The Validity of Conspiracy Theories
- Thread starter ska invita
- Start date
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Not at all.editor said:
editor said:
Yep. Covered some very salient characteristics.
But thought it could be just a tad in breach of point 2 ...
citydreams
on the road again
DrJazzz said:
Is that the best that you've got? You guessed something in the name of paranoia and it turned out to be probable.
Have you actually uncovered any mysteries or hidden truths for real rather than just having a wild stab in the dark??
citydreams
on the road again
<waits patiently to be illuminated>
citydreams
on the road again
<gives up on intelligent life>
It goes all the way to 11, you know...
11. The "real world" is irrelevant to them (for any interpretation you place on "real world", from naïve realism to socially-constructed everything). They simply don't understand the concept of extreme statistical, or even physical, implausibility. All that matters to them is the constant recycling and annotation of texts from their Authorities, and that other people get to hear what's going on inside their addled brains. Paranoia is the most narcissistic of disorders.
Justin said:
11. The "real world" is irrelevant to them (for any interpretation you place on "real world", from naïve realism to socially-constructed everything). They simply don't understand the concept of extreme statistical, or even physical, implausibility. All that matters to them is the constant recycling and annotation of texts from their Authorities, and that other people get to hear what's going on inside their addled brains. Paranoia is the most narcissistic of disorders.
I think that is a reasonable request...
...most the stuff in World Politics and Middle East politics doesn't get far without credible sources anyway...I think if your going to post something as fact you should be able to prove it as fact, and if it is just theory or opinion it should be stated that that is all it is.
Good post Justin.
Certainly not yet at the same time, you have to take into account the fact that there is something fundamentally flawed (if perhaps not strictly invalid) about the critical method which goes into the vast majority of conspiratorial analysis. I guess just take it with a pinch of salt & like anything else, be wary of the intellectual context within which the theory is being put forward. As others have said, conspriacy theories often have more than a grain of truth but the tendancy of conflating structural processes with intentional human action & the desire to dichotomously step outside 'mainstream' thought often means that the grain of truth can be lost in the presence of the more paranoid idotic shit that comes attached to it.niksativa said:
ska invita
back on the other side
The problem with a "good" or effective conspiracy, is that the cover up is watertight.
There is no way to get at the truth from the outside without speculation and imagination. There must be hundreds of unearthed, unreported illegal activites, and I for one am glad for half truth stories to be published about them - i can spot if one of justins ten modes is taking place, just as i can distinguish a lack of thoroughness or more often pathetic weakness in asking of real questions in our mainstream media.
Often the truth is known but cannot be verified in the press.
An example of which, from a scottish friend is that it is well known locally that the UK secret services 'rubbed out' an SNP leading light in mid 80's, though it was never reported as such. (I canny remember the poor fellas name, but if you really wanna know i'll find out from my pally!)
I think there is a problem of perception regarding conspiracy journalists - although Justin's 10 points are probably applicable to many, it is a generalisation and an insult to those who risk their lives investigating the secret goings on of states.
There is no way to get at the truth from the outside without speculation and imagination. There must be hundreds of unearthed, unreported illegal activites, and I for one am glad for half truth stories to be published about them - i can spot if one of justins ten modes is taking place, just as i can distinguish a lack of thoroughness or more often pathetic weakness in asking of real questions in our mainstream media.
Often the truth is known but cannot be verified in the press.
An example of which, from a scottish friend is that it is well known locally that the UK secret services 'rubbed out' an SNP leading light in mid 80's, though it was never reported as such. (I canny remember the poor fellas name, but if you really wanna know i'll find out from my pally!)
I think there is a problem of perception regarding conspiracy journalists - although Justin's 10 points are probably applicable to many, it is a generalisation and an insult to those who risk their lives investigating the secret goings on of states.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
How would that be possible? And how is it not a justification for coming out with whatsoever one chooses, on the convenient grounds that everything that might prove your case has been successfully covered up?niksativa said:
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
niksativa said:
Can you actually name a journalist who produces worthwile stuff but is discredited by being tarred with the 'conspiracy' brush?
Not trying to have a dig, if there are any whos work might actually stand up then I' be interested to have a look.
re justin's post, i think a lot of it is true of a lot of folk, but equally, many of the points could be used to describe those who argue against them too; i think it more describes a way some folk think, which depending on circumstances or what's shaped their views, they find themselves on one side or the other being equally arrogent, relentless, ignorant of occam's razor etc.
ska invita
back on the other side
i must admit, I am not a conspiracy expert, but one I do know of one journal in the UK that contains pieces from a number of journalists, and is edited by Robin Ramsay. It is called Lobster, and has recently gone online a bit - its best to just by the magazine/newsheet.
http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/
Im sure if you get into it, you will come across many names whose work you can follow up.
just found this interesting article on conpiracy theories, from its sample articles: http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/articles/l29consp.htm
"'Conspiracy Theories' and Clandestine Politics
by Jeffrey M. Bale"
Broadly it makes a distinction between conpiracy theories and the investigation of Cladestine Politics - consiracy being dismissed as unsound in favour of a valuable investigation into clandestine politics.
