How to tell the difference between true and false conspiracy theories

Dave!

Hey folks,

Just saw that Michael Shermer (publisher of Skeptic magazine) wrote a new article for Scientific American on this subject. I haven't gotten a chance to read it yet, but some of ye might be interested in it.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-conspiracy-theory-director

This past September 23 a Canadian 9/11 “truther” confronted me after a talk I gave at the University of Lethbridge. He turned out to be a professor there who had one of his students filming the “confrontation.” By early the next morning the video was online, complete with music, graphics, cutaways and edits apparently intended to make me appear deceptive (search YouTube for “Michael Shermer, Anthony J. Hall”). “You, sir, are not skeptical on that subject—you are gullible,” Hall raged. “We can see that the official conspiracy theory is discredited.... It is very clear that the official story is a disgrace, and people who go along with it like you and who mix it in with this whole Martian/alien thing is discrediting and a shame and a disgrace to the economy and to the university” [sic]. Hall teaches globalization studies and believes that 9/11 is just one in a long line of conspiratorial actions by those in power to suppress liberties and control the world.

Conspiracy theories are a dollar a dozen. While in Calgary on that same trip, I met a politician who told me that he believes the fluoridation of water is the greatest scam ever perpetrated on the public. Others have regaled me for hours with their breathless tales of who really killed JFK, RFK, MLK, Jr., Jimmy Hoffa and Princess Diana, along with the nefarious goings on of the Federal Reserve, the New World Order, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, Yale University’s secret society Skull and Bones, the Knights Templar, the Freemasons, the Illuminati, the Bilderberg Group, the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers and the Learned Elders of Zion. It would take Madison Square Garden to hold them all for a world-domination meeting.

Nevertheless, we cannot just dismiss all such theories out of hand, because real conspiracies do sometimes happen. Instead we should look for signs that indicate a conspiracy theory is likely to be untrue. The more that it manifests the following characteristics, the less probable that the theory is grounded in reality:

Proof of the conspiracy supposedly emerges from a pattern of “connecting the dots” between events that need not be causally connected. When no evidence supports these connections except the allegation of the conspiracy or when the evidence fits equally well to other causal connections—or to randomness—the conspiracy theory is likely to be false.
The agents behind the pattern of the conspiracy would need nearly superhuman power to pull it off. People are usually not nearly so powerful as we think they are.
The conspiracy is complex, and its successful completion demands a large number of elements.
Similarly, the conspiracy involves large numbers of people who would all need to keep silent about their secrets. The more people involved, the less realistic it becomes.
The conspiracy encompasses a grand ambition for control over a nation, economy or political system. If it suggests world domination, the theory is even less likely to be true.
The conspiracy theory ratchets up from small events that might be true to much larger, much less probable events.
The conspiracy theory assigns portentous, sinister meanings to what are most likely innocuous, insignificant events.
The theory tends to commingle facts and speculations without distinguishing between the two and without assigning degrees of probability or of factuality.
The theorist is indiscriminately suspicious of all government agencies or private groups, which suggests an inability to nuance differences between true and false conspiracies.
The conspiracy theorist refuses to consider alternative explanations, rejecting all disconfirming evidence and blatantly seeking only confirmatory evidence to support what he or she has a priori determined to be the truth.

The fact that politicians sometimes lie or that corporations occasionally cheat does not mean that every event is the result of a tortuous conspiracy. Most of the time stuff just happens, and our brains connect the dots into meaningful patterns.

What do we think? I'll post my own thoughts when I get a chance

Yitzhak Rabin

For anyone who is interested, here is the video that Shermer mentions in that article:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJftglWFUBM

mawdz

Just to calrify beacause afer your post im unsure:

This is the Conspiracy Theory Froum?
Conspiracys are basically an widely unaccpeted and debateable expelnation for an occurance, an event, a group etc...?
That when something describe as theory it means that it was neither proven true nor false.(usually not possible to do either or just currently unexplored areas that can prove it either)

Basically you can't have a true of false (good or bad)conspiracy theory because if you do then the name changes from conspiracy theory to FACT! Every conspiracy theory is a theory, some may be wacky, some may be made up, some maybe true but the truth not revealed but untill proven otherwise it remains just a Conpiracy thoery .

I recently heard of a Conspiracy theory that this thread does not exist as it is just a glitch in all human minds which visit boards. Prove me right or wrong?

Brown Bomber

Shouldn't this be in the Irish Skeptics forum?

Yitzhak Rabin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Shouldn't this be in the Irish Skeptics forum?

A lot of these topics can fit into either forum. I don't think the OP was particularly polemic in his questions.

Also, in the video I posted the author makes a reasonable case that Michael Shermer is dishonest, and at the end implies he could be a paid for CIA agent. There is definitely grounds for a conspiracy discussion with this topic.

firefly08

Shouldn't this be in the Irish Skeptics forum?

I'm not so sure.

