A short observation if you will

[salvorhardin]

One of the key contentions frequently made in this group is that people who point out flaws in reasoning of those who believe in systemic conspiratorial explanations for the events on and surrounding 9-11 are arguing in favor of the so-called "official conspiracy theory". That's not the case. We are arguing against specific alternative theories (and at least in my case the style or manner in which alternative theories are presented, along with some less than credible sources). That is not an argument in favor of the official narrative. It is simply saying "your stated evidence does not support your claim(s)".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle

And, again, at least in my case I'd also encourage some posters to this group to adopt more nuanced approaches to their analysis along with better vetting of your sources.

Anyway, that's my observation. Carry on and may the strawmen be hoisted high for tonight's festivities.

[mhatrw]

1. That's the exact opposite of how I see it.

The only two things I know for sure are -

1) what I've been told about 9/11 from official sources is full of crap and full of holes, and

2) the "9/11 Changes Everything" meme has been used to defend torture, rendition, one dubious invasion and one completely illegal and tragic invasion, a never-ending state of war, hundreds of billions in war profiteering and other "homeland security" pork, a separation of powers Constitutional crisis and an all-out assault on our Bill of Rights and right to privacy.

That's all I know for sure. Most further "theories" are inevitably and necessarily rife with speculation. We've been fed a huge diet of disinformation and misinformation, and almost none of the hard questions about 9/11 have been satisfactorily addressed by anyone in an any official capacity.

So the question I have to anyone who points out "flaws in reasoning of those who believe in systemic conspiratorial explanations for the events on and surrounding 9-11" is why? Why are you wasting your precious time and energy to argue against those who, however imperfectly, seek to cast doubt on the official story of 9/11? Certainly some of these people sometimes go too far. Certainly some of their speculations are on occasion outlandish or even illogical. But why spend your time propping up an official account that is full of crap and full of holes and that, even more importantly, serves as the only justification for so many heinous crimes and policies?

[wildbilln864]

2. very well said..

mhatrw. I completely agree!

[salvorhardin]

3. Once again

We have narrative A and we have narrative B. ~B does not imply A. ~A does not imply B. Both ~A AND ~B could be true. Do you get my drift? By seeking only a conspiracist narrative you are artificially limiting your own range of exploration.

And in my own point of view you are missing the bigger picture.

[Bolo Boffin]

4. Thanks, salvorhardin. n/t

[Jazz2006]

5. Most tinhatters do not understand the difference, salv.

They just read the parts that they think fit their scenarios and disregard the rest.

Sad, but true.

[mhatrw]

6. Was I not clear? I'm agnostic about what actually took place on 9/11.

I just know when somebody's obviously handing me a line of crap.

And I don't know why anyone would waste their time or energy propping up a load of very obvious and incredibly harmful bs.

[salvorhardin]

7. For someone who is agnostic, you're awfully sure of yourself. n/t

[mhatrw]

8. Most agnostics are pretty sure why they are agnostic.

It's an eminently reasonable stance when confronting any situation with far more unknowns than knowns.

I best end now lest I slip into Rumsfoolery.

[HornBuckler]

9. You can't argue with your 2 points

1 and 2 are factual.

I guess you could question 'full of crap' but full of holes is definitely truthful. Excellent reply/post.

your last line is great and needs repeating :

"But why spend your time propping up an official account that is full of crap and full of holes and that, even more importantly, serves as the only justification for so many heinous crimes and policies?"

[greyl]

11. If Al Gore

claimed that global warming is a fact, then cited a rise in sales of Slurpees as evidence, I'd gladly "waste my time" making a statement of my own that his evidence doesn't prove his claim.

[mhatrw]

12. If you were a German in the 1930s, would you spend your time

defending Nazis against speculation that they were involved in setting the Reichstag fire?

Why or why not?

[carlvs]

13. What an incredible and insulting cheap shot

But then again, I guess that is what substitutes for critical thinking for a CTer...

Welcome to my ignore list!

[mhatrw]

14. The analogy is utterly apt.

The "9/11 Changes Everything" meme has been used to defend torture, rendition, one dubious invasion and one completely illegal and tragic invasion, a never-ending state of war, hundreds of billions in war profiteering and other "homeland security" pork, a separation of powers Constitutional crisis and an all-out assault on our Bill of Rights and right to privacy.

