Basic Truther Logic Fallacies

[Reality Believer]

Check me on this, because I want to make sure I have the right line of thinking.

Conspiracy theorists blame the NWO, or the government, or who knows what mysterious organization for crimes against the population. They cite previous examples of prior planning like the PNAC document, military drills and other historical actions and events to draw the conclusion that since it happend in the past that is proof that it is cause for current events like 911.

I see fallacies this way:

1. Anthropomorphizing the government to give it, in their minds, memory, conscience, powers of reason and nefarious thinking skills. In reality, the government is not a sentient being, but an organization that acts in unison. Like a flock of starlings that seem to move with a central conscience. There is no single starling in charge of the entire flock (except, perhaps, Agent Starling).

2. Using that anthropomorphism to say: "Since they did it before, they will do it again". In a court of law, this might hold up as circumstantial evidence for an individual, but cannot be carried through the bloodline of a family (since my father was a burglar, I am one as well). This would be the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (again check me on this).

3. With this belief in mind, they search for evidence to support the conclusion, while ignoring evidence to the contrary (confirmation bias).

All along the way scattering the entire spectrum of fallacies as artfully as Jackson Pollock.

Does sound about right? What am I missing?

 

[slyjoe]

Unfortunately, this is only the tip of the iceberg.

Find one fallacy they are NOT guilty of:

Formal fallacies
Argument from fallacy "ad logicam"
Affirming the consequent or Denying the antecedent
Faulty generalization Inductive fallacies such as
Biased sample
Half-truths
Hasty generalization
Misleading vividness
Package-deal fallacy or False dilemma
Proof by example
Data-snooping
Questionable cause Informal causal fallacies
Begging the question, circular logic "petitio principii"
Correlation implies causation "Cum hoc ergo propter hoc"
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Appeal to consequences "ad consequentiam"
Appeal to force "ad baculum"
Appeal to probability & Slippery slope
Informal Relevance fallacies
Irrelevant conclusion "Ignoratio elenchi" like Red herring
Straw man
Association fallacy
Ad hoc
Argument from ignorance, incredulity, belief, conviction... "ad ignorantiam"
Appeal to emotion like Appeal to fear, Appeal to flattery, Appeal to pity, Appeal to nature, Appeal to spite...
Wishful thinking
Appeal to authority or Appeal to ridicule
"Ad hominem" — Attacking the person rather than the argument
Appeal to the majority "ad populum"
Appeal to tradition "ad antiquitatem"
Informal Verbal fallacies
Equivocation & Loki's Wager
Undistributed middle & No true Scotsman

Informal fallacies
Appeal to tradition
Appeal to probability
Appeal to authority
Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance)
Argumentum ad populum (appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people)
Appeal to emotion
Appeal to novelty
Appeal to flattery
Appeal to fear
Appeal to consequences
Appeal to motive
Appeal to pity
Appeal to ridicule
Appeal to spite
Argumentum ad baculum (appeal to force, appeal to the stick)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

 

[William Rea]

Check me on this, because I want to make sure I have the right line of thinking.

Conspiracy theorists blame the NWO, or the government, or who knows what mysterious organization for crimes against the population. They cite previous examples of prior planning like the PNAC document, military drills and other historical actions and events to draw the conclusion that since it happend in the past that is proof that it is cause for current events like 911.

I see fallacies this way:

1. Anthropomorphizing the government to give it, in their minds, memory, conscience, powers of reason and nefarious thinking skills. In reality, the government is not a sentient being, but an organization that acts in unison. Like a flock of starlings that seem to move with a central conscience. There is no single starling in charge of the entire flock (except, perhaps, Agent Starling).

2. Using that anthropomorphism to say: "Since they did it before, they will do it again". In a court of law, this might hold up as circumstantial evidence for an individual, but cannot be carried through the bloodline of a family (since my father was a burglar, I am one as well). This would be the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (again check me on this).

