Why Myths Persist 988
lottameez recommends an article in the Washington Post about recent research into the persistence of myths. In short: once a myth has been put out there (e.g., "Saddam Hussein plotted the 9/11 attacks"), denying it can paradoxically reinforce its staying power. Ignoring it doesn't work either — a claim that is unchallenged gains the ring of truth. Over time, "negation tags" fall out of memory: "Saddam didn't plan 9/11" becomes "Saddam planned 9/11." From the article: "The conventional response to myths and urban legends is to counter bad information with accurate information. But the new psychological studies show that denials and clarifications, for all their intuitive appeal, can paradoxically contribute to the resiliency of popular myths... The research is painting a broad new understanding of how the mind works. Contrary to the conventional notion that people absorb information in a deliberate manner, the studies show that the brain uses subconscious 'rules of thumb' that can bias it into thinking that false information is true. Clever manipulators can take advantage of this tendency."
The first half (Score:5, Informative)
It seems that unless you have an account you can't click the links on the page to go back to the first page, but you can click next (from the first) and you can get to either page externally. Don't ask me why.
Re:Avoiding negations (Score:5, Informative)
It's one of those persistent myths (Score:3, Informative)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.
The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.
"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.
Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.
Bush's and Clinton's speeches were virtually identical. The only instance of an administration official even relating Iraq and 9/11 happened well after the war had been approved and had begun, I believe it was Rumsfeld.
The truth is, Hussein had an obligation to prove that he had destroyed his WMDs. He did possess them before, and by the terms of the ceasefire for Desert Storm, he had to prove to weapons inspectors that they had been neutralized. He failed to do this. For more than a decade. That alone was proper justification for the invasion.
The idea that we attacked Iraq for complicity in 9/11 didn't show up until well after the war had begun, after US troops failed to discover any significant caches of NCB arms. Those that opposed the administration found it to be an effective strawman.
Of course, I'd love to be proven wrong on this. If anyone can dig up a pre-war speech that accused Hussein of plotting 9/11, I'd love to be corrected.
Re:The Saddam/911 myth persists because powerful (Score:5, Informative)
That's the point! They didn't have to say it. They only had to keep mentioning 9/11 and Saddam in the same sentence, or in close proximity, to make the association become real for many people. Shit like, "But come back to 9/11 again, and one of the real concerns about Saddam Hussein, as well, is his biological weapons capability; the fact that he may, at some point, try to use smallpox, anthrax, plague, some other kind of biological agent against other nations, possibly including even the United States." (Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, 9/8/2002), did the job just fine.
Or this one, same interview: "I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can't say that. On the other hand, since we did that interview, new information has come to light. And we spent time looking at that relationship between Iraq, on the one hand, and the al-Qaeda organization on the other. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years. We've seen in connection with the hijackers, of course, Mohamed Atta, who was the lead hijacker, did apparently travel to Prague on a number of occasions. And on at least one occasion, we have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center. The debates about, you know, was he there or wasn't he there, again, it's the intelligence business."
Pretty cute, huh? "I'm not here to make a SPECIFIC allegation", just a general one.
So, yes. The Bush administration did set out to imply that Hussein was involved with 9/11, but more importantly, to create the illusion that we could seek justice/revenge for 9/11 by attacking Iraq.
Re:And.... (Score:5, Informative)
Nor can we disprove the existence of the Tooth Fairy, the Great Pumpkin, or the Underpants Gnomes.
The thing is, we don't really need to disprove the existence of something if there isn't any evidence to indicate that it exists in the first place.
Re:Like the famous "Gore won Florida"? (Score:3, Informative)
He did, however, poll more votes than Bush. http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1115-02.htm [commondreams.org]
If Katherine Harris had executed her legally required duty to conduct a recount of the entire state of Florida, Gore would have won Florida. But she didn't and she got a nice seat in congress as her reward for breaking the law.
Re:Sigh (Score:3, Informative)
Perhaps everyone you've ever met doesn't fall into this 70% of all Americans: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-0
Re:Some unexpected examples.... (Score:5, Informative)
Spanish-American War, and then the resulting Phillipine insurrection, which we both won. All on our own.
D-day? Battle of Midway, June 1942? 'Battle' of the Atlantic 1941-1943?