Brown Bomber

firefly08 wrote: »

I'm not so sure.

I respectfully disagree.

A skeptic OP http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056021377 posts an sceptical article written by a prominent skeptic (who happens to be the publisher of Skeptic magazine) about a lecture he has given to his sceptical audience about how to be a better skeptic.

If this shouldn't be in Irish Skeptics then I don't know what should.

Brown Bomber

yekahs wrote: »

A lot of these topics can fit into either forum. I don't think the OP was particularly polemic in his questions.

Your the boss.

yekahs wrote: »

Also, in the video I posted the author makes a reasonable case that Michael Shermer is dishonest, and at the end implies he could be a paid for CIA agent. There is definitely grounds for a conspiracy discussion with this topic.

I vaguely remember this from a month or two ago. Some Professor with a beard and an younger English sidekick challenged Shermen. Apparently there was some question over Shermens credentials, he was conflating 9-11 "truth" with holocaust denial and apparently he was "debunking" David Ray Griffins books but couldn't actually name any of them. Or something like that.

Whether that Prof. and friend were right or not it takes balls to do what they did. I respect them for that.

Storm in a teacup really imo. It's not as if Shermen is actually important enough to matter what he says beyond his followers of the materialism cult.

ha. above should be Shermer

Dave!

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I respectfully disagree.

A skeptic OP http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056021377 posts an sceptical article written by a prominent skeptic (who happens to be the publisher of Skeptic magazine) about a lecture he has given to his sceptical audience about how to be a better skeptic.

If this shouldn't be in Irish Skeptics then I don't know what should.

True I'd consider myself a skeptic, but I was posting the article as I was interested in creating a discussion on what might qualify as a 'legitimate' conspiracy theory. Surely even the frequenters of this forum believe that there exists a spectrum on which you might be able to 'grade' conspiracy theories? Michael Shermer puts forth some points by which you might be able to distinguish between them, so I was looking for responses to these.

For a change, I wasn't particularly keen on ridiculing anybody by posting this -- as I said, I haven't gotten around to reading it yet (even though it's short!)

Torakx

I read the part you quoted in the op and didnt get the feeling he was making much sense other than stating some half truths that could apply truly to one situation and not to another of a similar type.

The theorist/skeptic is indiscriminately suspicious of all government agencies or private groups/conspiracy theories, which suggests an inability to nuance differences between true and false conspiracies.

I fixed that one for him.Its called human nature.And would also add that a left brain dominant thinker might possibly be more likely to be unable to change their view from what they first learned than a right brain thinker.
I consider most of the hardcore skeptics to be left brain dominant or neurotic and for the other end of the scale on the ct creaters to be right brain dominant for the most part or neurotic.I dont think its 100% of the time.But with the extremes i believe most likely.

The conspiracy encompasses a grand ambition for control over a nation, economy or political system. If it suggests world domination, the theory is even less likely to be true.

Didnt Hitler want to dominate the world?
Are we experiencing a political call out for a global government/political system/economy? YES

Some of the stuff there is true also,but it seems to me he decided to add his own pieces to blow it out of proportion or cause more of a rukus than anything else.I didnt read the link, but if its like that quote posted i dont think i need to read further.Especially after seeing his video where he claims cter's for the most part think people were taken out of the 9/11 planes and gassed somewhere else...LOL?
He looks to be rocking the boat for attention.

For what its worth i find the best way for me to judge if a CT is possibly more true than not is to take a large step back and see who is profiting.If something happens and some guy gains from it and there is circumstantial evidence he was involved i would be likely to wonder if something was up.I dont blame anyone for falling on the wrong side of the truth as with any conspiracy its ussually kept underwraps for the most part so hard to confirm.
Stepping back, Israel and america gained quite alot from those two planes crashing into those twin towers.What exaclty did the middle east gain apart from being bombed and leeched dry?Rebuilding contracts? probably not even that.Or am i missing something huge? Honestly not being sarcastic.I gave up on 9/11 research long ago tbh.

AnthonyHall

I am the bearded professor, Anthony J. Hall, who criticized Michael Shermer for his very unscientific and ill-supported presentation, "Why People Believe Weird Things." The You Tube given above in this discussion is not the one to which Shermer refers in his Scientific American hit job. Part one of our two-part coverage is at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGXm__kqFzQ

In the You Tube Shermer refers to in SA I describe him as "a disgrace to the academy." Shermer purposely misquotes me to say, I said he is a disgrace to the economy. Disinformation! Check it for yourself. The man is indeed a disgrace to the academy, including my school, the University of Lethbridge, who paid him to perform his anti-skeptical song and dance. Check out his agent, Wolfman Productions.

Here is my report of Michael Shermer's misrepresentation of his credentials. After I saw the fraud perform I concluded this man probably does not work with the framework of peered-reviewed scholarship in universities.

