Thread 6Incoherence on LNers

Thread 6—Incoherence on LNers

 

2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

J

Incoherent remarks about LNers.

      Thread 6 consisted of a single incoherent message about nonconspiracists posted by J. In my opinion, the good judgment here was shown by all those people who didn’t respond.
     
In opposite fashion to the other posters here, J showed the passages that he was responding to below his response, at least in the beginning. Near the end, and some point that I can’t determine, he switched. I reproduce his whole post in order to give readers the proper sense of it:

KR: Whose predictions have come true?
(Draft, 16 April 2000)

J: I don't like to stereotype, but I believe KR beautifully illustrates a personality type in this post which I shall call, in honor of the group in which it is most strongly exhibited, LN’er personality. One of the symptoms of this syndrome is an obsession with JFK theories. An LN’er (short now for one with LN’er personality, not LN’er in general) will sometimes almost work himself into a rant over the abundance of different theories held by the conspiracists and how at least 98% of them have to be wrong so there is at least a 98% chance that conspiracists are wrong and that's virtually a statistical certainty. After all, LN’ers are unanimous in saying that Oswald acted alone. Since the LN’er crowd has converged into a dense mass and the conspiracists are scattered all over the spectrum, the LN’er theory must be inherently superior to the conspiracy theory by the Darwinian principle of theory evolution. Hey, KR. Do you think there is some sort of JFK assassination history derby where accuracy is a factor but completeness is a must? Everybody puts his entry in the ring, they duke it out and the last one standing wins? So “We don't know what really happened” is just not allowed as an entry? I hear more about theories from LN’ers than I do from CT's. I don’t have to have a theory, KR. I can live just fine with “I don’t know”. It is the Oswald myth that gags me.

In this first paragraph, which was responding to my two paragraphs below, J mixed belief, ridicule, and fabrication incoherently instead of using evidence and demonstration logically. As a result, he accomplished nothing. LN’ers are “obsessed” with JFK conspiracy theories and are made upset by the abundance of them. [False on both counts.] Because at least 98% of them have to be wrong, there is a corresponding chance that conspiracists are wrong—nearly a statistical certainty. [Pseudostatistical babble.] All nonconspiracists say that Oswald acted alone. [A tautology.] The LN’er “crowd” has formed a “dense mass.” [Ridicule.] The “Darwinian principle of theory evolution.” [Fabrication and ridicule.] “It is the Oswald myth that gags me.” [Belief.] Etc., etc.

KR: One of the classical ways of evaluating a scientific theory is to see whether it correctly predicts other things that are true or eventually discovered to be true. Difficult or improbable predictions count far more than easy predictions do. A well-known example of a difficult prediction was Einstein’s that light waves are bent by massive objects like stars. When this deflection was first observed, it represented a triumph for the theory of relativity. All theories, which are generalizations or extensions from known areas into unknown, predict things. It is very instructive to compare the levels of prediction by the various “theories” in the JFK case.
  
But first a word about the meaning of “theory.” Science reserves “theory” for an idea that has survived initial levels of testing and has emerged as a serious contender for “truth.” The idea begins as a mere hypothesis, often one among many that seek to explain a set of observations. The hypothesis must beat out the others and be accepted as the “working hypothesis.” Then it must be tested as rigorously as possible, maybe many times, and refined repeatedly. Only after the working hypothesis has passed all known tests is it accorded the elevated status of “theory.”

J: Below we see another LN’er trait exhibited. An LN’er will often declare that history has shown him to be correct in his view and that the LN theory has stood the test of time and thus is even more true than it was 36 years ago in a very authoritative tone. They seem unable to grasp the notion that their view of the situation is their view and not a global one. I think this symptom occurs because the lone gunman theory is a reality constructed out of faith so faith becomes reality. The longer an LN’er maintains his faith, the more convinced he becomes that his faith is reality which reinforces his faith, etc..

“… the lone gunman theory is a reality constructed out of faith so faith becomes reality.” [More babble.] “The longer an LN’er maintains his faith, the more convinced he becomes that his faith is reality which reinforces his faith, etc..” [Fabrication.]

KR: Viewed in this light, there is only one theory in the JFK assassination—the idea of a lone gunman. Not only has this explanation been tested severely, repeatedly, and continuously over the last 36 years, but it has survived that ordeal handily. (Here we define “surviving” operationally, as remaining consistent with all the validated physical evidence—the “strong” evidence that we make so much of in this course.) No such thing can be said for the conspiracy theories, however. Not one of them has survived the same test, for not one is consistent with the same physical evidence that nonconspiracy is. At best, the conspiracies that have been proposed are first-generation hypotheses, or just “hypotheses” for short. They failed to make the cut in that first round that nonconspiracy passed with ease. So we should never speak of the “Cuban theory,” for example, or the “Mafia theory—they are the “Cuban hypothesis” and the “Mafia hypothesis” that coexist with the “nonconspiracy theory.”
  
