The Validity of Conspiracy Theories

[Bernie Gunther]

Anyway, going back to the thread title. I think what nik is really calling for is a resurgence in decent investigative journalism.

It's very easy though for state agencies and other dodgy characters to get away with numerous actual evil conspiracies, because annoying, paranoid conspiracy true-believers have given any serious evidence based attempt to accurately document this sort of shit a bad name.

I think that's counterproductive.

 

[ZWord]

Well, a good example of the scientific approach, not "pure" science maybe, but political analysis influenced by science is Chomsky and Herman's propaganda model.

I don't see the relationship of Chomsky's ideas to scientific method, but I do see that it's different in kind from some conspiracy theory. I found myself fairly convinced by Chomsky when I read him. His books are certainly well-researched and sourced. It's interesting to me though, that if you put his ideas to an american with mainstream american political views, and then give your source, they will react in much the same way as most people on this site do when Dr Jazzz espouses the views of David Icke and gives his source. That is, they will say, something like;- Chomsky?!?!/? He's an obsessed paranoid bitter fruitloop leftie. And all further discussion of what he says is impossible, because he is already damned by who he is.

It talks about systemic behaviour rather than personalities, which I think it a more useful appoach in general, because in a lot of ways, the personalities don't matter, any Tory leader and his people would have acted much the same way as Tony Blair. Any other tool of big oil and the military industrial complex, in hock to the religious right, might have acted the way Bush did.

Any Tory leader probably would have done, but it had to be Blair, because if we had a Tory leader there would have been the danger that we might have voted in a Labour government with a leader who wouldn't have done the bidding of whoever it is who's ruling the world (a conspiranoid viewpoint?)
Actually, another thing I like about Chomsky is that he makes you realise that a lot of the reason the way the world is as it is is because of the internal dynamics of the money system, and how humans are really just tools of that system, as you were saying. Having said that, after reading Greg Palast's account of the 2001 election, it seems that quite a bit of underhand effort went into making sure that Bush became President, so presumably Gore would not have done just as well.

It's more useful in my view to understand the systemic behaviour, with due regard for rigorous standards of evidence, than it is to do conspiracy theory.

Conspiracy theory is a lot more *exciting*, and that's fine. But if one lets that excitement become an existential committment to having sole possession of the truth, it would appear that most of the other undesirable symptoms of true-beliver syndrome set in and such people start to act like dickheads.

It's mostly the latter aspect I have a problem with.

I mainly agree with you, though I suffer from true-believer syndrome myself in a different way, and in a sense I have my own idol, but we're all a bit like that really. The main thing is to be aware of your prejudices. I certainly think that on most difficult questions, to claim to know is kind of stupid. But that's why I think people should be free to speculate, and shouldn't be shouted down or gagged just because their worldview or way of thinking seems ridiculous to most people. On a forum the only exception I'd make is when there's a clear moral case against the views they espouse.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I've no problem with speculation. I'm pretty sure what I have a problem with is true-believer syndrome which is not at all the same thing as speculation.

 

[ZWord]

And if you want to prove that politician X lied about Y - and to make the proof work for people who haven't already leapt to the same conclusion as you - which of my rough and incomplete list of criteria for rational investigation would you choose to drop?

Or is it sufficicient for you to hold a "personal preference" to believe that X lied about Y? In which case why bother to debate anything, unless you're gathering a corpus for a thesis on pathological miscommunication?

I don't see why you're so obsessed with proof. Personally, sometimes it's obvious to me that someone is lying and I don't need proof to be sure of it.
How can I justify this? I can't. But when I say, I'm sure that Blair knew full well that the dossier he presented to Parliament was a pack of lies. I'm sure of it, and I don't have any proof. And similarly, in a completely different context, sometimes someone tries to sell me a pill, and I'm sure it's fake, and I don't buy it, even though I want some..again I've no evidence, but I reckon I know.

 

[ZWord]

I've no problem with speculation. I'm pretty sure what I have a problem with is true-believer syndrome which is not at all the same thing as speculation.

Well that's fair enough by me mainly. Certainly, I think in the case of 911, which is kind of the source of this whole debate, it's as ridiculous for someone to claim that they know the CIA did it, as it is to claim any other certainty, other than that two planes crashed into the towers and they fell down. All I can be certain about in this case is that knowledge is impossible. It's too big an event.

 

[laptop]

But that's why I think people should be free to speculate, and shouldn't be shouted down or gagged just because their worldview or way of thinking seems ridiculous to most people.

You're still arguing that there's a "right" to spout any old bollocks, aren't you? And the point about unconstrained speculation is that it might be true - but if it is, it's only true by accident (monkeys'n'typewriters stylee).

So start a forum at www.anyoldbollocks.org with one rule: anyone who claims to believe the "freee expression, maan" they're spouting is banned.