Considering all this, my question is why would any progressive-minded individual want to spend his or her time and energy propping up an official account that is full of crap and full of holes and that, more importantly, serves as the only justification for so many heinous crimes and policies?

Returning to the analogy, even if you actually felt that Nazis had nothing to do with the Reichstag Fire, wouldn't it be better to simply keep these views to yourself?

[Make7]

15. Marinus van der Lubbe confessed.

What evidence do you have that the Nazis were responsible for the Reichstag fire?
______________________

In analogyland, would this post lead you to believe that I was an agent of the SD?

-Make7

[mhatrw]

16. Wow. You completely missed my point,

and came to the defense of the official Nazi conspiracy theory.

[Make7]

18. Considering your first post in this thread,...

... I find it somewhat amusing that you think I missed the point. You appear to be having some difficulty actually determining the point of a post and/or thread.
____________

I want to play in your analogyland for a while. Won't you come play with me? It's your turn - show me some reason why you think the Nazis were responsible for the Reichstag fire.

-Make7

[mhatrw]

21. My point is that your question doesn't really matter.

Unless one supports the Nazi (PNAC) agenda, why would one waste one's precious time and energy "debunking" those who seek to cast doubt on their primary rationale for their most egregious crimes and harmful policies?

[Bolo Boffin]

23. Because,

You.

Do.

It.

In.

A.

Way.

That.

Only.

Casts.

Doubt.

On.

Yourself.

[mhatrw]

26. I disagree. But even if you are right, so what?

What has motivated you to make the supposed lack of credibility of those questioning the official story of 9/11 your problem?

[greyl]

28. Why don't you care if they're credible or not?

If you aren't interested in credibility, how do you know when someon is credible?
It certainly doesn't seem like you're quick to use the tools of critical thinking to discern horseshit from solid arguments.

[mhatrw]

33. I'm simply wondering why you care.

Would you care to explain?

[greyl]

35. You have yet to give me the courtesy of a direct response, so no. nt

[Old and In the Way]

45. I guess they strongly believe that 9/11 happened exactly the way

Bush-Cheney explains it to us. The OCT posters here don't support them, of course, only faithfully defended and argued for their version of 9/11 for the past 5 years. True, 9/11 gave Bush-Cheney the political club to start a war on lies and roll back our civil liberties...but what is most important is to not sully the official (and objective) 9/11 Commission's findings. This be our official reality....it was a sad case of institutional incompetence (CIA/FBI) and no one expected terrorists to fly planes into buildings. End of story. Please stop asking questions.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Old and In the Way]

56. Thanks for the usual insults, greyl.

nt

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mirandapriestly]

74. delete wrong thread..eom

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Make7]

38. The point is...

... that my challenging you on the fact that you have not established any reasonable basis for believing that the Nazis were responsible for the Reichstag fire in no way means that I think Hitler was a swell guy or that I feel that the Final Solution was a good idea. It simply means that I think you have claimed something which you have been unwilling or unable to back up with solid evidence. Which is basically paraphrasing the point of the original post with a little help from your "apt" analogy.

If you do not understand the benefits of having opposing viewpoints in a discussion, perhaps you should frequent boards where the people already believe the same things you do on this subject. In the September 11 forum here at DU you are going to come across people that may completely disagree with what you have to say. But simply because someone disagrees with the latest theory under discussion, it does not automatically mean that they believe in whatever you may think the opposite theory might be.

-Make7

[mhatrw]

39. I'm simply puzzled about what's motivating all of you.

Would you care to explain?

[Make7]

41. I am simply trying to discover...

... why you would waste so much precious time and energy trying to discern the motivation of others when you could be using that time and energy to seek the truth, prove that 9/11 was an inside job, and kick the Bush cabal out of power.
__________

Actually, in this thread, I was just trying to determine if you are a waste of time or not. (See previous sentence for a hint.)

-Make7

[mhatrw]

52. A simple "no" would have been more concise and to the point.

[Make7]

54. I wanted to point out how much time you are wasting in this thread. ( nt )

[greyl]

64. More concise AND to the point?

Why spend your time being repetitive and redundant?

[mhatrw]

70. I wanted to point out how much time Make7 was wasting in this thread.

And that's pleonastically redundant to you, sir.