This link http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/issue48.php shows what in the currect issue.
http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/
Im sure if you get into it, you will come across many names whose work you can follow up.
just found this interesting article on conpiracy theories, from its sample articles: http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/articles/l29consp.htm
"'Conspiracy Theories' and Clandestine Politics
by Jeffrey M. Bale"
Broadly it makes a distinction between conpiracy theories and the investigation of Cladestine Politics - consiracy being dismissed as unsound in favour of a valuable investigation into clandestine politics.
This link http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/issue48.php shows what in the currect issue.
Well I could, like Christopher Bollyn (American Free Press)... but then you would say he's discredited because he writes conspiracy stuff! So I don't see how this question is sensible, it begs an impossible answer by asking for someone both 'worthwhile' and 'discredited'Monkeygrinder's Organ said:
It only begs an impossible question because there is something fundamentally flawed about the method of the conspiracy theorist: why on earth is the question "is there any conspiracy theorist who is unfairly dismissed purely on that basis?" an impossible question?DrJazzz said:Well I could, like Christopher Bollyn (American Free Press)... but then you would say he's discredited because he writes conspiracy stuff! So I don't see how this question is sensible, it begs an impossible answer by asking for someone both 'worthwhile' and 'discredited'
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
DrJazzz said:Well I could, like Christopher Bollyn (American Free Press)... but then you would say he's discredited because he writes conspiracy stuff! So I don't see how this question is sensible, it begs an impossible answer by asking for someone both 'worthwhile' and 'discredited'
It's a perfectly fair question. Niksativa stated that he thought that there were journalists who wrote good stuff but were portrayed as conspiracy nuts, so I asked him who he meant. It seems a perfectly obvious question to ask given the context.
If I'd directed the question at you then it would have been a pointless question, because you're totally undiscerning when it comes to this stuff, but I didn't.
Another salient characteristic:
* Failure to realise that sinister plots that are kept secret must require a very high level of discipline on behalf of the conspirators and even when the conspirators are small in number, all implicated in the plot and bound together by strong ties, it is an immensely difficult task to maintain the secrecy of the plot over any length of time. People suffer religious conversions, write memoirs and so on. Conspiracy theories which require the connivance or unquestioning acceptance of implausible explanations on the part of large numbers of otherwise unconnected people simply can not happen.
Some cases in point.
WMD - the government were incapable of maintaining secrecy around their conspiracy to fabricate evidence that Iraq possessed WMD, even within their own security services - which is a body that is designed explicitly to maintain secrecy.
Stockton Killing - despite the fact that the killing of a single person who the vast majority of the public accepted without too much question as being a suicide bomber is obviously going to be vastly easier to cover up than the mass bombing of the underground, the police admitted within 24 hours that they had in fact executed an entirely innocent man. I find it difficult to think of anything that they would like to cover up more as it is about the greatest policing cock up that I can recall. Obviously they realised that a conspiracy to cover up the facts of this case would not work and would only be digging themselves deeper[*].
All of the Mossad/space alien lizards/WTC/7/7/etc conspiracy theories rest on the premise that there is an implausibly enormous organised group of conspirators who are impossibly disciplined and supernaturally powerful. They also rest on the premise that the entire rest of the population (minus themselves and their loonie-tune mates) are willing sheep who believe exactly what they are told to believe. In the real world, on the other hand, technical experts, medical staff, knowledgeable observers and the rest of us sheep are often highly skeptical and when we are presented with situations which contradict our scientific knowledge of the world, we are far more likely to go running to the media immediately than we are to say "yes boss".
For example, the paramedics who attended the Kelly death, which I think _is_ fairly likely to have been a MI5 job went public in the media with their concerns about the official story. Even though this should have been a fairly simple task (relatively speaking) to present as a suicide and cover up, they were unable to keep the only non-spooks who attended the scene quiet.
having just read an article which claimed that the exposure of this mistake "seem to indicate some kind of crisis within the police somewhere and that somebody knows something is not very right and there must have been some kind of show down to get this news out" - the plot thickens ^ infinity
* Failure to realise that sinister plots that are kept secret must require a very high level of discipline on behalf of the conspirators and even when the conspirators are small in number, all implicated in the plot and bound together by strong ties, it is an immensely difficult task to maintain the secrecy of the plot over any length of time. People suffer religious conversions, write memoirs and so on. Conspiracy theories which require the connivance or unquestioning acceptance of implausible explanations on the part of large numbers of otherwise unconnected people simply can not happen.
Some cases in point.
WMD - the government were incapable of maintaining secrecy around their conspiracy to fabricate evidence that Iraq possessed WMD, even within their own security services - which is a body that is designed explicitly to maintain secrecy.
Stockton Killing - despite the fact that the killing of a single person who the vast majority of the public accepted without too much question as being a suicide bomber is obviously going to be vastly easier to cover up than the mass bombing of the underground, the police admitted within 24 hours that they had in fact executed an entirely innocent man. I find it difficult to think of anything that they would like to cover up more as it is about the greatest policing cock up that I can recall. Obviously they realised that a conspiracy to cover up the facts of this case would not work and would only be digging themselves deeper[*].
