I wonder if there is an adaptive aspect to conspiracy gullibility, such as Type 1 Error tendency, i.e., assuming the worst in order to forestall worse threats. That said, I agree that Conspiracy Theorizing can be an example of instances when stupidity becomes craziness and it would be good to fight that (in others and in ourselves).

As you may know, there are several evolutionary-based arguments to explain religiosity. Hence, to the extent that I am drawing a parallel between conspiratorial thinking and religiosity, your suggestion strikes me as within the realm of possibilities.

Have a good weekend.

GS

Ventura Sheehan Perot Paul Nader McKinney Kucinich Kaptur Gravel Gonzalez Clemente Choate Carter Baldwin Anderson

Israel-first dual-nationals of AIPAC
Willful major media disinformation
Federal Reserve scam
Anthrax intimidation
9/11 sham

The very same could be said of the tendency to deconstruct contrary opinions and viewpoints, labelling them "conspiracy theories" or belittling them in some way, as you have said about those theories themselves. Reluctance flows both directions. Theorists disagree with your point of view, you disagree with theirs. In the absence of absolute universal truth, half-truths, opinions, perspectives and agendas quickly fill the void. It is not definitive what happened on 9/11, to claim so, one way or the other, is to discount a mountain of evidence on both sides of the debate, to claim the case is closed or that the discussion is ended, is to do a tragic disservice to truth, honesty and investigative research and journalistic integrity. The claims made by "conspiracy theorists" are popular with people on that side because they hold some shreds of truth, if there were no redeeming valid facets, they'd be as quickly forgotten as a random comedian's joke, the same is the case for the claims made by the "officials;" shreds of truth, assumptions, perceptions, holes abound, inconsistencies ignored, there has been no definitive research done, and that is the truly frightening factor in all of this, if it were such a simple, open and shut case, then why wouldn't proper evidence be presented to shut up naysayers once and for all? If I know the Earth is round, and you insist that it's flat, I need only show you photos and mathematical formulas backing up my claim. Go read Charlie Sheen's "20 Minutes with the President" and explain away the 20 bullet points he brings up; holes abound that have never been filled in with anything more than, "Oh it's just conspiracy theory," or "just trust the official story, don't worry about it, just trust us". Fact is, if someone says something like that, I tend to think of that SNL skit where Lovitz is the habitual liar and grifter who always just says, "Yeah, that's the ticket," and then scams people.

Loool, Dr. Saad, your piece was succinct and on the money. I see that even some replying here can adapt their “conspiracy” level to seem less out of the norm. Me thinks I hear the soft crunching of tinfoil head gear. I see the old “I’m rubber, your glue” methodology is back in vogue.

As an atheist I generally tend to view religiosity with conspiracy theorists. Evolutionary needs for “faith” in some proverbial “sky daddy” is a mindset that I adhere to. The human capacity to see patterns, and/or the need to have all encompassing answers to events, that make them feel powerless, is observable over and over again. I have a hard time understanding the lack of logic that can be found in these instances. When an event and it’s particular points can be clearly falsified and counter their views, people will immediately slip into “faith” mode and claim “special circumstances”. The need to believe over rides clear thinking.

Merci Dr., Merci.

Addendum: The overwhelming need to be skeptical in and of it’s self can also be at times a form of “paranoia”, *cough, Marik, cough*, lol.

Typo correction: "I'm rubber, YOU'RE glue." I have to be careful, Marik might suspect me of something, heh.

Religion and Conspiracy Theories have a lot in common, as any ideology can land into the camp of stupidity. I see great explanatory power in the evolutionary perspective, but often question whether my view of "selective pressure" can be replaced by "God's will."

Those who are interested only in confirming their biases will continue to do so at our peril.

Thats what this so called issue boils down to...Both sides believe (based on any info they deem as 'evidence') that they are right and the other is wrong. I won't tell my opinion because it is really irrelevant whom I believe was behind the attacks. I will note that it could seem like big business or neocons or inside group x did have something to gain from war efforts. I also know that the US has enemies and frankly we got apathetic and lethargic creating an opening for a terrorist group to strike. The biggest issue I have is that there is too much energy going into this debate that could go to bigger social issues. Perhaps we should look at what as a whole what we can do to live in a way that promotes our values, that doesn't impede on other cultures, that also flushes out corruption. In sum, lets use this tradgedy to go foreward. We should be honoring the innocents who died by making something of ourselves as a country and society, instead of argueing theories, conspiracy or otherwise, in vain.

