On Jun 14, 2006, at 11:41 AM, ravi wrote:
Ok, Doug, let me try to engage your central point:
Fact: a consultant to the Pentagon recommended the use of selectively
released data D to stimulate conspiracy theories.
Result (and here I am giving you a great deal of rope): theory A
emerges
about incident X related to the released data D. Further, A derives
its
weight extensively from the data D.
Now, please demonstrate to me, preferably using fairly atomic steps of
inference, how this shows that A is wrong.
It doesn't necessarily show it's wrong (though I'd still maintain
that most conspiracy theories are wrong). It does show they're a
waste of time, and people in power realize this. The consultant
specifically recommended JFK material.
Almost everything of significance in political economy happens more
or less in the open. You can learn much of what you need to know just
by reading good newspapers. Yes, there are very useful alternative
sources of info, but this is still a fundamentally open society. You
don't need any secret knowledge to understand the Iraq war or Bush's
tax policy. You don't need to know why JFK was popped to understand
the war in Vietnam. Most of the con theories that circulate are
distractions from these basic facts.
Doug
