what I dislike about the term "tin foil hat".

[Lerkfish]

there's apparently no shortage of people willing to point out a post is in "tin-foil hat territory", as a public service.

the nifty thing about that is it is an attempt to do several things simultaneously:

1. it attempts to shut down the discussion outright through derogatory accusation
2. it attempts to invalidate the poster as insane and therefore nothing they have to say has merit or credibility.
3. it neatly sidesteps addressing the actual issue by marginalizing it as a nonsense topic.

I kept getting it thrown at me at another forum when I had the foresight to discuss neocons before the Iraq war. As we all know now, the neocons not only exist, even they refer to themselves as neocons now, it has become a mainstream label.
But I've noticed it always gets slung by someone UNCOMFORTABLE with the topic.

I'd prefer someone say "you're wrong" or "I see no facts in your assertion" or whatever. Then you're addressing the topic, and discussing the points of the issue. When you throw around "tin foil hat", unless used for humorous or benignly satirical purposes, you're automatically forcing the other person to fend off the insane label.

but and however, I cannot control what people do, but I'm just making the observation that the term reverberates a great deal more other baggage than we think.

[lpbk2713]

1. Agreed

Some folks are too quick to condemn and too slow to think and consider.




Ed; spelling.

[leftstreet]

2. Agree. Good post

:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:

(Couldn't resist.)

[RufusEarl]

3. In this day and age, a tin foil hat my be fashionable!

[AGENDA21]

4. I Agree.........

[helderheid]

9. welcome to DU!

[G_j]

5. agree

for the same reasons you explain.

[raccoon]

6. I'd also guess it was usually somebody who doesn't question

authority who uses the label.

Great post.

[bryant69]

7. It cuts both way

As someone who doesn't believe in MIHOP, I've had plenty of accusations thrown at me, from naive all the way down to freeper. Apparently anybody who doesn't believe President Bush killed 3,000 Americans on September 11th is in league with him (which is setting the bar kind of low in my opinion).

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Lerkfish]

10. that's a good point, as well.

I guess there are more ways to shut down discourse than just the one I mentioned.
We have all been guilty of them at one time or another, I suppose.

I just happened to see "tin foil hat" label in 5 separate threads today and it was starting to annoy me.

:)

[ProfessorGAC]

52. Me, Too Bryant

And, the weird part is that i don't see how blaming 9/11 on utter hubris and incompetence is somehow letting the bushgang off the hook.

In actuality, i do not believe they're smart enough to pull off the MIHOP scenarios. I believe one MUST overestimate these cretins to accept that theory. But, if one accepts that they are simple, two dimensional thinkers with more authority than brains, it explains a lot about why we couldn't stop the attacks.
The Professor

[Lerkfish]

54. this is what I don't get: it was 17 guys with boxcutters.

we can believe they were smart enough to pull it off.

but we don't think the administration, the CIA, or whatever agency is smart enough to direct these guys to pull it off.

:shrug:

[ProfessorGAC]

55. No, I Do Not

These guys are dumber than dirt. It might not take brains to threaten someone with a box cutter, but somebody was a wonderful organizer who could keep secrets and engender trust among the operatives.

The bushistas have had people turning on them since day one. They can't keep a secret in a bank vault. In addition, the conspiracy would have been so wide ranging that that many "in it for myself" people could not have been trusted to keep the secret this long.

I don't understand why it's so hard for some people to accept that there are folks in this world who hate the United States enough to do a 9/11.

Last point: I have actual training and experience in explosives. (Registered with the FBI and all that.) I see ZERO evidence of a primary explosion in the video. So, any mention of detonation of explosives will leave me cold. With the particulate in the air from smoke and debris, it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to not see the shock wave. IMPOSSIBLE! And yet, nothing. Go figure.
The Professor

[bryant69]

58. It's not a matter of beliving they could do it

It's a matter of proving they did to it. Is the CIA capable of crashing airplanes into buildings? Yeah probably. Does that mean they did it? The evidence isn't strong enough to warrent that assumption in my opinion.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[screembloodymurder]

76. It's not a matter of beliving they could do it

It's a matter of proving they did to it.

After 911 Bush promised us proof but he never delivered. Where's the proof? Is the magic passport all you need? Given the PNAC document, the WMD lies, the Patriot Act from a hat trick and all their other lies, why should we believe their unsupported assertions that OBL pulled off 911?

[longship]

8. Name calling is never good.

But many conspiracy theories deserve the derision that they get. Some of them are really ridiculous.

The best way is to resist name calling and address the falacies and faults in the theories directly. Since much of the hoopla is based on ignorance; education is the answer.

[Lerkfish]

14. you seem to be arguing both ways: its never good to namecall but sometimes

its good to namecall.

:shrug:

I've seen people who try to supply data to support their conclusions or point of view.
However, I have also seen it peppered with a large dose of "derision" when they do.


I think the term "conspiracy theory" is as badly used as "tin foil hat". It presumes the assertion is automatically wrong because it points to a conspiracy. Obviously, there are a myriad of conspiracies going on all around us at the moment. Some we know of now, like K street and Ney and Delay and NSA domestic surveillance....those are all conspiracies, they are real and we know about them. But at one time, we did NOT know about them, and they were just theories.

Because something is a theory does not automatically make it wrong. Its merely as yet unproven.

We have to ask ourselves why certain people gallop after theories with the intent of killing them instead of understanding them. I contend its because certain people are UNCOMFORTABLE with what the theory would mean, if true.

If, for example, MIHOP were true, it would mean that several uncomfortable things would also be true: we would have a govt. willing to sacrifice our safety to ensure its political dominance...that we could not trust our govt...that our ability to uncover or prevent such things would be impossible or difficult beyond our ability to control.

its not unreasonable to not WANT MIHOP to be true. I'd prefer it was impossible to be true. But the more I know and see of this administration, the more I must insist it is highly possible that we cannot trust them any further than we can throw them. Once I accept that, it allows me to view things more openly.

but I digress.