DV

PS. I apologize for any typos/misspellings...I don't have spell check on this pc.

Have a great Weekend everyone!!!!

On the surface, it's an interesting comparison (religious beliefs and conspiracy theories), however, there are too many generalizations.

1. The term, "Conspiracy Theory" is poorly defined and seems to include just about any conclusions someone may come to about the nature of the events on 9-11.

2. George Bush, Dick Cheney, and their immense power as in charge of the entire Executive Branch of the most powerful nation on Earth is hardly invisible!

3. There's was nothing miraculous or so sublime that occurred on 9-11 that would need to be explained by divine or supernatural powers. Indeed, somebody flew planes into buildings; Every conspiracy theorist seems to agree to the former point.

4. Does your reference to "Conspiracy Theorists" include the official Conspiracy Theory, that about 20 Arab men launched the most devastating attack on the continental US, orchestrated by some alleged nut operating out of a cave in Afghanistan, of all places? Doesn't the official conspiracy theory ascribe "great power to 'invisible' forces..." too?

5. To refer to those who look at the evidence from the events on 9-11 as "extreme[ly] stupid..." is not only insulting, over generalized, but flat wrong. There are many unexplained issues with the events.

6. Given the apparent serious lies and crimes that Bush & Cheney committed, as well as the "neo con" (PNAC) memos and letters encouraging war against Iraq, of which Cheney and Jeb Bush were members, it does not seem stupid or crazy to allege that Bush & Cheney permitted 9-11 to happen, for example, in order to have a "slam dunk" reason to invade Iraq.

7. History is full of examples of "false flag" strategies where government allow or stage events in order to create animosity towards another country. Facist Germany did it to Poland, Facist Japan did it against China, and the US is suspect of it throughout history, "The Maine," The Gulf of Tonkin Incident, and Pearl Harbor to name a few. I'm sure if you looked through some Master level history books, you might find mention of more.

8. Power corrupts... Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The greater power you have, the greater power you have to abuse. Bush & Cheney had great power. The certainly had the power to ignore over 50 general and specific warnings that the US would be attacked by terrorist, some of which specially mentioned WTC.

...just as I have no opinion of JFK or Pearl Harbor; it was 10 years ago. What I do know about it is: we will still be arguing about 9/11/01 in 50 years just as we are those. It is amazing to me that anyone ever thinks that ARGUING will ever solve the mysteries or convince each other that there is not one. Arguing as differentiated from agreeing-to-disagree, that is. To each his own universe.

The official story, or the conspiracy story, is, as you say: like the god/no god/which god argument...you choose the belief you wish to believe and from that point on, find personal --yours or anothers'--experiences to validate your belief to yourself so that you may keep believing it. Humans have been doing that for 1000s of years so I seriously doubt a cure for the 9/11/01 co-morbid will seriously affect the condition overall. Heck, even scientists do it when conflicting but well supported or respected theories emerge. The Science Community is more subjective than it would have you believe, just like anything else involving humans.

However, from a purely "style of writing" technique, I cannot help but raise an eye-brow at the terminology:

Para 1: cognitive processes (or lack thereof)
Para 2, Reason (1): Both religion and grand conspiracies are IMMUNE FROM REASON and both are IMPERVIOUS to evidentiary standards. (highlights mine)
Para 3, Reason (2): "invisible" note: the fact that it is in quotations implies a tongue in cheek tone. You would not describe electricity as invisible, in quotes.
Para 4, Reason (3): Incredibly, and Such is the power of
Para 5: Extreme stupidity is legal however

Regardless of one's topic, if a writer includes these phrases, it implies one is either looking for a fight, or dripping with condescension. If you are NOT trying to wave the flag for the official side of the 911 story, you certainly could have found a less passive aggressive way to write about it.

If you ARE flag waving for the official side, you could have written your arguments using less explosive terminology and thereby actually sway anyone on the fence to your side. However, as you have done it, you portray yourself as indomitably closed minded as is, you claim, the alternate view.

