On the Truth Movement and Irreducible Delusion

[MIKILLINI]

Originally Posted by pomeroo

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.

This is very well explained Pomeroo, great post!! (I will be using one of your sentences in My sig).

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by Open Blinded

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?

Quite correct. "Conspiracy Theory" does not equal "Conspiracy" + "Theory". The combination of words has a meaning distinct from the meaning of either of its components. In filmmaking we call this Soviet Montage. Others are probably more familiar with the phrase "greater than the sum of its parts".

Conspiracy Theory has a unique definition. It is necessarily not true. Were it true, it would not be a Conspiracy Theory, but a conspiracy. Conspiracies are of course fairly common and frequent. 9/11 was one such conspiracy.

[Max Photon]

Originally Posted by Open Blinded

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?

Personally, I call the "official story" the 19-Hijacker Conspiracy Hypothesis. I think that is a very accurate way to phrase it.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by Max Photon

Personally, I call the "official story" the 19-Hijacker Conspiracy Hypothesis. I think that is a very accurate way to phrase it.

No it isn't. The 9/11 attacks are not an untested scientific experiment.

[pomeroo]

Originally Posted by MIKILLINI

This is very well explained Pomeroo, great post!! (I will be using one of your sentences in My sig).

Thank you! You are welcome to use as many of my sentences as you like.

[Max Photon]

Originally Posted by pomeroo

Thank you! You are welcome to use as many of my sentences as you like.

...and he's got lots.

[Max Photon]

Correction, I have just been informed that it's actually one really really long rambling sentence.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Max Photon

Personally, I call the "official story" the 19-Hijacker Conspiracy Hypothesis. I think that is a very accurate way to phrase it.

No, it is just another thing you get wrong about 9/11 without even trying. You need to comment on the thread and stop posting off topic, as I am, yet a typical habit you have with the threads you start.

Your ideas on 9/11 fall short of qualifying but for parts of the theme of this thread.


Why do you have a lie/fantasy as your sig? Maybe your ideas are more inline with the theme than I gave them credit for.

[Max Photon]

I'll try again...

Ryan,

You said, "Conspiracy theories in general...are not logical..."

I asked if you were implying that all conspiracy theories are not logical, because they actually never happen.

You repeated that conspiracy theories in general are not logical.

So I'll re-ask my simple question:

Can you provide some examples of conspiracy theories that are logical?

Max

P.S. Forgive me if I materially derailed your thread earlier.


* * *

Beachnut,

How is your cluttering the thread with your whining about me being off topic, on topic? Why not just report it to moderators and shut up? Doesn't that make a bit more sense?


* * *

Pomeroo,

Nice post.

[pomeroo]

Originally Posted by Max Photon

Correction, I have just been informed that it's actually one really really long rambling sentence.

You had me worried there. Your original comment that I had lots of sentences to share was--dare I say it?--correct! I looked out the window to check for flying pigs. Fortunately, by the time I returned, you had revised it to an error. Whew! Back to normal; all is well.

And, all kidding aside, thanks for the kind words.

[Max Photon]

Originally Posted by Max Photon

I'll try again...

Ryan,

You said, "Conspiracy theories in general...are not logical..."

I asked if you were implying that all conspiracy theories are not logical, because they actually never happen.

You repeated that conspiracy theories in general are not logical.

So I'll re-ask my simple question:

Can you provide some examples of conspiracy theories that are logical?

Little help here.....we need some new crickets.

[tanabear]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

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.

Quote:

Demands for a disproof, rather than providing any evidence;

Members of the 9/11 Truth Movement demand proof that the claims made by the government are true.

Quote:

Dogged avoidance of direct discussion, either through distraction or total refusal to give debate;

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

Quote:

Dropping discussion of the belief altogether, in seeming acquiescence of superior logic, only to bring it up again unchanged at a later date.[/list]

Superior logic or superior propaganda?

Quote:

David Ray Griffin

Dr. Griffin presents a remarkable example of the Irreducible Delusion at work in the introduction to his book Debunking 9/11 Debunking. In the opening pages, he presents his “Own Story,” which includes the following excerpts:

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.

The "Terror Timeline" is a collection of mined media quotes? Peter Lance, a five-time Emmy-winning investigative reporter, wrote, "His[Paul Thompson's] vast history is backed up by articles that fill more than hundred two-inch thick three-ring binders. Drawing on exclusively mainstream media sources, he brings together reports from ABC News, the New York Times, Time, and Newsweek., the major broadcast and cable networks, and hundreds of other outlets, into one searchable database."

Peter Lance once stated that he could have finished his first book on terrorism, "1000 Years for Revenge: International Terrorism and the FBI -- The Untold Story" in half the time if he had known about Paul Thompson's timeline while researching it.

In fact, it was Peter Lance who first wanted Paul Thompson's timelines published as a book. He wrote,

"Any researcher, reporter or scholar with an interest in the war on terror would consider the Cooperative Research timelines a bonanza of open source information. The trade paperback edition of Paul's work, The Terror Timeline, came about as the result of a meeting I arranged in early June between Thompson and my publisher, Judith Regan. With more New York Times bestsellers to her credit than any other single publisher, Judith quickly saw the value in his vast database and agreed to bring Paul's timelines to the public in printed form."

