time, I respect your aversion and offer the following concise summary:

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.​

If you disagree with the above sentiment, I invite you to consider my argument in depth, presented below. Thank you for your consideration.

Mr. Mackey, I love you man!! You just gave me an idea for my final paper in my Sociology class! This is good stuff, thank you!

 

[Quiproquo]

Quiproquo is clearly... unwell. Your suggestion for him or her may require external, professional help.

Yes, I am unwell, thank you for pointing that out. What sane person would be well knowing that his own government may be an accomplice to the mass murder of 3,000 of its own citizens?

 

[dc1971]

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

Or could truthers actually be... sane?

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"!!

<--- get it? Put your finger in a light socket, flick the switch, and... well... yeah... anyway...

 

[Quiproquo]

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"!!

<--- get it? Put your finger in a light socket, flick the switch, and... well... yeah... anyway...

Interesting.

So now you believe in the OCT?

 

[dc1971]

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

Not fully involved. Several floors were on fire and a big chunk of the building withstood major damage. The fires only weakened the damage.

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.

Where does the NIST report and Mr. Mackey conflict with each other?

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"

I see nothing but excuses coming from you as well as direct debate on the issues so you're only reinforcing Mr. Mackey's argument!

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

Yeah! Funny how that is, isn't it?

DC

 

[ozeco41]

Interesting.

So now you believe in the OCT?

The "OCT" is a derisory invention of truthers and is as dishonest a ploy as we expect from truthers.

There is no OCT. There are reasoned explanations of many of the aspects of 9/11. There are other aspects which are open to question/inquiry.

For examples there are three central technical questions.
1) the question of demolition or not at the WTC - the answer is 'no demolition'
2) at the Pentagon - yes it was that plane; AND
3) at Shanksville - no the plane was not shot down.

Those three are easy.
But there are other questions about 9/11 which are not so easy:
4) Are all of the NIST explanations correct?
5) If not which ones are and which ones are not...

And I have not even touched on the conspiracy questions...

So drop the dishonest tactic of making global claims for a fantasy "OCT" there is no such animal and few of us would subscribe to it fully 100% if it existed.

 

[dc1971]

Interesting.

So now you believe in the OCT?

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!

 

[R.Mackey]

(S)he actually did comment as Q quoted a page back. My guess is that this particular problem lies with your ignore list.

Actually the problem is "I missed it." Yes, I now have tanabear on my Ignore list, but back then I didn't. I actually replied to him before. My bad. Thanks for the catch.

And if you read my reply, you see that he had the same kind of confusion about what I actually said. I don't see his comments addressing my thesis at all, let alone "Refuting" them. That's probably why I was confused.

In any case, I see no evidence that "Quiproquo" (shouldn't that be "Quidproquo" ??) has read or has comprehended what I wrote in the first place. This rather moots rational discussion with him, until this is remedied. If anyone wants to nip over to whatever planet he lives on and read it to him in person, feel free to volunteer.