On a forum the only exception I'd make is when there's a clear moral case against the views they espouse.

But what Bernie said about true believers and smokescreens above provides a very, very strong "moral" case for there being spaces that are kept free of their psychotic bletherings.

Why? Because even when they're not actively colluding in the cover-up of what the authorities are actually up to - testing Stealth technology at Groom Lake, lying to the people to get minimal acquiescence for an invasion of Iraq, whatever - even then, they're disrupting actual, rational discussion of what the authorities are actually up to and what they're up to.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Here's an example. An almost totally level-headed UFO group who've been around in various forms since the 60's. They almost always end up looking into things and going "Um, nope, there's a completely rational explanation here, sorry everyone."

http://www.magonia.demon.co.uk/arc/00/newmag.htm

 

[ZWord]

For laptop.:
But unless you've got Pope technology, for infallible judgement, there's no empirical test for distinguishing between rational discussion and reasonable speculation, and psychotic bletherings.

So all it comes down to is personal intuition, which is the same as prejudice, because the world might actually be far stranger than you've ever imagined, and still look to you exactly the way it does, and you've no way of being certain that that's not the case.

 

[ZWord]

You're still arguing that there's a "right" to spout any old bollocks, aren't you? And the point about unconstrained speculation is that it might be true - but if it is, it's only true by accident (monkeys'n'typewriters stylee).

I guess I am, basically. But on the positive side, it is possible for people to discern for themselves whether the unconstrained speculation might have any basis in reality, or whether it's just total bollocks, and in a forum of this sort, they can say so, if they wish, and why, so on balance, I think it's fairly harmless.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

In the sorts of cases we're talking about. Approaching this stuff rigourously isn't impossible. Just challenging. I think it's a mistake to confuse the two.

 

[ZWord]

Also what's good about freedom of expression is that quite often, when people come up with a tenuous theory, they're not really saying, -this is the truth, they're saying,- -this just occurred to me- which is a way of asking if it occurred to anyone else, and so it's part of the process, of checking over the ideas you're having, and seeing what people think of them.

 

[laptop]

Personally, sometimes it's obvious to me that someone is lying and I don't need proof to be sure of it. How can I justify this? I can't. But when I say, I'm sure that Blair knew full well that the dossier he presented to Parliament was a pack of lies. I'm sure of it, and I don't have any proof.

Precisely.

You hold a personal belief. Nice for you. And I should care, why?

The point of rational discussion is to change reality, usually unmeasurably subtly, by shifting others' beliefs - which requires that the beliefs propounded relate to (what for the sake of argument I shall call) "the real world". (For example, any belief that turns out after a little thought to rely on 100,000 Americans keeping a secret can be ruled out.)

The point of true-believer ranting is that, like you here, they inexplicably regard their personal revealed belief as important - but have no concept of how beliefs relate to each other or to "the real world". So they can only attempt a simulation of argument, and they attempt a proof by intimidation, loading mediæval-style textual Authority upon Authority and utterly missing simple observations that all non-psychotic people share about the world (see above).

 

[laptop]

quite often, when people come up with a tenuous theory, they're not really saying, -this is the truth, they're saying,- -this just occurred to me- which is a way of asking if it occurred to anyone else, and so it's part of the process, of checking over the ideas you're having, and seeing what people think of them.

But the point about "conspiracy theory" as in the question suggested by the thread title is that they're precisely not doing that. They're trying, very very noisily, to convert others to their delusional worldview.* See what I just posted.

Think some more about my suggestion for the rules of www.anyoldbollocks.org ...
* Except of course that the main motivation of many appears to be the only one who's right, so if they did ever convert anyone they'd immediately find some reason for denouncing them.

 

[ZWord]

I don't know why you care, if you do. or if you should. But why shouldn't I post up a belief of mine without evidence just to see if other people are seeing things the same way, on the basis of their intuition, without evidence, kind of check where I'm at. It's actually fairly normal behaviour.

fuck me, the idea that normal human behaviour is to act like scientists act, and believe like scientists believe is just so obviously ridiculous I can't believe you're serious about it. Science is an academic method, it's got fuck all to do with how to live. And if you actually did try and live by its ways, you'd be fucking unhappy and totally unsuccessful.

 

[ZWord]

For you to call it delusional, with certainty, when you haven't checked the whole thing out for yourself, is as arrogant as you're claiming they are. You want to convert others to your certainty that their worldview is delusional, and not give them the opportunity to decide for themselves.

 

[laptop]

fuck me, the idea that normal human behaviour is to act like scientists act, and believe like scientists believe is just so obviously ridiculous I can't believe you're serious about it. Science is an academic method, it's got fuck all to do with how to live.

This isn't "normal human behaviour". It's a discussion board.

