Yuku free message boards

Well, Lloyd, I guess I am confused by what you actually mean.

There are two different audiences regarding conspiracy theories:

(1) the non-believers (i.e. skeptics or critics who don't currently accept the premises/conclusions) -and-
(2) the devout believers in the conspiracy theory

(a) I said that devout believers in conspiracy theories --- normally do not accept ANY contradictory evidence (or what you call "alternative explanations") because their "theory" is deliberately constructed to be "self-sealing" -- i.e. to preclude the possibility of it being disproven or being revised after acknowledging material errors of fact and interpretation.

(b) Initially, you seemed to agree with my self-sealing premise, which would means truth cannot be recognized or acknowledged because cognitive dissonance will prevent it, BUT now you write that conspiracy believers may be able to recognize that "alternative explanations explains more" .

(c) But the "alternative explanation" does NOT discard the initial conspiratorial premises. Instead, I think you are arguing that a conspiracy believer might tweak their understanding and, perhaps, identify "villains" more accurately than in the past?

(d) The NON-believer can be open to changing his/her mind about whether or not a conspiracy exists based upon an accumulation of verifiable, factual evidence---because he/she has no personal stake in the matter and no pre-determined "paradigm" or predicates which are infecting their reasoning process. Similar to the process that a juror will be asked to use in deciding guilt or innocence.

(e) But the BELIEVER is emotionally invested. The conspiracy theory "explains" his/her world. Most importantly, the conspiracy believer uses their theory to identify ENEMIES who should be vanquished and rendered impotent. One does NOT give up that type of belief-system simply because someone presents an "alternative" explanation. More likely--the "alternative" explanation will be ridiculed and immediately rejected ---- as can be seen in the Albionic archive. Don't base this judgment upon my contributions. Instead, review all of YOUR critics in Albionic who immediately dismiss whatever you have presented because .....(fill in the blanks here---but often their criticism of you insinuated that you were insufficiently anti-Jew or you were brain-dead about the true state of affairs in the world.)

So, I repeat, the reason most political conspiracy theories are deliberately constructed to be self-sealing --- and incapable of being disproven --- is because they serve a purpose which is DIFFERENT from the literal narrative text of the theory. No amount of factual counter-evidence will EVER be acceptable because the "evidence" will be immediately de-valued or dismissed as unimportant. Conspiracy believers often will roll out their argument that the "proof" for their statements has been "destroyed" or is being "suppressed" by "insiders" and the "hidden elites". Obviously, there is no possibility of refuting such an argument.

Finally, I repeat something I wrote in my Purpose of Conspiracy Theories article. A few years ago I came across a poll which was posted on-line by what was then a group consisting of New Orleans members of the JBS (they subsequently resigned from the JBS). The poll question was about Nicholas Berg--the American businessman who was beheaded in Iraq and the video posted on internet.

MOST of the respondents to the polling question about Berg claimed that either Berg was NOT dead or that he was killed by our CIA --- not Al Queda. What conceivable methodology could be used to disprove such ideas to the satisfaction of those respondents? Obviously NONE --- because it is critically important to their understanding of the world (and our goverment) to believe in such absurd nonsense.

LloydMiller wrote:

---

ernie1241 wrote:

---

Well, if, as it appears from your reply, you accept my comment as correct --- then "the truth" cannot be ascertained because, as previously stated,
the "theory" is self-sealing.

No, people can see, they have been in a "self-sealing" circular loop that
doesn't explain much, but provides emotional "satisfaction" perhaps.




We can hold-out the hope that they might see that an alternative explanation explains more and is therefore the better explanation. In this particular case, I
pointed-out a central piece of nonsense in the paradigm, ie. the a-historicality. . . that should be enough to lead a person to move on to better
explanations of reality, but of course, may not.




With regard to Marxism, one can point-out that the "labor theory of value" is utter nonsense and the Marxisit needs to move on to economic theories
that better explain reality. . . but, of course, many do not, but instead struggle to believe the labor theory of value is not really central to Marxian
theory or it is "true" in some esoteric sense, ie. that value SHOULD be based on labor (which is not what Marx says).