When is a theory regarded as a conspiracy?
There are many theories about happenings in the world which are difficult to prove wrong but nontheless are considered as "conspiricy" thinking. While a "globally" flat Earth can easily be seen to be wrong from outer space, theories around 9/11 (the cowardly, terrible, and inhuman attack being thought to actually be made with airplanes that were government-controlled, with the purpose of power consolidation and obtaining excuses for going to war), or about the origins of the Covid19 virus (the pharmaceutical companies developing viruses and marketing the cure, exploiting the ensuing panic) are more difficult to actually be proven wrong. We all know they are wrong, but actual proof lacks. Or do we wrongly assume that they are wrong? The Nazis set fire to the Reichstag, and blamed communist Marinus van der Lubbe for doing this, after which an excuse was there for prosecuting communists. Or was it actually van der Lubbe who set the fire?
When is a theory a conspiracy? What are its qualities? Are they unprovable in principle? But if so, then who says the standard is not a conspiracy?
I'm not sure if it's related, but I mention it nontheless. I recently commented on a question asked on a science forum. There was the question of a farmer who complained that his cows had a diminished lust to drink (water), after he stalled them in a new stable. A fellow farmer advised him to use a compass and check the magnetic field in there. And he found a divergence from the Earth magnetic field indeed. I could remember I read an article in which the relation between cows and the magnetic field of the Earth was explored and it was observed that cows can feel this field. So I gave a link to it. I suggested that the farmer could easily check if there was a connection between the reduced drinking and the magnetic field. If he would put a few cows apart, out of their new stable, this could be checked. But it was made clear from the start: "A magnetic field has no influence on cows." How scientific. Even thinking about is is wrong, since my link and tip to the farmer were deleted, after another commentator even demanded moderator intervenience!
Somehow, there is a connection here with conspiracy thinking. Was I considered the conspiricist here? Or were they? Or were they just narrow-minded? Sticking to the dogma, and me attacking it, while not even having the slightest intention to do so. Just had some farmer advice.
When is a theory a conspiracy? What are its qualities? Are they unprovable in principle? But if so, then who says the standard is not a conspiracy?
I'm not sure if it's related, but I mention it nontheless. I recently commented on a question asked on a science forum. There was the question of a farmer who complained that his cows had a diminished lust to drink (water), after he stalled them in a new stable. A fellow farmer advised him to use a compass and check the magnetic field in there. And he found a divergence from the Earth magnetic field indeed. I could remember I read an article in which the relation between cows and the magnetic field of the Earth was explored and it was observed that cows can feel this field. So I gave a link to it. I suggested that the farmer could easily check if there was a connection between the reduced drinking and the magnetic field. If he would put a few cows apart, out of their new stable, this could be checked. But it was made clear from the start: "A magnetic field has no influence on cows." How scientific. Even thinking about is is wrong, since my link and tip to the farmer were deleted, after another commentator even demanded moderator intervenience!
Somehow, there is a connection here with conspiracy thinking. Was I considered the conspiricist here? Or were they? Or were they just narrow-minded? Sticking to the dogma, and me attacking it, while not even having the slightest intention to do so. Just had some farmer advice.
Comments (83)
Conspiracy is almost always aimed against larger authorities or populations, when you hear about conspiracy that's something big and almost never about small things such as ex. you and your neighbor.
Conspiracies are valid theories, the reason why they are called conspiracies is to label theories that are either "harmful" for social order or some authority, and are viewed as a tool to undermine some authority or to cause confusion among larger population. (from the perspective of those who defend)
But this does not mean conspiracies are ultimately false, because conspiracies may also be used as a tool against truth, ex. to label truth as lie because not every truth is for public, so conspiracy may be good labeling tool to reverse damage.
Quoting Verdi
When it has negative connotations, a theory that is not all about common good.
Conspiracy can be either defensive label tool or offensive. (depends on authority vs population perspective, or authority vs authority), therefore either true or false but likely newer known for sure.
Thanks for this constructive reply! I am digesting it...
You may also want to study about "information warfare" and "psychological warfare"
It should help you to better understand what makes conspiracies so strong apparatus and how authorities exercise their power behind the scene.
