At around 14/6/06 12:04 am, Sabri Oncu wrote:
>
> The way I see it, Paul is questioning Bush's conspiracy theory.
>
> Why is it that questioning Bush's conspiracy theory makes Paul a conspiracy
> theorist?
>
Exactly the reason why I think such terms are at best meaningless and at
worst shortcuts to avoiding presenting counter-arguments.
On a biology list that I used to be a member of, the issue often came up
on how to deal with creationists. On the one hand, it was argued, they
will come up with differing appeals (ranging from the bible to
Intelligent Design) and it was better not to "dignify" them with a
response. The alternate viewpoint, which I am glad has prevailed (and
has motivated men like the late Steve Gould, as also his arch-rival
Dawkins to a lesser degree) was to engage the public and such theorists.
In particular, many correctly argued that each case is different (Bible
vs ID) and needs to be dealt with differently, even if the players and
their motivations are the same. ID employs common sense notions in
posing challenges to evolutionary theory. These notions/doubts are
genuine ones (even if the motivations of the ID theorists are not).
As a mathematician you will find this perhaps interesting: I have
similar problems in convincing "rational" individuals regarding the
"Monty Hall problem" [*]. Of course the flip side is that one has to be
willing to consider that perhaps they have a point (as have some
sophisticated critics of the "meaning" of probability).
This is not to imply that 9/11 alternate theorists are the equivalent of
creationists and ID theorists. In the case of the latter, I have heard
their arguments and have and can provide responses. W.R.T 9/11 alternate
theories: I am yet to hear a good argument (or any argument, actually)
that shows how some mediocre dudes came back from the strip club one day
and flew a giant jet into precise targets the next day. This does not
mean I believe they didn't do it, or someone else did. This just means
that there is an interesting answer (interesting at least to me) that
awaits discovery.
> Another interesting thing is that I do not remember the use of the word
> "conspiracy theory" from the 1970s when I was growing up.
In coming to the USA, I discovered that I am in the midst of people from
whom I am separated by a common language. The use of such terms in
conversations and arguments is/was perhaps a form of sophisticated
symbolic abstraction that I was unused to. I must confess though that I
have learnt to selectively employ them when it furthers my argument ;-).
--ravi
[*] For those unaware of it, the Monty Hall problem is based on what I
am told is a once popular game show where you are to pick one among
three closed doors, one of which holds the reward. After your pick, one
of the other doors is opened to reveal that it does not hold the reward.
You are now given the option to switch your choice to the other closed
door. Should you? Probability theory says you should, since it increases
your chance of success to 2/3, from 1/3. Common sense says the
probability should remain the same: after all, why would the probability
"for" the other closed door, which used to be 1/3, now change to 2/3,
when nothing about it has changed?
As a very different example, consider this puzzle: I have three tenants
who are chronically late with the rent ($100 each). On June 1, however,
one of them arrives on time with $300 (his own rent and $200 collected
from the other two). Hoping to encourage such behaviour, I hand him $50
to be shared among the three of them as a reward. I find out later that
he has pocketed $20, and split the remaining $30 among the three of
them. Effectively, each of them has paid $90 or a total of $270. This
dishonest fellow has in his pocket $20. That adds up to $290. Now what
happened to the other $10?
This second example is a kind of "false" question that some might reject
in the same manner as a "conspiracy theory". However, even in this case,
it behoves us to explain the nature of the error in the argument.
--
Support something better than yourself: ;-)
PeTA: http://www.peta.org/
GreenPeace: http://www.greenpeace.org/