[HughBeaumont]

21. I don't think ANY theory is out of bounds when you're dealing . . .

. . . with an administration that says things such as this:

"That's not the way the world really works anymore. We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

Now how can the one who's so quick to cry "tin-foil hat-wearing, moonbat wacko" adopt SUCH a steel-headed stance when you got very real people from this administration flat-out admitting that they'll do whatever they please HOWever they please because they know no one will call them on it out of fear?

MIHOP'er all the way, and this is soon to get sent to the dungeon because of the ensuing name-calling that will follow.

[longship]

22. From what I understand about MIHOP

I have read much about MIHOP. I see nothing in these theories that stand up to the facts. Nothing. Much of it is illogical, counter to known facts, and otherwise just ridiculous allegations which can be easily debunked.

Why anybody would pursue such a road is beyond my understanding. I guess people just like the attention that gives them, even if the attention includes the inevitable derision for which their claims beg.

Certainly, many of the MIHOP claims are ludicrous. Disappearing airliners (and passengers), missile strikes and controlled demolitions witnessed by nobody when everybody's eyes were on the events, ignoring the vast number of eye witness accounts which falsify MIHOP claims, etc. I find it difficult to respond to allegations and simultaneously hide my derision. However, I try to be as polite as I can be. The goal is to present the case with a neutral tone. But you may be correct, that I probably don't do enough in that area. I work hard to follow your example.

Peace.

N.B., MIHOP is a harmful thing politically. Its conclusions have been falsified on basis. Regardless, people adhere to their mistaken beliefs that the most incompetent regime in history is competent enough to put together the most complex and huge conspiracy that this world has ever known and pull it off with a success that has never, ever been witnessed before. It boggles the mind how and why they continue to adhere to their mistaken beliefs.

[Lerkfish]

23. I was using MIHOP as an example that most people would understand.

but while we're discussing it (and it dovetails in with my OP)
I will say that I originally discounted both LIHOP and MIHOP.
However, over time, I've seen how they have used "9/11" to justify the largest erosion of civil rights, the largest attempt at global hegemony witnessed in decades, and the bilking of the treasury in proportions heretofore unprecedented. The fact that they shamelessly exploit 9/11 to this degree in pursuit of their own political agendas convinces me that LIHOP cannot be eliminated on purely moral grounds.
The fact that we stay in Iraq even though there are no WMDs and continue to torture and slaughter Iraqis convinces me there is no outrageous act they are unwilling to undertake.
The fact that they outed a CIA agent in a crucial anti-WMD proliferation and trafficing operation merely in order to punish a dissentful whistleblower, proves that they were willing to increase our vulnerablity to attack for merely political gain.

I am convinced, that whether it is ever proven, LIHOP is most certainly possible with this administration. And if LIHOP is possible, the only thing that would bar MIHOP is the assumption of higher moral rectitude, and I think I've argued how there is no moral rectitude there to prevent it.

[longship]

34. I concur with this in part.

With the qualification that LIHOP is likely and even proven by the fact that ChimpCo is entirely incompetent. Their incompetence manifests itself especially in their world view which is to portray every event and every motivation as being a political one. ChimpCo does nothing except to exploit and leverage their politics. That's why ChimpCo's response to the Katrina disaster was, "You're doing a heckuva job, Brownie." That's why ChimpCo only speaks at carefully orchestrated and politically fixed events. That's why they have done absolutely nothing to address the problems of the day. Most importantly, it's why 9/11 happened without any action on the government's part to stop it. A terrorist attack from Al Qaeda was not on their political radar. Even when they were confronted with clear evidence of impending action, they ignored it, even discounted it. It just didn't fit into their political goals to watch out for these things.

Now, the only question that remains is whether this was deliberate, or not. We may never be sure about this. However, what one can say is that the abrogation of ChimpCo's Constitutional responsibility in this regard is impeachable, regardless of intent.

The MIHOP crowd, and to some extent the LIHOP crowd, totally miss this point. We do not need complex conspiracies to hold ChimpCo responsible for their dereliction of duty to protect our nation from attack. I suspect that if a true, in-depth investigation would happen on 9/11, the results would be damning for ChimpCo without LIHOP and MIHOP.

This is why I look at the conspiracy theories as being politically damaging to our case. MIHOP and LIHOP are unnecessary. ChimpCo is likely guilty of impeachable offenses without them. Putting the conspiracies as a rationale for further investigation misses the target completely and allows ChimpCo to deny the investigation on the grounds of left-wing lunacy.

[bpilgrim]

28. i have seen a lot that would lead a reasonable peron to conclude MIHOP

and considering what we all now know it only gives the theory more credence.

a LOT of smart people in the world think so... why do you think we got a whole forum dedicated to the topic.

fyi: shut'n down debate is what the M$M do not the www

peace

[longship]

37. I have seen no MIHOP theory that is supported by facts.

The extent to which they rely on unobserved events, like missiles, disappearing airliners, and controlled implosions, none of which has a shred of substantive evidence, is the extent to which these things cannot be truth. There is not a single witness reporting any of these. Not one.

Nobody saw a missile hit the Pentagon, while hundreds reported seeing an airliner. Millions of people witnessed airliners approach and hit the WTC. No airliners disappeared mysteriously. There were no missiles. Not a single person reported activities which would be absolutely necessary for there to have been controlled implosions. There is absolutely no reason to believe any of the MIHOP ravings.

[bpilgrim]

39. there was no real investigation for starters

so if you believe the 'official story' than you sell yourself cheap.