Of course there are the definitions found in any dictionary that show what is meant by the words.
But that isn't what makes conspiracy theories so interesting, the secret plots to do harm or something unlawful. It isn't the interesting issue here. It is more about a public narrative where some ideas and theories are accused to be conspiracies. It is a public narrative where conspiracy theories are promoted and some politicians accept them on face value... at least publicly. Naturally conspiracies do happen, but I guess it is far more usual that something is accused to be a conspiracy theory as to ridicule and critique it. Conspiracy theorists, as we all know, aren't held in respect and the definition has an obvious negative view. And, it should be mentioned, there really is a lot of goofy theories that stay in the media limelight.
As @SpaceDweller referred to "information warfare" and "psychological warfare", I would refer also simply to "populism". Note that populism doesn't mean something popular, but a specific viewpoint of there being the bad elite and on the other hand the ordinary (good) people.
And populism, both right-wing or left-wing, is the environment where conspiracy theories prosper as the populism basically is in the end a conspiracy theory: a conspiracy of the elite to disregard the common people.
Similarly, the conspiracy-believer wants more scandal, blood, vengeance and revenge, because his or her receptor to vengeance, blood and gore is dulled or jaded.
In addition to "information warfare" and "psychological warfare", it's worth understanding how counter espionage and foreign interference works.
Usual opinion of espionage is as some sort of information gathering to either gain advantage or to construct conspiracies and cause social unrest, however it's far from as simple as in James Bond movies.
Spies don't just come to some country and start doing things, some actually establish their life there, get married and activities of their families remain undetected for decades and even centuries.
They don't actually have to do anything except to gather sensitive information.
Usual operatives are actually recruited within population to perform the task, while those before mentioned only supply vital information required for the job.
If the operative fails, family remains hidden and unrooted.
Of course the operative doesn't know anything about it's contact, he only gets paid (from someone else)
This is one reason why conspiracies tend to be sourced within some country rather than from the out side.
Conspiracies born on the inside and more plausible and less detectible, and as such it also becomes more difficult to figure out who started them.
Public unrest and riots is the usual goal of such activities.
Yet part of it emerges from the desire to basically have a community. If your views make you ostracized or even laughed upon, what better way to find similarly thinking companions from the internet! The "conspiracy theorist" often has this idea of people that oppose or who are indifferent of their theories as being "sheeple", the ignorant masses successfully controlled by the puppet masters, while they are part of the small crowd that has "seen the light". In a way, it works like a religious cult sometimes. And for the true conspiracy theorist that someone busts the myth in your supported theory, especially in the media, just shows how large the ominous conspiracy is and how much the "powers in be" are willing to silence their opposition.
Add to the picture how partisan the modern media can be (that makes it nearly similar to what the media was like in the 19th Century), and it's no wonder people are so suspicious that even whacky conspiracy theories take ground.
There you go - a conspiracy theory about "conspiracy theories"!
A conspiracy does not seek to disprove its own theory, but only looks at things that give evidence to or prove its theory. They take a compass, see that the magnetic field is different from "normal", and conclude that must be why the cows are drinking less. They don't check any other evidence that might disprove the theory, such as water quality, food quality, etc. They have a conclusion they WANT to reach, and only seek evidence that confirms that conclusion while throwing away, or not looking for any evidence that might disprove what they want to believe.
Very true! That's indeed how many conspiracy theories are tried to be upheld, it seems to me. They ignore conflicting evidence or explain it away in sometimes quite contorted ways. One thing though. In the case of magnetism and cows drinking, it is also a conspiracy to just state that cows are not affected in their drinking behavior by magnetic fields. I offered an article which showed that cows are affected by such a field, which was denied from the start, and everything suggesting it could be the case was thrown of the table. How scientific! A conspiracy even...
Just to be clear on specifics, you mentioned there was an article that suggested cows were affected by magnetic fields. Was it a scientific article? Did it conclude that it would affect how they drank water? Did you link that article to the person so they could read it themself?
