Antitruthers: a crippled epistemology?

[Quiproquo]

One argument antitruthers constantly level on truthers is that, according to them, truthers begin their arguments with a premise (a conclusion) and only gather evidence that supports that conclusion, filtering out anything that does not.

Let's take a look to see if supporters of the OCT (Official Conspiracy Theory) gather all evidence in order to come to a conclusion, as they claim they do.

In their 2006 book on the "Inside Story" about the 9/11 commission, Kean and Hamilton claim:

We were not setting out to advocate one theory of interpretation of 9/11 versus another. Our purpose was to fulfill our statutory mandate, gathering and presenting all of the available and relevant information1

Really?

In that same book, however, Kean and Hamilton argue that, having accepted Philip Zelikow's view that the commission should proceed with their investigation by means of "a staff organized around subjects of inquiry,"2 they "assigned the subject of 'Al-Qaeda' to staff team 1," then told team 1A to "tell the story of Al Qaeda's most successful operation - the 9/11 attacks."3

If that is not beginning your argument with a theory then what is it?

The fact is that the 9/11 commission did exactly that.

In their preface to the 9/11 Commission Report published in 2004, Kean and Hamilton wrote that their mandate was to “investigate facts and circumstances related to the attacks of September 11, 2001.” 4 However in their 2006 “Inside Story” book they offer a significantly modified account of the commission's mandate, stating that they had the task of “gathering and presenting all of the available and relevant information within the areas specified by our mandate."5

The mandate was described thus:

The law creating the 9/11 Commission allowed for us “to ascertain, evaluate, and report on the evidence developed by all relevant governmental agencies regarding the facts and circumstances surrounding the attacks.6

Which thus means they were only “allowed... to... report on the evidence developed by... governmental agencies.”

No governmental agency would have provided information contradicting the OCT.

Far from claiming that it is truthers who are irrational and delusional in their selection of informational sources, it is in reality antitruthers themselves who possess an epistemology as crippled as can possibly be.



1 Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, with Benjamin Rhodes, Without Precedence: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006), 269-70.
2 Ibid., 33.
3 Ibid., 116
4 The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, authorized edition (New York: W. W. Norton, 2004), xv, xvi.
5 Kean and Hamilton, Without Precedence, 269-70 (emphasis added)
6 Ibid., 123.

[twinstead]

You are welcome to present a competing theory that accounts for the evidence and observations better. Until then the commonly-held narrative stands, despite your histrionics.

[beachnut]

You post the most anti-reality claptrap I have seen. 9 years of failed delusions of thermite and this is all you have.

Move this to your other fail thread with the same failed SPAM.


The truth movement is a bunch of people who can't figure out 911, so they make up idiotic lies. We are not anti-truthers, we are anti-liars and anti-stupidity, the kind you are spewing. Is it possible for you to be more anti-intellectual?

You have zero evidence to support you moronic claims on 911. You have nothing. You are a 911 truther, an anti-truther with a NAZI like name, 911 truth, as you spew lies, a 1984 type name, hiding behind "truth" as you rant and spread idiotic lies.

The crippled science of knowledge, your inability to see 911 truth is spreading lies, and a better name is 911 liars. Why have you joined the 911 Liars Club?

[ergo]

You are welcome to present a competing theory that accounts for the evidence and observations better. Until then the commonly-held narrative stands, despite your histrionics.

Not related to the OP topic.

Twinstead spent all of two minutes reading your OP and instantly barfs up this knee-jerk, regurgitated bee-dunkerism. As if that's all he/she can do. I guess it is. Reported.

[beachnut]

Not related to the OP topic.

Twinstead spent all of two minutes reading your OP and instantly barfs up this knee-jerk, regurgitated bee-dunkerism. As if that's all he/she can do. I guess it is. Reported.
It take about 6 to 10 seconds to read the poppycock in the OP. The OP is an attack on people calling them anti-truthers. While the truther who authored the BS is in a "movement" which only produces lies. Truthers only product, lies and delusions.

Report yourself truther, for being bad at physics and making false reports, off topic.

Please present some evidence to support 911 truth claims, save them from being lairs. The only thing you have proved since you became a failed bee-dunker, you can't do physics, given the answers.

[leftysergeant]

Which thus means they were only “allowed... to... report on the evidence developed by... governmental agencies.”