2nd. everything doesn't hinge on the missiles (i personally think that is a deliberate distraction)

3rd. there is a LOT of evidence for CD starting with videos...
http://news.globalfreepress.com/movs/wtc7.swf

4th. these ain't 'ravings' we have a dedicated forum on this very site to discuss these deadly serious questions.


peace

[longship]

49. What I believe.

I believe what my eyes saw on that day. I believe the press photographs of that day. I believe the eye witness reports of that day. I believe the independant studies performed, not by the government, but by academics. I believe the independant research which has been reported in depth on the net as to what happened to the WTC and Pentagon on 9/11. I believe the engineering and physics I've learned and used for the past three plus decades is on base correct and is useful to answer technical questions of the sort that come up in these cases. I believe that Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit is useful to separate the wheat from the chaff--in short, when people make extraordinary claims one must demand extraordinary evidence. I believe when extraordinary evidence is lacking, it is most likely because the claim is baloney. I believe that the principle of parsimony, Occam's Razor, works.

What I do *not* believe? I do not believe that thousands of eye witnesses to an important event like 9/11 can get the existence or non-existence of large airliners wrong. I do not believe in invisible missiles or invisible explosives. I do not believe that the most incompetent administration in the history of this country has the means or the mind to construct and successfully implement the largest, most complex conspiracy the world has ever seen. I do not believe MIHOP theories because they are trivial to debunk.

[Lerkfish]

51. counter questions:

1. do you believe 9/11 was the coordinated work of more than one person? If so, its a conspiracy.
2. do you believe Osama was the coordinater? if so, you believe it was a directed conspiracy.
3. do you believe the attack was not commonly known, ahead of time, to the majority of people? if so, you believe the directed conspiracy was an undisclosed plan before it was implemented.
4. do you believe 9/11 was predicted by a few people, attempting to warn the administration? If so, you believe those people were conspiracy theorists.

If you believe numbers 1,2, and 3, then the ONLY difference between you and the MIHOPers is who you put as the director of the conspiracy. Or, more accurately, the theorists suggest someone directed the director. The only difference, then, is your unwillingness to accept the possiblity that the administration was clandestinely involved. Otherwise, as you can see, it is definitely a conspiracy, and its definitely a conspiracy theory, you and they are only arguing over one degree of direction. Now, having narrowed the focus down, do YOU have conclusive evidence that discounts the possibilty of clandestine direction of Osama by the administration?
no?

well, they have historical connections between the bin ladin family and the bush family, including war profiteering together through the carlysle group, which implies a vested interest in selling arms, and therefore increased unrest.
Well, they have historical connections between Osama and the CIA when the US was trying to oust the Soviets from Afghanistan.
Well, they have the fact that our troops were ordered to allow Osama to escape at Tora Bora.
Well, they have the fact that 5 years later, Osama, on a dialysis machine, is able to circumvent supposedly the two greatest intelligence networks of world -- US and Britain, and to release tapes with impunity. And they have the fact that the two countries to divide up the oil wealth of Iraq are US and Britain.

well, I'd say they have a lot of circumstantial connectivity to point to when they state their theories, but I only see you refuting the easily refutable evidence of the act of 9/11 itself. hmmm..ok. But your argument does NOT eliminate the possibility of clandestine collusion between Osama and the bush family, does it?

[longship]

61. Good post.

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Yes
4. Yes.

Your points are good ones.

The conspiracy theories which I do not accept are the ones made by the MIHOPers, that the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolitions, counter to *all* the evidence; that the Pentagon was struck by a missile, counter to *all* the evidence; that ChimpCo rather than Al Qaeda planned and executed 9/11.

These are clearly falsified by everything we already know about 9/11.

Your claim of collusion between bin Laden and ChimpCo is an interesting one. But I doubt that anything can be easily determined about that connection beyond what we already know. Our best tact might very well be to approach this from the direction of the facts we can substantiate, and that is that ChimpCo incompetently ignored clear warnings by his own advisers and did nothing while an attack was clearly imminent. That's an impeachable offense in itself. It's provable and it's one the citizens of this country could get their minds wrapped around. In other words, we could impeach on this without complicating the case by adding a lot of unsubstantiated conjectures (whether they are fact, or not).

[bpilgrim]

53. thats fine

just don't attack folks who believe differently.

911 was a SHOCK-n-AWE scam perpetrated on the american people with the help of the highest levels of our own gov. and many more people wake up to that reality daily.

more than 1/2 the people in NYC believe that and most of the world.

peace

[longship]

62. I won't attack people

But when somebody posts something known to be false, I reserve the right to debunk. E.G., missile hit the Pentagon. Such claims are close to idiotic and are counter to every fact we know about 9/11.

[EST]

11. Gotta go to war with the army you have...

the weapons you have...
Doesn't matter what terms people use, if their primary defense is a disparagement attack, the object would be to deflect, penetrate, disillusion; almost anything will work. If the totality of the attack is just more misdirection and disparagement, there's no reasoning or winning to be had. Just snicker and walk away, argue for practice, whatever difference will it make?

Tinfoil hattism can, indeed, be a compliment, under some circumstances and from some quarters.
Also, anger and passion can be quite useful--use 'em.

[JuniperLea]

12. Agreed

I remember getting it when discussing no WMD. I've gotten it here a few times. I prefer to keep a very open mind. So sue me!


I really hate it when it happens here, especially now that the RWNutJobs are using it so much and saying we support Bin Laden and al Qaeda. Now that is a clearly inaccurate conspiracy theory.


MIHOP or LIHOP... I don't think there is enough information to clearly say one way or the other. Likewise, you can't rule either out on such flimsy information. Like I said, I like to keep an open mind.

[schmuls]

13. I agree with you

[SaveElmer]

15. Maybe convince the moderators...

To remove the "Tin foil" smiley then

[Lerkfish]

17. not trying to control what people post, merely analysing why they do.

and just have a discussion about it.

[SaveElmer]

20. I always thought the term was sort of satirical...

I see it used quite a bit and haven't really seen anybody offended by it before...but I may not be paying attention. I will not use the term anymore now that I know how people feel about it. Won't keep me from expressing my extreme skepticism with most conspiracy type theories which I usually have little tolerence for however.

[LittleClarkie]

16. speculative reasoning would be better

Sometimes people will say of their own theories, though, that they know they've put on the tinfoil hat.