If you answered "No" to any of those, then the other person was in their rights for saying, "That doesn't apply to my situation." Scientific discovery requires a massive amount of time to conclude, and the average lay person should not be expected to consider all plausibilities. If I claimed unicorns caused the cows to drink less water, but did not provide a legitimate scientific paper, any person would be within their rights to dismiss it. A conspiracy goes out of its way to prove an extremely unlikely scenario. A dismissal of an extremely unlikely scenario prior to examining all other much more likely scenarios first is simply an efficient use of time while betting on more favorable odds.
:up: Yeah, in other words, dogma composed of confirmation bias (i.e. paranoiac suspicions).
:100:
Some conspiracy theories will turn out to be true, others false. Somehow it has come to be identified as applicable to only irrational theories.
Haha! Yes, indeed. I think flat-Earthers are inspiring even, instead of conspiring. In the Eartly domain they are pretty close to the truth. The universe is said to be flat too. But that too is only locally. Who looked from afar? No one, yet. So maybe cosmologists are conspiring too. What I can't understand about flat-Earthers is why flat Earthers care so much about a global Earth being immersed "in the system", so to speak. I mean, WTF? Do they feel oppressed? By global power?
If you were not married to your hypothesis, then it is not a conspiracy theory. Genuine intellectual curiosity is what distinguishes the two. Once you "know" then you are FOS. That applies to so-called mainstream physics, logic, or anything else. Whether Sewcraits ever said it or not, we are still attracted to the idea of "knowing nothing" for a reason.
The article was a synopsis of a long-term satellite experiment on the direction in which cows lay together. No, there were no connections with drink water. This was also asked when I sent it. But why should there be? To dismiss it a priori shows narrow,-mindedness and certainly no scientific attitude. There could be a true link between magnetism and drinking behavior.
:100:
Especially what Sewcraits supposed to have said! (dunno him, but he seems to be damn right!)
It would be cool to study bison, or even take the satellites over Africa to look at Cape Buffalo or Wildebeest: animals living in a "relatively" unmolested situation.
Try to think about it from their point of view. You're trying to find people who have experience with cows who have had the same problem as yourself. You're looking for answers from people with results. As a practical rancher, you aren't looking for untested hypotheticals, you are looking for tested solutions that you can implement so that you minimize the time and cost of experimenting yourself.
Dismissing untested hypotheticals when you are looking for tested solutions is not narrow minded. Trying the most likely solutions then working your way to the unlikely is efficient. I'll use disease diagnosis as an example. A new Dr. sees a patient who has a high temperature and chills. It could be several possibilities. The new Dr. asks a Sr. Dr., "New diseases pop up in Africa all the time, and he was in Africa for a day. Maybe its a new disease?" The Dr. is going to say, "Why don't we first see if it matches a disease we know about first before seeing if its something new?"
Its plausible the patient has a new disease. But we don't know if its possible, as there may very well not be any new disease. So first you start with the most likely, then work your way down. Now if the rancher had tried every reasonable possibility they could think of, like water, food quality, and cow stress, then maybe they could take the substantial cost of moving their cows to a new location. The rancher was not being closed minded or unscientific, they were being practical.
And as a question for yourself, are you trying to find evidence that fits your theory, or are you trying to find evidence that contradicts your theory? Before casting aspersions on the rancher, apply the scientific mentality to your own questions at this time, and see what you come up with. Try to prove yourself wrong, and see if it is impossible.
It may be somewhat disrespectful for me to make fun of such an icon, but whenever I say his name I hear Steve Martin in the back of my head. Same with Plohto.
Great picture, by the way. Though I don't think astrologists are conspiracists. Never understood, by the way, why astronomers aren't called astrologists, like biologists, or physiologists.
"Conspiracy theories", in fact, distract an impotent, frustrated, public's ADHD from the circus of unjust (or nefarious) systems, policies & practices hidden in plain sight within which they are rodeo clown'd daily.
Quoting bert1
An example of a "true conspiracy theory" please. :mask:
Yes, you are absolutely right. But the water hadn't changed, the food stayed the same, etc. The farmer could easily check by putting a few apart, away from the electric surrounding the stable. It could throw away the magnetic hypothesis. Or confirm it. Cows maybe can get upset by a changed magnetic field. The article linked to showed that they can sense it, as was already denied a priori.