No governmental agency would have provided information contradicting the OCT.

Far from claiming that it is truthers who are irrational and delusional in their selection of informational sources, it is in reality antitruthers themselves who possess an epistemology as crippled as can possibly be.


Only government agencies had access to any raw evidence. As far as I can see, all that the twoofer movement has offered comes from other sources that are irrelevant or obviously dishonest or are mis-interpretations of what reliable sourcews actually provided.

A lot of it was based on the blather of Pierre-Henri Bunel.

If his name appears anywhere in your chain of custody of the evidence, throw it out or set it aside until it can be traced to someone who is not a dishonorably discharged officer of a foreing army who has a person grudge against America, and who is not known to be a lying sack of crap.

[jhunter1163]

<snip> No governmental agency would have provided information contradicting the OCT.. <snip>

Isn't NIST a government agency, and haven't Richard Gage and friends been trying to use NIST's data to poke holes in the so-called OCT for years?

[1337m4n]

When the man who is to become your prime suspect makes a video confessing and bragging about his crime, it is safe to consider him your prime suspect.

The 9/11 Commission didn't accuse Al-Qaeda; Al-Qaeda accused itself. So far Truthers have presented zero evidence to contradict Osama's self-accusation.

[Oystein]

Twoofers fail to understand the purpose and mandate of the 9/11 Commission. It was not a forensic task force on a criminal investigation. It was not tasked to figure out who the perps were. It was also not an engineering study, etc.
The criminal investigation was done by the FBI, with help from agencies such as the NTSB. The engineering studies were in part done by NIST. Etc.

The Commission was tasked to figure out the response of all relevant government agencies to the planning, build-up and execution of the terrorist plot. It looked at administration. It also looked at the Al Qaida organisation, but not to determine the extent of their culpability, but more with a view to what was known about them. The goal of the Commission Report was to make recommendations on how to improve the repsonse to future threats of this kind. Such recommendations might include changes to organizations, mandates, powers, procedures, communication paths, or training.
Likewise, NIST's goal was not to explain every detail about the building collapses, but to recommend measures to prevent future collapses.

[lionking]

Not related to the OP topic.

Reported.
Huh? Twinstead asked for a narrative from quidproquo explaining 9/11. How is that unrelated?

[Justin39640]

Twoofers fail to understand the purpose and mandate of the 9/11 Commission. It was not a forensic task force on a criminal investigation. It was not tasked to figure out who the perps were. It was also not an engineering study, etc.
The criminal investigation was done by the FBI, with help from agencies such as the NTSB. The engineering studies were in part done by NIST. Etc.

The Commission was tasked to figure out the response of all relevant government agencies to the planning, build-up and execution of the terrorist plot. It looked at administration. It also looked at the Al Qaida organisation, but not to determine the extent of their culpability, but more with a view to what was known about them. The goal of the Commission Report was to make recommendations on how to improve the repsonse to future threats of this kind. Such recommendations might include changes to organizations, mandates, powers, procedures, communication paths, or training.
Likewise, NIST's goal was not to explain every detail about the building collapses, but to recommend measures to prevent future collapses.

It's pointless. You know their logic filters will never allow them to view your post. Nice try though.
:D

[Sam.I.Am]

Awww, sweet jebus...

Of course the investigation has to start somewhere otherwise it can go nowhere. What did you expect? Toss a group of people a bunch on cash and then say go investigate something? What if they decided to investigate whether the Hooters waitresses in New York have bigger boobs than the ones in Florida? Or if those same waitresses have a higher likelyhood of being considered butterfaced before or after a few baskets of wings and a pitcher of beer?

Your complaint is that they were told to investigate how 19 terrorists managed to hijack and crash 4 aircraft. If they hadn't been given those directions I'd be complaining that they were rudderless. I'm willing to bet that of those two possible options that many, many more people would agree with me that if the investigators weren't told what to investigate that they would complain. Who wins?

[Redtail]

Amazing how government agencies are pretty much hive minds to truthers.

[D'rok]

No governmental agency would have provided information contradicting the OCT.How could they? They were all in on it, right?

[D'rok]

Amazing how government agencies are pretty much hive minds to truthers.
I work in government. It's a miracle if my group manages to coordinate our work with the group two cubicles over on the same damn floor.

[Mr.D]

Amazing how government agencies are pretty much hive minds to truthers.