Paul Thompson's timelines are a lot more than a collection of mined media quotes. They help to show the contradictions, inconsistencies, and unresolved issues surrounding the events of 9/11. Instead of dealing with these issues, the debunkers dismiss all this as quote mining.

[pomeroo]

Originally Posted by Max Photon

Little help here.....we need some new crickets.

How about Cicero's indictment of Cataline?

[Mobyseven]

Originally Posted by applecorped

Isn't logic a human construct?

Yeah. I was just making a joke...

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by tanabear

Paul Thompson's timelines are a lot more than a collection of mined media quotes. They help to show the contradictions, inconsistencies, and unresolved issues surrounding the events of 9/11. Instead of dealing with these issues, the debunkers dismiss all this as quote mining.

People use Paul Thompson's time line to make up lies and false information.

Rational people are able to sort through the time line and gain knowledge when it is backed up with real sources and not pure news gathering open loop incorrect hearsay and facts filled with errors and missing important conditions and parameters.

Paul Thompson's timeline new sources, which may or may not be accurate. To critique Mackey on this point is double extended distilled pure Irreducible Delusion.

I suspect Paul Thompson presents the data in a failed truther manner! So I checked it out! And he does present false data freely. The time line is filled with hearsay and un-sourced material.

Here we have Paul Thompson making up a junk ideas by titling September 14th 2001 articles. By saying contrary accounts of speed, he is failing to give you a reason why there are, or would be contrary accounts.

Quote:

"September 14, 2001: Contrary Accounts of Flight 93’s Speed Raises Questions"

Forgets to tell the whole story, I think Paul sticks in the is leading statement!

Quote:

" It is initially reported that Flight 93 is traveling fairly slowly when it crashed."

The source is pure hearsay, and offers no real method of how the speed was arrived at. Hearsay, and the speed is just a guess. A radar gun that goes to 500 mph would be handy.

Quote:

“It slammed into the ground at a speed law enforcement authorities said might have approached 300 mph.” [New York Times, 9/14/2001]

NTSB and other experts? Now we get pure news junk! OVER 200 MPH, that is a safe statement, with flaps up the plane has to be going over 200 mph! More hearsay and unnamed sources.

Quote:

“Flight 93 slammed into the earth nose-first at over 200 mph, according to estimates by the National Transportation Safety Board and other experts.” [News Journal (Wilmington, DE), 9/16/2001]

This next one is a good estimate based on the crater, from the book on the passengers of flight 93, the first people in the world to figure out 9/11, and now we are stuck educating the last people to understand 9/11, the truth movement. Who quote is this? Is Paul reading a book for us?

Quote:

However, by 2002 it is being reported that the plane crashed going nearly 600 mph. [Longman, 2002, pp. 212]

It could of gone supersonic. At nose low attitudes a large jet can go supersonic. So, a pilot may say this.

Quote:

“It could have even broken the sound barrier for a while,” says Hank Krakowski, director of flight operations control at United’s system control center on September 11. [New York Times, 3/27/2002]

Why does Paul Thompson publish stuff like this that is missing the conditions where the limit is 287 mph? Why does Paul Thompson publish stuff that can be used out of context by the truth movement that does not mean anything?

Quote:

The design limits of the plane are 287 mph when flying below 10,000 feet. [Longman, 2002, pp. 208]

Note, the clean speed limit below 10,000 feet is near 350 knots. But the plane can go faster in a dive, and over the limit without major break up for short periods.

Clearly Paul Thompson's time line is misleading, and it is hard to see what Paul has authored and why he uses terms that help to inspire idiots to use false information as some sort of fact. Using Paul Thompson's time can lead to making stupid statements.

Each time I read it, it seems biased to the truth movement, and open loop stupid comments seem to pepper the contents. It is good for guiding research to debunk the truth movement. And this speed issue is a perfect example, I find nothing strange about any of the accounts Paul listed as " Contrary Accounts". When you understand flying, news reporters and reality, you can quickly figure out these stories have no bearing on anything and do not constitute inconsistencies and should not lead to the pure stupid ideas the truth movement freely makes up out of this tripe.


The truth movement fails to use logic, knowledge and rational thinking when using Paul Thompson's truth stilted timeline. See the opening posts again. Mackey says it much better, and makes your post, a Irreducible Delusion.

[funk de fino]

Originally Posted by tanabear

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.

Incorrect. They do not look at evidence. They read hearsay, made up lies and watch crappy videos. They handwave the real evidence and proof as fake. They call all experts who disagree with them shills and agree with numpties like Alex Jones. Debunkers quite often change their thoughts on a given position when presented with evidence and proof.

I had a truther once call me brainwashed. A few posts later I called him on it. He then denied it. I then quoted his post. He still denied it. These are the type of people that hang around this movement of yours.

Originally Posted by Tana

Members of the 9/11 Truth Movement demand proof that the claims made by the government are true.

Then cry fake when they are given it.

Originally Posted by Tana

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

Why should NIST debate anyone who is saying they are covering up murder. They will not even debate Gravy.