The pizza one? Claiming leading democrats are part of a pedophile "team"? I'm not American, but read about it. America is the greatest country in the world, as it's constitution testifies to and the statue of liberty tells you: " give me your poor...". A true democracy indeed! But reality screws up this image, beautiful it is in principle.
The only very specific conspiracy theories I know for sure are true are regarding conspiracies I've been personally involved in, featuring me as a manager conspiring with other managers.
It's harder with large public events, like 9/11. The more specific the conspiracy theory, the less likely it is to be true. I know with a high degree of certainty that building 7 did not collapse from office fires (just from watching the footage), and I can infer that there was some kind of conspiracy involved there, but exactly what it was I have no idea. So that's a true but very vague theory.
What about the theory that the Moon landing was staged by Stanley Kubrick? I even had my own just now. I thought a program on TV was staged. What about the theory claiming that elementary particles are truly elementary, while seeing them as composite can solve many unsolved mysteries. Is the standard model a conspiracy theory?
There was a plot to knock down the WTC and it succeeded. "The conspiracy" that those building were brought down by US government actors is simply unfounded. I watched the event unfold from just before the second airliner crashed into the tower as it happened from a Brooklyn apartment window and then rooftop. I've never had grounds to fill the gaps of what I observed or is publicly known with idle speculations which only raise more questions than they answer. The "truther conspiracy" about 9-11 is simply nonsense.
See :point:
Quoting Maya(Wikipedia)
Quoting Deus deceptor (Wikipedia)
The Matrix Film Series
Quoting Simulation Hypothesis
Was it a conspiracy as well as a plot? A secret plot just is a conspiracy isn't it?
There is no single truther conspiracy. I don't believe any particular one.
I'm not aware of any compelling evidence of a "conspiracy by the US government" to cover-up what actually happened on "9-11". Snowden? Assange? Wikileaks? Trump Administration (populated by "truthers" with access to "official secrets")? FSB/GRU? Nada.
:yawn:
Think of it this way: 'a criminal enterprise (e.g. gang, cartel) colluding with law enforcement officials' corresponds to a conspiracy and 'laundering illicit drug money' or 'bribing a judge' or 'robbing a bank', etc correspond to plots.
The point here, I think, is that the willing suspension of disbelief is a good and fun thing for conspiracy theories. But after a relaxing respite from the real world, you don't walk out of the theater thinking that it was a thought-provoking movie.
We have other movies for that. We should try to learn to tell the difference. Peel the onion. Look for the nut. Be willing to walk away when you don't have anything.
Gulf of Tonkin, Project MK Ultra, Tuskegee Syphillis study…its actually not that hard to find them if you actually look.
Those three in particular involve government cover up and/or secrecy. All are a matter of public record now.
The fact you can reference crazy ones like flat earth or lizard people which are clearly untrue doesn't mean they all aren’t true. We have a word for that kind of logic.
The question of conspiracy theories isnt about the conclusions, its about how they got there. Like all inquiry we should follow evidence and rationality.
Yes, of course. Problem is, your rationality and evidence might be part of a conspiracy also.
In what way?
I the way that what you perceive as reality and rational evidence for it today, might be as unreal and flavored with irrational evidence in the reality of tomorrow. I tried to explain this wrt to the standard model in elementary particle physics. The very thought that quarks and leptons are composite is by most physicists regarded as irrational or it's at least ignored. All evidence is interpreted in the standard way. While the composite model has clear advantages and explaining power.
IMO these were simply US government plots. Under the aegis of "official secrecy" they do not constitute conspiracies, or a grand conspiracy as such, but in their days, respectively, "legal" (not ethical, not just) covert activities. Cover stories – the clandestine m.o. – are not necessarily "cover-ups" (e.g. obstruction of justice, interferring with a judicial preceeding, witness tampering / intimidation, falsifying records, etc).
