At around 13/6/06 12:53 pm, Michael Perelman wrote:
> I'm happy that we have been able to handle such a contentious matter
> without rancor. Are we falling into a conspiracy ourselves?
>
> So far, Paul, Jim, Lou, and I have monopolized this conversation
> except for one intervention by Doug.
>
Ha! You keep baiting me! ;-) Some meta points:
My general feeling is to ignore arguments that use the term "conspiracy
theory". You can (legitimately) use it as a way to cut down the material
you want to deal with, but in terms of the argument itself, it adds no
progress towards resolution.
And this I hold true for what you may consider laughable "conspiracies".
Take for example, the moon landing. Those who believe the moon landing
was faked by the USA present a list of "evidence" and arguments in
support of their belief.
One example is the "waving flag". Why, the argument, goes, is the flag
waving in the photograph, even though there is no wind on the moon?
This is, at face value, a genuine question. It may be resolved in
multiple ways: There is a wind on the lunar surface! Its waving because
the astronaut holding it set it in motion! etc. It can even be resolved
by pointing out that such faking requires enormous duplicity on the part
of so many individuals that it would be impossible to pull off. I
believe however, that it does not help in any way to dismiss it as a
"conspiracy theory".
I think Doug wrote something about "Arabs can't fly the plane by
themselves. It requires the Great White father". With all respect to
Doug, I think this critique is a diversion, a [no doubt unintentional,
if at all] attempt to cast the opponent as a racist, and dismiss his
argument.
Of course Arabs can fly, since many of them are pilots. But it seems to
be a legitimate question to ask: is it possible for a bunch of
non-pilots, with a few hours of training in small planes, to fly large
jets into precise targets? Especially such a low slung one as the Pentagon?
Often so called "conspiracy" arguments are useful even if they are not
entirely valid. One or more of the questions they pose may be genuinely
problematic and lead to facts that we might otherwise not have any clue to.
It is annoying, perhaps impossible, to refute such arguments at every
instance, in which case, it might be useful to point readers to a web
page or other resource that addresses all the questions raised.
With regard to tactics: yes, perhaps pursuing 9/11 "conspiracy theories"
might pigeonhole anyone as a "loony" (and this is a particular problem
for the left, since looniness is tolerated from the right). OTOH, at
some point, we have to stop being all DLC ;-), and think about facts and
truth, and if we suspect there is something worth pursuing in that
regard, it may be worth the effort/cost.
I am sure I could have expressed all of this in a succinct paragraph,
and I apologize for not doing that!
--ravi
--
Support something better than yourself: ;-)
PeTA: http://www.peta.org/
GreenPeace: http://www.greenpeace.org/