And sometimes the theory really is wacko. Cheney with a weather machine, for example.

[Lerkfish]

18. true

I guess I find the perjorative nature of the label unnecessarily distracting from the discussion.

[WinkyDink]

19. That it should be "aluminum"?

Just guessing!

[Dogmudgeon]

24. Ridicule has replaced Reason

We live in an era in which people are too cool to use reason -- one-liners are far more emotionally satisfying to a generation of wise-asses who admire the archetypal Bart Simpson -- and the flesh-and-blood Mike Judge, Robert Smigel, Penn Jillette, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, and other creator/creatures of the hip rich-boy sensibility of superiority that passes for (post-)modern sophistication.

Once a derisive trope comes into being, you can be sure it will be used to flog all discussion into a "laff-riot" designed to make the net-wit look worldly-wise, Above It All, and most desirably, Hip-with-a-capital-H. There has to be a butt to every joke, and You, my friend, are that butt.

Every idea we have must be pre-scrutinized, since any straying into "unapproved" areas will result in ridicule. There are currently forty, fifty websites that must be consulted to make sure that our thoughts clear the groups of hipster-censors that determine what is acceptable and what is laughable. The list defining "laughable" is growing fast, and, no, you can't have a copy of the list.

It's for the Smart Set only, peasant.

In the world at large, these bullies are becoming less amusing every day. My dream is that the phrase "FUCK YOU!" soon ring in their bourgeoise ears loud and clear. Right now, they control media access, creative content, and all intellectual discourse, but their Imperial Nudity is beginning to show.

But fear not, little dog, Triumph the Insult Comic Dog is about to get the kind of bone that he didn't count on. The Hipsterdämmerung will arrive just as predictably as did its corresponding dawn.

--p!
"I hate Conservatives, but I fuckin' hate Liberals."
(Matt Stone, rich boy, culture-vulture, and co-creator of South Park.)

[dusmcj]

25. f01L isn't sturdy en0ugh - us3 gutt3r fl45h1ng

I f1nd th4t t1n f01L 15n't 'l33t 3n0f c4u53 1t d3f0rm5 t00 3451Ly. P3r50n4LLy 1 u53 gutt3r fl45h1ng, wh1ch 15 5turdy 4nd d3l1v3r5 b3tt3r d3fl3ct10n 0f 1nc0m1ng 3MF. YMMV, 1 c4n s3nd u a p4tt3rn 1f u w4nt.

F1ght th3 0ld W0rld 0rdur3 !!!

[mirandapriestly]

26. I HATE the term "tinfoil hat" for all the words you so

articulately stated. I have been afraid to post so many things for fear of hearing that tired 'ol cliche. I see some of the most interesting posts get shut down because of that statement. I remember when election fraud discussion was shut down by using that word and now it is generally accepted. That tells me that much of what is discussed and is not mainstream is probably true or worth looking into, well, it's always worth looking into.

[Montauk6]

27. My problem is the default implied assumption that there is

100% validity among the coincidentalists.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

29. I think it's a useful shorthand.

Not all topics are worth spending the time discussing; having a phrase to denote those that aren't for certain reasons is useful, I think.

OTOH, I can't see the point of entering a discussion solely to brand it not worth discussing; it's more use for dismissing subdiscussions that attempt to hijack a discussion that is worth spending time on.

[tn-guy]

45. good point

If someone today wanted to seriously put forward the theory that the earth was flat and moved on the back of a giant turtle, serious people would not bother to have a serious scientific debate on the relative merits of the theory and evidence that tended to refute it.

Similarly, if one wants to advance some hare-brained theory like MIHOP to explain 9/11 it just isn't worth the effort to debate the issue. Those who actually believe MIHOP have adopted it as a matter of faith, not something that was carefully thought out after considering evidence for and against. "Tin-foil hat" is a very good way to characterize those topics that are not worth time debating. As one friend of mine put it, "Don't waste time arguing with an idiot. You have to get down to his level and he's got a lot more experience being stupid."

[SmokingJacket]

30. Yep -- it's a way of arguing withough using any facts. nt

[wixomblues]

31. I thought TIn Hat meant "You're f'n crazy", not you're wrong.

Although, by being fucking crazy, one could presume that you are also wrong.

[RobertSeattle]

32. Harumph...

http://quinnell.us/natural/manifesto.html

[Dogmudgeon]

38. Another "Skeptical Manifesto". That's five since November.

"Many, many people believe in many, many things that are complete bullshit."

God.

True Love.

Life after death.

Memes.

The intellectual superiority of Internet users.

And "Skepticism".

Most of what passes for modern "Skepticism" is the most malodorous kind of bullshit. Because it's bullshit that pretends to be nothing less than Science, when it's nothing close to Science. Elitism doesn't need a degree, and its favored imitation of Science can be practiced from an armchair.

Intelligent, wonky people love to pretend they are scientists. But sometimes it goes astray. Psychics often use the term "quantum physics" without a license. Many, many Democrats believe that Bush was in on the 9-11 attacks. And many, many people 'round here are under the impression that John Stössel is a progressive. ("Well, after all, he is a Skeptic ...")

The 1950s gave us Scientology, and today we have the similarly distorted monstrosity of "Skepticism".

I can hardly wait -- about 20 years from now -- to see the film clip of Penn Jillette jumping on a sofa after persuading Apple Paltrow to marry him. (Hopefully, Teller will get to her first, and we will be spared the lectures on the Skep equivalent of Ritalin.)

--p!
Damn! How'd that umlaut get in there?
:evilgrin:

[Zodiak]

33. I am of a like mind as Lerkfish here

If you want to torpedo someone's hypothesis, show them facts that do not support their hypothesis. Simple, not personal.

If you instead choose to dismiss the hypothesis with a pejorative like "tin-foil" or "conspiracy theory", then you are not only acting like schoolyard bully, but you are also flying in the face of the intellectualism that you purport to champion.