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/october282010/scholarship-scams-ah.php

I am attempting to contact Fed Guterl at Scientific American to seek the right of reply. His cell phone in NY is [snip] So far he has not returned my calls.

sponsoredwalk

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I respectfully disagree.

A skeptic OP posts an sceptical article (about consiracy theories)
written by a prominent skeptic (who happens to be the publisher of
Skeptic magazine) about a lecturehe has given to his sceptical audience
(focusing on the consiracy theories that followed this lecture) about
how to be a better skeptic (with regard to consiracy theories).

If this shouldn't be in Irish Skeptics then I don't know what should.

Think it needed to be done :pac:

I'll just say, anthropologists & sociologists have evidence for their claims
which is accepted in the mainstream while 911 evidence isn't so your
students video equating these 3 examples as if they are on a par is,
wait for it, "Disinformation!".
I think it's really childish for you to say:

AnthonyHall wrote: »

In the You Tube Shermer refers to in SA I describe him as "a disgrace to the academy." Shermer purposely misquotes me to say, I said he is a disgrace to the economy. Disinformation! Check it for yourself. The man is indeed a disgrace to the academy, including my school, the University of Lethbridge, who paid him to perform his anti-skeptical song and dance.

because we can all just listen to the video ourselves to see that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5NRfvAMk2c

You kind of stuttered and moved around 05:06 when you said
economy/academy. Anyone can hear how this could be misheard but
you want to go off spouting "Disinformation!" as if it is purposefully done.
Lets analyse the psychology here, even if Shermer purposely misquoted
that single word, that is barely audible when you actually listen to the way you
said it, no matter what word he picked they both neither act to your
detriment nor better his position seeing as both words convey the same
detrimental message. So I think it's not a good start to see you going
nuts over a single word that could understandably be misquoted.

I've just got to ask because I've seen many videos of people coming from
the 911 movement going up to such people as Michael Moore, Amy
Goodman etc... & scolding them with a diatribe on this topic. You do
realise what you are doing, that you are scolding someone for having
an opinion on a topic that is different that yours? You do realise that
in no other area of life is this behaviour permitted yet when it's 911
primal urges are somehow justified? Whether or not your message
is correct there's no excuse for shouting insults at someone, from the
crowd, who is giving a public lecture. My question is why you think it's
okay to insult Shermer for giving his opinion on people promulgating
theories which he finds disagreeable yet why is it when someone who
believes in flat earth theories gets up & insults a physicist giving a lecture
it's not okay? Note: I've given you the benefit of the doubt in thinking
you'd disagree with this flat earth person screaming at a lecturer, if
you think that is alright then I'll rephraze my example, hopefully you
see the analogy I'm trying to make & it's merely an example of what
I've already written.

As for 911 itself, it is a consiracy theory in that the claim is that there
was a conspiracy on behalf of the government to either attack or allow
the attack on it's own population for it's own motives. The evidence
is not conclusive in any direction & while a serious inquest into
what happened has not been done there is no justification for criticizing
those who are critical of a theory without conclusive evidence.

I chose not to elaborate my own opinion that much of the available
evidence, incomplete and imperfect as it may be at this time, points
towards former Vice-President Richard Cheney as suspect number one
when it comes to the lies and crimes of 9/11.
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/october282010/scholarship-scams-ah.php

Notice at the end of that link there is a clarification of Shermer's
credentials @ GCU, but I mean what good is evidence of this from
your own Dean of Arts when you can come on here & continue to
claim his credentials are suspect without evidence to support this?

Torakx

I can understand people being vehement even about defending their point of view regarding 9/11 as something like 3k people died and the ones involved many feel haven't been brought to justice be they from the middle east somewhere or the west somewhere.
I guess everyone in the end does have a right to an opinion,but can also be an ass when they are holding that opinion for gain instead of truth.
Its hard to tell who is wearing the sheeps clothing.

AnthonyHall

OK. Thanks for the commentary. I intervened in the question and answer period, not during the body of his presentation. Michael Shermer had a microphone. You'll notice there was no microphone for the audience. You'll notice it was a very big room. And you'll notice Michael Shermer stopped me in mid-sentence by shouting out, "Well then, who did it?" I saw his interruption as a trap, as a diversion from where I was headed with my intervention. I tried not to allow myself to be put off message. I had to speak loudly to be heard without a PA system in the big lecture hall. Was I able to contain the emotion of indignation. Not entirely

My major point had to do with Michael Shermer being advertised as a adjunct professor of economics at Claremont Graduate University. Claremont is the school of Professor David Ray Griffin. Professor Griffin has written 37 books, the last ten of which deal with various aspects of 9/11. Prof. Griffin's Pearl Harbour Revisited was one of the picks of Publisher's Weekly, an important US publication. My point was that Mr. Shermer showed no evidence of having read his colleague's work. He was speaking on subjects without detailed knowledge of the relevant academic literature.

