Category: General

Thoughts on Peter Knight’s ‘Conspiracy Theories about 9/11’

(My notes on the paper)

Well, this all fits in nicely with my recent paper (which is a tad awkward in that I’ve had this article for ages and only just got around to reading it). Knight’s thesis in ‘Conspiracy Theories about 9/11’ is that, at least with respect to 9/11, Official Views and Conspiracy Theories are highly similar in relevant ways and that this is especially true when it comes to the attribution of the notion of the agents behind the event(s) being explained.

Knight uses Hofstadter’s term ‘demonological’ in respect to these agents and argues that both sides of the debate feature demonised agents. Now, we can interpret this in two ways. They are demonic ala godlike or demonic ala evil and manipulative.

The first interpretation would act as a possible criticism of my paper; sometimes people do intend to present godlike conspirators because that is what they believe in. I think my replies probably still stand, however.

The second interpretation acts as support, in a way, to my paper. These agents are presented as demonological; evil and manipulative. This is rhetoric, however. It is the result of a particular way of presenting material politically. Now maybe the myth of the American system seems widely believed in, but I suspect it is believed in much the same way as the omnigod thesis.

Knight’s article works, I think, precisely because of its tight and narrow scope. Come the revision of the paper into the introduction of the thesis I shall incorporate my comments upon his paper into it.

04/24/2008

Public Service

Does anyone want to send me a copy of Ian Wishart’s latest thriller ‘Absolute Power: The Helen Clark’ years? I could claim (rather legitimately) that as a poor student I can’t afford to but it, but, in truth, I just have no wish to. If someone sends it to me, however, then I shan’t have to wait for the library copy to become available and you can be updated as to whether Wishart has a Conspiracy Theory worth worrying about.

04/23/2008

Worth a look…

Well worth your time; MandM rebut a series of ‘classical’ mistakes about the so-called ‘Dark Ages.’

04/23/2008

So Say We All

(I forgot I hadn’t published this…)

So, ‘Battlestar: Galactica’ the best show on TV you are probably not watching, is coming to an end after four seasons, with the lead writers claiming that this means they can finish off their story arc and provide for an exciting finale.

The fans, for some reason, are pissed.

There is something very odd about fandom in that fans will fight and fight and fight for a show to survive even when the architects of that show think it would be better otherwise. Yes, some shows get cancelled before their allotted time and some shows only begin to express their greatness as they come to a close, but, by and large, a lot of shows live on too long (I’m looking at you, last season of ‘Buffy…’).

There was a great mini-series in the UK called ‘Ultraviolet’ (not related to the recent film of that name) about a modern day vampire conspiracy. The story had a very definite beginning, middle and end and was commissioned for a second series. Some fans were astounded by the writer’s claim that he had exhausted the ideas of the show and that he wanted to go onto something new, even going so far as to propose their own, frankly quite terrible, plot ideas for a further six episodes.

‘Battlestar: Galactica’ is a show that has an evident goal for its characters; they want to get to Earth. This season they are going to do it. Sure, they could go on for a few more years, dragging it out. I think it’s admirable that they want to tell a complete story and are willing to do it going out on a high rather than trying to prolong the story for as long as possible and then have to cram in an ending at them moment they are told the show is cancelled.

Back to the conspiracies soon. And the One Line Doctor Who Reviews.

04/21/2008

The Curious Case of Freeman Dyson and the Paranormal

That is now the title of my paper forthcoming in ‘The Skeptic’ (Volume 14, Number 2, I believe). It is not a title I chose, but I suspect Dr. Michael Shermer (who does ‘works’ now) felt that ‘Saving the Paranormal from the Laws of Science’ was a bit wanky. Which, admittedly, it is, but philosophers love those titles. Big, swanky and filled with hubris.

I found out about the new moniker on Wednesday, when Shermer sent through his edit upon the paper. Originally I wrote a three and an half thousand word monstrocity; he wanted it edited down to three thousand. When I committed the third edit in September I got it down to a paltry two thousand eight hundred. Shermer’s latest edit gets it down to two and an half thousand words, with fifty on the side. It’s actually quite pacey now (almost hip). However (and there is always one of those) he achieved this with some slight rewording, some of which actually introduce new and exciting issues (not of my making) into the paper. I’ve advised him of these irksome sentences and so, hopefully, they will be fixed. Then I have to await the galleys (nautical jokes on standby).

Publication imminent. It’s only been three years…

04/16/2008

Post-mortem – Presenting the Conspirators in the Conspiracy (Theory)

Well, that seemed to go well (or did it? Attendees might think differently). Here’s the text I was working from:

Presenting the Conspirators of the Conspiracy (Theory) – 09-04-08

The paper is, in essence, going to be part of the introduction to the thesis; it will be a motivational piece designed to show that there is an important project in Philosophy on the topic of Conspiracy Theories. As an introduction I imagine it will need a little revision; it’s a bit bracey and pacey at this stage and some of the examples are there to illicit commentary in question time.

As to comments… Well, one attendee wanted to know more about errant data and the notion that Conspiracy Theories seem too explanatory. So do I; had the paper been longer I would have gone into Steve Clarke’s material on the matter. As it stands this will probably end up as a footnote in the post-presentation version, ready for incorporation come its implementation as a thesis introduction.

Another matter arising was the question of whether the magnitude of the alleged Conspiracy relates to the notion of there being godlike conspirators. I’m tempted to say no, if only because some minor looking Conspiracy Theories (North Head, for example) seem very godlike despite the relative unimportance of the actual ends of the alleged Conspiracy. Then again, it’s all subjective, isn’t it?

Finally, there were questions as to whether Conspiracy Theories must be malevolent. I say no, but that’s contentious and I am going to have to defend that view in a few months time when I start on my next (out of order) chapter.

Time to go and teach.

04/09/2008