User:Morton devonshire/conspiracy theory
What is Conspiracy Theory Cruft?
The following is from Wikipedia.
Features of Conspiracy Theories
Allegations exhibiting several of the following features are candidates for classification as conspiracy theories. Confidence in such classification improves the more such features are exhibited:
- Initiated on the basis of limited, partial or circumstantial evidence.
- Conceived in reaction to media reports and images, as opposed to, for example, thorough knowledge of the relevant forensic evidence.
- Addresses an event or process that has broad historical or emotional impact.
- Seeks to interpret a phenomenon which has near-universal interest and emotional significance, a story that may thus be of some compelling interest to a wide audience.
- Reduces morally complex social phenomena to simple, immoral actions.
- Impersonal, institutional processes, especially errors and oversights, interpreted as malign, consciously intended and designed by immoral individuals.
- Personifies complex social phenomena as powerful individual conspirators
- Related to (3) but distinct from it, deduces the existence of powerful individual conspirators from the 'impossibility' that a chain of events lacked direction by a person.
- Allots superhuman talents and/or resources to conspirators.
- May require conspirators to possess unique discipline, never to repent, to possess unknown technology, uncommon psychological insight, historical foresight, etc.
- Key steps in argument rely on inductive, not deductive reasoning.
- Inductive steps are mistaken to bear as much confidence as deductive ones.
- Appeals to 'common sense'.
- Common sense steps substitute for the more robust, academically respectable methodologies available for investigating sociological phenomena.
- Exhibits well-established logical and methodological fallacies
- Formal and informal logical fallacies are readily identifiable among the key steps of the argument.
- Is produced and circulated by 'outsiders', generally lacking peer review
- Story originates with a person who lacks any insider contact or knowledge, and enjoys popularity among persons who lack critical (especially technical) knowledge.
- Is upheld by persons with demonstrably false conceptions of relevant science
- At least some of the story's believers believe it on the basis of a mistaken grasp of elementary scientific facts.
- Enjoys zero credibility in expert communities
- Academics and professionals tend to ignore the story, treating it as too frivolous to invest their time and risk their personal authority in disproving.
- Rebuttals provided by experts are ignored or accommodated through elaborate new twists in the narrative
- When experts do respond to the story with critical new evidence, the conspiracy is elaborated (sometimes to a spectacular degree) to discount the new evidence.
Classifying pseudoscience
Pseudoscience fails to meet the criteria met by science generally (including the scientific method), and can be identified by a combination of these characteristics:
- by asserting claims or theories unconnected to previous experimental results;
- by asserting claims which cannot be verified or falsified (claims that violate falsifiability);
- by asserting claims which contradict experimentally established results;
- by failing to provide an experimental possibility of reproducible results;
- by failing to submit results to peer review prior to publicizing them (called "science by press conference")
- by claiming a theory predicts something that it does not;
- by claiming a theory predicts something that it has not been shown to predict;
- by violating Occam's Razor, the heuristic principle of choosing the explanation that requires the fewest additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible; or
- by a lack of progress toward additional evidence of its claims.
Steven E. Jones, 9/11 "researcher" debunked
If you ever wonder if there's any science behind the conspiracy theorists claims, take a look at this excerpt from the Steven E. Jones talk page:
- I know you have an engineering background. Do you personally have any kind of opinion on the veracity of his 9/11 paper? I'm pretty sure you have an opinion on the whole controlled demolition theory, but I would still be interested to hear what you have to say from a technical standpoint if you care to share your thoughts on it. SkeenaR 23:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- I have a degree in mechanical engineering, and I have worked with structural steel, but in bridges rather than buildings. I am in no sense qualified to hold an opinion on the structural engineering aspects of the collapse. I have significantly more experience with explosives and demolitions, and I have used linear shaped charges and thermite. I have not done any work in controlled demolition of buildings, and I'm not qualified to evaluate Jones' work, except as a layman. His work does not have the ring of truth. Jones writes like someone who has read about, but never used, explosives. "I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter-charges such as thermite, HDX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel." This is technobabble. In what sense is RDX a high-temperature cutter-charge? What does that even mean? Is he suggesting that linear shaped charges of RDX melted the steel? From what I've seen the results of shaped charges on steel are more like tearing. Later he refers to pools of molten metal weeks after the event. Certainly thermite will melt steel, but how much thermite are we talking about? Truckloads? (By the way, I think some back-of-the-envelope heat-transfer calculations are in order there.) Rigging a skyscraper for controlled demolition is a massive undertaking, and a disruptive one. You would need open access to the structural members for weeks, there would be detonating cord everywhere, other members would probably need to be protected from damage so they didn't fail at the wrong time, and the workers would probably tear up the drywall and trash the carpets. And then what about priming the whole thing? Is it going to be left for weeks or months with blasting caps installed in the high explosives? I don't think so. And where is all this thermite going to be? I don't see how it would be possible to do this secretly. I don't see any basis for concluding that these puffs of smoke are from 