Each of Prof. Griffin's books deal with a variety of subjects relative to 9/11. His texts are meticulously documented. They are written in a manner combing careful scholarship with genuine skepticism. I am not saying that I agree with every point 100% but generally speaking Prof. Griffin's oeuvre does embody the state of the art of 9/11 Studies. Many other academics have addressed various aspects of 9/11 Studies as well. Can one find examples of wild and illogical speculation in the huge mass of literature concerning 9/11? Of course. But that does not discredit the solid scholarship on the subject like that of Prof. Griffin.

In his presentation Shermer did not engage any of the relevant evidence contained in a large body of relevant scholarship. Instead he makes vast generalizations that group together thousands of researchers dealing with a vast array of topics as some invented category he labels as "conspiracy theorists." To be branded with this label is like being branded with the label dummy or idiot or worse.

In amongst the mix of his so-called "conspiracy theories" Shermer throws in the subject of Holocaust Denial. In Shermer's world, therefore, to ask questions about what did or did not happen on 9/11 is the equivalent of denying one of history's most notorious and reprehensible genocidal crimes. That is hugely wrong and offensive. That makes no sense. In my view, Shermer's equation of say Prof. Griffin with Holocaust Denial is a travesty. Shermer trades viciously in a particularly crude genre of hate speech calculated to generate to animosity towards artificially linked categories of people who exist as a group only in Shermer's imagination.

The Scientific American article that began this discussion is another travesty. For me the best way to identify false interpretations of power's workings (what Shermer would refer to as false "conspiracy theories') is to test the evidence, analysis and conclusions with independent research. Check references. Identify the most important primary and secondary sources? Consider the merits of alternative interpretations. What Shermer proposes instead is some kind of lazy man's formula so one doesn't have to go to the trouble of doing actual scholarship, actual research on the nitty grittyy of the subject at hand. That lazy man's approach is Shermer's approach. Check out the web site of his agent Wolfman Productions.

The meme, "conspiracy theorist," has been twisted and abused by the anti-skeptic Shermer to dismiss and demean en masse those with an interest in exploring the darker side of power's workings. Various efforts along these lines might be good, bad or indifferent but they need to be considered on a theorist by theorist, case by case, point by point, footnote by footnote basis. Rather than doing the hard work, with due respect for every individual and every specific argument being considered, Shermer's approach is to paint vast arrays of humanity with the same brush. That is not scholarship. That is hate talk.

This form of generalizing about detailed and complex matters is indeed a disgrace to the academy. Since I have devoted my life and career to work in the academy, I don't take kindly to seeing this important seat of knowledge degraded by Michael Shermer, who has only the most tenuous of claims to be employed by a US university.

As for my work on 9/11, it can be consulted in my new peer-reviewed book, Earth into Property, published by McGill-Queen's University Press. Last week Earth into Property was included among The Independent's (UK) Christmas picks for best books of 2010.
- Show quoted text -

meglome

Just thought I'd scan through the list.

• Proof of the conspiracy supposedly emerges from a pattern of “connecting the dots” between events that need not be causally connected. When no evidence supports these connections except the allegation of the conspiracy or when the evidence fits equally well to other causal connections—or to randomness—the conspiracy theory is likely to be false.

Rampant in the CT world. Look at any 911 video and see just how many events are mentioned without any information on exactly how they are connected.

• The agents behind the pattern of the conspiracy would need nearly superhuman power to pull it off. People are usually not nearly so powerful as we think they are.

Well seems quite reasonable to believe that people are not superhuman.

• The conspiracy is complex, and its successful completion demands a large number of elements.

Given that governments are poor at running pretty much everything they get involved in why would a large CT be any different.

• Similarly, the conspiracy involves large numbers of people who would all need to keep silent about their secrets. The more people involved, the less realistic it becomes.

In the film Layer Cake, Colm Meaney's characters tells Daniel Craig's character that if you ever kill anyone never tell another living soul (or words to that effect). If one person is told it increases the chance of it being discovered by 100%. When you're looking at hundreds or thousands of people it's incredibly unlikely it wouldn't get out.

• The conspiracy encompasses a grand ambition for control over a nation, economy or political system. If it suggests world domination, the theory is even less likely to be true.

Powerful people are unlikely to sit around a room and all agree.

• The conspiracy theory ratchets up from small events that might be true to much larger, much less probable events.

Seems reasonable.

• The conspiracy theory assigns portentous, sinister meanings to what are most likely innocuous, insignificant events.

Seems reasonable.

• The theory tends to commingle facts and speculations without distinguishing between the two and without assigning degrees of probability or of factuality.

Again reasonable.

• The theorist is indiscriminately suspicious of all government agencies or private groups, which suggests an inability to nuance differences between true and false conspiracies.

Governments can be very dishonest but the belief that governments = bad/lying and truthers = good/truthful has always bothered me. Anyone can lie, for many difference reasons.

• The conspiracy theorist refuses to consider alternative explanations, rejecting all disconfirming evidence and blatantly seeking only confirmatory evidence to support what he or she has a priori determined to be the truth.

