--- ravi <ravi.bulk at gmail.com> wrote:
> At around 14/10/06 10:55 am, Michael Givel wrote:
> >
> > In an article about the Popular Mechanics 9/11
> > report, Scientific American columnist Michael Shermer makes an
> > important observation about the conspiracist method: "The mistaken
> > belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a
> > well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial
> > thinking...
> >
>
> Ha ha! I guess I should have prepared myself for such reasoning, but I
> must confess I was caught off guard by this one. Of course a handful of
> unexplained anomalies *CAN* undermine a well-established theory. It
> would instead be worthwhile to ask if they necessarily do: They do not.
>
> --ravi
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
Yeah, but most of the unexplained anomalies are not unexplained at all.
Furthermore, the alternative explanations are mostly far less plausible.
A far better analysis of conspiratorial thinking would be to compare it to religious arguments that claim that the existence of unexplained phenomenon proves God even without offering any positive evidence for it. Same goes for UFO theories.
-Alex
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com