[Old and In the Way]

43. Are you arguing that the Nazi's were victims of a anti-Nazi conspiracy?

From Brittanica Encycolpedia-

" burning of the Reichstag (parliament) building in Berlin, on the night of Feb. 27, 1933, a key event in the establishment of the Nazi dictatorship and widely believed to have been contrived by the newly formed Nazi government itself to turn public opinion against its opponents and to assume emergency powers. Adolf Hitler had secured the chancellorship after the elections…"
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9063085

I'd say Marinus was analogous to Lee Harvey Oswald

"Marinus van der Lubbe was born in Holland in 1909. His father left home soon after he was born and he was brought up in extreme poverty.

Lubbe worked as a bricklayer but after an industrial accident in 1925 he spent five months in hospital. He never fully recovered from his injuries and was now unable to work and had to live on a small invalidity pension.

In 1926 Lubbe joined the Dutch Communist Party (KPH) and worked hard trying to recruit young unemployed workers into the party. He also organized demonstrations and spoke at protest meetings.

Lubbe decides he wants to live in the Soviet Union but is unable to raise enough money for his fare. However, in 1933 he moves to Germany where he immediately begins protesting against the new government headed by Adolf Hitler.

On 27th February the Reichstag caught fire. When they police arrived they found Lubbe on the premises. After being tortured by the Gestapo he confessed to starting the Reichstag Fire. However he denies that he was part of a Communist conspiracy. Hermann Goering refuses to believe him and he orders the arrest of several leaders of the German Communist Party (KPD).

As well as Lubbe the German police charged four communists with setting fire to the Reichstag. This included Ernst Torgler, the chairman of the KPD and Georgi Dimitrov of the Soviet Comintern.

Marinus van der Lubbe was found guilty of the Reichstag Fire and was executed on 10th January, 1934. Adolf Hitler was furious he rest of the defendants were acquitted and he decided that in future all treason cases were taken from the Supreme Court and given to a new People's Court where prisoners were judged by members of the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP). "

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERlubbe.htm


Perhaps an even a better analogy than the Reichstag fire is this act by Hitler's government to justify their invasion of Poland, named Operation Himmler-

"So that Germany did not officially seem the aggressor (which it was), Hitler needed an excuse for entering/attacking Poland. It was Heinrich Himmler who came up with the idea; thus the plan was code named Operation Himmler.

On the night of August 31, 1939, Nazis took an unknown prisoner from one of their concentration camps, dressed him in a Polish uniform, took him to the town of Gleiwitz (on the border of Poland and Germany), and then shot him. The staged scene with the dead prisoner dressed in a Polish uniform was supposed to appear as a Polish attack against a German radio station.

Hitler used the staged attack as the excuse to invade Poland. "

http://history1900s.about.com/library/holocaust/aa090399.htm

[Make7]

50. Actually for this discussion, the Reichstag fire is more appropriate.

" burning of the Reichstag (parliament) building in Berlin, on the night of Feb. 27, 1933, a key event in the establishment of the Nazi dictatorship and widely believed to have been contrived by the newly formed Nazi government itself to turn public opinion against its opponents and to assume emergency powers. Adolf Hitler had secured the chancellorship after the elections…"

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9063085

I think the pertinent passage is: "..widely believed to have been contrived by the newly formed Nazi government itself.."

Just as 9/11 is believed by many to have been an inside job. (If that has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, I must have missed it.)

I was merely using mhatrw's analogy to reiterate the point of the OP. Namely, my questioning whether or not the Nazis were responsible for the Reichstag fire does not mean that I support the Nazi version of events or the overall Nazi agenda. I'm simply asking mhatrw to back up the assertion that the Reichstag fire was an inside job with evidence of some kind.

I thought since s/he brougt up the analogy, s/he might actually be willing to discuss it further. Aparently I was mistaken.

Are you itching for a debate about WWII history, or did you just think I was a Nazi sympathizer?

-Make7

[Old and In the Way]

53. No, I don't think you are a Nazi sympathizer.

But if we were having this conversation in Germany in 1933, would you be arguing against the conspiracy theorists about this? Because the Nazi's did officially finger communists with doing it. Do you believe the Nazi's were truthful about that? We can never return to 1933 to find the truth...we may never get the truth now on 9/11.

Bush-Cheney stonewalled/obstructed/underfunded the original 9/11 investigation. They chose the Commission heads. Sorry, I will never believe that we got the truth from that dog and pony show.

