While I understand the huge difference between neurology and cognitive psychology, I will say that some models are awfully predictive, even if they do sound presumptive bunkum.

They are predictive, of course, because we recognize the common pattern of behavior. We may say that a person who consistently rails against the government does so because he “has a distrust of the government.” That distrust, if thought of as a distinct thing, can be taken as some sort of inner mechanism that we can appeal to to predict future behavior. But it is the repetitive behavior itself that allows us to predict future behavior so well. These rhetorical mechanisms, if you will, do work quite well in practice. They provide a tangible handle on otherwise complex and ephemeral behavior. And you are right, it is important to recognize the value of such a strategy.

While the three-inch needle embedded in my shoulder was definitely uncomfortable,

My sympathies. I know someone who had brain surgery to correct facial spasms caused by blood vessels impinging on a nerve. It sounded like the most uncomfortable part of the whole experience was the needles embedded in the facial nerves done beforehand to get a reference measurement. Perhaps we should be measuring conspiracy theorists this way to scientifically determine what makes them tick!

They were as well-versed in what that that form should look like as I would be in the waveform of the sensor harness of some mechanism I had designed.

We are well-versed as well in normal behavior. We readily recognize that a conspiracy theorist is behaving oddly, or is being unreasonable, stubborn, etc. Our ability to detect complex patterns far outruns our ability to explain them.

I might abstract what you are talking about as mistaking the map for the territory.

I have a very similar rant where it comes to "Psionics" in science fiction. You see, "magic" is not allowed, but if you describe exactly the same abilities using Latin and Greek roots, it becomes acceptable to put in a book. (This has changed in the past decade or two, and become more complex than what I describe above). You haven't given a mechanism, you haven't codified what is and isn't possible and under what conditions, but it _looks_ like you have; the terminology gives the appearance of an underlying structure.

Putting a name to it is also what "diagnosing" a syndrome is. A syndrome contains no chemical pathways, no identified pathogen, no gross abnormality. It is merely a box of symptoms that may or may not be causally related.

But what boxes and labels do give us is access to empirical solutions. If we recognize the collection of symptoms presented have enough items in common with the collection of symptoms we've labeled "Asberger's Syndrome," then there become available identified treatment strategies which either have shown some results with similar patients, or which have been generally found ineffective.

My "virus" above is merely analogy; meant that way by me, and I hope understood that way. It is a way of black-boxing a complex activity. We don't entirely know what pathways, hormonal changes, or whatever may be going on in the brain -- or not going on! We don't know what connections of memory or belief may be formed. But we can ask if, given one set of observation, a related observation is common.

I find the concept of a homeostatic organism a helpful organizing one. There are complex forms outside of biology that have the quality of adapting or reacting to maintain themselves. Social systems, for instance. Again, this does not describe specific evolved mechanisms; it merely observes that, say, the use of jargon to define insiders v. outsiders is self-perpetuating.

It was in that light that I noted that common points in most of the topics we lump, variously, and as ill-packed as a losing game of Tetris, in the large box "Conspiracy Theories."

A great many of them include, either as a direct part of their central thesis (aka; "UFOs have been visiting us for years and the government is covering them up,") or as an oft-present auxiliary (aka; "The Big Bang is wrong, and academia has been covering it up to maintain the status quo,") the existence of large and powerful bodies with a vested interest in maintaining the secrecy of the conspiracy.

This, alone, is a near-hermetic argument. "Why doesn't the Washington Post investigate?" "The media are under control of The Conspiracy." "Why don't independent physicists point out the discrepancies?" "The Scientific Establishment is under control of The Conspiracy."

And so on, ad infinitum.

__________________
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

This does not necessarily need to be the case either. Reporters at these reputable papers would be aware through experience what constitutes a waste of time and resources.

Take for instance the average domestic argument. The only thing the pair will have in common is to turn upon who ever steps in or interrupts their squabble. The very same logic could be applied to the camps of general relativity and quantum mechanics. The only time there is cohesion is when both camps are debunking some upstart who pokes his or her nose in with an unwanted idea.

For over a year for example I have been looking at the big bang and so that makes it a space related issue acceptable for discussion. To put it simply I would have more success explaining how to inflate a balloon to a class of first graders than to bring the same idea before the scientific community.

That is the feeling from inside the mind of one who reads conspiracies. It is also a thought from one who has self taught and built a number of models from the ground up ... unlike those who have been taught the 'accepted model' and like well versed reporters, know better than to question it.

As this is about a look inside the terrifying world of a CTer ... then consider this latest experiment where quantum theory has now 'proven' the third law of physics, an action doesn't always result in a reaction. Relativity is holding ground as best it can and quantum is ready with more and more powerful devices to mathematically set about capturing that ground. And some of that is based on the same mathematics promulgating a solution of undetermined nature is a basis for an answer.