Given how selective, dare I say dishonest, CT sites can be it's a fair point.



Personally I don't doubt for a second that there are conspiracy's going on right now. However way too many of the proposed CT's would need literally many hundreds of people to be involved. By default it becomes incredibly unlikely it wouldn't get out. So unlikely it just couldn't have happen that way.

meglome

Torakx wrote: »

I fixed that one for him.Its called human nature.And would also add that a left brain dominant thinker might possibly be more likely to be unable to change their view from what they first learned than a right brain thinker.
I consider most of the hardcore skeptics to be left brain dominant or neurotic and for the other end of the scale on the ct creaters to be right brain dominant for the most part or neurotic.I dont think its 100% of the time.But with the extremes i believe most likely.

I grew up in a working class area of Dublin. In that area it was common for people to make up stories, to slag others off for any reason, to exaggerate. So it gave me a healthy scepticism and a good bullshít filter. If I didn't have those things growing up would have been much less fun. I have been told some awful crap in my life, open-mindedness isn't just swallowing it, it's being able to filter it (see sig). For all of that I'm very happy to change my view, as anyone who knows me will tell you. But as we used to say "Don't píss on me and tell me it's raining".

Torakx wrote: »

Didnt Hitler want to dominate the world?
Are we experiencing a political call out for a global government/political system/economy? YES

Hitler certainly did, but everyone knew he was, it was very blatant. Sure they hid their early intentions but that didn't last long. Even the concentration camps were known about early in the war.
Unfortunately the phrase 'one world government' existed before this current crises and means very different things to politicians and CT'ers.

Torakx wrote: »

Some of the stuff there is true also,but it seems to me he decided to add his own pieces to blow it out of proportion or cause more of a rukus than anything else.I didnt read the link, but if its like that quote posted i dont think i need to read further.Especially after seeing his video where he claims cter's for the most part think people were taken out of the 9/11 planes and gassed somewhere else...LOL?
He looks to be rocking the boat for attention.

Sorry but many people that post in here don't believe some or all of the planes were real. It comes up all the time.

Torakx wrote: »

For what its worth i find the best way for me to judge if a CT is possibly more true than not is to take a large step back and see who is profiting.If something happens and some guy gains from it and there is circumstantial evidence he was involved i would be likely to wonder if something was up.I dont blame anyone for falling on the wrong side of the truth as with any conspiracy its ussually kept underwraps for the most part so hard to confirm.
Stepping back, Israel and america gained quite alot from those two planes crashing into those twin towers.What exaclty did the middle east gain apart from being bombed and leeched dry?Rebuilding contracts? probably not even that.Or am i missing something huge? Honestly not being sarcastic.I gave up on 9/11 research long ago tbh.

In any random situation someone will profit. Even in this global recession some people bet that it would happen and won. There are always winners and always losers. So if you're using that to base the truth of something on I'd think again. Who exactly profited from 911?
What exactly did Israel and American gain from these attacks?

alastair

AnthonyHall wrote: »

The meme, "conspiracy theorist," has been twisted and abused by the anti-skeptic Shermer to dismiss and demean en masse those with an interest in exploring the darker side of power's workings. Various efforts along these lines might be good, bad or indifferent but they need to be considered on a theorist by theorist, case by case, point by point, footnote by footnote basis. Rather than doing the hard work, with due respect for every individual and every specific argument being considered, Shermer's approach is to paint vast arrays of humanity with the same brush. That is not scholarship. That is hate talk.

Nonsense. Cast your eyes over the range of topics thrown up by the self-selecting goup that comprise 'CT'ers' in this forum. The alien and fluoridation obsessives are clear fellow travelers to the 'Truthers'. Shermer is right to point that the clear consensus amongst the various experts in the various fields related to the events of 911 support the 'official' narrative. The lazy avoidance of an over-riding theory to frame piecemeal (supposed) evidential 'anomalies' and single-interest CT groups speaks loudly as to the validity of the 'Truther' movement.

And yes - you've clearly been caught out in your misrepresentations by own video. But that's stock in trade for the Truther game, so no surprise there.

alastair

meglome wrote: »

What exactly did Israel and American gain from these attacks?

Anyone with a dispassionate perspective can see that Israel gained nothing. A few defensive missiles that may or may not work, no obvious advantage in their conflict with Hamas, Hezbollah, or the relationship with the PA. The best you could claim would be a secondary benefit for their indigenous security or technology industries, but no more than any other national player in that game.

The US? Clearly far more losses than gains. The only real American beneficiaries are those military and security contractors who were doing pretty well beforehand in any case. Pretty tepid stuff for a conspiracy.

