The Validity of Conspiracy Theories

[nosos]

But I thought the objective, scientific rationalist world was simple and it was only conspiracists who wanted to complicate matters?

I didn't actually say that but to a certain extent it's definitely true: the scientific method lacks the extra conceptual step that the conspiratorial method makes. One could look at a set of evidence & infer that a causes b, or one could look at it with a certain set of presuppositions & infer that a causes b because of c,d,e etc. If you're looking for a conspiratorial explanation for a set of socio-political phenomena then necessarily you're adding to the the process of logical & valid inference from said data because you've (in broad terms) presupposed your conclusion.

From what lofty position do we pronounce on these complex socio political phenomena then?

Eh?

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?

If someone claims to be looking at a set of data emperically & yet makes that presupposition then, obviously, their method is flawed. What's your point though? Are you saying that any investigation which doesn't start from a conspiratorial premise necessarily starts from a non-conspiratorial premise? Cos that's self-evidently nonsense.

 

[nosos]

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?

I can't speak for gurrier & I only know his views as characterised by you above but I think you're conflating two necessarily distinct spheres of analysis. Can you not see the difference between talking about analyitical method (as we are here) & the power-structures we're analysing? They're as necessarily & inavoidably distinct as subject & object. You seem to be suggesting - and apologies if I'm misinterpreting you here - that because academic power structures are indeed power structures (truism) all processes/paradigms contained within are co-opted on that basis. It's an utterly meaningless claim.

 

[greenman]

If someone claims to be looking at a set of data emperically & yet makes that presupposition then, obviously, their method is flawed. What's your point though? Are you saying that any investigation which doesn't start from a conspiratorial premise necessarily starts from a non-conspiratorial premise? Cos that's self-evidently nonsense.

No, what I am saying is that some people, allegedly of a critical radical perspective, are criticising conspiracism (a valid critique) from a standpoint of establishment objectivism (a standpoint that tends to validate the status quo) and on the basis of what "everyone knows" (as in "most people" above) and "evidence based institutional and social analysis" where the sources of "evidence" are , in their usual terms of analysis, "polluted". In other words, a priori and second hand judgements are not limited to "conspiracist loons". Now whilst many of these second hand and a priori judgements may be correct, the uncritical nature of their acceptance and obvious joy in "slamming down the dissidents" observable on here is alarming. The late unlamented Soviet Union was a prime example of a society where "scientific" analysis was used as a club to batter all dissent. Hence, those who would not accept the officially defined "Scientific reality" (which included some ridiculously un-scientific nonsense in biological theory, for example) were locked up in mental institutions.

On power structures, no, of course I do not claim that all evidence emanating from hierarchical academia is necessarily false. However, it is a viewpoint of some alleged "radical thinkers" on these forums that any and all socio-political changes or reforms emanating from engagement in the current socio-political structures are polluted and questionable unless they are the result of direct pressure by whichever social/class based organisations that their particular ideology currently sees as the most legitimate. It is simply amusing to me that some of the same people can then be as uncritical as they are of the official discourses of sociology and social psychology.
Maybe because these discourses are given the veneer of respectability for radicals because of the residual attraction of academic Marxism (another transparent example of the will to power, for anyone with eyes to see )

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Yes, it's almost exactly the same

the uncritical nature of their acceptance and obvious joy in "slamming down the dissidents" observable on here is alarming. The late unlamented Soviet Union was a prime example of a society where "scientific" analysis was used as a club to batter all dissent. Hence, those who would not accept the officially defined "Scientific reality" (which included some ridiculously un-scientific nonsense in biological theory, for example) were locked up in mental institutions.

 

[editor]

Indeed.

Comparing the scoffing that rightly accompanies a conspiraloon spouting evidence-free garbage about invisible missile-firing pods on planes with the struggle of a Soviet dissident is pure comic book nonsense.

 

[gurrier]

No, what I am saying is that some people, allegedly of a critical radical perspective, are criticising conspiracism (a valid critique) from a standpoint of establishment objectivism (a standpoint that tends to validate the status quo) and on the basis of what "everyone knows" (as in "most people" above) and "evidence based institutional and social analysis" where the sources of "evidence" are , in their usual terms of analysis, "polluted". In other words, a priori and second hand judgements are not limited to "conspiracist loons". Now whilst many of these second hand and a priori judgements may be correct, the uncritical nature of their acceptance and obvious joy in "slamming down the dissidents" observable on here is alarming. The late unlamented Soviet Union was a prime example of a society where "scientific" analysis was used as a club to batter all dissent. Hence, those who would not accept the officially defined "Scientific reality" (which included some ridiculously un-scientific nonsense in biological theory, for example) were locked up in mental institutions.