I'll respond to you as soon as NWO headquarters tells me what to say.

[D'rok]

Twoofers fail to understand the purpose and mandate of the 9/11 Commission. It was not a forensic task force on a criminal investigation. It was not tasked to figure out who the perps were. It was also not an engineering study, etc.
The criminal investigation was done by the FBI, with help from agencies such as the NTSB. The engineering studies were in part done by NIST. Etc.

The Commission was tasked to figure out the response of all relevant government agencies to the planning, build-up and execution of the terrorist plot. It looked at administration. It also looked at the Al Qaida organisation, but not to determine the extent of their culpability, but more with a view to what was known about them. The goal of the Commission Report was to make recommendations on how to improve the repsonse to future threats of this kind. Such recommendations might include changes to organizations, mandates, powers, procedures, communication paths, or training.
Likewise, NIST's goal was not to explain every detail about the building collapses, but to recommend measures to prevent future collapses.You didn't say "epistimology" or use footnotes.

Shill.

[twinstead]

Not related to the OP topic.

Twinstead spent all of two minutes reading your OP and instantly barfs up this knee-jerk, regurgitated bee-dunkerism. As if that's all he/she can do. I guess it is. Reported.

You know what, my response should be the ONLY response to ANY thread created by truthers, no matter what the topic, because frankly I'm sick and tired of you folks right now.

I'm going to turn off my computer so your little cult can disappear and enjoy my weekend. Have a nice day.

ETA: You are welcome to present a competing theory that accounts for the evidence and observations better. Until then the commonly-held narrative stands, despite your histrionics.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

This thread is nothing more than a rant & a hit & run from a lunatic.

[16.5]

Lets pick a couple of lines from the opening post and take a look at the sheer errors, omission and gross distortions, shall we?

"The mandate(1) was described (2)thus:

Quote:
The law creating the 9/11 Commission allowed for us “to ascertain, evaluate, and report on the evidence developed by all relevant governmental agencies regarding the facts and circumstances surrounding the attacks.

Which thus means they were only (3.) “allowed... to... report on the evidence developed by... governmental agencies.”"

1. the following quote is not a "mandate" it is a power delegated to the commission. So it is an error, and I'll go with outright fabrication.
2. See 1. Our hero seems to be unaware of the meaning of the word Mandate.
3. Only? ONLY?????? Dear lord, that is a bald face lie of the sort only the most incompetent truther can have come up with.

The Act itself specifically empowers the Commission to access other investigations, and further gives the Commission subpoena power. I have personal knowledge that the Commission obtained evidence from non-governmental agencies (the Chicago Board Options Exchange to name one example, there are hundreds of others, of course) And they reported that evidence.

So the entire Opening post is a complete embarrassing lie cloaked in fancy, albeit, misused words.

Complete and utter fail.

[grandmastershek]

Amazing how government agencies are pretty much hive minds to truthers.

Don't forget about Stubbie! He says it was an inside job and he is connected to the govt. Of course he has given mounds of evidence to support his claims.

[ElMondoHummus]

Lets pick a couple of lines from the opening post and take a look at the sheer errors, omission and gross distortions, shall we?

"The mandate(1) was described (2)thus:

Quote:
The law creating the 9/11 Commission allowed for us “to ascertain, evaluate, and report on the evidence developed by all relevant governmental agencies regarding the facts and circumstances surrounding the attacks.

Which thus means they were only (3.) “allowed... to... report on the evidence developed by... governmental agencies.”"

1. the following quote is not a "mandate" it is a power delegated to the commission. So it is an error, and I'll go with outright fabrication.
2. See 1. Our hero seems to be unaware of the meaning of the word Mandate.
3. Only? ONLY?????? Dear lord, that is a bald face lie of the sort only the most incompetent truther can have come up with.

The Act itself specifically empowers the Commission to access other investigations, and further gives the Commission subpoena power. I have personal knowledge that the Commission obtained evidence from non-governmental agencies (the Chicago Board Options Exchange to name one example, there are hundreds of others, of course) And they reported that evidence.

So the entire Opening post is a complete embarrassing lie cloaked in fancy, albeit, misused words.

Complete and utter fail.