Let us compare the major predictions of each conspiracy hypothesis with…

J: Who cares about how you view the performance of your selected list of theories? Let’s try to understand why we have the Oswald myth. You could teach that very well. Come to think of it, you probably are teaching that very well.

“Who cares about how you view the performance of your selected list of theories?” [Mind is closed to obvious historical fact.] “Let’s try to understand why we have the Oswald myth.” [Unsupported assertion of “Oswald myth.”] “You could teach that very well. Come to think of it, you probably are teaching that very well.” [Attempted ridicule for not seeing the obvious interpretation.]

KR: …those of the nonconspiracy theory and see how they do. Generically, each conspiracy hypothesis predicts that evidence will be found (sooner or later) to "prove" it true (strictly speaking, evidence that will support the hypothesis). Since only one explanation for the assassination can be true, the conspiracy hypotheses are also implicitly predicting that all other explanations will be found to be inconsistent with the evidence, i.e., that they will be falsified. As we have seen abundantly, the evidence for both these predictions must be physical and validated in order for "proof" and “disproof” to have any meaning. So the conspiracy hypotheses predict that they will ultimately be supported by strong physical evidence and that the other explanations will be falsified in the same way.
  
How do the conspiracy hypotheses do? You already know the answer, which is very similar to the one for the question posed at the beginning of the semester as to why, 36 years and multiple investigations after the assassination, none of the many conspiracy hypotheses has edged out the others. None has emerged because none of them have evidence enough to beat out the others, which is a polite way of saying that none are consistent with the physical evidence. So with respect to the first prediction, not one of the conspiracy hypotheses has yet found the necessary physical evidence to support itself. Worse, most of these hypotheses are inconsistent with some of the physical evidence. In other words, the conspiracy hypotheses fail their first predictive test. With respect to their second prediction, that all the other explanations will be falsified by physical evidence, the conspiracy hypotheses fail as well, for the major reason that the nonconspiracy theory is consistent with all physical evidence. Thus the conspiracy hypotheses fail both their predictive tests.
  
How does the nonconspiracy theory do? It passes both tests. Its prediction that it will be supported by all physical evidence is borne out in abundance.

J: What can I say. This is all happening in LNer space and I just can't visualize it.

Seems to refer to material above. Unable to see another point of view. Pejorative use of “LNer space.” Seems unaware of the importance of physical evidence.

KR: Similarly, its prediction that the conspiracy hypotheses will either not be supported or will be falsified outright has also come true. To make matters stronger, note that this situation has held for the last 36 years—from the moment that the physical evidence was in, which was virtually within 24 hours of the assassination, nonconspiracy was predicting correctly and conspiracy was predicting incorrectly. Nothing about these predictions has changed in 36 years. Now, 36 years is not the end of time, but it is effectively very close to it, given that in that period there have been two huge governmental investigations and a few smaller ones, one massive release of documents, and the continuous intensive efforts of hundreds to thousands of committed citizens.

J: Shall we unite as a human race and declare that, since no conspiracy theory has more accuracy than the LN theory within the completeness constraint that the JFK debate is officially over and the LN theory is the winner? I think this may be a faint expression of another LNer trait. Many LNers seem to believe that history books are write once, read many. They seem to believe that the people of a time can fill in the history for their time so that it can never be changed at any later time, even to correct it. Nothing seems to convince them that future generations will not be swayed by the depth of the convictions of the people who originally recorded the story. The politics will wither away. The only people who will have any interest are those that seek the truth and nobody will be interested in covering the asses of their predecessors.

“Many LNers seem to believe that history books are write once, read many. Etc.” [Seems unaware that the scientific method and the true inquirer in any field always respond to validated new evidence.] The rest of the paragraph was emotional assertions that do not correspond to the real attitudes of rational conspiracists.

KR: Every day that passes, the probability declines that anything significant remains to be found.

J: This is what you don't grasp. Nothing is changing your mind, but your kind is gettin scarcer and scarcer. Nothing else needs to come out. The Oswald fairy tale has been thoroughly destroyed. The belief that remains is just a vestige, a cold war relic. The post cold war culture will be barren of the nutrients needed to sustain it. Only the LNer controlled media gives a semblance of respectability to LNerism. What you will never understand is that you are the phenomenon here.

Many assertions, no evidence.

KR: The handwriting on the wall is becoming ever clearer, but will the people ever see it?

J: The handwriting is one the wall, Ken, and, clearly, you do not see it.

Assertions again.
     
No wonder no one replied to J—his entire message was emotional, indefensible, and manufactured.

Ahead to Thread 7
Back to Thread 5
Back to Anatomy Of A Newsgroup Discussion