'squibs.' He seems to just say they must be, because squibs can make puffs of smoke. "See the puffs of smoke? Those are squibs. How do I know they're squibs? Because of the puffs of smoke." I read through his paper, and read through (parts of) the NIST and FEMA reports, and the Popular Mechanics article. Jones' work sounds like junk science; The NIST and FEMA reports are less exciting, but seem solid and workman-like. Sorry I can't be more helpful, but I'm not qualified to do a point-by-point debunking of Jones' work. It doesn't really matter what I think anyway. All we can do here is write, "This is what Jones says" and "This is what others say." Everyone with an interest has to read and make up his mind. Tom Harrison Talk 20:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I have had email and face to face interactions with professor Jones. I'm a software engineer, so I don't have any ground to stand on when it comes to his physics, but luckily, in my opinion, most of his paper doesn't deal with physics at all. Also in my opinion, 11 of his 13 points don't deal with physics, but deal with structural engineering or other topics outside of his area of expertise. It also contains information that is incomplete, misleading, or debunked. It is in these areas and areas of logical fallacy that I have engaged him. You can see an account of my interactions with him here (this is part 1 of 4): 9/11, Steven Jones, and Me Be sure to read the other 3 parts via links at the end of each part. It's been an interesting trip. You'll see my joustings with some "9/11 truthers" in the comments on each post - what fun! --Rcronk 23:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
A few thoughtful comments from Admin Aude about Real Life "Truther" Tactics
Comments by Aude on the "truthers"
This would mean more workload on others to monitor the 9/11 pages. I didn't come to Wikipedia to work on those pages, but won't tolerate undue weight amount of "nonsense" fringe theories. There are so many 9/11 pages here, which are attractive to the "truth" movement, who are extremely persistent and determined to spread the truth with their non-reliable sources. They like to use Wikipedia as a tool in their truth spreading. And, I've been on the Loose Change forums and do observe them often consulting Wikipedia in their "research". If you go on their forums and at all question anything they say or profess expertise, such as in engineering or as a pilot, they BAN you from their forum. I've been banned, but can signup again for another account. Not only do they go after folks like MONGO who insist on reliable sources, WP:V, and enforcement of other policies, but lately I've seen the "truthers" even go after 9/11 victims and their families. This shows how despicable their tactics are.
Examples of the tactics used by the "truthers":
- Charles Burlingame, the pilot of American Airlines Flight 77 is a popular target for "truthers"... His sister, Debra, remarked in the USA Today about the Loose Change video, "The only thing they (the filmmakers) seem to have gotten right about the Sept. 11 attacks is the date when they occurred...They aren't truth-tellers looking to save the world. They're con artists hoping to sucker conspiracy-theory paranoids or anti-government malcontents into shelling out their hard-earned dollars." [2] His daughter, Wendy Burlingame came on the Loose Change forum and remarked "Reading the conspiracy theories regarding my father have made me and my family sick. We realize this is being done by sick individuals who need to deal with 9-11 in a different way than others. It does not make it any easier when you read your father was involved with the terrorists when you Google his name. I hope the people who write these things can sleep well at night." [3] BTW, she died earlier this week in a suspicious fire in her apartment. [4]
- They are also going after Lloyd England, the taxi driver who's cab was damaged by a lightpole when AA77 flew over the highway and crashed. See photo, Image:Pentagon_taxi_hit_by_lightpole.jpg. ([5] Dylan Avery (director of Loose Change), his "co-producers" Jason Bermas and Korey Rowe, their friend Russell Pickering, and their other buddies on the "Pentagon Elite Research Team" came to Washington at the end of August. They found out where Mr. England lives and came by unannounced with a video camera. They tricked the poor old 70 year-old man into talking with them. They are probably going to cherry pick bits from the "interview" and use it in the final cut of Loose Change. They have already been showing the video and amusing themselves with it. This google video is sick [6] Here's one of their blogs, which talks about their "interviews" with other Pentagon witnesses. [] (it's a myspace link, so okay to click on it w/o fear of being tracked) Who knows, some of this could be lies, but some of it is real and disgusting.
- The truthers ("Killtown" in particular) have also gone after Val McClatchey, who took this photograph near Shanksville, moments after the plane crashed there. [7] Here's one of Killtown's blogs [8] (it's a blogspot link, so okay to click it) Killtown and others accuse her of having faked the photograph. Here's how Killtown has harrassed Ms. McClatchey, as reported in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette [9] "The real estate agent has recently become a target of bloggers calling themselves "9-11 researchers," They have visited Mrs. McClatchey's office and called her at home, posting satellite maps of her property and accusing her of digitally altering her photo to insert a fake smoke plume. The bloggers have picked apart her story, highlighting inconsistencies in different news accounts and questioning her motives. Others have described her as "surly," "hostile," "irate" and "defensive." People have called her at home, accusing her of being anti-American and of "holding the photo hostage." On a simple Google search, Mrs. McClatchey's name now pops up in the same sentence as "total fraud." ... This Killtown, whoever he may be, I find it very disturbing that this is a 16-page attack on me personally," said Mrs. McClatchey, who opened her real estate company a year and a half ago. "My business is named. That hurts me personally. It's pretty disturbing. My whole life is out there, a map to where I live, a map to my office. It's a safety issue for me. There's some crazy people out there."