I see a different fail: The OP has quite obviously not bothered to hit up dictionary.com and look up the definition of "epistemology". He seems to think it's a synonym for "worldview". :cool:

The guy who throws around the word "epistemology" so freely would probably not be able to discuss either Hume's, Kant's, or Popper's takes on it without some frantic Google searching.

--------

ETA: Aaaaaack! How can I broach the topic without invoking the words of the immortal Inigo Montoya?? :D
G2y8Sx4B2Sk

[Quiproquo]

I see a different fail: The OP has quite obviously not bothered to hit up dictionary.com and look up the definition of "epistemology". He seems to think it's a synonym for "worldview".

I am aware of the misnomer. However I am only quoting Cass Sunstein, Obama's Administrator for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, who uses it in his paper Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures (2008) to define the belief system of truthers.

Sunstein obviously uses this term not because it has any logical relevance to his topic, but because it sounds "catchy."

Just one more example of bee-dunkers only using warped evidence or definitions that fit into their own skewed theories.

So, as for your argument that the use of this word implies in any way any ignorance on my part: total and utter fail! Antitwoofer, you just confirmed the ignorance of one of your own!

How tragically pathetic (but can you expect any less from a bee-dunker?).

[1337m4n]

I am aware of the misnomer. However I am only quoting Cass Sunstein, Obama's Administrator for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, who uses it in his paper Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures (2008) to define the belief system of truthers.

Sunstein obviously uses this term not because it has any logical relevance to his topic, but because it sounds "catchy."

Just one more example of bee-dunkers only using warped evidence or definitions that fit into their own skewed theories.

So, as for your argument that the use of this word implies in any way any ignorance on my part: total and utter fail! Antitwoofer, you just confirmed the ignorance of one of your own!

How tragically pathetic (but can you expect any less from a bee-dunker?).

You are a poor liar:

Far from claiming that it is truthers who are irrational and delusional in their selection of informational sources, it is in reality antitruthers themselves who possess an epistemology as crippled as can possibly be.

That was YOU who said that. Not Sunstein. You. If you intended for it to be a quotation, you would have put quotation marks around it.

You said it, not Sunstein.

Sounds like you're mad that you just got called out on your failed attempt to pretend to be intellectual.

This isn't the first time (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=190160) by the way.

Why is it so difficult for you Truthers to utter the words "I was wrong. I apologise."? It's not like it's going to kill you. Or even kill your ego. Egos heal.

[tsig]

I am aware of the misnomer. However I am only quoting Cass Sunstein, Obama's Administrator for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, who uses it in his paper Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures (2008) to define the belief system of truthers.

Sunstein obviously uses this term not because it has any logical relevance to his topic, but because it sounds "catchy."

Just one more example of bee-dunkers only using warped evidence or definitions that fit into their own skewed theories.

So, as for your argument that the use of this word implies in any way any ignorance on my part: total and utter fail! Antitwoofer, you just confirmed the ignorance of one of your own!

How tragically pathetic (but can you expect any less from a bee-dunker?).

You are an anti bee dunker?

[Edx]

Quiproquo

Still wondering if you are going to admit you were wrong about hijackersstill being alive, not on the flight manifests and that 911 not being on Bin Ladens FBI Most Wanted page is suspicious.

Thanks.

[16.5]

I am aware of the misnomer. However I am only quoting Cass Sunstein, Obama's Administrator for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, who uses it in his paper Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures (2008) to define the belief system of truthers.

Sunstein obviously uses this term not because it has any logical relevance to his topic, but because it sounds "catchy."

Just one more example of bee-dunkers only using warped evidence or definitions that fit into their own skewed theories.

So, as for your argument that the use of this word implies in any way any ignorance on my part: total and utter fail! Antitwoofer, you just confirmed the ignorance of one of your own!

How tragically pathetic (but can you expect any less from a bee-dunker?).

Wait, this guy uses the word wrong on several occasions, and claims he did it because somewhere else in a completely obscure and off topic book somewhere else, he thinks that person used it wrong?

You gotta be kidding me! No way in the world can someone be THIS aggressively ignorant.

I notice he has ignored the fact that he has been called out in his multiple repeated lies in the opening post.

/"bee-dunker" Though that IS clever! ^^rolls eyes^^

[1337m4n]

/"bee-dunker" Though that IS clever! ^^rolls eyes^^

In some cultures they eat fried insects. I imagine they make dip for them too. So that would explain that.

You aren't a bee-dunker? You should try becoming one. It's delicious.

