Crippled Epistomologies argument dismantled

[Ed Jewett]

The recently-released book "Cognitive Infiltration" by Dr. David Ray Griffin published by Olive Branch Press (2011) is sitting on my desk. It is a discussion of both the draft and the final copies of Cass Sunstein's essay on conspiracy theories in which he introduced the term "crippled epistomologies". So far, I am up through page 62, but well beyond pages 28-42 in which he dismantles the "crippled episotomogy" concept. I refer all who promote the Sunstein argument and especially the idea that the epistomology of the 9/11 Truth movement is either flawed or cripped to those pages and the book as a whole and would suggest strongly you read footnote #128 (six paragraphs, 56 lines long) on pages 166-167. I do remember the dismissive and pejorative comments many years ago about how a theologian could possibly be qualified to argue the matter; his own credentials, far greater than any ever presented in these threads in brief, are noted on pages 29-31.

Reading Griffin's work is like watching an accomplished aikido master take on a street thug. I am only through page 62 in the detailed reading, but I have to offer up the last lines of the book: "If [Sunstein's argument and the illegalities of his proposals] is the best plan for dealing with the growing influence of the 9/11 Truth movement that can be devised by "the pre-eminent legal scholar of our time", is it not time to throw in the towel?"

[Ed Jewett]

Footnote #128, page 166, from "Cognitive Infiltration" by David Ray Griffin:




"Beyond the problems in Sunstein's alternative account of a crippled epistemology discussed in the text, there is a deeper problem, which lies in the very concept of "crippled epistemologies". Being derived from episteme, which is the Greek word for knowledge, and the suffix "ology", which signifies "the study of" or "doctrine of", epistemology means the doctrine or study of knowledge. As such, it is a branch of philosophy. It is, in particular, one of the two major branches of metaphysics; the other is ontology, the study of being. To engage in epistemology is to ask about the nature of knowledge, the difference between knowledge and (mere) opinion, how knowledge is acquired, and so on. To "have am epistemology" is ot have a doctrine or theory about such matters. If philosophers would ever say of someone that he or she had a "crippled epistemology", they would mean that this person, probably another philosopher, had a poor theory of knowledge. They would not, in other words, use this phrase to indicate that someone had inadequate knowledge about the world – that this person was, in short, ignorant.

This, however, is how Sunstein uses the term, defining it as having "a sharply limited number of (relevant) informational sources" or "know[ing] very few things", most of which are wrong.

The confusion inherent in Sunstein's concept of "crippled epistemologies" was taken over from Russell Hardin's essay, "The Crippled Epistemology of Extremism" (in Political Extremism and Rationality, ed. Albert Breton, Gianluigo Galeotti, Pierre Salmon, and Ronald Wintrobe [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002]. 3-22). While Hardin is an astute thinker in his field, which is political philosophy, he treats the issues involved in epistemology in a careless and confused manner. For one thing, he simply equates "knowledge" and "beliefs", even though beliefs cannot be counted as knowledge unless they are justified – meaning that the person has good reasons for holding them – and also true, meaning that they correspond to reality: Knowledge is justified true belief. Hardin knows that this is the standard view in philosophical epistemology, but he dismisses it, saying that what interests him as a social scientist is "the ways people come to hold their beliefs" (4-5). He is, in other words, not interested in epistemology, which is a normative discipline, dealing with knowledge, but in the sociology of belief formation. This is an important and fascinating subject, but it is not epistemology, so it is unfortunate that Hardin coined the term "crippled epistemology," because he thereby used a normative discipline's name for a sociological description.

His blurring of the distinction is illustrated in a passage in which, after pointing out that philosophers might say that "those who assert the truth of some particular view have inadequate grounds for their assertions," Hardin dismisses this concern by saying: "But this is a claim from standard philosophical epistemology. In their own epistemology, [those people] may genuinely suppose that they do have grounds" (10). Of course they may suppose this, but this doesn't mean that they actually have good grounds for their beliefs, and it certainly does not mean that they "have an epistemology".

