Mugwump wrote:
As stated, if the theory behind "monological belief systems" has any value then surely it must apply first to the much larger group of people who attack conspiratorial thinking.
I often wonder why people are so quick to attack accusations of conspiracy.
Before anything I should point out that a "conspiracy" is, by definition, two or more people planning to do something unlawful or harmful. Even without including controversial topics - conspiracy is ubiquitous in human society. It is also defined in law and people are regularly sent to prison for conspiring to defraud the government, insurance companies, banks etc. etc. No one would think twice about doubting whether government or big business or organised crime "conspires" to achieve some aim or another.
Do people attack conspiracy theories because they are more informed than the critics? In my experience the answer is a resounding "No!". Whenever I offer my opinions on the Kennedy assassination, 9/11 etc. I'm invariably inundated with criticism. But I've yet to meet a single critic who has bothered even to take the first logical step of reading the official explanation! Indeed, the only people I have met who meet this criterion ALL agree that conspiracy took place.
Now, I'm not suggesting that to be more informed on a subject automatically means one's opinion has more value. A person can make bad decisions based on good information. But don't you see where we are going here? In every other walk of life we usually attach greater significance to "informed opinion". You visit a specialist solely because he has invested years of his life studying medicine. You don't visit some backstreet quack with a medical certificate from some obscure Nigerian university because he probably has not.
Granted, there is no reliable means of judging whether someone is "qualified" to make reliable judgements on the question of conspiracy. But I think most rational people will agree that it's preferable to be informed than not.
So, tell me: who here is locked into a "monological belief system" and who is not?
Our views are coloured by what our experiences have been ... therein lies possibly non-objectivity.
Both sides exhibit this.
Evidence or opinion, where does one start and the other begin?
Personally without wanting to suffer your wrath , and I did quite like the softer, more reasonable approach of this last post, I am not really sure why it matters so much to you.
I think, even on this side, we are all pretty much prepared to believe that you are right, that it is hard to believe the JFK findings.
But at the end of long delvings you can't tell me definitively who did it. That is no criticism, you have certainly tried.
But I can't for the life of me see how that maps to 9/11.
I am not alone. You are in a small minority that don't see two planes hitting two towers and two towers collapsing in a quite logical manner in keeping with the laws of physics and simple cause and effect.
So if you can also give us examples of how you have gone in on a conspiracy angle and then after consideration rejected that stance, then that would perhaps demonstrate a balanced view.
You don't need to write a novel every time in response.
You know plebs like me aren't worth it.