All of the Mossad/space alien lizards/WTC/7/7/etc conspiracy theories rest on the premise that there is an implausibly enormous organised group of conspirators who are impossibly disciplined and supernaturally powerful. They also rest on the premise that the entire rest of the population (minus themselves and their loonie-tune mates) are willing sheep who believe exactly what they are told to believe. In the real world, on the other hand, technical experts, medical staff, knowledgeable observers and the rest of us sheep are often highly skeptical and when we are presented with situations which contradict our scientific knowledge of the world, we are far more likely to go running to the media immediately than we are to say "yes boss".
For example, the paramedics who attended the Kelly death, which I think _is_ fairly likely to have been a MI5 job went public in the media with their concerns about the official story. Even though this should have been a fairly simple task (relatively speaking) to present as a suicide and cover up, they were unable to keep the only non-spooks who attended the scene quiet.
having just read an article which claimed that the exposure of this mistake "seem to indicate some kind of crisis within the police somewhere and that somebody knows something is not very right and there must have been some kind of show down to get this news out" - the plot thickens
^ infinityConspiranoids seek to make reality far more complicated than it is. Every 'discovery' creates more unexplained facts than it answers, leading to a universe of infinitely expanding complexity. For example, if some humans can become lizards at will, we need to rewrite all of our science textbooks.greenman said:Many are the crimes of those who seek to over-simplify reality.
Let s/he who is without sin cast the first stone
People who seek to simplify reality are scientists and they invariably end up over-simplifying it if they're any good.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Indeed. Also, people fall out, they speak to other people so the number of people in the know increases, the reasons for maintaining silence weaken over time, etcetcetc.gurrier said:
But notice the basic implausibility of a watertight conspiracy and cover-up is never considered by the conspiracy theorists as a point to be made against their theory. They always consider it as more plausible the the "official account". The reson for this, of course, is that as there is no evidence for their account, it cannot be challenged, whereas the official account's evidence, being (as with all real evidence) incomplete and contradictory in some respects, seems to them less satisfactory than their account.
gurrier said:
Yes Quantum Theory and astrophysics are very simple.
I, on balance think most current conspiracy theory is a pile of steaming poo.
However, forgive me if I also think some of the oh-so-perfect-rationalist clever clogs who pontificate about the nature of objective reality from their position of God like omniscience appear to me to be ever so slightly embedded up their own posteriors. Especially when in many cases they seem blissfully unaware of the conspiracy theory like nature of their of their own politics.
When does political dogma that writes off whole sections of the population, modes of economic organisation and philosophical enquiry as "the enemy" become conspiracy theory, and vice versa?
They sum up the universe in a fairly small set of equations and laws which allow you to predict very complicated things by doing a few sums. Compared to the universe, they are _very_ simple.greenman said:
Also, in the history of science we can see that at any stage, the current scientific theory is a gross simplification of reality as proven by subsequent theories. Newtonian physics, for example, is a simplification which doesn't work with the very small or the very big.
I'm very aware that many people can't distinguish between evidence based institutional and social analysis leading to alarming conclusions on the one hand and wild fact free speculative flights of paranoia leading to alarming conclusions on the other. That's one of the reasons why I bother spending time debunking conspiranoid drivel.However, forgive me if I also think some of the oh-so-perfect-rationalist clever clogs who pontificate about the nature of objective reality from their position of God like omniscience appear to me to be ever so slightly embedded up their own posteriors. Especially when in many cases they seem blissfully unaware of the conspiracy theory like nature of their of their own politics.
nosos said:
Complex socio-political phenomena?
But I thought the objective, scientific rationalist world was simple and it was only conspiracists who wanted to complicate matters? (Paradoxically by their pathological desire to simplify according to Gurrier)
From what lofty position do we pronounce on these complex socio political phenomena then?
What about when the a priori assumption is that any phenomena is most unlikely to be the result of conspiratorial actions by a small group of people?
gurrier said:
So I gather it is very important for you that you establish that your version of reality is superior to others who engage in speculation ?
Given that on another thread you have expressed the opinion that almost anyone engaging at any level in the current power structures (say at the minute level of power in local government) will be corrupted, I would be interested in how you manage to distinguish valid "evidence based institutional and social analysis" from that, which like the politicians you affect to despise is corrupted and untrustworthy, given that logically you should see the power structures of academia are every bit as much part of the system as local government?
Leaving the other thread out of it for the moment (I'll come back to it if I get a chance, but I don't think you are accurately representing my opinion here), the answer is in the question - "evidence based". And I don't think that it has anything to do with academia either. Almost everybody applies the scientific method of hypothesis-experiment-refinement all the time and most people are relatively fluent in the art of probability estimates.greenman said:
gurrier said:
But where does "almost everybody" get the evidence from to engage in this empirical (?) process when we are talking about nosos' "complex socio-political phenomena"?
What do, say, the fear of terrorism as opposed to the fear of road accidents, or the popularity of the National Lottery say about "most people"'s grasp of "probability estimates"?
Similar threads