To justify his ignoring of traditional epistemological distinctions and concerns, Hardin says: "Most of us do not have the time or incentive to be deeply committed philosophers or scientists and we need not even suspect that there is anything questionable about our beliefs" (10). That is true. But if one is not interested in epistemology, one should not use the word. If one is interested in the sociology of belief, there is a perfectly good term for this area of interest: "sociology of belief" (often misnamed "sociology of knowledge").

In any case, Hardin's ignoring of necessary distinctions led him to speak of "crippled epistemology" when he was simply talking about a crippled (distorted) process of belief-formation, meaning one that is likely to result in ignorance and hence a false-belief system. It would have been better if Hardin and Sunstein, if they wanted to use the term "crippled," had simply spoken of a "crippled process of belief-formation." This would not have been so catchy, but it would have had the virtue of accuracy."

[Ed Jewett]

David Ray Griffin v. Cass Sunstein

by Stephen Lendman / September 30th, 2010
Griffin is Professor of Philosophy of Religion and Theology, Emeritus, Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, CA where he’s still co-director of the Center for Process Studies.
He’s authored and/or edited three dozen books, mainly in his field, but notably and heroically on 9/11 truth, Osama bin Laden, and his newest titled Cognitive Infiltration: An Obama Appointee’s Plan to Undermine the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory. More on it below.
Cass Sunstein is a well-known University of Chicago and Harvard Law School Professor before being appointed Obama’s Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, in charge of “overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs,” among other duties.
Distinguished Law Professor, activist, and international law and human rights expert, Francis Boyle, said this about both law schools and the University of Chicago’s political science department, steeped in neo-con Straussianism:
“Do not send your children to the University of Chicago where they will grow up to become warmongers like (Paul) Wolfowitz and (John) Ashcroft. The University of Chicago is an intellectual and moral cesspool,” referring to its political science department and law school. Its extremist economics department is much the same, indoctrinating students with predatory capitalist ideology.
Boyle’s “Harvard’s Gitmo Kangaroo Law School: The School for Torturers” article advised:

Do not send your children or students to Harvard Law School where they will grow up to become racist war criminals! Harvard Law School is a Neo-Con cesspool.

Harvard is to Law School as Torture is to Law.

Commenting on Sunstein when he was mentioned as a possible Supreme Court nominee, Boyle, calling him a “Neo-Con,” said he’d be a “lethal” choice.
Professor Emeritus James Fetzer, Founder, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, took sharp issue with Sunstein’s attempt to discredit its proponents, saying his “Conspiracy Theories” report (discussed below) is a “corrosive approach” and “massive blunder” to believe they’re “obviously false!” In fact, “No one can know which theories are true or false without investigating them.” That a Harvard Law professor would suggest it “is simply stunning,” yet unsurprising given the source.
Sunstein is a notorious neo-con, abhorrent of First Amendment and other democratic freedoms, believing the rule of law is best served by subverting it.
Glen Greenwald’s “The Horrible Prospect of Supreme Court Justice Cass Sunstein” article said:

From the beginning of the War on Terror, Cass Sunstein turned himself into the most reliable Democratic cheerleader for Bush/Cheney radicalism and their assault on the Constitution and the rule of law.” He also supports military commissions, illegal surveillance, and “mock(ed) the notion that Bush had committed crimes while in office.

One of his former students added:

I think (he’s) an extremely ambitious man (who’d) run over his grandmother for a seat on the Supreme Court.

Apparently over the country as well, trashing it and the public interest for power, clearly the aim of his “Cognitive Infiltration” proposal.
In January 2008, he and Adrian Vermeule published a controversial report titled, “Conspiracy Theories,” they define as “an attempt to explain an event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role.”

Many millions of people hold (them); they believe that powerful people have worked together in order to withhold the truth about some important practice or some terrible event.