Name-calling in the absence of evidence is the act of a pseudo-intellectual (wants everyone to think themselves as an intellectual without doing the heavy-lifting...impressions are good enough). An intellectual argument would dryly lay out the facts and how the proposed hypothesis in not in congruence with the facts.

Oh...one more thing. Occam's Razor is not a scientific principle, but rather a principle of philosophy. (a very big difference). For example, in systematics, the principle of parsimony is used by convention. Just because a systematist picks a particular phylogenetic tree according to parsimony, it does not necessarily follow that nature historically took that course. Occam's Razor should never be used to determine WHO IS RIGHT. It is only used to cut off extraneous parts of a hypothesis and still have all of the data accounted for.

From Wiki:

This can be interpreted in two subtly different ways. One is a preference for the simplest theory that adequately accounts for the data. Another is a preference for the simplest subset of any given theory which accounts for the data. The difference is simply that it is possible for two different theories to explain the data equally well, but have no relation to one another. They share none of the same elements. Some would argue that in this case Occam's Razor does not suggest a preference. Rather Occam's Razor only comes into practice when a sufficient theory has something added to it which does not improve its predictive power. Occam's Razor neatly cuts these additional theoretical elements away.

end quote

Occam's Razor is not a law, and skepticism, while a healthy sign of something going upstairs, does not DEFINE an intellectual. I am of the opinion that some people become a skeptic by default because it puts the burden of proof on others, requires only careful derision, and they can hang around in the p-value because ALL hypotheses are concluded based on a probability of being true without ACTUALLY having to be proven 100% true. There is always doubt.

And I am NOT claiming to be some overblown intellectual (bacuse I get emotional and act like a reactionary ass sometimes). I just like the way we do things in science...we estalish rules, we use facts, and rule hypotheses to be true by a set of rules. We do not name-call (in our writings) and we shoot others' hypotheses down with data.

On the other hand, if one is to propose a hypothesis, one had better include the apropriate caveats. "I think", "I cannot help but wonder", "I do not profess to know, but I find it odd that...", "In my opinion...", etc. It also helps that the hypothesis is not so full of holes that anyone can pick it apart with a five minute Google search. Not every errant thought is worth "OMG!!! Everyone look!", and it is up to the judgement of the poster as to what is worthy. As such, I try to take everyone seriously, at first, and let the facts fall where they may.

For the record, I am fairly convinced that Bush's Administration could have stopped the attacks of 9-11 if they had paid the slightest attention to anything other than lining their pockets. What I do not know is their motivations for not preventing it. If they are just corrupt and incompetent, fine....that hypothesis seems to be well-supported. However, equally-supported is the notion that Bush wanted something like this to happen (and when I say Bush, I mean the neocons in general) in order to advance a very radical agenda on the U.S. This hypothesis is equally-supported. Occam's Razor does not account for preferring one of these hypotheses over the other, so we must look at more data.

In the end, I lean LIHOP because the neocons have shown themseves as anything BUT incompetent when it comes to ramming their agenda through. It is anyone's guess, really.

As far as MIHOP goes, this hypothesis is the least supported with the data that we have at hand. However, I think we can all agree that we do NOT have all of the data concerning this attack. There are great holes in our information, mostly created by this Administration's refusal to release said data or carting said data away. This would lead to suspicion...so believing in MIHOP, while generally not well-supported, isn't "out there" enough to earn derision. They are only employing the Perry MAson idea that "who benefits most" probably did it.

Now if they said space aliens did it, THEN that hypothesis would seem out there, in my opinion.

[Dogmudgeon]

40. Excellent ... A FIVE-STAR post!

I wish more of the "skeptics" actually practiced skepticism instead of know-it-all bullying. We seldom get decent explanations of Occam's Razor, either. Many people seem to think of it as some kind of switchblade to be used in verbal fights. It's also had its share of well-thought-out criticism. Albert Einstein was one of the most celebrated "anti-Occamists" in recent years, but that part tends to get glossed over. (I've also made a rather tart anti-skep post elsewhere here, as well as an anti-hipster-ridicule post.)

(Issues?)

(Moi?)

Sadly, most people have very little exposure to the system of informal logic of which modern Skepticism is a part. They don't really learn how to defend their thoughts, and the Internet encourages a lack of respect for the intellectual integrity of non-ass-kickers. (Aggressive jerks like me generally do okay.) Scoring a kill is much more important, and raising the accusation of conspiracy theorizing is one of the most effectively used techniques to shoot down the rhetorically unskilled.

Yet, reality demonstrates conspiracies to exist, and in great numbers -- but those who conspire keep their mouths shut. So, as you wrote, it's anybody's guess. And we all love to guess.

The major problem with unraveling conspiracies is that since so much conspiring is hidden from view (by practice as well as definition), anyone who "figures out" a conspiracy is on the same shaky ground as soothsayers. They first must prove their method before they can present their information with confidence. But contrary to the popular habit of yelling "Bullshit!" (like "Bingo!" or "Yahtzee!"), I think that the theories themselves have a different value -- they may be wrong about the cause, but are often very right in displaying the fears and anxieties of the public.

Perhaps, the intensity of that fear drives a dialectic of political behaviors: the emotional need to have conspiracy theories, AND the need to ridicule and dismiss them. Pain, for instance, can drive a person to crazed behavior, but at the same time, the sufferer struggles to maintain calm and rationality. The 9-11 disaster certainly could qualify as "pain" of many sorts -- personal, social, and historical.

MIHOP, JFK assassination theories, and similar conspiracy theories express, strongly, the paranoia we have come to develop about our government. That's almost a trivial observation, but it's not trivial how widespread and strongly-held it has become. The fact that so many people are convinced that Team Bush could and would kill nearly 3000 of their fellow Americans for political gain says a lot more about what's going on than any particular line of thought about what brought the towers down, or who the planners really were.