If I look around me, neither flat Earth, nor global Earth theories are true. They are both conspiracy theories, as far as I'm concerned. The flat-space theory in cosmology is a conspiracy theory all the same, like the standard model in physics, where all sounds that appear to be questioning the fundamentality of the basic ingredients are slammed down by trying to keep them out from forums ("low quality", or "sub-standard quality", very appropriate in the context of the standard model), from publications (the peer review considered it nonsense), popular press (scientific journalists fearing for their jobs), and academic life (because of the same fear).
I chose those three to specifically deny that counter argument. They were not legal. They involved lying to the public and to other branches of government to which the perpetrators were supposed to be accountable. In each case, efforts were made to hide these activities from again, other parts of the government to which they were accountable.
Thats enough to call it a conspiracy, and doing otherwise seems like bending a ways over to avoid using the term “conspiracy”. Understandable given the associating theories I offered above, but for myself I will not concede language for the sake of optics.
Also, there are confessions by perpetrators of these sorts of conspiracies detailing how the phrase “conspiracy theory” was purposefully tainted and smeared so its use would have exactly the effect of easy dismissal. Its a language game, and there are detailed expositions about these sorts of tactics.
That sounds more like error than conspiracy. There are conventions and orthodoxies in all human institutions, including scientific academia. Calling it conspiracy is an unnecessary dilution of the term.
It is the way the reality operates. What is a conspiracy today can be reality tomorrow.
[quote=www.usgs.gov]Dinosaurs went extinct about 65 million years ago (at the end of the Cretaceous Period), after living on Earth for about 165 million years.[/quote]
[quote=www.forbes.com]Approximately 300,000 years ago, the first Homo sapiens — anatomically modern humans — arose alongside our other hominid relatives.[/quote]
Humans have been humans for a period of time that's 0.2% of the dinosaur age. Look how much we've achieved but among all that one particular ability stands out - space exploration. My theory is that dinosaurs in the 165 million years they were on earth perfected space tech and left the earth for another planet in another solar system, perhaps even to another galaxy, leaving earth to mammals, bequeathing it to, ultimately, humans who, I suppose, have to follow suit.
This is my favorite conspiracy theory. :grin:
And here is misunderstanding regarding such conspiracies.
lizard people, those proclaimed by David Icke, this isn't really a conspiracy in full meaning, obviously there is no such thing as "lizard people" literary, instead he is figuratively referring to tiny portion of wealthy individuals that have control over wide aspect of economy world wide such as banksters and similar master minds who push new world order agenda, which is a fact that is observable.
A better question is, why does he speak of them as "lizards" rather than referring to them directly?
And "flat earth" isn't conspiracy either except it's labeled as such, obviously it's clear the earth is not flat plate, but in old times no one was aware that the earth is round and that it's not the center of universe, not even the church.
If the church leaders knew that fact (or didn't believed) then surely wouldn't call N. Copernicus heretic.
Even ancients believed the Earth is the center around which stars are circling.
But that's not unknown, including the answer to, why was flat earth labeled as "conspiracy" (much later) even though it has nothing to do with conspiracy as theory or intentional plotting?
Also there is a fundamental difference between "lizard people" and "flat plate earth" in that lizard people "conspiracy" is offensive while flat plate is actually a offensive conspiracy of non conspiracy.
Quoting TheMadFool
Not bad, it seems to support the origin of "lizard people" :grin:
Well... If I look around me the world is neither flat nor global. The same can be said about cosmologists, being mostly flat spacers.
The thing with Flat-Earthers is that they see the imprinting, imposing, of the globe on the people as a conspiracy.
Flat earthers are jokers, a kind of trolls having fun, (but there are exceptions)
Most of them don't know anything about flat earth, they don't even know to point out bible verses that support their flat earth idea.
In fact there is no such thing as "flat earth" in the bible to begin with, only allusions that contributed to false dogma.
If they're capable of sending US citizens to war under false pretenses, or carrying out Unit 731-esque experiments on their own citizens, do people really need any more incentive to mistrust their government every step of the way?
You know almost no country in the world (at least in modern times) goes to war without having an excuse (aka. Casus belli) to do so?
Exceptions are chained (subsequent) wars, such as continued but independent wars against terrorism.