Citing 9/11 truth, the reason for their report, they say believers “may create serious risks, including risks of violence….rais(ing) significant challenges for policy and law…. The existence of both domestic and foreign conspiracy theories, we suggest, is no trivial matter, posing real risks to the government’s antiterrorism policies, whatever the latter may be.”
His solution – debunk and undermine them by “cognitive infiltration of extremist groups,” his modern-day version of COINTELPRO, the FBI’s infamous 1960s and 1970s counterintelligence program to neutralize political dissidents, including the American Indian Movement, Black Panthers, and communists, as well as anti-war, human and civil rights activists, among others.
Rebranded, COINTELPRO flourishes more than ever against new targets, including Muslims and others in the “war on terror;” environmental and animal rights activists, and supporters of democratic freedoms over despotism and imperial wars, among others.
Sunstein wants conspiracy advocates neutralized, using “independent groups to supply rebuttals, and by cognitive infiltration designed to break up the crippled epistemology of conspiracy-minded groups and informationally isolated social networks.” In other words, destroy them by conspiring against them from within, using illegal and extralegal tactics.

Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action.

In June 2009, Sunstein and Vermeule updated their scheme in The Journal of Political Philosophy titled, “Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures.” The cause — psychological conditions. The cure — elimination by cognitive infiltration, including with “independent experts with information and perhaps prod(ding) from behind the scenes… (but not) too close (to avoid being) self-defeating” if exposed.
In fact, what Sunstein proposed is illegal under statutes prohibiting internal government propaganda, aimed at the public, though legal technicalities have never before been a deterrent.
Nonetheless, according to a March 21, 2005 Congressional Research Service report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) defines “publicity or propaganda” as either official self-aggrandizing, partisan activity, or “covert propaganda,” the latter government-originated, disguised to appear otherwise, including by enlisted journalists, corrupting their profession by accepting cash to cooperate, a practice used by the Bush and earlier administrations as well as the CIA and perhaps FBI.
Griffin’s New Book: A Powerful Truth Antidote
His new book is an invaluable analysis of Sunstein’s proposal to undermine democratic freedoms, airbrush truth, impose censorship, and criminalize individuals who challenge official versions of patent lies, specifically 9/11, the seminal one of our time.
Critics agree, including Professor Peter Phillips, President of the Media Freedom Foundation and Project Censored saying:
Griffin’s book should be “entitled ‘the Courage of David Ray Griffin’ (for) His continuing efforts to speak truth to power regarding issues” as vital as 9/11. Project Censored strongly recommends it at a time our democratic freedoms are at risk, including dissent, what Howard Zinn called “the highest form of patriotism.”
Professor Emeritus, Peter Dale Scott, called Griffin our “preeminent (9/11) expert… his research… consistently careful, thorough, and objective.” His new book provides “a patient, point-by-point and much needed refutation” of Sunstein’s dangerous proposal. “He relentlessly shows how (he’s) guilty of the very mentality he warns against: close-mindedness and refusal to debate. Those who seek to prevent 2010 from becoming 1984″ must read this invaluable book.
Professor Emeritus Richard Falk said Griffin wrote “a devastating critique, (using) his formidable philosophical and theological skills.”
Cyril H. Wecht, past President, American Academy of Forensic Sciences and the American College of Legal Medicine called the book “brilliantly written… a scholarly dissection of (Sunstein’s) sociopolitical proposal…,” one essential to expose and oppose.
Discussing Sunstein’s 10 theses, Griffin deconstructs their flaws, contradictions, and dangers to a free society. He also explains the legitimacy of 9/11 truth, and Sunstein’s inability to refute it by disinformation, lies, suppression of facts, stifling debate, and attacking proponents.
What Obama did on September 23, calling Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s 9/11 truth comments to UN General Assembly:

hateful (and) inexcusable, particularly for him to make the statement here in Manhattan, just a little north of Ground Zero, where families lost their loved ones, people of all faiths, all ethnicities who see this as the seminal tragedy of this generation….