Torakx

To meglome et al,
Well i speak in generalisations for the most part.Its a habit i just cant shake lol
For example i consider some traits to be associated with a majority of use with one side of the brain or the other.
You might appear to me to be very left brain dominant from your posting style.That doesnt mean you definetly write with your right hand(or its your dominant hand for example) but i think it makes it more likely than not.It just depends on your enviornment and how you choose to think as your brain grows amonst other things.
With that said it doesnt mean either that if you were a "lefty" you would automatically reject all new ideas or a "righty" and automatically are open to all ideas.People use different sides for different things and choose each side i believe based on many things as they mature.
I do agree to be skeptical is healthy, but i believe in being skeptical of everything even my own views and reality.
I might say i believe or feel or think that a CT is the case but i take it as granted that people understand i dont fully accept anything.
When i speak of something i have to immerse myself in it visually in my head and it leads me to write as if i am a part of it sometimes.
I express myself better through art than writng, hence the massive walls of text i am always posting to explain something that should be quite simple to put down in words.
The fact you took it upon yourself to presume i ment you or from your response it sounds like you thought i ment everyone who is left side dominant,which i dont i promise.I realise saying neurotic might get other people offended too but for me it is just as the word means nothing more and i am neurotic in my own ways.
So no offence ment to anyone else its just how i see the world.

I really do think though that a large portion of people who find it easy to get along in life in the west are dominant left thinkers and find it easier in general to accept the reality posed to them.
The opposite goes for right side dominants in general i feel.
Its dependant on many things but when you view politics,the brain,conspiracy theories it appears to me everything is being either naturally or artificially seperated to left and right.Its possible this is just to do with how the brain works or i am seeing patterns

To keep on topic, how to tell the difference between a true ct and a false,with regarding left and right brain dominance aswell.
Maybe first find out which side i am dominant and then work on utilizing the other side for balance.I need to be more analytical and less intuitive i know.But its hard to change our way of thinking and i think this is at the core of ct's and mainstream life.
We grow up with a certain view and it becomes part of us.Its been said that alot of left side dominant thinkers have trouble shifting from an idea once they are settled with it(but that depends on which part of the brain is delaing wth the changing of ideas and wether we utilize that more with the left or right side maybe).And rights are always seeking new ideas or creating new ones.
Of course a right might also be very good at maths and become a great scientist too.A left can be good at art and draw with the right hand or left.
But again i take this as accepted and hope people see the bgger picture of what im saying(which again is a right side trait i think).

The guy addressing the audience as a skeptic on 9/11 ct's is approaching it from as i see it a strong left side view.The others a strong right side view as they will seek the alternative.The balanced and possibly real situation i believe lies down the middle and thats where i aim to go more so these days with everything.
Im not going to think to reply to the rest as i doubt people will want to read this much ive written let alone three times more haha.

Brown Bomber

Dave! wrote: »

True I'd consider myself a skeptic, but I was posting the article as I was interested in creating a discussion on what might qualify as a 'legitimate' conspiracy theory. Surely even the frequenters of this forum believe that there exists a spectrum on which you might be able to 'grade' conspiracy theories? Michael Shermer puts forth some points by which you might be able to distinguish between them, so I was looking for responses to these.

For a change, I wasn't particularly keen on ridiculing anybody by posting this -- as I said, I haven't gotten around to reading it yet (even though it's short!)

Fair enough. I wasn't having a go at you anyway. Skeptic wasn't meant to be taken derogatorily, honest. All I was saying was that it's not in the appropriate forum; and it's not. Which shouldn't be a problem if people didn't use it as a stick to beat others users of the forum which they have done already.

sponsoredwalk

First off I understand you hadn't got a microphone & understand that you
had to speak a bit louder. I also understand that you have every right to
ask questions about Shermers grasp of the literature he is claiming to
have read. I do recognise that you are correct to ask a question & tell
Shermer you think he's wrong for dismissing work on 911. I can even
understand why you insulted him in your question & told him he was a
fool for equating 911 work with holocaust deniers.

I don't understand why you had to go shouting from the crowd more than
once @ him which is why everyone in the crowd continually turned &
gave you those looks (watch the video). I don't understand why you had
to shout from your seat more than once after you'd asked your question.
If you watch the video you'll see this is the reason why he threatened
to eject you & I think you'll see that were we talking about a flat
earth advocate doing the same thing to a physicist lecturing about
astronomy or something we'd all be justifiably critical.

The problem with what you've done is that it's literally archetypal of the
classic crank attacking people @ their own shows with claims about 911.
I don't mean to suggest you are but your actions at the show, and after,
are just exemplar of this. Lets be serious here, you are insulting &
going after someone who, in their own opinion & their personal research,
has come to a conclusion that is different to yours & holds a different
opinion. This is his crime, having a different opinion based on his own
look at the evidence. Now, it doesn't matter how well his research into
this topic was, going after Shermer & exposing him for a fraud, not saying
he is btw, is going to do nothing for the credibility of 911 claims. All it
shows is that you've wasted a hell of a lot of time focusing on someone
who is telling the world that he doesn't believe in a conspiracy theory
for which no conclusive evidence has been presented. The only honest
way to show Shermer was wrong would be to actually vindicate your
claims about 911 to the world.

