Originally posted by Philosophical
[email protected] 13, 2007 12:32 pm
What differentiates "conspiracy theories" from historiography is the consistency of method, analysis, the use of sources, methodology in the use of evidence. Usually the empirical method is used in the selection of sources, with the subsequent analysis being use of analytical tools.
To take 9/11 conspiracy theories as an example, these do not follow consistent methods. They usually rely on:
* Quote-mining - using out-of-context selective quotes to mislead the reader
* Confirmation bias - selecting sources which agree with your theory, but ignoring sources that do not without sufficient explanation
* Out-right fabrication - telling lies (i.e. "4,000 Jews were warned to stay away from the WTC on 9/11")
* Use of inappropriate sources - relying on "evidence" and theories from right-wing hate groups
* Relying on "experts" who offer theories outside their expertise - i.e. the theologist David Ray Griffin analysing phenomena best left to structural engineers and physicists. (it's also interesting to note that David Ray Griffin also utilises sources from the fascist American Free Press).
The first paragraph is generalization that is usually mumbled by both official historiains and dissident historians no matter what regime we are speaking of.
* Regarding your first dot. No doubt true of most "Conspiracy Theories". That is why I am i favor
of a new invesitgation that is not controlled by the white house. As important as WHAT
is claimed is the manner of the investigation. Is it properly mediated by the media so that people
have a democratic access to the facts, or are cerain incorrect numbers of the intercepts repeated
in the media whereas, the true numbers were mentioned a couple of times in 2002 and then never
"chained" in articles again? Are government whistlblowers subpoenad by the investigation
thus granting them legal protection from gov. reprisal? (almost none were in offical 9/11 report,
ask Sybal Edomonds) Is there at least one member of the committee who is not compromised by
previous relations with the intelligence agencies ( have you ever looked into the history of Lee
Hamilton. There are PLENTY of books and articles not authored by Alex Jones!) People
interviwed by the Committee would have a chance to comment on how the final report used their
testimony. As Professor Gerald D. McNight shows in his excellent dissection of the Warren
Commission, so many of those interviewed were later bewildered by how the WC distorted their
testimony to fit LonNutism: it made the Majic Bullet read like Rene Descartes. Critics of the official
report could then be given time to debate it. Instead what we got were political insiders deeply
compromised by connections to intelligence agencies that have been unchecked since around
1947.
Or would you have preferred Bush's first choice Herny Kissinger? The level of sincerity of the
9/11 "investigation" was evident right then.
* Second dot. OF course many of the Conspiracy theories do this. Thats why I dont subscribe
to them. However NONE COULD POSSIBLY BE MORE GUILTY OF THIS THAN THE OFFICIAL
GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY THEORY. I take it your belive this report? Or is your stance one of
fashionable indifference to the stated basis for what has amounted to the begining of Corporate fascism?
* This would be a great "conspiracy theory to put out if you later wanted to hang out the line
that "all those who disagree with the Official 9/11 Report are Anti-Semetic Rightists." Am
I saying that this was the intention of these theories? No, I am saying that I have no way of
knowing this, and it is certainly possible that other motives including racial prejudice were
factor. But am I saying that this strategic muddying of the watter on purpose was a
possibility. Absolutely! Anyone who has studied disinformation strategies and or the Kennedy
Assassination knows this. (By the way if you are one of those autonome "good leftists" who
mumble lines about Kennedy being an average cold warrior and THEREFOR (as if logical
conclusion) all people who suggest there was a conspiracy are wacky flying saucer people,
you might want to call up Harvard University Press and WIlliams college and have them not
publish the work of David Kaiser due out in March 2008 arguing decisively as has EVERY
ACADEMIC BOOK published since 1995 that Kennedy WAS IN FACT PULLING OUT OF
NAM AND or that there WAS a conspiracy. Tell them Kaiser should be fired because you saw
the X-files on FOX in 1996 and they spoke of CIA assassinations in the same program that
they spoke about flying saucers. That ought to be good enough for Max Holland of The Nation
who is also published on the CIA.s web site-- and please look that one up before you call it a
conspiracy theory, although, that latter option is admittedly... quicker.
* Next dot. How old are you.Did you read the NYT and the utterly mainstream world press in
the end of 2001 and 2002? Thats all that was needed as far as sourcing. If you think that
you need to go to the rightwing press for sourcing on 9/11 you haven't been looking, or you
only started looking in 2005. I spend more time on footnotes than in the main text. Check
the sources on the Howard Zinn endorsed books of David Ray Griffin. Almost every one of
them is from NYT , Financial Times, ABC etc. And no THIS DOESNT MAKE THEM ALL TRUE.
It does disprove your insinuation that all of this doubt about the offical government
COnspiracy Theory is base on sourcing from the right wing press.
* Last dot; The same arguement could be used to invalidate every word written by Noam
Chomsky, on grounds that he was a professional linguist and not a polititical scientist. Having
read Chomsky there is no way I would ever make such an argument. You see I believe in
applying a logical analysis to an argument, rather than an a priori categorical rejection of
an analysis based on which academic discipline of the capitalist Cold War University system
a person is working in. With the exception of one book EXPLICITLY BASED ON RELIGION
the three Griffin books I have read do not contain a single shred of religious content. I am
an atheist, and read them very critically spending a long time on soucing. Have you read
his books? I am sure that you havent or you wouldnt even be trying this avenue. It sure is
a quick and convenient way of dismissing an arguement, REGUARDLESS OF SOURCING,
however