[Make7]

69. Well, that's a relief.

I doubt if I would be arguing at all about the Reichstag fire if this were 1933. Marinus van der Lubbe's confession was most likely obtained through torture, so I would have strong doubts about the Nazi narrative. However, the Reichstag fire being an inside job is something that was/is not likely to be proven sufficiently, if at all. Any conjecture and action based on my beliefs about it would probably have little, if any, impact on the power structure of the government/corporate status quo. There were far better cases to be made for abuses of power and/or crimes if my intention were to try and change things. I would either concentrate my energy on one of those, or try to get out of Germany for good.

I agree that the truth about 9/11 may never be known and the investigations were not adequate in many respects. However, I believe history would teach us that the general populace does not really ever get to know the truth about what governments do in our name, or what had really transpired when investigations into events are conducted. That is obviously wrong that we never really know - but to expect something different in the case of 9/11 might be going against the lessons of history, IMO.

-Make7

[mhatrw]

71. That was a very rational post, and I basically agree with it.

And it leads right back to my point.

While the "truth" of 9/11 may never be known, the clearly heinous consequences of 9/11 most certainly are. Given that, what could possibly be anyone's motivation for spending his or her precious time and energy propping up the official version of 9/11 (which serves as the only justification for so many abominable crimes and policies) against those who seek to cast doubt on it?

[Make7]

72. I'll give this one more try.

Edited wording of first sentence for clarity.

The point of the original post is essentially this: just because someone disagrees with one, many, or even all of the conspiracy theories presented in this forum does not mean that that person is "propping up the official version of 9/11".

Unless you can show that premise to be incorrect, your question has no foundation and should rightfully be ignored.

There is an exception where your question would be valid - if you can demonstrate that a particular poster actually is "propping up the official version of 9/11". If you are able to do that, I would suggest you ask your question to that poster directly.

- Make7

[BuddyYoung]

73. I think it just means they don't want people to know 911 was an inside job

but they can't come out and say so directly (maybe their income depends on it). I think that explains the tactics they use and why no one, and I do mean no one, can get them to lay out their interpretation of the Official 911 Fairy Tale. All you'll ever see is vague, generalized, unadulterated stuff from the caboose of a bull.

[salvorhardin]

17. Great Godwin's ghost

Returning to the analogy, even if you actually felt that Nazis had nothing to do with the Reichstag Fire, wouldn't it be better to simply keep these views to yourself?

How utterly Straussian of you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straussian#Liberalism_and_nihilism

Once again for the slow witted...
You state claim B
The administration states claim A.
Skeptics state ~B

~B does not equate to A

It is possible for both ~A and ~B to be true.

Beyond that you've Godwinized the discussion. Rational discourse is no longer possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

[mhatrw]

20. The analogy is perfectly apt.

My point stands. You have simply chosen not to address it.

Once again for the slow witted...
The administration states A, and that A "changes everything."
People in oppostion to this adminstration and their claims about A quite rationally seek to cast doubt on A.
Others, whose motives are puzzling unless they support the administration, seek to cast doubt on the doubters.

Once again, the apt and illustrative analogy...
Nazis state A, and that A "changes everything."
People in oppostion to Nazis and their claims about A quite rationally seek to cast doubt on A.
Others, whose motives are puzzling unless they support Nazis, seek to cast doubt on the doubters.

[salvorhardin]

22. OK Mr. Fantasy

[Old and In the Way]

49. So, is there a consensus amongst the ~OCTer's as to what 'Not A/Not B' is?

I'm interested in what you really believe....I only see posts debating/refuting B.

Does your ~A/~B belief hold this administration criminally liable for the events of 9/11?

[greyl]

51. There's probably a loose but recognizable consensus, yes.

(temporarily accepting your vague term "OCTers")

Personally and very briefly, these two links show most of what I feel is important to investigate and prosecute regarding 9/11:

http://www.newwartimes.com/warnings.html
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles2/Cowan_Iraq-13Myths.htm

edit: Plus, I know that terrorists exist. Their existence isn't a bushco lie. I think that what bushco claims to be a response to terrorism is like cutting off ones head to stop a nosebleed.

[Old and In the Way]

55. Guilty of not heeding warnings, I would gather....

and a complete failure of our FBI, CIA, and Pentagon to do their job. And those 19 Arabs were the smartest bunch of suicidists that Osama could have picked (even though he claims no responsibility, nor does the FBI accuse him of the crime).