Battle of the Ardennes, December 1944. 101st Airborne held out for ~1 week against a numerically and technologically super ior German force before being relieved by Patton's 3rd Army. And no, the USAF(technically at the time the Army Air Corps) was not involved because there was bad weather during that week. (A big part of the reason the Germans launched the offensive then was the forceast called for bad weather). Also held out in Wake Island, Luzon and Corrigedor(sp?) for a while. Yes, the garrisons eventually surrendered, just like every large force of every combatant that has been cut off from supplies did for the last 200 years. If you have a counterexample, I would like to see it.
The US had beaten the North Vietnamese on the battlefield in every single major engagement when they were deployed. Even after the bulk of US ground forces left and all that was left was advisors and air support. The '72 NVA offensive failed. It was only after the US stopped funding the puppet South Vietnamese regime in '75 that they collapsed.
If you don't agree with my assements I would like to what other countries have been so much 'better' than the US.
Re:Saddam (Score:5, Informative)
"Nearing the second anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, seven in 10 Americans continue to believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a role in the attacks"
[quoting a speech by GW Bush:] "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more. In these 19 months that changed the world, our actions have been focused and deliberate and proportionate to the offense. We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th"
Someone here is full of shit. My money's on you.
That's a lot of hand waving (Score:2, Informative)
Aside from No Child Left Behind, you cannot blame the ignorance of the American public on Bush.
Re:No You Dim Witted Troll (Score:2, Informative)
You can't prove that, it's an axiom in logic. Either you take it as a given or you can't do logic. (Or something else).
The very proposition that science gives an accurate description of a consistent external world is a belief. Things could be otherwise (see from Descartes to solipsism) and there's no way you could tell. At least not with science, since science's definition is based itself on those first principles - which are axiomatic, and thus not predictable through observation.
Re: And... (Score:3, Informative)
Good point. However, I was not trying to make an appeal to authority. The GP was trying to make the assumption that faith and intelligence are mutually exclusive. My point was to show that there are really smart people [wikipedia.org] who believe in a higher power as evidence that it is possible to be both smart and religious. Religion is not a symptom of a weak mind.
Re:Opiate of the Masses (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown [wikipedia.org] The Jonestown suicide/massacre would seem to be a counterexample to that.
There are also countless examples through-out history of people that have died or killed themselves for their religion
Re: And... (Score:3, Informative)
The church was a much more powerful force in people's lives back then and rejecting the concept of God made little political sense back then as well.
Re:No You Dim Witted Troll (Score:2, Informative)
Yes. And we know for sure that this is the case, because that's how we define 2. The only meaning of "2" is that it's the integer following 1, i.e. 1+1. There's no independent definition of what "2" means, according to which you could prove or disprove the statement that 1+1=2. Therefore it's not a matter of faith either.
Re:Saddam (Score:5, Informative)
George W. Bush
2002
"The regime has longstanding and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are Al Qaida terrorists inside Iraq." - George W. Bush Delivers Weekly Radio Address, White House (9/28/2002) - BushOnIraq.com
"We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases." - President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002) - Whitehouse.gov
"I think they're both equally important, and they're both dangerous. And as I said in my speech in Cincinnati, we will fight if need be the war on terror on two fronts. We've got plenty of capacity to do so. And I also mentioned the fact that there is a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. The war on terror, Iraq is a part on the war on terror. And he must disarm." - President Condems Attack in Bali, White House (10/14/2002) - Whitehouse.gov
"This is a man who has got connections with Al Qaida. Imagine a terrorist network with Iraq as an arsenal and as a training ground, so that a Saddam Hussein could use this shadowy group of people to attack his enemy and leave no fingerprint behind. He's a threat." - Remarks by the President in Texas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002) - Whitehouse.gov
"He's a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida. In my Cincinnati speech I reminded the American people, a true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and leave not one fingerprint." - President Outlines Priorities, White House (11/7/2002) - BushOnIraq.gov
"He's had contacts with Al Qaida. Imagine the scenario where an Al Qaida-type organization uses Iraq as an arsenal, a place to get weapons, a place to be trained to use the weapons. Saddam Hussein could use surrogates to come and attack people he hates." - Remarks by the President at Arkansas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002) - BushOnIraq.com
2003
"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help develop their own." - President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003) - Whitehouse.gov
"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses, and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other planes -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known." - President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003) - Whitehouse.gov
"Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner." - President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment", White House (2/6/2003) - Whitehouse.gov
Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraq intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qae
Re:And.... (Score:2, Informative)
I believe Adams points this irony out with the line immediately after it: " "Oh that was easy" says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing." Since this is a much easier blatant contradiction to understand.