It'd be interesting (not) to find out the earliest use of the 'conspiracy theory' combo implying falsity. Any ideas? I'm not interested by the way. I don't give a fuck.
wikipedia
My opinion however is that conspiracy theory has it's origins with UFO and alien abductions, it all started 1961 (3 years before 1964)
Example story
My reasoning is that UFO stories were much more plausible and had more potential to be labeled as "conspiracy theory" rather than Kennedy assasination.
Yes, I do recall reading that a coupla suns ago. We have bigger worries though viz. God. In an odd and very peculiar way we know He's the one behind all this - from paper cuts to volcanoes to magnitude 9 and higher earthquakes to the tsunamis that follow them - and yet no conspiracy theorist ever writes a single line on/about the guy upstairs, the so-called white-bearded skydaddy of religion. It's as if we've blocked him out like we do sometimes to someone who's a royal pain in the ass ( :lol: ). As Willaim Cowper said, 1788/1778 AD, "God moves in mysterious ways". Well then God's the mother of all, Texas-sized, conspiracy theory there is.
Just a moment...there's someone knocking at my door. :wink:
I believe the misunderstanding is yours sir.
Look a little deeper into it. He actually believes its lizard people, aliens. Nothing figurative about it. They secretly control the world and hide various truths and kill people who oppose them and all manner of blatant conspiracies. When you go deep, all the different conspiracy theories start to intertwine once you get to the Qanon people.
The “illuminati” theory your talking about is conspiracy light these days, unfortunately.
Quoting SpaceDweller
Again, you simply cannot be familiar with modern flat earth theories and think it isnt a conspiracy. If you look deeper you will find that they think the earth is flat and there is a global conspiracy of all mainstream science and modern governments to hide that truth from the populace. The moon landing was fake as well as any photos or video of the earth being a globe. Airlines are all in on it, falsifying records of flights and suppressing or removing eye witnesses to the flat earth, the ice wall that surrounds it and the airline routes that would “prove” flat earth. They even have their own “scientific” data and experiments (awful, laughable, non-scientific experiments) that “prove” mainstream science and NASA lie and suppress the truth about flat earth.
The fact that flat earth used to be widely believed is irrelevant. It wasnt a conspiracy theory back then but rather erroneous science. Today, it fits every metric of a conspiracy theory.
You are conflating scientific error and ignorant belief with conspiracy theory. They are not the same thing, even if there is some overlap with terms and references. You conflate modern conspiracy theory with erroneous scientific theory. (And if you want to talk about the churches suppression of a spherical earth theory you still arent talking about a conspiracy theory…there was nothing secretive about it.)
When we refer to flat earth conspiracy we are making a specific reference to people who believe that the earth is flat and that their is a secret global effort to deceive everyone about it and specifically NOT about humanities ignorant past errors. (Though of course modern conspiracy theorists would say the ignorant humans of the past had it right).
Honestly, I don't follow Icke nor am I interested in his views, but what I do know is that his narrative changed greatly.
Quoting DingoJones
Agree with that.
But I guess you'll never figure out what force is behind them or what are their motives :wink: (at least those few more "sophisticated")
What I want to say is that conspiracy theory doesn't require you to choose your side, but rather ask questions and find answers to unlock the meaning.
There is always something special to be learned.
If you are talking about the motivations of conspiracy theory folk for believing what they believe I think its a few different things. Its about having special knowledge, being part of a special group of “insiders” who are special as opposed to numbed out masses fooled by the “elite”. Then there is the delivery…many of these conspiracies have a staggering amount of content, argument and “science” out there for people to research. These two things make for a very seductive influence for people who don’t have a lot going on in their lives.
I don’t want to paint with a broad brush but when it comes to Qanon levels, I think the above is a large factor.
Bravo, looks like you found 2 opposing sides :wink:
I dont know what you mean by that.
Nothing sorry, it appeared to me as if you're comparing 2 groups based on those who have proofs and those who don't, while in fact you generalized :grimace:
Well neither is ideal I suppose but in my defence I did tag a disclaimer of sorts in the end. :wink:
I would think that conspiracy is indicated when abundant circumstantial evidence indicates the impossibility of it being the willful act of one person. As in the murder of John F Kennedy, when so many of the standard precautions for protecting a presidential motorcade were suddenly missing. Considering these abundant circumstances, the story later presented disrespects the intelligence of the American public, or does it?