I guess my problem with your general theory is that there is a systematic pattern of heeding warnings such that LIHOP is the obvious conclusion. He had the means (he was the Decider) and the motive (see PNAC) to LIHOP. If I disregarded a stop light and hit a car killing a person, I'm liable for criminal manslaughter. Why isn't he a defendent on trial for the criminal manslaughter of 3000 on 9/11?

[salvorhardin]

59. I'd say criminal negligence

Other than that I pretty much agree with greyl. As for your contention that the men who carried out the 9-11 attacks were smarter than average, it belies a little bit of latent prejudice against Arabs. It's the same sort of prejudice that Judge Kennelly showed in his decision to dismiss the ACLU law suit against AT&T in the NSA domestic spying case:

U.S. District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly said requiring AT&T to disclose if it has turned over telephone records to the federal government could provide insight on the country's intelligence activities to its adversaries, the reports said.

I rather think the cat is out of the bag on this one. Additionally I think Judge Kennelly's decision belies a little latent prejudice against "our adversaries" (whomever they might be — the government seems variable on this point) as dim witted and technologically backward. I'm pretty sure al-Qaida members are as capable of using PGP or GPG as Neural Gourmet readers are. Perhaps more so since they're motivated to keep their plans secret.
http://www.neuralgourmet.com/2006/07/25/aclu_nsa_spying_lawsuit_against_at_t_dismissed_eff_lawsuit_clears_hurdle

I'm also pretty sure they're as capable of plotting to kill thousands of people and executing their plans as the next human. We're a mean and clever bunch of apes.

Also, you might want to read this (and the linked article) for some background information on al-Qaida's name. Not particularly relevant to the discussion at hand, but you might find it interesting.
http://www.neuralgourmet.com/2006/07/26/isaac_through_the_looking_glass

[greyl]

67. I don't understand your reply at all.

"I guess my problem with your general theory is that there is a systematic pattern of heeding warnings such that LIHOP is the obvious conclusion."

What's my general theory?
Where is the systematic pattern of heeding warnings?

[wildbilln864]

27. inoring things we don't want to believe...

only makes us more ignor-ant!

[greyl]

24. If you were a scientist today,

would you spend your time repeating the Slurpee sales "proof" of global warming and whining at me when I point out that your reasoning is crippled?

[mhatrw]

25. It's the lack of pirates that's causing global warming.

More: http://www.venganza.org/

[greyl]

31. That is a non-funny red herring. nt

[salvorhardin]

62. Blasphemer

For abusing the holy precepts of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism you will be condemned to boil in a sea of spicy marinara sauce for all eternity with only light beer in a can to quench your thirst. And there's no pull-tabs in FSM hell.

[Old and In the Way]

40. Your post mirrors my thinking on this subject.

Well stated.

If I understand the OP's main point, he might not believe the OCT or the various scenario's discussed in this forum. Fair enough. I'd be curious what he does believe.

Perhaps someday, we'll have a real 9/11 investigation that is not controlled by those with a vested interest in the outcome. I don't undertand why, at the very least, they have not been indicted on criminal negligence in the manslaughter of 3000 American lives. It is clear, at minimum, they chose to ignore multiple warnings of a pending attack and took no action, prior to 9/11, to amp up our security. What's the threshold of holding a Republican President accountable? 10,000 lives? 50,000? 100,000? Why would this administration, after demonstrating complete failure to execute the oath of their office be further entrusted to continue in this office?

[HamdenRice]

10. Hello Mr. Pott, may I introduce you to Mr. Black?

If your point is that certain people seek to exclude the middle and put up straw men I agree.

But it is the official conspiracy theory apologists who equate any questioning of the official narrative with a belief in pods, holograms and alien lizard overlords. That's why I ordinarily don't find it worth while engaging in discussion with them.

[SidDithers]

19. Good point salvor...

just because I don't like your poem, doesn't mean I have to write a better one myself.

:toast:

Sid

[salvorhardin]

32. Thanks Sid.

:yourock:

[greyl]

29. Here's a secondary observation if I may.

When threads are posted in this forum that advocate logic and critical thinking skills, it's likely for CTers to reply by balking and urping their disapproval.

[salvorhardin]

30. Not to mention the Godwinizing

And casting of Rovian aspersions. Do you think we should try cognitive biases next?

