2007-06 Conspiracy Theories and the Internet: Controlled Demolition and Arrested Development

2007-06 Steve Clarke Episteme \conspiracy theory\9/11 anomaly denial\9-11/anomalies/collapse http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/episteme/v004/4.2clarke.html Conspiracy Theories and the Internet: Controlled Demolition and Arrested Development Conspiracy Theories and the Internet: Controlled Demolition and Arrested Development * Source: Episteme, June 2007, Vol. 4, No. 2 : pp. 167-180 Official abstract: "Following Clarke (2002), a Lakatosian approach is used to account for the epistemic development of conspiracy theories. It is then argued that the hyper-critical atmosphere of the internet has slowed down the development of conspiracy theories, discouraging conspiracy theorists from articulating explicit versions of their favoured theories, which could form the hard core of Lakatosian research programmes. The argument is illustrated with a study of the 'controlled demolition' theory of the collapse of three towers at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001." This article was cited in the Wikipedia article World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories as the sole justification for the claim that controlled demolition theories "are rejected by the mainstream media and the mainstream engineering community". A review which gives a better idea of the article's argument: "Clarke’s hypothesis is that rather than engendering the growth of Conspiracy Theories the Internet has actually hindered them; theories that are subject to instant peer-review will fall apart unless they are rigourous, well-specified and, importantly, plausible. Clarke’s point seems to be that Conspiracy Theories on the net are neither rigourous nor well-specified. They tend to be negative accounts; the rival, ‘official’ explanation is shown to have errant data associated with it and so is ‘debunked’ leaving room for an alternative, Conspiracy Theory which is suggested rather than proved. Clarke further suggests that as Conspiracy Theorists know that their explanations will be subject to intense scrutiny by believers and skeptics alike that they are deliberately formed in a vague way, thus making them untestable (because no specific cabal is mooted, nor a specific motive given) and largely unassailable. They fail to be good theories and thus are representative of a degenerate research programme (to use Lakatos). He does give internet Conspiracy Theorists credit for advancing a hypothesis; an explanation sketch, if you will, but this isn’t sufficient for a progressive Research Programme (and likely indicates, if Clarke is correct about his developmental view (and I think he is), that this is because such theories can never become progressive because of the criticism they are subject to (I wonder if this has an analogue in the Natural Sciences (such as theories about Cold Fusion (indeed, that example of the scientists who went public a few years back before they submitted a peer-reviewed article is probably an example of what I am thinking))))." Going by this summary: The obvious conclusion from this argument is that more rigorous research is needed into 9/11 anomalies, rather than any of the following: Additionally, the article implies the following untrue statements: &ldquo;It is [..] argued that the hyper-critical atmosphere of the internet has slowed down the development of conspiracy theories, discouraging conspiracy theorists from articulating [theories in a way which can be falsified]. The argument is illustrated with a study of the "controlled demolition" theory of the collapse of three towers at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.&rdquo;   
 * Full text:
 * access for 48 hours can be purchased from the publisher for $18
 * Dead ends:
 * PhilPapers does not give access to the full article, but merely lets you "bookmark" it to read later (presumably by getting it from the library)
 * The mainstream engineering community accepts the official explanations for the events of 9/11
 * Explanations which contradict the official account these events, or call that account into question, are a load of bunk (mere "conspiracy theories")
 * There are no rigorous or specific alternative explanations which have been advanced
 * Any falsifiable "alternative" explanations for 9/11 have been quickly refuted, leaving only vague and non-falsifiable ones
 * An alternative theory must be found valid in order to validate objections to the existing one