Others attacked the comments as “abhorrent and delusional,” no matter that millions around the world share them (including Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth), calling the event a crime, debunking the official account as deceitful, untrue, and destructive to democratic freedoms.
Ahmadinejad, in fact, suggested “three (possible) viewpoints:”
1. “That a very powerful and complex terrorist group” successfully circumvented US intelligence, Washington’s position.
2. “That some segments within the US government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy and its grips on the Middle East in order to save the Zionist regime.”
He said most Americans “as well as other nations and politicians agree with this view.” European polls suggest it. US ones vary and have largely ducked the issue by not asking precise questions.
3. “It was carried out by a terrorist group but the American government supported and took advantage of the situation.”
Ahmadinejad “proposed that the United Nations set up an independent fact-finding group…” He also criticized Washington for using the attack as a pretext for war against Iraq and Afghanistan. These views are verboten in the West, those expressing them pilloried as unpatriotic or worse.
Griffin is one, the preeminent 9/11 truth proponent and consummate scholar. Using his masterful skills, he demolishes Sunstein’s arguments, ones based on disinformation, deceit, and bad analysis, not up to the standards of an accomplished liar, and no match for Griffin.
Thomas Fletcher summed it up saying:
Griffin’s book “is a lucid and compelling exposure of the contempt held by the official (9/11 myth) defenders for dissenters who have seen through their Big Lie.” They also fear truth that reveals their ugly agenda. “These officials expect that no one will be able to penetrate the murk of Sunstein’s latest defense of the pretext for the US wars of aggression in Afghanistan and Iraq, now covertly expanding” globally. Truth is a powerful disinfectant, what government conspiracists most fear.
Some Final Comments
On September 12, Professor Denis Rancourt titled an article, “Why we love to hate conspiracy theories: 911 Truth as threat to the intelligentsia,” saying:
Many on the left share guilt with the right by “vehemently attack(ing) and ridicul(ing) ‘conspiracy theories’ such as the present 911 Truth movement.”
Why, he asks? “Is that not the modus operandi of power? Is it so difficult to believe that (the 911 attack) was not orchestrated by… religious zealot(s)? Or that those who measurably benefitted” had everything to gain? “What ever happened to ‘war is a racket’ and ‘follow the money?’ ”
At issue is that “power owns the media, (and) more importantly… our jobs” and lives in other respects. Even more important than truth is how it’s used – to “rebel, actually rebel and individually take back power over (our) lives.” Instead, too many of “the intelligentsia” protect themselves and “the system” by being “a visceral opponent of 911 Truth… in order for power to save face.”
Let others fight the good fight they may feel, but unless enough do, putting a lot on the line, wrong will prevail over right and squeeze harder for even more of what they want.
Perhaps the next “9/11″ will be a mushroom-shaped cloud or other comparable state-sponsored “disaster,” again blamed on foreign adversaries as a pretext for more war. Why not, given America’s permanent war agenda, a topic addressed in an earlier article.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. Contact him at: lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM-1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening. Read other articles by Stephen.
This article was posted on Thursday, September 30th, 2010 at 6:59am and is filed under 9-11, Book Review.

http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/09/david-...more-22643

[Ed Jewett]