Also, lets take another look at the psychology of this situation. When
Shermer asked you who caused 911 you seen it as a trap & didn't take
the bait you assumed he'd set with that question. The reason you
didn't do this, among others, was because you had to go into the
detailed theory, incomplete as it is, that you have regarding this matter.
However, when you & your student set your own bait to catch Shermer
out, both by asking him to name one of those books & by the e-mails
you sent, he also responded with the obvious belief you were trying to
catch him out. In your case it's okay to respond like that to loaded
questions but Shermer is a fraud for employing the same cognitive
abilities for some reason.... I'm sure you'd be a strong advocate of
people looking at the evidence themselves & coming to their own
conclusions yet here we have an example of someone who has done just
that & come to their own conclusions, but it differs from yours so obviously
you're justified in shouting at him from the crowd & going deep into
his personal life to catch him out. This is the craziness people see
when they look at how the main advocates of conspiracy theories
act, honestly it is & is possibly the main reason why so few people
get sucked in, & it's just got to stop. You could have taken the
noble route & continued to accumulate evidence & bring a convincing
case to scientists & others who could do something about this but
as always we see people attacking Shermer, or Moore, or Goodman, or
Chomsky, or Parenti etc... etc... who are the 'gatekeepers of the left'.
All this rhetoric of Shermer being subservient to power is another
example of the confirmation bias of a critic of power. If someone comes
to a conclusion different to yours they are power's servants etc...
It's shameful. We'll put this in grteater perspective, you've accused
Shermer of being deceitful about his employment but got a letter
acknowledging he was in fact employed by these people.
Before you got that letter you implied he was being paid by the
government & implied he was simply their servant at least that's
the feeling I got from the videos & analysis of Shermer you wrote.
The confirmation bias went crazy & once evidence came to show you
were wrong is there an acknowledgement of that? I could be wrong
about this but it's really just how I read the analysis, & certainly how I
perceive the claim that he "probably does not work with the framework
of peered-reviewed scholarship in universities". Is this not a good example
of why people should not jump to conclusions before evidence is
given seeing as there is no evidence he doesn't work within
scholarship?

Finally, the onus is on those who bear the extraordinary claim to
convince those who doubt it through extraordinary evidence. So far
the evidence has not convinced the mainstream & that includes the
people who are skilled to judge the evidence properly. Berating those
who've done their own research is not going to reflect badly on those
who've come to their own conclusions as they can just acknowledge
they were wrong once better evidence comes along that can convince
them. However you are the only one who stands to suffer by sinking to
extreme depths & my advice is to just leave Shermer & the other
people alone until convincing evidence is brought up. If you have
convincing evidence then bring it to the people who can evaluate it
properly. I think the consortium of engineers etc... who doubt this
are the best hope for pushing for a satisfying analysis but that's just
my opinion.

AnthonyHall

The comment above is a perfect example of a lazy man's approach to avoiding research, to engaging the actual evidence. Very Shermeresque. He's not a real professor. He just plays one on TV.

My colleague, Prof. Graeme MacQueen, addresses these same issues below. Really, the term "conspiracy theory" and the pseudo-skeptics associated with Shermer use it, has lost all meaning.

MacQueen to Hall, 4 December, 2010

Thanks, Tony. Excellent. My reply to colleagues who quoted Shermer (and some people do take this guy seriously!) was along the same lines as yours, though not as well put. Evidence, evidence, evidence. Ever since I began debating colleagues on this subject I’ve been awe-stricken to find that there are quite a few university profs out there who do not understand what evidence is and why it is important! They are desperate for thought-stoppers like Shermer’s little list (“read my list and you won’t have entertain disturbing thoughts”). Again and again I’ve challenge them to discuss the evidence with me. They won’t. They tried to dismiss all the evidence I gave of explosions.

Finally, I just sent them a link to a firefighter being interviewed. He’s covered head to toe in grey dust. “The whole ****in’ lobby just blew up” he says, or words to that effect. That had an interesting silencing effect on my opponents.

Graeme

sponsoredwalk

That's quite a thoughtful response demolishing my argument, good job.
So there's no contradiction between you trying to catch Shermer out
& him 'trying to catch you out' by asking you to respond to a question
that you first brought up. Once again we see the level of cogency
when discussing 911 :rolleyes:

AnthonyHall

I was responding to Meglome and his comments on the silly list Shermer proposes as replacement for actual engagement with the evidence.

sponsoredwalk

AnthonyHall wrote: »

I was responding to Meglome and his comments on the silly list Shermer proposes as replacement for actual engagement with the evidence.