3. With this belief in mind, they search for evidence to support the conclusion, while ignoring evidence to the contrary (confirmation bias).

All along the way scattering the entire spectrum of fallacies as artfully as Jackson Pollock.

Does sound about right? What am I missing?

There was a very good article in National Geographic this month regarding Swarm Theory and managing complexity. Basically, as long as each individual understands and operates within the rules of the swarm then the body of individuals exhibits Swarm Intelligence.

 

[slingblade]

There was a very good article in National Geographic this month regarding Swarm Theory and managing complexity. Basically, as long as each individual understands and operates within the rules of the swarm then the body of individuals exhibits Swarm Intelligence.

Yes, so that explains why so many Republicans are distancing themselves from BushCo at near lightspeed.


Not.

 

[qarnos]

2. Using that anthropomorphism to say: "Since they did it before, they will do it again". In a court of law, this might hold up as circumstantial evidence for an individual, but cannot be carried through the bloodline of a family (since my father was a burglar, I am one as well). This would be the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (again check me on this).

In the case of Northwoods, their reasoning is more along the lines of "someone once proposed doing something sorta similar but not quite the same as this but it was rejected, so therefore they must have done it this time".

 

[Reality Believer]

There was a very good article in National Geographic this month regarding Swarm Theory and managing complexity. Basically, as long as each individual understands and operates within the rules of the swarm then the body of individuals exhibits Swarm Intelligence.

That is good, but a swarm has no memory or precognitive plans. That brings me back to my original postulation that the NWO is not a an individual with plans and dreams, but a figment of the imagination that can take on any form that suits the user. Listening to CT's and the like illuminates a very diverse subculture of belief. This, to me, is confusing on the intent of the NWO.

Note to the CT's who believe in the NWO: Can you all get on the same page please!

 

[Devil's Advocate]

In the case of Northwoods, their reasoning is more along the lines of "someone once proposed doing something sorta similar but not quite the same as this but it was rejected, so therefore they must have done it this time".

I've only heard it used as proof that people high in government are willing to commit incredible acts of betrayal (to the nation) to push agenda.
Then use that line of thought as a guide for the type of people that have tried it before, but were not high enough in government to push it through. But what if people with that kind of mentality were now in the positions of power to force the act to push agenda.

Of course that is just one way of looking at it, but it is indeed possible.
However, more than just possible theory is needed to show that it is the case with 9/11.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

The idea is to use a vague entity so that entity doesn't have to be held accountable. If a real entity was used then you would have real names of real people that could be investigated and the conspiracy could be proven wrong. But you pick some mystery group of unknown people, then you can simply make up anything you want and use it as an answer for everything. While it can't be proven to be true, the more important issue is that it can't be proven wrong, just like the easter bunny.

 

[~enigma~]

The idea is to use a vague entity so that entity doesn't have to be held accountable. If a real entity was used then you would have real names of real people that could be investigated and the conspiracy could be proven wrong. But you pick some mystery group of unknown people, then you can simply make up anything you want and use it as an answer for everything. While it can't be proven to be true, the more important issue is that it can't be proven wrong, just like the easter bunny.

Vague entity that can't be proven and is also illogical...you mean like god?

 

[Reality Believer]

I've only heard it used as proof that people high in government are willing to commit incredible acts of betrayal (to the nation) to push agenda.
Then use that line of thought as a guide for the type of people that have tried it before, but were not high enough in government to push it through. But what if people with that kind of mentality were now in the positions of power to force the act to push agenda.

Of course that is just one way of looking at it, but it is indeed possible.
However, more than just possible theory is needed to show that it is the case with 9/11.

I agree that political power of of agenda can influence major administration decisions. Just look at the WMD issue. BUT the 911 issue is very different. There is not only the decision channel to look at but the logistics channel. The logistics are incomprehensible to the knowledgeable public.

 

[Civilized Worm]

What logical fallacies DON'T they commit?