Is the Movement Divided and Disorganised? :Reply to LW Point No.1

LW:
While I agree that the truth movement is more disorganized than I would like I don’t think it is as nearly as divided as some people portray it to be. The single most divisive issue within the movement stems from all the unfortunate speculation about what happened at the Pentagon.

AA:
I don’t know if you happened to see my article here
http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2583
In it I suggest that there is a widely accepted model for change
Change=Diversity X Selection X Amplification

Equally for the purposes of this point we could use the adage “Divide and conquer”

I think everyone accepts that there should be a forum for discussing theories and either refining them or debunking them. That certain people may get stuck on their opinion and call it proved or fact is not hard to understand because if they are expressing their opinion, (as they are) you can pretty much take for granted the exclusion in the statement “it is a fact or proved”(FOR THEM). Truth only exists within individuals, and is a function of the brain designed by evolution. (I also believe it to be illusionary as you also seem to suggest)

I would argue that societal or universal truths are non existent.
So to spend a great deal of time arguing about what is fact or theory or pointing out that human perception is fallible is missing the point and a waste of time.

What is extremely valuable however in the long run, is whether there is any consensus amongst a number of people that a certain idea is valid or useful. There will always be people who don’t agree, but the higher the percentage of people who feel that the idea is useful or valuable in competition with other ideas, the more useful and valuable that idea becomes.

If your purpose is to effect change, then the next stage should be to amplify your “Winning” idea to test it on more people and subject it to further levels of scrutiny .

There is an old game show 'The Crystal Maze' where in the finale contestants have a few seconds to grasp gold tickets swirling with the wind inside a room.
However half the tickets are silver and they only win the prize if the difference between the number of gold and silver tickets collected is 100 .

Signal to noise ratio . If you listen to a radio station with interference, and cant hear it, by turning it up, you amplify the signal but also the noise, and the “message” does not become any clearer.

My reply to you then, is that although there must be a place to discuss and test ideas, unless you are measuring consensus and promoting the “winners”, then you are projecting noisy unclear signals with a lot of silver tickets to the outside word which may be looking for information on 911 and getting the impression there is no consensus. I suggest that maybe with the exception of Ae911truth.com, that is a valid criticism of where the movement and 911B are.

Furthermore, unless there is democratic selection and amplification of good useful ideas, the movement and 911B are able to be lead in certain directions by volume of content on a subject alone .(Advertising works?) So if you are advocating 911B as merely a place where knowledgeable truthers go to discuss the relative merits of certain theories then fair enough. However if you believe that 911Blogger also has a role to educate new truthers or the curious, then you will in fact be misleading them unless you promote your best evidence alongside these discussions. If that is not the role of 911 B then fair enough, but where is the site or part of the movement that is doing that?

The fudging of superficial unity within a big tent of conflicting personal truths is in fact detrimental to the advancement of consensus and the refinement of the best evidence, and indeed a hindrance to the chances for change itself according to Lewontin-Campbell Heuristic because you have failed to select anything to amplify..

It may actually be better to split and let each ‘side’ try to achieve consensus for its refined best evidence, than to try and include people who constantly say "CD is not as valuable or conclusive as you think" in a movement that believes CD is its best evidence, and wishes to promote that. (For Example)