Apologies, your response said "above me" & I'm above you & was afraid of
this discussion degrading into something nasty but I'm wrong so apologies

AnthonyHall

Nice to receive something gentle and humane in this milieu of attack and ridicule and such. Rather than criticizing my mannerisms or my resort to a custom that characterizes question period in the British parliamentary tradition, why not engage in some real research on what did or did not happen on 9/11? Why not read Professor Griffin's Pearl Harbor Revisited or Chapter 13 of my Earth into Property. Of course that requires more of you than Shermer's six easy steps.

The Shermeresque resort to the phrase "conspiracy theory," as if this combination of words identifies something sensible and real, must be transcended.

Theorist by theorist. Argument by argument. Publication by publication. Chapter by chapter. Footnote by footnote. Citation by citation. There is no shortcut formula to differentiating truth from falsehood when it comes to exploring and evaluating the dark side of power's workings.

meglome

AnthonyHall wrote: »

I was responding to Meglome and his comments on the silly list Shermer proposes as replacement for actual engagement with the evidence.

They are two different things though. One is a set of observations about conspiracy's generally. The other is specific evidence for each conspiracy. There's nothing wrong with his observations, and the evidence would seem to back them up.

meglome

AnthonyHall wrote: »

Finally, I just sent them a link to a firefighter being interviewed. He’s covered head to toe in grey dust. “The whole ****in’ lobby just blew up” he says, or words to that effect. That had an interesting silencing effect on my opponents.

Fair enough let's look at that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7ehAI9cUkM

meglome wrote: »

...Did you actually look at the footage? So there appears to be a handful of broken windows. The broken glass is lying directly outside the windows, not all the glass is even knocked out. Worse than that a lot of the glass is lying directly inside the building. Otherwise the lobby looks perfect, the plant pots aren't even moved or the plants damaged. I have no idea what broke those windows but it doesn't look like an explosion of any kind. (Though if i had to guess I'd say the plane impact caused these very big windows to shatter). Unless I'm supposed to believe an explosion broke heavy plate glass windows, lightly dropped the glass both inside and outside the building, didn't knock leaves off the plants or do any other damage whatsoever in the lobby. Magic explosives again obviously.

That's an older post of mine. But you know I discovered something in the meantime completely by accident. I was looking at the Naudet bothers documentary the one which was narrated by Robert De Niro. In part two (two or three anyway) there's some shots of the firemen arriving at the WTC. In the shot they appear to be breaking the windows with their axes to get access the lobby in numbers. So using the evidence I can surmise that these huge plate glass windows were broken by the plane impact and/or the fire-fighters gaining access.

AnthonyHall

The plural of conspiracy is conspiracies, not conspiracy's. Can you explain conspiracy theories generally? Is it a conspiracy theory to posit that companies get together to set prices and limit competition? Is it a conspiracy theory to believe that in war, experts are hired to manage public opinion? Is it a conspiracy theory to notice in Wikipedia that the founder of the company that recently purchased Scientific American was a Nazi whose specialty was getting collaborators for the National Socialist Party within the universities? Is it a conspiracy theory to believe companies hire experts to help sell their products? Define "conspiracy theory."

To observe Shermer the TV performer who pretends to be a professor, rich and powerful Americans never conspire to advance their class interests. Does Shermer serve the interests of power by teaching anti-skepticism to divert attention away from the machinations of the plutocrat class in monopoly capitalism?

AnthonyHall

Meglome. Check out this excerpt explaining some of Professor MacQueen's research, which involves reading the 13,000 pages of testimony given by NYC fire fighters recording their experiences and observations of 9/11.

What made you think Professor MacQueen was referring to the You Tube you saw. There are dozens of clips from 9/11 where all sorts of witnesses describe various explosions, or we actually see and hear the explosions going off. Also check out the testimony of WTC janitor William Rodriguez who is adamant that explosions went off in the basement of the place where he worked for 20 years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg

meglome

AnthonyHall wrote: »

The plural of conspiracy is conspiracies, not conspiracy's. Can you explain conspiracy theories generally? Is it a conspiracy theory to posit that companies get together to set prices and limit competition? Is it a conspiracy theory to believe that in war, experts are hired to manage public opinion? Is it a conspiracy theory to notice in Wikipedia that the founder of the company that recently purchased Scientific American was a Nazi whose specialty was getting collaborators for the National Socialist Party within the universities? Is it a conspiracy theory to believe companies hire experts to help sell their products? Define "conspiracy theory."

Well more a grammar issue. Being self taught will always have it's flaws. Is there a point to all this otherwise?

And sorry stating that Germans who were alive from the 1930's to 1945 were National Socialists is like suggesting that it's weird that Irish people are Catholic. Pretty much everyone was a National Socialist in Germany then.

AnthonyHall wrote: »

To observe Shermer the TV performer who pretends to be a professor, rich and powerful Americans never conspire to advance their class interests. Does Shermer serve the interests of power by teaching anti-skepticism to divert attention away from the machinations of the plutocrat class in monopoly capitalism?

It's interesting I don't know either Shermer or you but I dislike your tactics and attitude. And it's only taken a handful of posts for you to shine through.