That's all fascinating, but what's an 'establishment objectivism' when it's at home? Who has talked about evidence being 'what everyone knows' or 'officially defined'? Who has talked about anything being 'polluted'?

I really think that you should come back down to earth and stop arguing with what you imagine other people are saying. I really don't think that you are remotely close to representing my opinion here. For what it's worth, I think that probably the most important thing maintaining the current social mis-order is the fact that people are systematically starved of reliable evidence about how the world works and thus while most people have perfectly well-functioning inference systems, the data which is fed into it is highly distorted, leading to erroneous conclusions. In my view, one of the most important roles of radical activism is to present some of the hidden evidence and allow people's rational processes to run with it (of course there is always the necessity to explain why the evidence is significant and the conclusions that you think it leads towards, but at the end of the day if it doesn't resonate with people's internal reasoning, you won't get anywhere).

On power structures, no, of course I do not claim that all evidence emanating from hierarchical academia is necessarily false. However, it is a viewpoint of some alleged "radical thinkers" on these forums that any and all socio-political changes or reforms emanating from engagement in the current socio-political structures are polluted and questionable unless they are the result of direct pressure by whichever social/class based organisations that their particular ideology currently sees as the most legitimate. It is simply amusing to me that some of the same people can then be as uncritical as they are of the official discourses of sociology and social psychology.
Maybe because these discourses are given the veneer of respectability for radicals because of the residual attraction of academic Marxism (another transparent example of the will to power, for anyone with eyes to see )

I am amazed that you can project all of this on to me - what a load of nonsense. I believe practically nothing of what you attribute to me above. Why not stick to what I say and stop inventing opinions that I don't hold?

For somebody who thinks the greens are crap, you sure get the hump when they are criticised.

 

[fela fan]

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?

Nice post mate. Your description at the beginning fits more than a few posters round these parts.

And i like the end bit too. Academia undersells its unrivalled opportunity to do good by the people. To provide a balancing voice against the excesses by the ruling class. And those excesses in this new century so far must fill a volume or two.

It is easy indeed to doubt anything the goverment tells us. In fact many millions do. It is those millions that are derided as 'conspiracy theorists', thus handing the government committing so many crimes carte blanche to continue committing those crimes.

If governments were proven to tell the truth, then there'd be not talk of conspiracies at all. It's the very fact that they lie so much, that so many of us cannot believe what they tell us.

So, if anyone wants to shut up 'conspiracy theorists', demand a government that resorts to telling the people that elected it the truth.

Practice and theory come hand in hand. Conspiracy theories exist precisely coz those in power conspire to abuse it, at the expense of other persons.

 

[editor]

In fact many millions do. It is those millions that are derided as 'conspiracy theorists', thus handing the government committing so many crimes carte blanche to continue committing those crimes..

Err, no.

It's only the handful of conspiraloons regurgitating ludicrous, fact-unsupported bonkers fantasies from idiotic websites that are derided as 'conspiracy theorists'.

The rest pursue rational, properly researched investigations and often go under names like 'journalists' and 'campaigners'.

 

[greenman]

Interesting viewpoint -

Karen Armstrong

The point of argument here is not the ability of certain posters to demolish ludicrous conspiracy theory, (undoubted ) but their inability not to react in a predetermined fashion when people introduce information that does not fit their reality bubble, or to accept that some of the criticisms they make might not partially also apply to themselves (I certainly do).

 

[gurrier]

Interesting viewpoint -

Karen Armstrong

The point of argument here is not the ability of certain posters to demolish ludicrous conspiracy theory, (undoubted ) but their inability not to react in a predetermined fashion when people introduce information that does not fit their reality bubble, or to accept that some of the criticisms they make might not partially also apply to themselves (I certainly do).

It might be useful if you moved from making generalisations about 'certain posters' to giving some evidence for this reality bubble that you claim people are living in. Because, as far as I can see, you disagreed with a point that I made on an unrelated thread and decided that this was symptomatic of a deep psychological flaw on my part and have been making thinly veiled allusions to the flaws in my thought processes since. It's not pretty.