[Quiproquo]

You are a poor liar:



That was YOU who said that. Not Sunstein. You. If you intended for it to be a quotation, you would have put quotation marks around it.

You said it, not Sunstein.

In what way am I a liar, 1337m? I admit I used the term as Cass Sunstein meant it, by which he means "worldview."

[Quiproquo]

a completely obscure and off topic book

I am referring to a research paper, not a book.

Secondly, If you had any smarts, you would understand that Cass Sustein's paper Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures (2008) is one of the most important documents to have come out in the past two years in regard to bettering our understanding of the 9/11 controversy and it's relationship to the process of belief-building (what Sunstein was really referring to with his term "crippled epistemology," which he applies to truthers).

This paper was not written by anybody, it was written by Obama's administrator for the office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, and concludes that the government should use what Sunstein calls "cognitive infiltration" to break up the Truth movement.

[beachnut]

I... How tragically pathetic (but can you expect any less from a bee-dunker?).
You start pathetic threads to make weak insults agains people who undertstand 911. You wasted 9 years and the best you can do is weakly insult people on topics you can't comprehend. Given all the evidence and answers you can't figure out 911, so you make weak insults with your failed bee-dunker rant. You got no evidence for your moronic claims, and you never will.

You will never providence evidence to support your lies. Your OP is a lie.

You truthers are risks... ?
belief, widespread in some parts of the world, that the attacks of 9/11 were carried out not by Al Qaeda, but by Israel or the United States. Those who subscribe to conspiracy theories may create serious risks, including risks of violence, and the existence of such theories raises significant challenges for policy and law. The biggest risk 911 truth will be, posting nonsense.

[16.5]

I am referring to a research paper, not a book.

Secondly, If you had any smarts, you would understand that Cass Sustein's paper Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures (2008) is one of the most important documents to have come out in the past two years in regard to bettering our understanding of the 9/11 controversy and it's relationship to the process of belief-building (what Sunstein was really referring to with his term "crippled epistemology," which he applies to truthers).

This paper was not written by anybody, it was written by Obama's administrator for the office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, and concludes that the government should use what Sunstein calls "cognitive infiltration" to break up the Truth movement.

Curious, ain't it folks?

He completely ignored the fact that I established that he was a complete and utter liar.

Instead he is defending his random dumbassery in claiming to purposefully misuse a word.

What a maroon.

[Thunder]

One argument antitruthers constantly level on truthers .

"antiTruthers"??

is that like the "anti-Christ"?

you are either for..or against 9-11 Truth?

:p:p:p

[Thunder]

How tragically pathetic (but can you expect any less from a bee-dunker?).

why do truthers think its ok to insult those who dare to disagree with them?

[Sam.I.Am]

You are an anti bee dunker?

http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/9441/auntbee111509243.jpg

What did Aunt Bee do to you to even make you think that?

[little grey rabbit]

I am referring to a research paper, not a book.

Secondly, If you had any smarts, you would understand that Cass Sustein's paper Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures (2008) is one of the most important documents to have come out in the past two years in regard to bettering our understanding of the 9/11 controversy and it's relationship to the process of belief-building (what Sunstein was really referring to with his term "crippled epistemology," which he applies to truthers).

This paper was not written by anybody, it was written by Obama's administrator for the office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, and concludes that the government should use what Sunstein calls "cognitive infiltration" to break up the Truth movement.

Thanks for the paper. Its actually widely available on the web, such as here

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Susstein1.pdf

the section on Cognitive Infiltration read in part

How might this tactic work? Recall that extremist networks and groups,
including the groups that purvey conspiracy theories, typically suffer from a kind of
crippled epistemology. Hearing only conspiratorial accounts of government behavior,
their members become ever more prone to believe and generate such accounts.
Informational and reputational cascades, group polarization, and selection effects suggest
that the generation of ever-more-extreme views within these groups can be dampened or
reversed by the introduction of cognitive diversity. We suggest a role for government
efforts, and agents, in introducing such diversity. Government agents (and their allies)
might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to
undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises,
causal logic or implications for political action.
In one variant, government agents would openly proclaim, or at least make no
effort to conceal, their institutional affiliations. A recent newspaper story recounts that
Arabic-speaking Muslim officials from the State Department have participated in
dialogues at radical Islamist chat rooms and websites in order to ventilate arguments not
usually heard among the groups that cluster around those sites, with some success.
68
In
another variant, government officials would participate anonymously or even with false
identities.