[greyl]

34. Sure, it couldn't hurt. :)

Have you seen this?:

Using M.R.I. scanners, neuroscientists have now tracked what happens in the politically partisan brain when it tries to digest damning facts about favored candidates or criticisms of them. The process is almost entirely emotional and unconscious, the researchers report, and there are flares of activity in the brain’s pleasure centers when unwelcome information is being rejected.
_____________

The investigators hypothesize that emotionally biased reasoning leads to the "stamping in" or reinforcement of a defensive belief, associating the participant's "revisionist" account of the data with positive emotion or relief and elimination of distress. "The result is that partisan beliefs are calcified, and the person can learn very little from new data," Westen says.
www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-01/euhs-esl012406.php

The study dealt with Democrats and Republicans, but the results can clearly be extrapolated to partisanship(confirmation bias) on other issues. It helps explain some of the levels of consciousness expressed in posts here, eh?


edit: bolding

[mhatrw]

36. Only the keepers of the OCT flame would be so oblivious of irony

to use an article about confirmation bias to attempt to confirm their biases.

[greyl]

37. I don't think you understand what irony is.

"Here's a secondary observation if I may.

When threads are posted in this forum that advocate logic and critical thinking skills, it's likely for CTers to reply by balking and urping their disapproval." - greyl

[Old and In the Way]

46. Reality is what the 9/11 Commission tells us it is.

Bush-Cheney controlled the 9/11 Commission. Therefore, the story of 9/11 is what Bush-Cheney tells us it is. All stones were uncovered and considered...all contradictions were vetted. It was 19 radical, extremely lucky Muslim suicidists that managed to outwit the CIA/FBI, and the Pentagon. I know it seems a bit strange, but honest, that's exactly what happened.

Because George Bush and Dick Cheney would never lie about something so important to the American people. Besides, our watchdog media would be all over the 9/11 story and they also agree with the version 100%. Just like their reporting during the run-up of the Iraqi invasion.

[greyl]

48. What, erecting multiple strawmen is a sport for you? nt

[Old and In the Way]

57. Please explain why my post is a strawman. nt

[greyl]

63. It's multiple strawmen.

Just to take the subject, there's nobody here I'm aware of who argues that "reality is what the 9/11 Commission tells us it is." ( You do know what a straw man argument is, don't you?)

If you expect me to believe that your post isn't in the context of the OP and isn't related to your other posts in this thread, you're mistaken.

[salvorhardin]

42. Aye, I had

I'd like to see the paper they presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology.

Conspiracism as personality disorder? Hmm... That would mean some posters here would qualify for ADA status.

Seriously I think what we're beginning to see emerge are the beginnings of a cognitive neuroscience understanding of worldview. It'd be neat to see the study repeated with other conspiracist and non-conspiracist personalities.

[greyl]

44. I'd leave the possibility open that conspiracism

can be closely related to the default state rather than disorder. Having a high degree of critical thinking skills is a learned advantage afterall, right? Are atheists common, elite, or fringe minority? ;)

(Maybe some have a hard time getting over being lied to about Santa Claus. Santa Retentives) edit: meaning CTers, not atheists /edit

[salvorhardin]

60. I don't think it's the default state

Because it's a world view that most people don't have. Everybody shows conspiratorial thinking, but it doesn't always manifest to a conspiracist worldview such as Hofstadter described. Even some conspiracists describe it as worldview in the occasional "In defense of conspiracism" type opinions we see. It's not so much what they believe, as how they believe it.

Just for the record, I was joking when I compared it to a personality disorder. I don't think the conspiracist worldview is a mental illness, although sometimes it can be symptomatic of an underlying mental illness.

On edit: I don't think that critical thinking skills necessarily insulate one from conspiracism either. For instance, mathematician A.K. Dewdney is a believer in controlled demolition as an explanation for the collapse of the WTC towers.

[greyl]

65. Nor do I.

However, if it's true that critical thinking and accurate worldviews can be enhanced through education...

In other words, along the continuum of infant to elder, superstition and conspiricism tend to lie before "I heart Critical thought!", if the latter ever makes an appearance.

[salvorhardin]

66. I'm just not so sure it's a continuum

I think when it comes to things like worldviews its more equivalent to chaotic states and strange attractors.

[greyl]

68. Well, whatever you care to call the process

of intellectual maturation between embryo and aged adult would probably work. ;)