 

[ZWord]

I must say, I do think it's terribly unfair to rubbish conspiracy theorists by accusing them of producing evidence-free rubbish. By definition the kind of reality and events they're claiming are true are the kind that finding evidence for is clearly going to be very difficult.

There's nothing per se in conspiracy theories that seem to make them inherently unlikely.

How's this for an argument?

There are such things as secret societies.
Some of them have been around a long time.
Possibly the most successful and longest-enduring are also the most secret.
Human history is bizarre and hard to understand.
Various secret societies may exist today, of which most of us know very little, because they are secret.
There is probably a bit of a kick to be had out of believing that you're part of the secret society that actually controls the destiny of humanity. (if yoare), the kick of being someone who knows. -even if you don't-
It's entirely possible that what we call - history - would make a lot more sense if understood as being the observable part of an unseen warfare between secret societies that have existed for a very long time.

It's not watertight, but it's not meant to be. The point is that if you grant that it's not totally implausible, then you grant that conspiracy theories are also not totally implausible.

The thing is, lots of things for which there's no evidence are true. If you made up your mind to believe only those things that you had good evidence for, you'd believe so little that you'd do yourself a greater disservice knowledge-wise than you would by being a little bit gullible.

 

[editor]

I must say, I do think it's terribly unfair to rubbish conspiracy theorists by accusing them of producing evidence-free rubbish.

That's what the ones around here do.

I haven't a problem with credible, remotely plausible counter theories, but when it comes to invisible missiles, vanishing passengers, vanishing planes, mysteriously silenced experts the world over and conspiracies involving tens of thousands of people all miraculously keeping Mum forever, then rubbish is the right word for them.

 

[phildwyer]

Hang on a second, what about the murder of JFK? That turned out to be a bit of a conspiracy didn't it? Whereas, if we'd believed the official version, we'd have thoght that Oswald acted alone and that Jack Ruby was an outraged patriot.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

"Turned out"?

 

[phildwyer]

"Turned out"?

Mafia and CIA as revenge for the lack of air support at the Bay of Pigs, innit?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Not as far as I'm aware, no.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

How's this for an argument?

There are such things as secret societies.
Some of them have been around a long time.
Possibly the most successful and longest-enduring are also the most secret.
Human history is bizarre and hard to understand.
Various secret societies may exist today, of which most of us know very little, because they are secret.
There is probably a bit of a kick to be had out of believing that you're part of the secret society that actually controls the destiny of humanity. (if yoare), the kick of being someone who knows. -even if you don't-
It's entirely possible that what we call - history - would make a lot more sense if understood as being the observable part of an unseen warfare between secret societies that have existed for a very long time.

1. apparently
2. like who?
3. see 2 or 5
4. sure
5. maybe, but invisible pink unicorns may also exist of which we know very little, it's irrelevant
6. sure
7. no, actually, it would make a lot less sense unless you constantly reinterpreted your theory of what secret societies existed to correspond to every new piece of information you got, either that or constructed a theory that wasn't falsifiable in the first place

in any case, it's not an argument for anything at all, is it? It's just a load of propositions.

 

[ZWord]

That's what the ones around here do.

I haven't a problem with credible, remotely plausible counter theories, but when it comes to invisible missiles, vanishing passengers, vanishing planes, mysteriously silenced experts the world over and conspiracies involving tens of thousands of people all miraculously keeping Mum forever, then rubbish is the right word for them.

I was trying to comment on the validity of conspiracy theories in general, rather than specifically the ones you've objected to recently on this site.

Well what do you think of the collected yarns of Charles Fort, though? (the fortean times?) Forget that, if you like, it's probably not very helpful.

More to the point. -What do you mean by credible? And what do you mean by evidence?

My observation is that what people generally mean by "credible" is that it fits with the rest of their worldview. I mean, a right-wing american I encountered dismissed all evidence of what his government had been up to over the last half-century as products of the diseased paranoid leftie mind, and at the same time, apparently believed in a vast worldwide leftie conspiracy to discredit the american government.

What do you think of this theory?