Do terms like Informational and reputational cascades actually have any meaning? It sounds like me trolling about the Foucaultian power-knowledge continuum - but at least I know I am trolling.

Still, at least it gives Homeland Security something to do. Must make a change for them going on to Muslim forums and typing stuff like: "When I see the suffering of my Muslim brothers in Kashmir, it makes my BLOOD BOIL"

Fun though it must be to start with, sooner or later the novelty will wear off.

[Reactor drone]

I am referring to a research paper, not a book.

Secondly, If you had any smarts, you would understand that Cass Sustein's paper Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures (2008) is one of the most important documents to have come out in the past two years in regard to bettering our understanding of the 9/11 controversy and it's relationship to the process of belief-building (what Sunstein was really referring to with his term "crippled epistemology," which he applies to truthers).

This paper was not written by anybody, it was written by Obama's administrator for the office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, and concludes that the government should use what Sunstein calls "cognitive infiltration" to break up the Truth movement.

Of course, by helping people diversify their information sources and providing facts to counter the lies put forward by the snake oil salesmen who profit from the conspiracy theories they're "breaking up the truth movement". It's probably a little optimistic to think that the movement will dissappear though since there are always people who are immune to facts and logic.

Those people truly do have a crippled epistemology :p

[Clarrisani]

One argument antitruthers constantly level on truthers is that, according to them, truthers begin their arguments with a premise (a conclusion) and only gather evidence that supports that conclusion, filtering out anything that does not.

Question: when you say "anti-truthers", do you mean the Deniers aka people who believe it was an inside job? Or are you referring to the people who accept reality in comparison to the so called "truth" movement?

[tsig]

I am referring to a research paper, not a book.

Secondly, If you had any smarts, you would understand that Cass Sustein's paper Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures (2008) is one of the most important documents to have come out in the past two years in regard to bettering our understanding of the 9/11 controversy and it's relationship to the process of belief-building (what Sunstein was really referring to with his term "crippled epistemology," which he applies to truthers).

This paper was not written by anybody, it was written by Obama's administrator for the office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, and concludes that the government should use what Sunstein calls "cognitive infiltration" to break up the Truth movement.

That failed when they found out that the Truth movement had no cognitive functions.

[tsig]

http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/9441/auntbee111509243.jpg

What did Aunt Bee do to you to even make you think that?

:D

She turned me into a newt!

On the internet no one knows you're a newt.

[1337m4n]

Here is a bee dunker:

http://www.beeball.com.au/graphics/BeeBall2.jpg

Converted hotlinked image. Please see Rule 5 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5669802&postcount=4).

[Thunder]

I love it when truthers come to JREF...just to troll.

:)

[ElMondoHummus]

I am aware of the misnomer. However I am only quoting Cass Sunstein, Obama's Administrator for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, who uses it in his paper Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures (2008) to define the belief system of truthers.

Sunstein obviously uses this term not because it has any logical relevance to his topic, but because it sounds "catchy."

Just one more example of bee-dunkers only using warped evidence or definitions that fit into their own skewed theories.

So, as for your argument that the use of this word implies in any way any ignorance on my part: total and utter fail! Antitwoofer, you just confirmed the ignorance of one of your own!

How tragically pathetic (but can you expect any less from a bee-dunker?).

And here lays evidence of the utter intellectual bankruptcy of the so-called "Truth" movement: "I know I misused the term, but I was doing it because someone else was!"

:rolleyes:

The problem is, they weren't misusing it. Only you were. You'd have known this had you actually read the paper for comprehension rather than quote mining. So how do I know they weren't misusing it? Because Sunstein and Vermeule stated very clearly what they were doing in their work:

We aim here to sketch some psychological and social mechanisms that produce, sustain, and spread these theories...


