Post by nomuse on Oct 25, 2005 4:14:54 GMT -4
Maybe this is a trivial thought.
We sometimes characterize a "CT" mindset as someone who is predisposed to believe in any idea that has the right blend of novelty, a sense of shared secrets, piquancy, and a promise of personal gain.
It may be more profitable to think instead of a contrast of complete, almost hermetic world views. The problem most of us have with most conspiracy theories is that they have to violate too much of how we understand of how things work. You really can't follow any CT very far without being asked to accept that professionals don't know anything, teachers and textbooks are liars, governments are monolithic, and most of history is false. Most of us stop far short of that; when, for instance, an Apollo CT asks us to accept that film melts in the cameras, we can't quite accept that everything we know about heat transfer, and that trusted experts tell us about heat transfer, is wrong.
The inverse is, of course, that the CT worldview accepts that NASA could bribe 10,000 space workers, and force the Soviets to lie about tracking our capsules, because "the government" is also capable of bribing thousands of people working at Ground Zero in Manhattan, and faking the Cold War with the full collusion of the Russians. The more conspiracies you believe, the easier it is to accept the requirements most of them share.
Thus arguments between CT and skeptic are generally as fruitless as arguments between evolutionists and creationists; one is arguing apples and the other is arguing oranges. We see their requirements as exceptional and thus irrational. They see our arguments as inconsequential and thus irrational. For each of us, one argument is "obvious" and the other, "absurd."
For us skeptics, when a professional society of engineers (the ASCE) makes a pronouncement on 9-11, we trust it because to think otherwise would require us to mistrust the load rating on our rigging hardware, the UL cert on our electrical equipment, and all those other stamps we depend on daily (and are rarely failed by).
For a CT, when we quote an engineer with degree and experience and certification in the proper field, we are doing nothing more than putting up a hand puppet. None of these assurances of truthfullness are meaningful. Our expert lacks the kinds of qualifications that count in the world of the CT.
I am tempted to believe that there is an experential base that goes with this. The difference being between people who do engineering daily, and people who work in circles where social dynamics are more potent; office work, services, management. I have to remind myself that some of the crankiest perpetual-motion-machine creators are retired machinists and skilled mechanics, and that some of the wildest space fantasies come from people who have struggled for decades to be accepted in highly technical scientific fields.
I do believe that the volume of posts on public boards are by followers of CT's, not original creators, and followers without experience in logical argument, basic science, or the willingness and ability to do basic observation. Or, to put a finer point on it -- most CT posts are by lazy, bored people. Only that could explain why so many repeat the "No Stars" mantra, when a few minutes spent outside with their own camera would inform them.
But that is merely the drive-by poster volume. Discounting these trolls: out on the web, and on newstands and bookracks, is the work of very dedicated, hardworking, selfless people who believe very strongly in their cause and are willing to do the research and calculation (their description), to support it.
Is there any hope of a meeting of one world view with the other?
We sometimes characterize a "CT" mindset as someone who is predisposed to believe in any idea that has the right blend of novelty, a sense of shared secrets, piquancy, and a promise of personal gain.
It may be more profitable to think instead of a contrast of complete, almost hermetic world views. The problem most of us have with most conspiracy theories is that they have to violate too much of how we understand of how things work. You really can't follow any CT very far without being asked to accept that professionals don't know anything, teachers and textbooks are liars, governments are monolithic, and most of history is false. Most of us stop far short of that; when, for instance, an Apollo CT asks us to accept that film melts in the cameras, we can't quite accept that everything we know about heat transfer, and that trusted experts tell us about heat transfer, is wrong.
The inverse is, of course, that the CT worldview accepts that NASA could bribe 10,000 space workers, and force the Soviets to lie about tracking our capsules, because "the government" is also capable of bribing thousands of people working at Ground Zero in Manhattan, and faking the Cold War with the full collusion of the Russians. The more conspiracies you believe, the easier it is to accept the requirements most of them share.
Thus arguments between CT and skeptic are generally as fruitless as arguments between evolutionists and creationists; one is arguing apples and the other is arguing oranges. We see their requirements as exceptional and thus irrational. They see our arguments as inconsequential and thus irrational. For each of us, one argument is "obvious" and the other, "absurd."
For us skeptics, when a professional society of engineers (the ASCE) makes a pronouncement on 9-11, we trust it because to think otherwise would require us to mistrust the load rating on our rigging hardware, the UL cert on our electrical equipment, and all those other stamps we depend on daily (and are rarely failed by).
For a CT, when we quote an engineer with degree and experience and certification in the proper field, we are doing nothing more than putting up a hand puppet. None of these assurances of truthfullness are meaningful. Our expert lacks the kinds of qualifications that count in the world of the CT.
I am tempted to believe that there is an experential base that goes with this. The difference being between people who do engineering daily, and people who work in circles where social dynamics are more potent; office work, services, management. I have to remind myself that some of the crankiest perpetual-motion-machine creators are retired machinists and skilled mechanics, and that some of the wildest space fantasies come from people who have struggled for decades to be accepted in highly technical scientific fields.
I do believe that the volume of posts on public boards are by followers of CT's, not original creators, and followers without experience in logical argument, basic science, or the willingness and ability to do basic observation. Or, to put a finer point on it -- most CT posts are by lazy, bored people. Only that could explain why so many repeat the "No Stars" mantra, when a few minutes spent outside with their own camera would inform them.
But that is merely the drive-by poster volume. Discounting these trolls: out on the web, and on newstands and bookracks, is the work of very dedicated, hardworking, selfless people who believe very strongly in their cause and are willing to do the research and calculation (their description), to support it.
Is there any hope of a meeting of one world view with the other?