End result fortunately for the science forums is that the world for the CTer becomes just so terrifying that it then becomes their intention to stock up and isolate themselves. Then hopefully ride the shock wave of which ever side gets to prove they are wrong in the most spectacular way ... because when the dust settles there can only be one winner if any at all.

Not sure why you quoted me above, as with your opening paragraph you have already left my specific (and limited) case to talk about general modes of developing and discussing new understandings.

I'll underline; the elegance of what we call the CT "mechanism" is that it has a built-in answer for all questions. This isn't true of all fringe theories, nor is it a general statement about the advancement of science.

It could, as accurately, be characterized as a description of the box the mainstream creates; if a fringe theory includes among its precepts; "the establishment is intentionally covering up alternatives" then that theory is more likely to be labeled CT.

And as such, the proponent of it is more likely to engage in certain forms of argument and certain forms of belief-based behavior about it. But these are all statistical; nothing prevents intelligent discussion by anyone on any theory. Just, long experience has taught many not to expect that in discussions about alien abductions or hoaxed moon landings or...various things this particular forum no longer wishes to discuss.

(Another common aspect of items found in this rough, open-topped box is that discussion is more usually on motive, or on casual visual interpretations, then it is on elements that can be isolated and reproduced. For Apollo, for instance, the presence of Nixon looms larger than the presence of kilograms of returned material from the lunar surface.)

__________________
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

I think people who doubt Apollo are sad. They deny themselves so much beauty and wonder because they refuse to believe that people are capable of great things.

__________________
I want to go back to the moon.
I don't care which rocket you use, whichever one you pick, I'll like it, I swear.
"If you think the LHC will create black holes, you might as well believe Hobbits are at the bottom of your garden."- Dr. Mike Inglis
Rovers forever! - ToSeek

I also think of this as a parsimony violation.

Many alternate theories of the more physics kind (Electric Universe, say) require not just one element, but two.

Most variations of string theory make an effort to agree with current observation. Their thesis could be described as; "Here is a model that better describes and predicts the universe, and here is how it replicates known observation."

Many alternative theories have a more complex thesis; "Here is a model that describes and predicts the universe, and would agree with known observation IF said observations had not been systematically altered and ignored to prop up the competing mainstream theories."

Not to say, again, that there have NOT been new and successful theories that required looking again at old observations, and, say, detecting a wiggle no-one had looked for before, or finding that the graphed point WAY off the sigma is actually good data and is accommodated by the new theory in a way the old theory was unable to.

Ellipses (and universal gravitation!) versus epicycles, for instance. Which could get very close, but no matter how much adjustment was given never quite gave the match desired.

__________________
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Hello nomuse

I had to think about this for a while. The bit I was answering is that reporters are intelligent and not likely to chase where there is little prospect of a story. I appreciate the CT mindset as I have had plenty of time to self analyse mine. True the client that represents himself has an untrained counsellor who has a fool for a customer.

I don't know if others believe they have seen a time travel related event in their lives ... I know that at least to the best of my limited ability I have tried to describe a physics that would allow for such a possibility. Given the number of experts in the various fields I am satisfied that I have tried and actually theorised an idea totally different to the standard model. In the process I have drawn on every avenue openly and with fair weighting.

The fact is that I believe there are answers to certain questions. To me that is all that matters. It is is irrelevant if nobody else wishes to look at what I have attempted to cobble together ... I have tried and that is good enough. Hence the title, all others need to prove their credentials. My cards are on the table. It is not my fault if nobody looks or cares, I tried.

I have lucid dreams of wrecked cars sitting in the underwater ruins of civilization or this mornings dream of a fifty floor skyscraper and the start of the mother of all electrical storms with a continuous discharge of lightening ... that is my problem. But I did not cause it.

Just as if through not understanding the basic laws of reality humankind was to cause a catastrophe I would be a victim like everybody else. I am not sorry that I have tried to look for an alternative. In short whatever happens and whatever occurs in the coming days, weeks or years is not due to my lack of trying to find an explanation for what has troubled me. There just is not a mechanism in place be it religious, political or scientific that has helped me. I could complain but why?

As I have said before with two conflicting theories that only work together at times to debunk any other ideas it is an absolute certainty that there will be no new science unless though accident or discovery. When looking at every other situation of two in conflict ... either one side or both are in the wrong. It is that simple ... it is not conspiracy just logic.

The bit that I was going to add earlier was based on knowing the exact height of the Empire State Building over the years, probably the dream reference to the elevator (who knows). I did Google it and found that an exact height to check for variation is impossible as buildings shrink and grow due to atmospheric conditions and sway in the breeze. So I do try a bit of my own research now and then not just explore thought exercises and listen to the universe.

