I did not ask: come up with evidence that will satisfy me - as, evidently, you regard that to be mission impossible.
It is, because your conclusions are not based on evidence. They're based on what you desire, politically, to be true. Conclusions reached by a desire to believe cannot be undone or even challenged by argumentation or empirical proof.
The prototypical conspiracy theory often follows the pattern of identifying "something fishy" with occurrences or conditions that fail to meet some standard of proof. That is, the theorist expects one thing but observes another, then cries foul.
Of course that depends on the strength of the expectation. You and Turbonium have the burden to prove that your expectations are reasonable before you can read anything into suspicion. Now even if we leave aside that suspicion over one theory is not proof of another (or even necessarily a meaningful challenge to the first), we still have the problem of your burden to prove your expectations.
Typically in Conspiracyland that involves one of several variations on the begged question:
1. Appeal to "common sense". This just begs the question blatantly, which Turbonium is often fond of doing. "It seems obvious to me that this should have been the case." Stating one's belief doesn't establish that the belief is correct or binding upon others. "You don't have to be an expert to see that this is wrong," is also an example of this approach, and one that appeals to laymen.
2. Appeal to irrelevant expertise. "Theology is just like accident investigation, and in theology we would apply a certain line of reasoning." That's the approach generally taken by S9/11T. It begs whether the conventions of one field apply to another. And no, not all examples of philosophy belong in an accident investigation.
3. Appeal to irrelevant comparison. "When TWA Flight 800 crashed, this is what they did. Therefore they should have done the same thing." Begs the question whether the two examples are comparable, and this often requires expertise. You can't argue that it was improper to have done or not to have done something unless you can speak with proper knowledge on why those things are done and what they attempt to accomplish.
|