I thought you were looking to start a fight and it seems you have. If you intended to do otherwise, I think you failed.

Either way, Cheers!

My post is without Hyperbole. Anyway, I'm aware that it was a commentary and I wrote a response which was a commentary to Gad, in kind. St.B, your opening response to me sounds more like literary hyperbole than anything that I had posted.

Moving on, you can say I was mirroring, but I was just pointing out that Gad, after lumping every conspiracy theory into the same bowl except for the official theory, made over generalized and inaccurate claims about them, when in fact, the official conspiracy theory meets the same criteria that Gad applied to the unofficial conspiracy theories.

I pointed out the historical facts as well as recent issues about how Bush/Cheney lied to the entire world in order to justify the Iraq war that it does not seem unreasonable for conspiracy theorists to conclude that Bush/Cheney could have conspired in the 9-11 attacks in some fashion.

By saying that, I'm not saying that it would be rational to accept many of the conspiracy theories many of which seem as ridiculous as telepathy or alien abductions.

My post was not meant to serve as a peer reviewed paper on the facts and evidence of any one conspiracy theory; it was only to point out that the logic that Gad applied to compare religious beliefs to conspiracy beliefs seemed flawed.

Again, what I said was that it is not unreasonable to conclude that Bush/Cheney had something to do with 9-11. I did not say that, as you allege that I said, that "... B would be the obvious conclusion." B is one possible conclusion that would not be irrational to conclude. For example, in religion, there is no evidence of a God, but there is evidence that Bush exists and there is evidence that he had lots of power. Moreover, I didn't say that Al Quieda (Sp?) or Osama did not orchestrate the attacks.

Your next comment seems ridiculous - as you said about Gad, same for me, mine wasn't a peer reviewed paper: "Just because those of your mindset leave out phrases like... Illuminati and secret societies and attempt to give the impression of intellect and logic, doesn’t mean it still doesn’t fail as a hypothesis."

I agree that, as you said, "Anecdotal connections also do not meet the criteria of scientific fact finding. All must be falsifiable to even be considered, once that alone can be denied it no longer is a valid point. It becomes nothing more than “special pleading” on the previous concept of A=B." That goes without saying, but you would make a boring prosecutor.

And this comment of yours is just plain silly and rude: "In a debate with you I wouldn’t even bother touching the subject of 9/11, I would just punch holes in your technique and force you to validate your HYPERBOLE." It seems to me that you don't understand the definition of hyperbole.

And this comment, "Just because something is repeated by rote doesn’t make it valid." - duh! It's getting really old at this point, St.B. Some things are repeated because they are axioms, not just propaganda.

St.B - nice try defending your friend Gad, but your response to my post was quite sophomoric.

St.B -

I had to put in a new name b/c the blog would not let me post again under Scott C; I'm not sure why and I made it clear that it was I who was responding; no need for you to jump to conclusions about it.

I'm not sure how to make my initial comments any more clear,
This forum isn't a place to debate specific or particular evidence
about the merits of any one of the dozen conspiracy theories out there. There are plenty of blogs and sites for that.
Re #5 - I'm well aware that unexplained issues do not warrant any conclusion and I didn't say that it did.
My comments were about fallacies in Gad's comparisons.
Re #6 - as I said before, this isn't the place for examining evidence.
RE #7 - it could be said that there is solid evidence of government conspiracy for the 911 attacks, but pieces of solid evidence do not add up to a solid conclusion; there is compelling evidence of Nazi false flag attacks, but that too is not a solid conclusion.

It can be argued that Bush/Cheney had the motive, opportunity and the means to at least allow or at best carry out the events on 911. One last time, it is not irrational to draw a conclusion that they had something to do with it. I am well aware that motive/opportunity/means are not evidence of anything, however, they are very important considerations when trying to determine who might be responsible for 911. Indeed, it's the same process our government used to come up with the official conspiracy theory that Osama carried out the attacks.

St.B - I'm not sure why you're having such a difficult time understanding my posts. They are straight forward, but it seems to me that you're reading more into them than is written.

Also, some of your comments give me the impression that you're arrogant and condescending; and, you're not very fun to debate.