I think that this sort of appeal to the public is a decent strategy, since it links public appeal with an ultimate scientific investigation rather than trying to get a bunch of laypeople to endorse a minority position based on some pamphlets or presentations.If it is successful, it will be interesting to see what the selection process would be for picking investigators.
The 9/11 Truth Movement has been trying for years to get an independent investigation of 9/11. They tried getting such a proposal on the ballot in NYC in 2009, I think. It was thrown out by the court. Supposedly this initiative is more carefully worded so that it would withstand legal challenges. We'll see. And yes, even if it gets on the ballot and gets passed, that doesn't guarantee that this investigation will be any better than the others. I'm not sure if the initiative states what the selection process is. I suspect it isn't stringent enough.
"The 9/11 Truth Movement has been trying for years to get an independent investigation of 9/11."Yes - I just think it's a better strategy to do this with thinner claims and to remain relatively silent on what the petitioners think the outcome is, rather than the second one I criticized.
I'm not sure what it is that you criticized, but it doesn't sound like anything the Truth Movement is trying to do. But it's already clear that the media will make sure that this initiative is associated with all the other claims Truthers make, plus many that most Truthers don't want to be associated with.
I was trying to make a distinction between (i) convincing laypeople to endorse a minority position in a subject they have no reason to trust their own judgments on after engaging some pamphlets and videos; and (ii) remaining relatively silent on those positions and instead convincing laypeople that some qualified people should make some judgments in those areas. I think that the truth movement's desire to get people to do the goal of (ii) has been undermined by their zeal in doing (i).Perhaps I failed to make this distinction clear. It wasn't supposed to be a distinction between getting an investigation or not getting an investigation (but my language did suggest this dichotomy. I'd give myself a "C" for clarity in this case).
Not sure how to convince laypeople that some qualified people should make judgments in certain areas (a minority position), without first convincing them to trust their own judgments to at least some extent.
Post a Comment