Originally Posted by Tana

Superior logic or superior propaganda?

Logic, evidence and proof.

Originally Posted by Tana

Paul Thompson's timelines are a lot more than a collection of mined media quotes. They help to show the contradictions, inconsistencies, and unresolved issues surrounding the events of 9/11. Instead of dealing with these issues, the debunkers dismiss all this as quote mining.

There are always contradictions, inconsistencies ansd unresolved issues with any larger event like this. What you do not have is any proof which is your huge showstopper. You claim to be a member of quite probably the worst poloitical movemnet of all time. I hope your parents are proud.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by tanabear

The "Terror Timeline" is a collection of mined media quotes? Peter Lance, a five-time Emmy-winning investigative reporter, wrote, "His[Paul Thompson's] vast history is backed up by articles that fill more than hundred two-inch thick three-ring binders. Drawing on exclusively mainstream media sources, he brings together reports from ABC News, the New York Times, Time, and Newsweek., the major broadcast and cable networks, and hundreds of other outlets, into one searchable database."

It's a big collection of mined media quotes, I'll give him that.

Originally Posted by tanabear

Paul Thompson's timelines are a lot more than a collection of mined media quotes. They help to show the contradictions, inconsistencies, and unresolved issues surrounding the events of 9/11. Instead of dealing with these issues, the debunkers dismiss all this as quote mining.

Except they don't, because if he bothered to be honest with his project he'd highlight the resolution of these contradictions and inconsistencies, instead of giving every single source exactly equal footing.

Here's a simple example:

Quote:

8:43 a.m. September 11, 2001: NORAD Notified that Flight 175 Has Been Hijacked

After 9/11, NORAD and other sources claim that NORAD is notified at this time Flight 175 has been hijacked. [Washington Post, 9/12/2001; CNN, 9/17/2001; North American Aerospace Defense Command, 9/18/2001; Associated Press, 8/19/2002; Newsday, 9/10/2002] The 9/11 Commission, however, later concludes that New York flight control gives NEADS its first notification that Flight 175 has been hijacked at 9:03 a.m. [9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004] If this earlier account is the accurate one, NEADS technicians learn of the hijacking at the exact same time the flight controllers do. They already have their headsets linked to Boston flight control to track Flight 11 at this time,and so they learn instantly about Flight 175. [Newhouse News Service, 1/25/2002]
Source

This leaves suspicion in the eyes of the reader, and they're left with the thought that this earlier notification time makes more sense, but it's rather misleading...

Firstly; "NORAD and other sources", except it's not "NORAD and other sources", it's just NORAD. The "other sources" are just media outlets repeating NORAD's official timeline release.

No mention of the NEADS tapes, of course, which confirm that NORAD wasn't notified until 0903, and also confirm that the statement "they already have their headsets linked to Boston flight control to track Flight 11 at this time" is utterly false - NEADS didn't even have this capability.

So what is in fact a completely resolved issue - New York ARTCC notified NEADS at 0903 - instead comes off sounding rather suspect, but more likely that the earlier time is the right one.

And that's only a very simple example - the timeline is full of dishonest reporting like that. It's not about presenting the truth to readers, it's about inserting as much doubt in the reader's mind as humanly possible.

[R.Mackey]

Originally Posted by Max Photon

I'll try again...

Ryan,

You said, "Conspiracy theories in general...are not logical..."

I asked if you were implying that all conspiracy theories are not logical, because they actually never happen.

You repeated that conspiracy theories in general are not logical.

So I'll re-ask my simple question:

Can you provide some examples of conspiracy theories that are logical?

Max

P.S. Forgive me if I materially derailed your thread earlier.

Sorry Max, I wasn't ignoring you -- I was out of town most of the week. It's a reasonable question. I've been asked that at various times by other posters; here's an old reply for reference, and I'll add three fresh comments.

The 1999 Russian Bombings is one example that may or may not have been a conspiracy. I lack evidence to prove it one way or the other, but the conspiracy theories that the FSB, or agents thereof, were involved with part of or all of it are plausible in my opinion.

Closer to home, Iran-Contra is another example, albeit one that did not directly endanger Americans. This one is well proven to exist, and I further believe (but cannot prove) that it was done with partial or full cognizance of the President.

Finally, I've commented on the USS Liberty discussion here. Yes, I believe there was a conspiracy to cover up the attack. Not the same conspiracy as many others believe, and one that I'm reasonably comfortable with, but nonetheless it strikes me as a reasonable conspiracy theory.

None of the September 11^th conspiracy theories I've heard come even close to these in terms of plausibility. Particularly the MIHOP theories that rely upon elaborate and exotic contrivances of explosives or incendiaries.

[R.Mackey]

Originally Posted by tanabear

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.

[RedIbis]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

Particularly the MIHOP theories that rely upon elaborate and exotic contrivances of explosives or incendiaries.

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

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

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]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[R.Mackey]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by Max Photon

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]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

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]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

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]

Originally Posted by tanabear

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]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

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/word...007/02/07.html

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by applecorped

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]

Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy

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]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

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

Originally Posted by tanabear

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.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

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