I find this is also true with other unusual theories, more to the guffaws of conventional Skeptics, from Chemtrails to Indigo Children. So the theories themselves make much less difference to me. They may be wrong (or right, for that matter), but the theorist is seldom as out-of-touch with reality as we humor ourselves in believing. If we live in such a "sophisticated" society that most of us can't freely express our fears and hopes, many of us let the "tinfoil" do the talking.

Well, personally, I don't, myself. Of course, I'm far too intelligent, perceptive, and sophisticated for that. I'm above it all, you see, a disinterested observer of the game, looking down on the fools who play it. Bwa-ha, Bwa-ha. But I have a cousin I hadn't heard from in some time, who worked in the World Trade Center, and the whole family was a wreck until we found out he'd moved on to another job well before 9-11-2001. Many people had similar experiences in the days and weeks after 9-11 -- but for many others, it was far worse. One DUer lost a loved one; the fiance of another lost several friends in the office where he had been working a temp job until the previous week. In too many cases, peoples' worst fears were realized. Their experience of the pain and their reactions to it were real enough to drive some very un-skeptical thoughts and behavior.

And it also drove some noble, and unpopular, and courageous behavior.

So, I don't laugh at the tinfoil, no matter what the reason, nor how great or small the pain; it reflects the brainwork poorly, but the social reality too well.

Thanks again for that post. It's a keepah.

--p!

[bpilgrim]

43. excellent post

thanks for sharing :toast:

peace

[Lerkfish]

44. thanks zodiac and pidwidgin and others, for discussing this

topic. Some great posts, here.

[Balbus]

35. But a lot of topics posted here are...

1. nonsense
2. have no merit or credibility
3. deserve a derogatory accusation

hence:

[zippy890]

56. but my tin foil hat works!

I have had no alien radiation seepage into my brain cells since I started wearing it.

Glad to see you've provided one for your cat- pets are particularly at risk from the radiation.
:P

[undergroundpanther]

36. I get annoyed by people using conspiracy in a derogatory way too

To avoid hearing my points too.

The thing that burns my ass is conspiracies are not rare aberrations,(ever plan a surprise birthday party? ITS A CONSPIRACY) and reality is about conspiracies,they DO occur*gasp* even in politics.Bullies and con men never change..
Remember Brutus?

It is very interesting to observe too often that these people yelling tin foil hat at anything that isn't "mainstreamed" never seem to come back to the issues with any rationales or evidence as to WHY some so called conspiracy theories are so off..Maybe it's because some so called conspirator theories are actually astute observations?

About crazy ,what a label! It's used by armchair therapists everywhere to control a conversation,control topics, to shut down legitimate observations that just happen to be different and marginalize a question and stifle free thought and the real seeking of truth,which might lead us OUT of the mainstream and OUT of moderate-land..Out of the COMFORT ZONE.

[Jackpine Radical]

41. I wear mine proudly, as a fashion statement.

Anyway, if it's good enough for Barbra it's good enough for me.

[Vidar]

42. Most conspiracy theories regarding * are at least 75% accurate.

[Clara T]

46. Absolutely- The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist)

Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth:
 The Rules of Disinformation

(Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist)

Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist

by H. Michael Sweeney
copyright (c) 1997, 2000 All rights reserved

(Revised April 2000 - formerly SEVEN Traits)

1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.

3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.

4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain. Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.

More:
http://home.datawest.net/esn-recovery/artcls/disinfo.htm

Seen any of these folks around?

Rec'd

[Jose Diablo]

64. "Seen any of these folks around?"

Uh, as a matter of fact I have, especially points 4 and 5 above. Right here on DU, too.

:D

[Zodiak]

85. Every group has them

Read the whole article...it is very enlightening. I bookmarked it in order to use it in the future.

[Mme. Defarge]

47. I have to disagree.

While the term "conspiracy theory" is perjorative, and meant to be dismissive of anything that doesn't conform to conventional wisdom, or support mainstream propaganda, the tinfoil hat concept is stunningly whimsical and poetic. I can't tell you how liberating it was for me to encounter like-minded questioning souls on the Kerry-Edwards and DU websites who not only have dared to dared to ask awkward questions about the otherwise bewildering catastrohes, accidents, mistakes, coincidences, confilicts of interest, etc. that have unfolded and/or been revealed since the inauguration of George W. Bush, but have done so with a sophisticated and delicious combination of intensity, passion, self-deprecation, and levity. How else could we really cope with trying to grasp the unthinkable?

I wear my tinfoil hat with pride, and as a reminder that I'm not crazy.

[Zodiak]

86. A good point

you are co-opting the word to mean a source of pride. That is fine; certainly others have embraced denigrating words in order to deflate the power the word has over them.

However, it does not excuse the behavior of others who prefer to name-call rather than deal with the facts dryly.

[Morning Dew]

48. you might be wearing a tinfoil hat if

you believe:

1. Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy
made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him, and a bad guy
when Bush couldn't find Bin Laden.

2. A President lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense.
A president lying about nonexistent Weapons of Mass Destruction to enlist
support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.

3. The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest
national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.

4. Government should relax regulation of Big Business and Big Money, but
crack down on individuals who use marijuana to relieve the pain of illness.

5. The government has no business telling me I can't have guns, but when you
want to exercise freedom of choice, then it's time for a Constitutional
amendment.

6. George W. (6% unemployment, $87+ billion to Iraq, half trillion dollar
deficit) is doing a great job getting us out of the economic mess that Clinton
(3.8% unemployment, peace, huge surplus) got us into.

7. A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but
multinational corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without
regulation.

8. Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.

9. The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in
speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

10. Group sex and drug use are degenerate sins unless you someday run for
governor of California as a Republican.

11. If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

12. A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our longtime allies, then
demand their cooperation and money.

13. HMOs and insurance companies have the interest of the public at heart.

14. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health
care to all Americans is socialism.

15. Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but
creationism should be taught in schools.

16. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a
conservative radio talk show host. Then it's an illness and you need our
prayers for your recovery.

17. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution,
which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

18. The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George W.
Bush's driving record is none of our business.

19. You support states' rights, which means the Attorney General can tell
states what local voter initiatives they have a right to adopt.

20. What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but
what Bush did in the 1980s is irrelevant.

21. Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with
China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

22. We have to run background checks on every Muslim traveler to the U.S.
because those bastards killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11, but a background check on
gun buyers? No way! 15,000 gun-related deaths in the U.S.? C'mon. Guns don't
kill people; people kill people.

23. We're leaving no child behind. Entire public school systems? That's
another story.

24. Americans shouldn't buy imported goods, but other countries should all
buy our stuff.

25. The Right is still bashing a president who's been out of office since January
of 2001, who made our economy healthy, and who didn't alienate the rest of the
world's leaders. The minute anyone says anything about little Georgie, it's
wrong, even treason.

26. The Attorney General can spy on you, tap your phone, check your email, even
search your home. An independent investigation into the administration?
Not a chance.

27. Doing background checks on gun buyers is unconstitutional; however,
if we want to know what books you're reading, we have a right to
know -- and your librarian can't tell you we're asking.

[thespiritualzebra]

50. Politics without conspiracies is like religion without secret revelations.

...less fun but better for the common good :evilgrin:

[Silverhair]

57. Take a look at some of the stuff that has been posted here.

The problem is that there are conspiracies such as the spying, Plame outing, not having enough voting machines in key Democratic precincts, and stuff like that.

Then there is the nutball stuff like some I have seen posted here:

-------
Secret technology taken from UFOs was used to project holograms of planes for 9-11.

The tsunami was caused by a secret nuke on a fault line.

Chemtrails

Bush used weather modification to create and steer Katrina to New Orleans.

Bush used aircraft to carve a swastika on Katrina's clouds

Bombing caused the earthquake in Afghanistan.

No airplane hit the Pentagon

Flight 77 crashed in the Pentagon lagoon and is underwater.
-------

Anybody that believes that kind of stuff deserves all the ridicule they get, and for them the term "tinfoiller" is richly deserved.

[Dogmudgeon]

65. Those "deserving" nutballs

Happily, we have many members of the Cognitive Elite around here who have a direct hotline to The Truth, and so are ordained to ridicule as many "tinfoillers" as their little (as in "petty") hearts desire. The Slobs, they repeatedly tell us, "deserve" (often "richly") their derision.

But it never occurs to the Snobs that 1) while disinformation is rare, misinformation is common, and 2) people don't believe weird things to piss off the Solonic Class, but because, perhaps, they are afraid of a government that regularly lies to them and places a low value on their lives -- and minds.

Given the choice between the Slobs and the Snobs, I'll keep as far away from the Snobs as possible. At least the Slobs can learn to reject erroneous ideas.

For the Snobs, on the other hand, arrogance is forever. And ugly.

--p!

[Silverhair]

66. Anger does not change science.

If your favorite conspiracy theory requires a complete rewrite of the laws of physics for it to be true, then don't be surprised when you get laughed at, except by others who are also undeducated science and logic.

[Dogmudgeon]

67. Science? You call that "Science"?

Science requires rudimentary skills of observation and the ability to make qualitative discriminations.

This is about a point I made, strongly taking issue with bullying in the name of Science; or, more precisely, the recent appearance of bullies who hide behind Science the way other bullies hide behind Faith. (You will note that the bully in the White House has done each.)

I made no mention that I agreed with the theories you listed. Perhaps a less enraged reading would illuminate that. In fact, I almost never agree with conspiracy theories, or most other ideas unsupported by evidence. I try to consider all ideas, but understand that very few explanations can be correct, whatever the source. Ridicule isn't part of honest inquiry. Yet, I still get laughed at. Bullies are habitually incapable of making distinctions between their targets.

So, I've become pro-active. It's a Darwinian thing.

Although I certainly have my own flaws, I think I'd rather swallow tacks than flaunt the kind of towering arrogance that the Rotisserie League of Science likes to show around these parts. The people here who believe conspiracy theories almost never go around promoting hatred -- there have been a couple of hot-headed remarks from time to time; that's true anywhere. But they're seldom as offensive as the self-appointed Praetorian Guards of the Imperial Laboratory, who aren't simply hot-headed, but on fire with self-righteousness.

Scientific error can always, and easily, be corrected. Ridicule by elitists and pedants is one of the least effective methods -- and I'm sure there is some "good, strong Science" supporting that claim. Scientific "correction" administered with the lash requires a polite "thank you" for the information and a dagger between the ribs -- lovingly twisted and pulled along the length of the intercostal space -- for the flogging.

I'll repeat my main point: There is a pestilent idea circulating, that people who hold certain ideas "deserve" ridicule. Yours was the second such remark I read in this thread alone. It is also a favorite of John Stossel and Penn Jillette, neither of whom are known for their progressive ideas OR their scientific acumen.

Our recent history with the Republicans should teach us that there's only one sure cure for bullying: aim for their fat, self-impressed heads, or expect the abuse to continue. The privilege of insult without consequences has no place in a democratic, educated, or progressive world.

--p!

[Silverhair]

68. Would you show respect to a flat-earther?

Some ideas are outrageous.

The ones I listed are in that level of absurdity.

[Dogmudgeon]

81. Agreement, no. Respect, yes.

The ideas you've listed may be absurd, but I've seen far greater heights of absurdity scaled. Not just uninformed stupid absurdity, but also well-informed-but-inconceivable absurdity. And I'm sure you have, too.

The only people I show out-and-out disrespect to are tyrants, bullies, and elitists seeking to enforce their "rightful privileges" on those they consider their inferiors. I also have little respect for apologists for evil (e.g., the "holocaust-never-happened" bunch). As for those who are -- or may be -- wrong about something, or with whom I simply disagree, I show respect. And I especially show respect to the naïve, because they still have much to learn (almost as much as me, in fact :) ), and learning is most effective when it involves the joy of discovery rather than the humiliation of ridicule by one's (self-appointed) "betters".