And because someone is bound to try it anyways, yes you can prove almost anything with contradiction if you word it correctly, but that doesn't make it any less wrong.
Re:And.... (Score:3, Informative)
If you're actually interested in what the theory of evolution actually claims, you should read about it [talkorigins.org]. If you still think it's bogus, fine, but you should at least know what it really says.
what is faith? (Score:5, Informative)
The idea that faith is a belief beyond proof is a relatively recent one (in historical terms), and a reaction to the encroachment of reason and science into realms that were previously those of the church. Redefining faith to be a righteous, unwavering belief in the face of rational arguments to the contrary was a defensive reaction on the part of the church, and a fairly effective one, it seems.
Faith, in its original meaning, is loyalty, confidence, trust. "In good faith" means something done with loyalty to a cause or agreement. One has faith in one's spouse, faith in one's king, and faith in one's god, meaning you stick with them through thick and thin. Loyalty to your god was exactly the meaning of the 1st commandment - "thou shalt have no other gods before me". Testing one's faith was the same as testing one's loyalty; losing faith meant throwing one's lot in with Baal, or Osiris, or another god who might offer you a better deal, and one could certainly do this without any loss of belief in gods or even in God. One could even forsake God or all gods, without loss of belief - the test of Job was not whether he would lose belief (it's hard to lose belief when suffering from the wrath of God), but whether he would lose loyalty.
In the primitive world, belief in some god was not necessarily irrational; there was an awful lot of stuff that begged for an explanation, and precious little hard knowledge that afforded an explanation. Believing in gods as the ultimate cosmic actors was an entirely different matter than offering one's loyalty to one or another of them.
But in the modern world, the pernicious idea that faith is a belief beyond reason (and that this is somehow a good thing), is dangerously irrational and entirely without merit. Belief must be consistent with reason, or else it is insanity. It is possible to rationally believe in gods (one simply has to define god appropriately), but incredibly most of the "faithful" prefer the insanity option.
Re:Opiate of the Masses (Score:3, Informative)
(I'm not even a religious person by any stretch, but this concept that believing in a deity is automagically negative to your well-being is silly.)
None so blind as those who will not see (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.newamericancentury.org/ [newamericancentury.org]
December 12, 2002
MEMORANDUM TO: OPINION LEADERS
FROM: WILLIAM KRISTOL
Subject: Iraq - al Qaeda Connection
This morning's front page article in The Washington Post, "Report Cites Al Qaeda Deal For Iraqi Gas," should not come as a surprise. Over the past months, we have had several detailed reports of links between Iraq and al Qaeda. For example, in "The Great Terror (March 3, 2002)," Jeffrey Goldberg of the New Yorker described the relationship between Saddam Hussein's intelligence services and al-Ansar, a bin Laden-affiliated terrorist group in Northern Iraq, which a government official in today's Post says was involved in smuggling the nerve agent out of Iraq. In the current issue of Vanity Fair, David Rose reports on additional links between Baghdad and the al Qaeda network. And in October, CIA director George Tenet flatly declared in a letter to the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee that based on credible reports "Iraq has provided training to al Qaeda members in areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs."
What all of this means is that the president has been right in saying that the coming war to remove Saddam is part of the overall war on terrorism. Regime change in Iraq and the destruction of al Qaeda are two related fronts in one war, and both fronts should be prosecuted aggressively and simultaneously.
FTFA:
Re:And.... (Score:3, Informative)
Then he's going to throw my heretical ass in hell _forever_ over the crime of believing only what my senses tell me for ~100 years.
This certainly has nothing to do with the Christian God. Reasons Jesus cited for people entering hell include not showing kindness to other human beings as if they were God Himself. Faith in God (along with repentance) is for forgiveness of wrongs of omission and commission for which we are already responsible.
If you've never done anything wrong, or never failed to do something you should have done, then you shouldn't have any problem entering heaven, regardless of your theological opinions.
-jimbo
Re:Saddam (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Opiate of the Masses (Score:2, Informative)
Everybody you know is going to die an early death because of the faith of those that have been here before us. The use of faith to impede science has literally killed ALL of us.
I don't know about you, but that really pisses me off.
Mao, Pol Pot and Stalin (Score:3, Informative)