I tend to accept the Oswald verdict. But the idea of a conspiracy is so intrenched regarding JFK that it has almost become an accepted 'fact'.
Tom,
As I said, when there is a mountain of circumstantial evidence that points to conspiracy, sometimes a duck is just a duck, and not a reasonable facilely. Read, L. Fletcher Prouty, X CIA man. His book is a wealth of inside knowledge. Book: "JFK - The CIA, Vietnam and the Plot to assassinate John F Kennedy." It was this book that inspired the making of the movie JFK, by director Olver Stone. Perfect, if your going to kill someone, try to be heading the investigation of your crime. The book left no doubt in my mind that the powers that be that pulled this off, would have no trouble framing that poor soul Oswald. Much has come to light about Oswald's activities, he was true a patsy.
What was it about the book that you did not find impressive. I am in wonderment that anyone could read the book and still buy the warren commissions interpretation. Please, enlighten me.
Ok, will do!!! Thanks!
Yes, it's an absurd term in current usage. Obviously there are conspiracies, some involving governments in collusion with other major players. There are also all sorts of conspiracy to committ type laws. So, everyone believes in conspiracies. Everyone has their theories or what in science might be called hypotheses. 9/11 was not pilot error. It was some kind of conspiracy. So, to label one group's theory ridiculous because it is a conspiracy theory, when one believes it was a conspiracy of some kind, is silly.
Then the discussion often stays at an abstract level, with both sides psychoanalyzing the other side's reasons for believing. Which would be an ad hom in a philosophy discussion, at least in a discussion of the theory itself.
Those who like to lump all of what get called conspiracy theorists into one group (with one level of sophistication and evidence and rationality) often refer to the psychology of the entire group, not realizing that this, while not being a conspiracy theory, is just broadstroke speculation that anyone with a little respect for the problem of other minds should be hesitantly to flatly state as if it was a fact.
It's even more embarrassing when, as it often is, it is used by someone openly or implicitly identifying themselves as being on team reason.
1. Abductive inference. An explanatory framework is offered for a certain event.
2. Conspiracy. The explanation involves some kind of well-orchestrated deception involving governments and/or big business. The deception is aimed at keeping people from the truth for nefarious reasons.
3. Occam's razor/principle is, on most occasions, violated. The conspiracy theory is vastly more complex than the alternatives.
4. Cherry picking. Confirmation bias is the cornerstone of conspiracy theories.
5. Self-sealing i.e. ad hoc fallacy. Objections to the theory are dealt with by making minor adjustments to the conspiracy theory that don't affect its overall theme.
Basically, conspiracy theories are poor-quality imitations of scientific theories. They are based on evidence though but it's just a namesake - they ignore the nuances and subtleties as found in the distinction between good evidence and bad evidence. :joke:
I think the bombing of USS Liberty was a conspiracy.
Quoting Bylaw
The vast inspections done after the country was invaded actually showed just how successful Operation Desert Fox actually was under Clinton. But then Saddam himself kept the myth alive...and their were people keen to attack Iraq in the Bush Whitehouse. But prior to that (and the Gulf war), Saddam did had chemical weapons, yes. Not so much as Nazi Germany had during WW2, but still. And an nuclear program that would likely have produced a nuclear weapon if the Gulf war hadn't happened (even with the Israeli bombing of the Osirak reactor).
Yep. I'd be interested as well. I'm baffled as to how anyone can look at the collapse of WTC7 and think it was office fires. None of the NIST stuff is convincing.
Where did you get that from? :chin: If you ask me, Saddam, more accurately Iraq, was simply a scapegoat, a fall guy in the great American game. See :point: Great Game. :grin:
Unfortunately or not, I haven't had a one-on-one conversation with a conspiracy theorist but compared to philosophers, conspiracy theorists are bumbling amateurs who have no idea how deep the rabbit hole goes. See :point: skepticism, radical doubt, Cartesian deus deceptor, brain in a vat, Maya, to name but a few.