Immediately, they're discussing not simply worldviews, but how conspiracy theorists approach information, what "social mechanisms" form and inform their thought and behavior, as well as how they go about gaining knowledge regarding topics they consider conspiratorial. In short, from the beginning, one of the things they tackle is how conspiracy peddlers address the the nature and scope of information. Remember: Epistemology is a study into the grounds and nature of knowledge. In its broadest form, it forces people to ask 3 questions:
What is knowledge?
How do we gain it?
How do we know what we know is true?
By studying the very things they state they're studying, Sunstein and Vermeule are indeed studying the very nature of conspiratorial thinking (although they concentrate more on how it applies to processes and rationalizations than the more airy philosophical aspects). Let's look at actual uses of the term to see this in play:

To illuminate issues of policy, we draw upon literatures in social psychology, economics, and other disciplines concerning informational cascades, the spread of rumors, and the epistemology of groups and social networks.

In short: They use various examples of information propogation in the context of how "groups and social networks" gain their knowledge. In a way, it's basically applied epistemology i.e. practical use of knowledge gathering processes to analyze how a group gathers and internally "validates" knowledge.
Our primary claim is that those who hold conspiracy theories of this distinctive sort typically do so not as a result of a mental illness of any kind, or of simple irrationality, but as a result of a “crippled epistemology,” in the form of a sharply limited number of (relevant) informational sources. In that sense, acceptance of such theories may not be irrational or unjustified from the standpoint of those who adhere to them within epistemologically isolated groups or networks...

And here, we see two assertions: 1. Conspiracy fantasists limit the scope of information sources to study their topics and reinforce their belief systems, and 2. This is a conscious choice. Both are issues of knowledge gathering processes i.e. How knowledge is created or accumulated, and then propogated

When epistemologically isolated groups operate within a society that is both wider and more open, their theories may be unjustified from the standpoint of the wider society but justified from the standpoint of the individual or group.
"Epistemologically isolated groups" is not merely a reference to conspiracy fantasists, but also a descriptive: They "isolate" themselves from entire areas of knowledge. Again, a statement of process.
Conspiracy theories often display the characteristic features of a “degenerating research program” in which contrary evidence is explained away by adding epicycles and resisting falsification of key tenets. Some epistemologists argue that this resistance to falsification is not objectionable if one also believes that there are conspirators deliberately attempting to plant evidence that would falsify the conspiracy theory, thereby covering their tracks.

And I include this, even though it's no longer discussing knowledge gathering and validation processes to conspiracy fantasists because it clearly shows that the authors did indeed know what the heck the study of epistemology is.



So as we can see, Sunstein and Vermeule weren't merely addressing worldviews; they were studying the conspiracy addicts' process of knowledge formation and propogation. The "crippled epistemology" they referred to wasn't merely that they were limiting their sources of information, but also why they do so. They explain all this in their entire section "How Conspiracy Theories Arise And Spread". Their reference to "crippled epistemology" went deeper into why conspiracy peddlers and addicts deliberately formed their process of knowledge acquisition in a way that not only limited knowledge sources but also performed that "self sealing" protective mechanism against cognitive dissonance inducing facts and explanations. So in the end, it's not merely the "what", but also the "why".

And that's where you fall flat on your face. Look at your own uses of the term. Your entire thread-starting post was nothing more than a denigration of who people here use as sources, and not a single thing about the study of why rationalists seek evidence-based claims and use evidence-based processes. It wouldn't even have been a hard thing to turn your posts into something covering that - many truthers have done so on purpose without knowing or using the word "epistemology" - but you tried to grab what to you was a grand sounding term that you misunderstood due to incomplete grasp of the contexts it was used in and use it to denigrate an entire group with a hollow insult about which informational sources they choose to use. You were so close to accidentally turning your post into a commentary on the epistemological practices of us here that it's utterly amazing you couldn't go the rest of the way and do so! By complete accident! And without looking like an utter fool in your attempt to justify your misuse of the term by blaming a 3rd party who demonstrated they knew full well what the term stood for!

If anyone clearly demonstrates what a "crippled epistemology" is, you do. But yours is crippled at a more fundamental level that the conspiracy peddlers Sunstein and Vermeule addressed, because even after giving you the hint about Googling the term, and even after being ridiculed into a corner about it's use, you still screwed the pooch and tried to pretend you knew what it meant but were using it in the way that Sunstein and Vermeule supposedly were! But you did not. You made zero study into our thought processes, justifications, and rationales for our conclusions. You just tried to say "You only trust the government". But you did it in a far more pompous way than your intellectual abilities justified, and misapplied the concept of "epistemology" in the process.