America.gov, Cognitive Infiltration, and Obama appointee Cass Sunstein

Written by guestDaily Journal (Opinion), PoliticsNov 21, 2011

Share


By - Shawn Hamilton
I first became aware of Cass Sunstein's ideas for controlling conspiracy theories after seeing several ads for a web site calledAmerica.gov run by the State Department. It's a complex, well-funded site with more avenues than I've cared to examine, but what caught my attention was the section under International Relations: Peace and Security called "Conspiracy Theories and Misinformation" with the astounding caption: "Conspiracy theories exist in the realm of myth, where imaginations run wild, fears trump facts and evidence is ignored."
I clicked through its pages for a while in amazement. The tone sounded like the writer was talking to a five-year-old, and the content played fast and loose with the truth.
Alarmed, but intrigued, I went to the section called "U.S. Domestic" and read, "Perhaps more conspiracy theories surround Lee Harvey Oswald, who assassinated President John Kennedy in 1963, than anyone in American history. The Soviet KGB, Cuba, the mafia, the CIA, and others have been blamed for killing Kennedy, but all evidence indicates that Oswald acted alone."
I found that curious. It's common knowledge that the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) concluded in 1979 that there had been a probable conspiracy in the JFK assassination. I remember when it happened. That conclusion was reported for one day then dropped. "Oswald acted alone" was a hyperlink, so I clicked it to read a summary of Oswald based on Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book on the JFK assassination, Reclaiming History. It was the only source cited. The writer of the summary was a guy named Todd Leventhal, who I later learned is Chief of the Counter-Misinformation Team for the U.S. Department of State. The site describes Leventhal as "the Department's expert on conspiracy theories and misinformationstories that are untrue, but widely believed," addingand I found this unintentionally comicthat he enjoys reading obituaries….
This link has since been suspended.
Overall, the site seems to employ several basic strategies of deception. It mixes items that aren't true with ones that are, draws "evidence" from single sources (and not the most credible ones), provides evidence that proves nothing but is presented as if it does, and presents partial information that fails to tell the whole story.
Dan Roggenkamp, an English professor in Taiwan, observed, "I've noticed that this government site relies a lot on the it's simply not true' line of logic. Maybe if they say that enough, people will believe it." I note that Hitler believed the same thing about the "Big Lie" (Große Lüge).
Shortly after my initial encounter with America.gov, I went to "politicalassassinations.com," a web site run by John Judge, to check a reference. Judge is a respected researcher, activist and public speaker whose primary focus over many years has been the assassinations of the Kennedy brothers and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. "You can call me a conspiracy theorist," I once heard Judge say, "if you call everyone else a coincidence theorist."
Judge prefers to call himself "an alternative historian."
I wrote to him asking if he knew the source of America.gov, and he responded saying the likely source is White House appointee, Cass Sunstein, who wrote about countering conspiracy theories by infiltrating and confusing what he called "extremist groups" that believe in them. Judge quotes Sunstein as having said, "We suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of believers by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity."
That seems to describe the America.gov site pretty well.
"Sunstein said government agents might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action,'" Judge continued. "Sunstein defined a conspiracy theory as an effort to explain some event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role.'" Judge said some examples Sunstein offers include "The theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud" and "The view that the Central Intelligence Agency was responsible for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy."
I should also note that I tried to post a comment to a page about Oswald on the America.gov site, along with only four already there, pointing out the fact that the HSCA had concluded there had been a probable conspiracy in the Kennedy Assassination. According to the site, comments are posted if they are on-topic and respectful. Mine was received but subject to moderation.
Then it disappeared.
I posted another with the same result. I mentioned this to Judge, who explained, "Several JFK researchers I alerted to the site could not post there. That alone should be revealed."
In 2010 theologian David Ray Griffin wrote a book called Cognitive Infiltration that analyzes Sunstein's arguments in "Conspiracy Theories," the formal essay presenting his strange views, and points out their contradictions. Sunstein's real target, Griffin suggests, is the 9/11 Truth movement. I was late in reading and reviewing his book (my review is #40 of 41 on Amazon.com, called "A Noble Lie,"), but with the help of a political philosopher, I think I got a good sense of what Sunstein is up to. You can also find the review here.
Recently I asked Griffin if he had any comments to make about the general reaction to Cognitive Infiltration. He responded saying he has been astounded that virtually all the reviews on Amazon.com are 5-star reviews the highest rating. Of the 41 reviews, all had five stars except for one, which gave the book four stars but still praised it. "Moreover, many of the reviews are extremely thoughtful, showing that the 9/11 Truth Movement has attracted some of the best minds in the English-speaking world," Griffin said, noting that the most important question raised by Sunstein's essay is the one I discuss in the final paragraph of Review #40. If Sunstein believes, as he purports, that the 9/11 Truth Movement's central claims are demonstrably false,' why would he have recommended that this movement should be infiltrated by government agents?
"If Sunstein really considered these claims to be demonstrably false, would he not simply have explained exactly why these claims are false?" Griffin wonders. "If Sunstein believes the leaders of the 9/11 Truth Movement to be laughably ignorant, as his description of them as epistemological cripples' suggests, would he not expect their movement like the campaigns of some of the Republican Party's presidential hopefuls-to self-destruct?"

