On 6/14/06, ravi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is not to imply that 9/11 alternate theorists are the equivalent of creationists and ID theorists. In the case of the latter, I have heard their arguments and have and can provide responses.
There is a strong similarity between conspiracy theory and creationists/IDiots. The IDiots reject not only Darwinian theory and results but also the whole set of methods used by science. They posit unseen and unexplainable forces (the Intelligent Designer) to explain one-shot events (the creation of complex life at various stages), while not being open to critical thinking. They see one or two empirical or theoretical holes in Darwinian theory as undermining the latter, rather than taking into account the massive weight of evidence and theory that remains in favor of Darwin to tell them that what's needed are improvements in Darwin, not _ad hoc_ and _ex post_ rationalizations. The conspiracy theorists -- i.e., those that posit that the Cheney-Rove _wants_ chaos and civil war in Iraq -- reject social science and its methods. It's true that social science is nowhere near as invulnerable as Darwinian theory and it's close to laughable to call it "science." But social science points to various ideas that undermine conspiracy theories -- but are systematically ignored by the con. theorists.[*] Central is the notion of unintended consequences arising from purposeful action (e.g., the Smithian Invisible Hand, where individual greed produces good for society, and Marx's crisis theory, where individual capitalist greed undermines collective profits). (This, by the way, is akin to Darwin's notion of competitive selection, imported from economics via Malthus.) [*] so dark the con of man! -- Jim Devine / "Mathematics has given economics rigor, but alas, also mortis" -- Robert Heilbroner.