I will try to take you through step by step why I think as I do to see if that helps. In fairness I am the only one I know that thinks this way or at least find it difficult getting others to follow my reasoning.

As you may know there are people who have claimed various strange things like experiencing time travel or its effects. Those who have seen unexplained phenomena. You may also know by now that I am one of that group. As such in the last year I have conducted a bit of research myself. There is an apprenticeship that all trades and professions serve ... a time honoured tradition. It is to ensure the master is not exceeded by the pupil. Hence hoarding of trade and professional secrets and the desire of wanting to selfishly look good. It normally is not a bad thing, people learn best from mistakes ... I have or hope that I have.

For people to travel back in time there needs to be a fold arrangement in space time. It is not likely that time travel has been invented yet but then again there is always the government secrecy thing. Problem being that any knowledge based on the travelling back in time can alter the act of creating that knowledge. It is always easier to break something than it is to build it, law of entropy. So any change in the past would damage understanding and yet leave some memory of the use of an item.

Here we go. A great flood could be a future, a very near future event and thus widely remembered. The cause may be a mystery to anyone travelling back in time but the memory of its happening would be very vivid. Travel back far enough and the flood story might become a legend although in that time it has not yet occurred. Given pure water forms bridges or arches at 15 thousand volts or more ... then seawater could do wonders at millions of volts. About 90% of the world population is coastal ... interesting.

Occam's Razor usually the simplest explanation is the best is very practical. The human mind is very simple and self absorbed and not too capable of grasping a complex idea. Maybe we do not perish through lack of knowledge per se but through the destruction of the root of knowledge. Memory of an event but not the underlying knowledge. Also an electrical event would be not good for any civilization with an electrical based communication and power consumption profile.

As soon as the dynamics for such a physics were known it would lead to weapons and time distortion and travel devices and subsequent damage to knowledge at the source. That is not science it is like water and human nature, always able to settle at the lowest level.

I have wondered why I even bother to write this as it is too late if on or around 23 December 2007 the planetary alignment and appropriate solar activity could produce a solar tsunami that finds a surface area to dump charge. It is a no win situation. I don't write and I withhold an idea. I do write and my only explanation is the use of logic to combat what most would call paranoid delusion. Initially I figured good minds would look at the idea of branes touching and the spark of this universe being from the side with a form force and flow component.

The idea has been torn to pieces by theories that break down at boundaries and fail to explain position. That was not ever the intention. I had tried to introduce an idea to compliment existing ideas and allow them to be better understood. It is a decision between the devil you know and that which is to come for me. Based on my reasoning if the boundary of the universe is the proton it may not be long before sufficient power is focused in a way destructive to that edge. Having a central edge allows form, force and flow ... and plays absolute havoc with time.

Now I hope this makes it a bit clearer regarding the nature of what is called the conspiracy theorists mind. It is not nature nor is it God or higher intelligence I distrust ... it is humanity. The simple explanation is I do not trust humanity ... OK lots and lots of individuals I do trust but collectively there is always someone who is capable and willing to do whatever stupid and destructive idiotic act there is imaginable or possible. Perhaps if the world does go through an electrocution phase it will slow humanity down a bit and hopefully sense and morality will get a bit more time to evolve.

I do see wonderful altruism in individuals and that gives me hope but until there is some regulated and mandatory provision for altruism put in place for humanity at all levels, especially at the top where the worst decisions can be made it just does not look too hopeful ... love you all as much as I can I just that as a skeptic I do not hold out much hope for you and that is where I would love to be wrong.

Michael

they refuse to believe that people are capable of great things.




How could the ancient Egyptians have built the pyramids?? , cried Erik Von-woo woo!

__________________
But you're sure the astronauts are lying; you just don't seem to know what they're lying about: Jayutah


I are Learnding.

Don't you mean Erich Von Drunken?

__________________
I want to go back to the moon.
I don't care which rocket you use, whichever one you pick, I'll like it, I swear.
"If you think the LHC will create black holes, you might as well believe Hobbits are at the bottom of your garden."- Dr. Mike Inglis
Rovers forever! - ToSeek

Ah, "The Charlatan of the Gods" as Astronomer Don Goldsmith called him.

__________________
"Transport of the mails, transport of the human voice, transport of flickering pictures - in this century, as in others, our highest accomplishments still have the single aim of bringing men together." St. Exupery

Yes, my bad. That should have been "Erich Von Dumkoff".

__________________
I want to go back to the moon.
I don't care which rocket you use, whichever one you pick, I'll like it, I swear.
"If you think the LHC will create black holes, you might as well believe Hobbits are at the bottom of your garden."- Dr. Mike Inglis
Rovers forever! - ToSeek