You really need to go to school. You also need to study critical thinking. Start with the basics; forget about Hume and Kant for now, go read Aristotle and Plato first. And at some point after that, you should hopefully be able to tackle Descartes' Discourse on the Method. Seriously. Before further invoking knowledge theory, read a book. Hopefully, it'll give you enough to where you're no longer read like one.

[beachnut]

...
This paper was not written by anybody, it was written by Obama's administrator for the office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, and concludes that the government should use what Sunstein calls "cognitive infiltration" to break up the Truth movement.
OMG, injecting knowledge into the 911 truth movement would make it rational and they would stop speeding lies and moronic claims like you have. That would be bad for people who want to remain in ignorance telling lies like you do. That would be bad, you would have to face reality and stop supporting idiotic delusions of themite.

It would be real sad to infiltrate a group of morons and show them by example rational thinking vs dirt dumb lies 911 truth spreads now out of reflex. It would be bad to have 911 truth stop apologizing for terrorists by making up fantasy paranoid conspiracies.

Would the 911 TruthLiars Movement learn from infiltration by rational beings? After reading 1984 and learning about NAZIs, how can people "join" 911 truth, using "truth" to spread moronic propaganda and lies. Wake up anti-intellectual expert on anti-truthers. I am envious of the feeling you will get when you realize 911 truth only produces lies based on hearsay, fantasy and dirt dumb delusions; you will be upset when you move on. You act all sophisticated with footnotes and sources on your posts as you spew nonsense. ... , you debunk yourself.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Far from claiming that it is truthers who are irrational and delusional in their selection of informational sources, it is in reality antitruthers themselves who possess an epistemology as crippled as can possibly be.

Since 9/11 you have gotten:

No new investigations.

No subpoenas.

No arrest warrants.

No trials.

No convictions.

No retreats from the battlefield.

No reductions in offensive actions abroad (Obama even increased drone attacks outside Iraq and Afghanistan).

No releases of US prisoners.

No closings of US terrorist detention facilities.

No overturnings of terrorist convictions.

No elections of 9/11 twoofy candidates.

No peer-reviewed papers published.

No engineering firms officially questioning the tower collapses.

No engineering schools officially questioning the tower collapses.

No engineering professional associations questioning the tower collapses.

No major conferences or symposiums of engineers and scientists debating "alternative" theories of the tower collapses.

In 9 years, your sad pathetic movement hasn't accomplished a single bloody thing. And you think it is we who are crippled?

The truth is, you're just mad and are trolling/lashing out because reality pissed in urology. :D

[little grey rabbit]

You can win every battle except the last one.

[Reactor drone]

You can win every battle except the last one.

You can also win every battle.


I love it when we talk about the deep stuff ;)

[Sword_Of_Truth]

We've won all of them so far.

[eromitlab]

Lets pick a couple of lines from the opening post and take a look at the sheer errors, omission and gross distortions, shall we?

"The mandate(1) was described (2)thus:

Quote:
The law creating the 9/11 Commission allowed for us “to ascertain, evaluate, and report on the evidence developed by all relevant governmental agencies regarding the facts and circumstances surrounding the attacks.

Which thus means they were only (3.) “allowed... to... report on the evidence developed by... governmental agencies.”"

1. the following quote is not a "mandate" it is a power delegated to the commission. So it is an error, and I'll go with outright fabrication.
2. See 1. Our hero seems to be unaware of the meaning of the word Mandate.
3. Only? ONLY?????? Dear lord, that is a bald face lie of the sort only the most incompetent truther can have come up with.

The Act itself specifically empowers the Commission to access other investigations, and further gives the Commission subpoena power. I have personal knowledge that the Commission obtained evidence from non-governmental agencies (the Chicago Board Options Exchange to name one example, there are hundreds of others, of course) And they reported that evidence.

So the entire Opening post is a complete embarrassing lie cloaked in fancy, albeit, misused words.

Complete and utter fail.

Not to mention, even for a troofer, a heavy use of ellipses to mine a quote so it proves their point... whatever that point was.

quiproquo, read Title VI, Section 602. (http://www.9-11commission.gov/about/107-306.title6.htm) All of it, not just enough to create a word salad of what you want it to say. Purpose 3 debunks your entire point.

[ElMondoHummus]

So... no more defense of your use of the term "crippled epistemology", Quiproquo? Or of your mistaken assertion in your OP, which 16.5 and eromitlab pointed out?