- And the NY911Truthers show up every Saturday at Ground Zero to "protest" and harrass tourists and passerbys. I would care less if they showed up outside the White House or some place else. But, find this highly distasteful.
It's one thing for some kids in their parents basement to do all this from behind a computer screen, but when they show up at GZ and go out harrassing victims and their families, it can't be tolerated. I know that some of the truthers that edit on Wikipedia are some of the hardcore folks. Banned user User:TruthSeeker1234 is one of them.
I have done what I can to keep those articles in check with Wikipedia policies of WP:NPOV#Undue weight, WP:RS, WP:V, etc. MONGO has been invaluable, and with his experience writing featured articles, he knows the policies well and what it takes to maintain a reputable, good article. The September 11, 2001 attacks article is always among the most viewed articles. [10] If that article descends into a propaganda, conspiracy POV pushing article for the "truth" movement, it would on the whole make Wikipedia look quite bad. I doubt they will ever succeed, as there is no consensus for what they are trying to do. In the event they did, I would likely give up on Wikipedia myself, viewing it as a waste of my time. There would be no use working on articles relating to my main area of expertise, including criminology (sorely lacking on Wikipedia). It's my hope that Wikipedia has the mechanisms in place to support enforcement of Wikipedia policies that are essential to keeping 9/11 articles reputable, yet alone create a hospitable environment where we can work to further improve the quality of them.
It's not ordinary trolling we are dealing with, but rather some real hardcore folks. --Aude (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
See here for the source.
Comments by Rosenkreuz on the Truthers
Hmm, I do see your point, Travb. But I disagree with you on two counts. The first, is that from what I have seen, many of these 9/11 articles are not well-researched. Extensively researched, certainly, but information is only as good as the source from which it issues — and unfortunately, 911truth.com is one of those sources where you can cite 200 times, but it still doesn't make it reliable or right. Which brings me to my second point. The goal of providing the totality of knowledge for all is a noble one. However, we must ask ourselves whether theories that clandestine agents destroyed the WTC by planting thermite, or zapping it with a space-beam, and so forth, represent `knowledge'. It may be `knowledge', in a sense, that Conspiracy Joe says that the clandestine agents did it, but that isn't the impression the articles convey. Indeed, if we were to extend that humanitarian goal of Wales a little, I would say we arrive at the realisation that it is unethical to portrary the `knowledge' of these loonies as being on the same level as the `knowledge' of the comprehensive team of experts built up by NIST. Lest this starts sounding like a treatise on postmodern epistemology (and maybe it is, for Wikipedia is an experiment in postmodern epistemology, whether intentionally or not) let me be brief. The idea seems to be that simply by laying out the facts, the reader can make up their own mind about things. So, presented with an article that says `Conspiracy Joe says x, y and z, and cites these chemical formulae and those equations of civil engineering to support his claim', the casual reader is expected to evaluate for themselves whether Conspiracy Joe is right or not. But the average reader cannot evaluate claims of that complexity: it took me a couple of hours research in organic chemistry to debunk, for personal benefit, the claims about the various residues left behind by what Conspiracy Joe claims was thermate wrapped in some sort of sol-gel. Unless one is a chemist, that kind of knowledge doesn't just lie around in the top of one's head the same way that how to make a good curry does. Now, one could say that it ought to be possible to cite the research of someone who has gone out and debunked these claims already, preferably a reputable professional. Only, where Conspiracy Joe devotes his entire life to coming up with his ideas, reputable professionals, being professionals, have other work to do, and maybe only have a bit of spare time on the weekend to rip apart one of Joe's claims for fun, and stick on the InterNet, or send it to Popular Mechanics, or whatever. But by that time, Joe has published 10 more essays, written a dubious book and been interviewed about it, twice, on a dodgy radio chat show, and delivered 6 speeches at 4 conferences — all of which Joe's supporters demand merit Wikipedia articles, and which generate vast chunks of material, which the sane people can never catch up with. So, to answer your question, Travb, I would say this. This userpage helps fulfil the mission of Wikipedia by providing GabrielF, and a few acquaintances, a way of co-ordinating their activities in trying to keep Wikipedia focused on knowledge, and not rumour and unbridled speculation. Many 9/11 articles may give the appearance of being well-researched, but aren't, since the citations are inevitably to the ignorant ruminations of paranoids and cranks. It may not be `politically-correct' to say that directly, but it is the truth. Rosenkreuz 11:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Source: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard (2nd mfd)