One can learn a lot from mistakes, one's own as well as those of others. And bear with me while I repeat, once again, that an absurdly incorrect idea is often just a bad hypothesis struggling to explain a painful truth. In the case of most of the CTs we can read in political cyberspace, that painful truth is how our "leaders" value our opinions as worthless and our lives to be cheap and expendable.

Let me ask you a question: How did you come to believe that ridicule and intellectual intimidation were acceptable ways to educate people? I've always found that it's like kicking a car after breaking down, or yelling at a computer after it crashes.

And why spend so much anger at the poorly informed, the naïve, and the foolish? Where people are starving, it makes sense to feed them, not to spray them with teargas and beat them with truncheons. Where people are starved for knowledge and understanding, isn't it much better to use Socrates' method than that of a mean and short-tempered schoolmaster?

We live in a world in which scientific thinking has become indispensable. Why discourage it?

--p!

[Zodiak]

84. Another excellent post

but alas, the self-appointed purveyors of truth have left to find easier waters to fish.

I really like the way you think, Pigwidgeon.

[patcox2]

72. "pro-active" is "darwinian" Wow, thats meaningless jargon.

Hope that works well for you when arguing with those darn snobby members of the solonic class and the intellectual elites and all the bad and evil smart people.

[Dogmudgeon]

83. It's only meaningless to the humorless

Yes, it does work well for me. (I liked the one-liners in Fight Club, too.)

And I'm not the only one who invokes Darwin, either.

--p!

[Zodiak]

71. I am a scientist

and I find your "pursuit of truth" while deriding other's ideas to be reprehensible and the act of a pseudo-intellectual. You do not serve science OR logic by your incessant bullying of other DUers.

Read my above post on this thread for the reasons why I say this.

[patcox2]

70. I've never seen anything more anti-intellectual.

Stunning display.

[zippy890]

59. seriously, lerkfish, help me out here

I agree with you that the term 'tinfoil hat' trivializes some potentially serious issues that deserve attention.

problem is, I have found that many issues raised by people (that some would put into conspiracy theory) are presented in such a way that I just cannot follow them. like going from an overly simplified premise to maximim complicated reasoning, then back to the simple premise.

for example, this blogger I'm sure has done the research and has some good points to make, - I just can't understand the case he/she is making because its presented so detailed/confusing.

issue: bin laden tapes are fake
http://balzac.wordpress.com/

its in the analysis part, the connection between the facts and the conclusion, that things start to get a bit .... mixed up.

perhaps its a matter of format

[Lerkfish]

60. then what you say is...

"your issues are presented in such a way that I just cannot follow them. like going from an overly simplified premise to maximim complicated reasoning, then back to the simple premise.

its in the analysis part, the connection between the facts and the conclusion, that things start to get a bit .... mixed up."

now, was that so hard?

you address the argument and refute (or question) it with logic

[Zodiak]

73. I agree

If you have problems with the analysus, say so and clearly state your reasons.

It is the name-calling and the derision and the bullying that turns a lot of people off.

[Javaman]

63. I don't know, this sounds like a tinfoil hat theory to me...

Sorry, couldn't resist. :)

:tinfoilhat:

[patcox2]

69. Funny, those are what I like about the phrase.

Its useful in shutting up maniacs who think airplane contrails are some kind of chemical mind control, for example.

[Zodiak]

74. Maniacs?

can you discuss the idea without the pejorative? Why the need to add it?

Sorry...it is my opinion that using words like this does not elevate the discussion one bit. In fact, it takes away from the discussion.

Try just using ideas and forget all of the schoolyard name-calling.

And look up the definition of "mania"....one needs a degree to determine insanity in another. Where did you get your PhD and how did you figure out how to diagnose phychological conditions without the rigors of testing? And if you are NOT a psychologist, then stop diagnosing conditions like Bill Frist and keep your arguments to what you know.

[patcox2]

77. You must be a maniac yourself.

"Maniac" is not a currently used word within psychology or psychiatry, just as "idiot" and "moron" are no longer used, despite the fact that they both were originally technical terms within the mental health profession (such as it was) of the time. "Manic" as in "manic depressive," and "mania" are not synonyms.

You are a silly person, demanding credentials from me before I can use a word in an intentionally hyperbolic manner. In fact, your inept pedantry and inability to spot a common literary device, instead taking everything literally, leads me to believe you are not professionally trained in reading and literature. I demand you stop reading my posts, unless you can show me your literature degree, or at least prove that you passed a criticism class.

[Zodiak]

78. from dictionary.com

ma·ni·ac ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mn-k)
n.

1. An insane person.

Can you diagnose the insane? No? Then why use the word?

If you demand everyone else has their ducks in a row to the point where you will call them "Maniacs" if they do not meet your criteria, then be prepared to have that same level of perception directed at you.

That was my point.

You are allowed to use hyperbole, but to use it in the service of denigrating others is low.

Notice how I did that without calling you names? Try it sometime.

[patcox2]

79. Dictionary.com is not the DSMIV.

Its a lay term used as hyperbole, now your quoting the dictionary at me?

[Zodiak]

80. at least you stopped calling people names

and yes, I think a dictionary definition is legal. Your word means insane, and I have seen no evidence that you put forth that those you accuse of insanity are insane. You deride them without evidence for expressing their thoughts without evidence.

If you cannot see the hypocrisy of that, I cannot help you.

You also called me a maniac and accused me of lack of reading comprehension (once again without evidence). Was that hyperbole, too? I consider both statements to be antagonistic and pejorative, neither of which I would consider to be a virtue of a true progressive or an intellectual.

Elevate your language and you will not have your own hypocritical perceptions turned against you.

You get the last word.

[screembloodymurder]

75. Well said.

If you're well read and don't subscribe to MSM's pablum, you must be marginalized to insure the truth doesn't spread.

[baby_mouse]

82. YES.

Ad hominem at it's very worst. PURE ad hominem, if there can be such a thing.

K&R