Griffin also points out that the correctness of the 9/11 Truth Movement's claims is illustrated by the fact that 9/11 professional organizations continue to grow. "When I published Cognitive Infiltration, there were slightly more than 1,200 professional members of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Today (November 17, 2011), the number has increased to 1,637," he said.
I should mention that I wrote a letter to Sunstein in September of 2010 requesting an interview from him or someone in his office. I know his office received it because I registered the letter and someone signed for it. Over a year later, I have received no response, not even the usual polite formality of a cleverly-worded refusal.
If it's not clear by now, Orwell's future nightmare has become our present reality. Sunstein's intellectual antics along with propaganda sources like America.gov serve the intentions of a government agency that, like the Ministry of Truth in the novel 1984, disseminates lies in the guise of protecting truth.
It's not easy these days resisting the powerful tide of public opinion, especially when those opinions are shaped by deceptive agencies whose agenda is control. At least those who advocate incorrect conspiracy theories believe they are correct even if they're not. Paid "counter-disinformation" experts know perfectly well when they're lying.
"There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad" the narrator says in 1984. This is our challenge. We don't have to accept this kind of manipulation. In fact, it's our obligation as Americans and global citizens to resist it.

[Jeffrey Orling]

My sense is that none of the players in this game is 100% correct. Sunstein is off the reservation with his nonsense... Griffin, on the other hand, does little to no technical research and only cites the work of others which he has no expertise in evaluating... his arguments are built on the *appeal to authority* fallacy and so must be taken with a grain of salt. An example being the citation of the number of architects and engineers who signed the AE911T petition. First it should be noted that there are perhaps several hundred thousands licensed architects and engineers in the USA and having 1,500 on a petition is a tiny fraction of the percentage of the total. Second this is not limited to US professionals as far as I know reducing the import of the number further. And finally not all the 1,500 signers are building professionals whose professional backgrounds give them standing/ backbone to the claim that they support AE911T's findings or assertions. Of the 15,000 perhaps on a few hundred are architects and less structural engineers. And of those who are architects and engineers, only a handful at most have any direct experience with high rise steel frames. And of those handful, as far as I have been able to determine, none have looked closely at the structural design of those buildings which happen to have been very unique in their size and unorthodox structure and construction to use their technical expertise for analytical purposes. Therefore citing the the fact that in 5 years AE911T has managed to increase the number of *A&E* petition signers to over 1,500 amounts to not very convincing support in the engineering community of the AE911T assertions.... not to mention that many if not most professionals who signed the petition in their statement simply call for a new investigation into 9/11 which is the stated mission of AE911T.

Government along with media clearly covered up what happened on 9/11 and it seemed to be in service to a geopolitical agenda to embark on an imperial agenda to further dominate the ME. Regardless of who was behind 9/11 and it WAS a conspiracy by definition... the US exploited it... the MIC that is... the national security state and its corporate benefactors for more control and profit. Of course they don't want the cause looked at which could and likely would undermine all their hegemonic policies.. and even lead to a dismantling of the shoot first hyper aggression national security state meme. Just look at how the notion of policing has evolved in the last few decades. Police are now virtually indistinguishable from a domestic army... used to wage war against the people and protect the status quo. There is a lot at stake her for them and anything that calls their actions and motives in question... or reveals the fact that our democracy is a myth... needs to be ridiculed, ostracized and ridiculed and de legitimized.

Having acknowledged all the above... Griffin is a world class cherry picker who is a superb logician. But he is making some people think and question the rubbish which flows from the media. And that's a good thing.