-The original molecules of DNA from which life on this planet evolved were formed by the random concatenation of amino acids in the primordial soup.-

 

[zed66]

It's just a personal point of view but I see a strong parallel between unsubtantiated conspiracy theories and religious/evangelical arguements. Going through the (by the way excellent) 10 Point list posted earlier on the thread, any or all of the characteristics listed could just as easily be applied to arguements put in favour of Chritianity/Scientology (insert belief system here).The main characteristic being that belief in the conspiracy appears to be of more importance than the objective veracity of the claims made. Also the willingness to defend a point of view in the absence of any evidence being produced and an unwillingness or inability to reevaluate the original position stated. I enjoy historical/journalistic exposes of conspiracies where there is documented primary evidence (Eg: Tom Bowers-The Paperclip Conspiracy) but when it comes to the Lizards/poisonous monkeys end of the spectrum I don't think it possible to actually debate the issue because you are now into the realms of belief with the same circular arguements.

 

[ZWord]

A case of spending a while working on a reply while being distracted by putting my daughter to bed and not noticing that there were a bunch of other replies in the intervening time.

Fridge Magnet, specifically to you. What do you think of that theory I mentioned in the last post?

You don't see my "argument" as being an argument at all. Fair enough, I guess how you see it depends on what you're inclined to believe in the first place. Which is really the limit of what I'm willing to argue.
Maybe it would have been a better argument if I'd just said, -there are such things as secret societies- you can infer an awful lot from just that if you choose to. There are advantages in being secret, most people don't know who you are, what you stand for, whether you exist, and how to attack you.

It depends what you count as credible. But as credible generally seems to mean only what fits with one's worldview it's not much of an argument to throw around that certain sources or inferences are or are not credible, since the subject matter of the arguments are competing worldviews.

And as I said before, loads of things are true for which there's no evidence. Limit yourself to believing only what you find evidence for yourself and your beliefs are going to be limited to the point of idiocy.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Er, but it's not an argument. What is it an argument for? Arguments start from premises, work on those and build to a conclusion. I can't even see a conclusion let alone anything else.

It's got nothing to do with what I'm inclined to believe or credibility or anything, it's just not an argument any more than this chair is a llama.

And the chair isn't a llama, before you ask.

 

[ZWord]

Well it's an argument suggesting that as there are such things as secret societies whose purposes and operations we don't know, It's quite likely that these secret societies would conspire either together or against each other to further their various purposes. And since they choose to be secret, as there are lots of advantages in being secret, i.e. you can't be attacked as no-one knows who you are, it's well-nigh impossible to find evidence of what they're up to, -- therefore, inference-based evidence-free theories of what might be going up on, while they shouldn't be accepted as gospel, should equally well not be dismissed lightly.

Fridgemagnet. While we're at it - if this is going to go on. Could you just briefly enlighten me as to what the sane mainstream explanation is of the destruction of the twin towers on 9/11, apart from the fact that two aeroplanes flew into them.. e.g. why?

Oh and what do you think of that theory, (about DNA)?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

And since they choose to be secret, as there are lots of advantages in being secret, i.e. you can't be attacked as no-one knows who you are, it's well-nigh impossible to find evidence of what they're up to, -- therefore, inference-based evidence-free theories of what might be going up on, while they shouldn't be accepted as gospel, should equally well not be dismissed lightly.

"Just because there's no evidence for it is no reason not to take it seriously. Indeed, the opposite may be the case."

My dear good God.

 

[ZWord]

You too? So what do you think of the "scientific" view of the formation of DNA?

 

[ZWord]

"Just because there's no evidence for it is no reason not to take it seriously. Indeed, the opposite may be the case."

My dear good God.

Exactly.. That's what's so funny about it./ You find it risible, but to me it just sounds like common sense.

So while we're at it what do you think of the collected yarns of Charles Fort. (for want of a better description.)

 

[Donna Ferentes]

You find it risible, but to me it just sounds like common sense.

That's depressingly believable.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Well, if that's your argument, no, it's not a very good one; it's the usual thing about absence of evidence. Just because there might be secret societies conspiring and we wouldn't know about it doesn't mean that we should intrinsically treat theories concerning conspiratorial secret societies with any more respect than any other theory without evidence for it - and there are an infinite number of potential secret explanations that one can construct. For every one that you propose I can create a slightly different one. It seems a reasonable proposition that one should not bother to consider things for which there is no evidence, otherwise one would spend one's time considering everything imaginable.

What is the mainstream explanation of why the twin towers fell down apart from two aeroplanes flying into them? No, I can't enlighten you as to that because there's no such thing.

 

[ZWord]

I mean who's responsible.?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

And I thought we had had an Enlightment and everything.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

what?