I dunno if you missed this Inv si le - but I offered this as a bridge between us and you didn't pick up the olive branch! (back 2 pages)I should also offer this potential point of mutual understanding. So this is my signature over on the randi forums:
“ it has become my conviction that things mean pretty much what we want them to mean. We’ll pluck significance from the least consequential happenstance if it suits us and happily ignore the most flagrantly obvious symmetry between separate aspects of our lives if it threatens some cherished prejudice or cosily comforting belief"Interesting eh? And as I finished a post over there and saw it it made me think of this comment in your post.
So like, in your mind, a lot of the objections to believing 9/11 is an inside job can be explained by thinking that people like me are clinging to a "cosily comforting belief" (to quote Mr. Banks).
The thing is there is a symmetry to this attitude on "my side" too, where objections to our counter-evidence are understood to be the products of "motivated reasoning" and other terms from psychology and recent research in field (thinking of Haidt, but also the psychology PHDs quoted like in articles in Popular Science on conspiracy theory). These are just psychological sciencey terms referring to the "cosily comforting belief" that we feel is the conspiracy theory (but usually it is a nexus of many such theories as we have undergone some serious convergence lately).
And then I'm all like: woah - the guy posted the 10 minute interview with a psychology professor from "their side", and they're starting to look at us through the same lens as well.
So like, even though you're wrong and I'm right, it's interesting that we're both taking similar paths to you being wrong and me being right!