Krugman and the Tea Parties

Good article overall, but I would like to take one area to task not only with Daniel, but with other conservative authors on The Next Right who've made statements in harmony with this one:

But without including all that, there is still plenty of stupidity in Krugman’s article. He tries to link those isolated idiots who are convinced that Obama is ineligible for the presidency with the mainstream of the Republican party, providing a convoluted parallel which compares the birth certificate people to Vince Foster conspiracy theorists, and the Vince Foster theorists to Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh once (irresponsibly) suggested that possibly the theories surrounding Foster’s death had some truth, which in Krugman’s mind apparently translates into Limbaugh relentlessly pushing those theories.

I've read opinions by many online that the tea parties aren't simply about taxes and spending, they're also about liberty and the Constitution, which affords people the opportunity to voice their opinions in what we all hope is an appropriate manner. 

Some people have genuinely legitimate questions surrounding the birth of Barack Obama, the death of Vince Foster, the circumstances surrounding 9/11 and the Oklahoma City Bombing, the agenda for going to war in Iraq, the deaths of JFK, RFK and MLK, and so on, which are not aligned with the official mainstream explanation.  But are these people actually idiots, and are they truly irresponsible?  Honestly, I'm agnostic about what the truth may or may not be in some of these situations and it strikes me as fundamentally intriguing that some claim to be unequivocably certain that they do know (either pro or con).

The National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking published this definition of critical thinking in 1987:

Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness.

D.Q. McInerny wrote a nice little guide to good thinking titled Being Logical (Random House, 2005).  In it, he writes:

There are two basic types of objective facts, things and events.  A "thing" is an actually existing entity, animal, vegetable, or mineral.  The White House is an example of the first type of fact, and the asassination of Abraham Lincln of the second.

To determine the reality of a fact that is a thing, all you need to is pay it a visit.  If it actually exists it must be somewhere, and, assuming its place to be accessible to you, you can verify its factualness by direct observation.  If you cannot travel [to view this thing], you could take the word of a trustworthy eyewitness that the White House is indeed in Washington, D.C.  Or you could decide that photographic evidence is sufficient to establish factualness.

But what about an event like Lincoln's assassination?  We say that is a fact.  What is the justification for that claim?  It is an event that is over and done with, and there are no living witneses to the event whom we might consult.  Obviously, we did not ourselves witness the event, so direct evidence is out of the question.  In this case our approach will be to acquaint ourselves with a variety of things that serve as indirect evidence of the event.  For example, we would consult official documents (police reports, death certificate, etc.), newspaper accounts, photographs, memoirs, diaries, and items in the Congressional Record, all of which are facts in their own right and whose only reasonable explanation is the factualness of Lincoln's assassination.  On the basis of the factualness of these things, we establish the factualness of the event.  And thus we establish a historical fact.

To sum up how we get the facts straight:  If a given fact is an actually existing thing to which we have access, then the surest way to establish its factualness is to put ourselves in its presence.  We then have direct evidence of it.  If we cannot establish factualness by direct evidence, we must rigorously test the authenticity and reliability of whatever indirect evidence we appeal to so that, on the basis of that evidence, we can confidently establish the factualness of the thing.

It all comes down to the authenticity and reliability of our source. [emphases mine]

People who are familiar with my comments know that I read a wide variety of books, articles, research papers and very much enjoy exposing myself to all sides of a debate, not just the "official one".  I question authority because -- well I was going to say because I think it's "healthy" but perhaps that's a misnomer (irony intended).  Let's just say I find it illuminating to listen to both sides of the debate on certain conspiracy theories.

Daniel Pipes, in his book Conspiracy - How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where it Comes From, quotes Michael Billig:

The conspiracy theorist...is to the professional historian what the reasure-hunter is to the archaeologist; only in the case of the conspiracy theorists, there is no means of convincing them that their quick dig amonth the documents has revealed only false gold.

Of course if "History is written by the winners" as quoth George Orwell in his Tribune column "As I Please" on February 4, 1944, it appears that even the professional historian is prone to dig up a motherlode of pyrite every now and again as well, does it not?  Pipes goes on to say that "When the topic is conspiracy, it is often difficult to distinguish truth from falsehood".  So with one hand he criticises conspiracists while throwing them a bone with the other.  Why should this be the case?  Because it all comes down to the authenticity and reliability of our sources, that's why. My agnosticism regarding the "truth" in these matters is really a reflection of my detachment from absolute certainty about the validity of the sources of said truth.  Is this paranoia, or is this simply logical analysis?  I will leave the question open for discussion, but I won't refer to you as an irresponsible idiot if you disagree.