And by introducing the concept "normal human behaviour" you immediately raise some interesting questions about what on earth that might be and how you could tell... addressable, in reality, only by the social sciences

And if you actually did try and live by its ways, you'd be fucking unhappy and totally unsuccessful.

This is one of those beliefs you hold that you're just throwing out, with no personal attachment, to see whether it flies?

 

[ZWord]

It's not addressable at all as a question. that's the whole point, science doesn't have a place to comment on human behaviour, it's not for that.

And I'm not just throwing out the view at random. When you meet someone new, you make judgements about them pretty fast, and without reliable evidence, you go on intuition, and it works.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I think speculation has a role, but don't you want to find out if it's true too?

Science would be nowhere if people hadn't speculated about causes, but then it got really good, for a certain class of problems at figuring out which causes worked how and making predictions.

So if you can apply it, why the hell not? If you can't work out how to apply it, then maybe you can at least apply some weaker deductive system, like the sort of standards of evidence used in law, or even investigative journalism.

That's surely more satisfying than just sort of flopping around from speculation to speculation?

 

[laptop]

For you to call it delusional, with certainty, when you haven't checked the whole thing out for yourself, is as arrogant as you're claiming they are. You want to convert others to your certainty that their worldview is delusional, and not give them the opportunity to decide for themselves.

You were doing so well giving an impression of being an "I will so say what I want and you can't stop me" teenager. And now I'm wondering, as I was yesterday, whether you're David Icke on a chill pill.

Why do I wonder that? Because you were arguing for a right to throw around bare, attachment-free speculations - and now you're taking the standard line that True Believers take.

Of course I don't have to check the whole thing out to see it's delusional. That's the line that people with books to sell take. There are - for one example - plenty of stylistic cues in any given piece of delusional writing that reveal it for what it is and strongly indicate that the only people who should spend any time "checking it out" are those who make a hobby of collecting delusional writing.

The simplest of these cues to describe is massive attention to detail in footnoting the most trivial parts of an argument, with massive logical leaps into the void at structurally the most important parts.

 

[ZWord]

I think speculation has a role, but don't you want to find out if it's true too?

If I can, I want to find out if it's true. If I can't, I'd prefer to be allowed to speculate and hear other people's speculations, rather than being told I'm not allowed to hear someone's latest insight/article they've found/whatever, because someone else has decided that they're a conspiranoid fruitloop and binned or banned them.

I like being able to make my own judgement. And I appreciate people posting things that I haven't heard about in the mainstream press that they think are of interest, whether or not I agree with the view they're pushing.

 

[laptop]

So if you can apply it, why the hell not? If you can't work out how to apply it, then maybe you can at least apply some weaker deductive system, like the sort of standards of evidence used in law, or even investigative journalism.

That's why I am once more suspecting that Zword is insincere - they're trying to make a false binary opposition between "science" and "humanity" (in which Zword is the representative of "humanity" ), and to exclude all other systems for attempting rationality.

Whereas what happens when science meets the law or journalism is rather interesting...

 

[ZWord]

Of course I don't have to check the whole thing out to see it's delusional. .

Of course you don't, you already know.. You've got the gift for knowing delusion when you see it, and presumably for knowing truth when you see it as well. Infallible your intuition is, Just like the rest of us fruitloops, and the Pope. That's what's so funny about it. Of course, your sources and worldview are reliable and normal, but theirs' are not. You know this. The idea that they might know something you don't is not worthy of consideration. You can't imagine that they could have ways of knowing things that you don't have. But so what, we're all like this to some extent, which again is why I recommend laughing at worldviews you find risible rather than suppressing them, which somehow seems to be a sign of immaturity or insecurity to me.

So if you can apply it, why the hell not? If you can't work out how to apply it, then maybe you can at least apply some weaker deductive system, like the sort of standards of evidence used in law, or even investigative journalism.

Because in cases like the murder of JFK or 911, it's not possible to apply any kind of rigorous standard of investigation, because if there's any truth in the conspiracy theories, that is, if the official line is false, then you know at least that there's a massive amount of lying going on, and therefore normal investigative procedures will get you nowhere. It's like someone said, it's like one of those optical illusions, when you start to see it a different way from the normal way, it looks like that, and you can't see it the normal way any more.

Mainly people take one of equally possible interpretations of the facts, and then become increasingly dogmatic and convinced that they know that it's the truth, It's very rare for people to realise that actually in some cases, it's not possible for them to know, and just to accept it.

Anyway, I'm off to bed. I'll leave you with a link, just to prove that I'm an utter fruitloop, so you can laugh at me..
http://www.dragonrest.net/fortfiles/falls.html

Toads falling out of the sky... Bwahahahah
What is the explanation of this?

Enjoy.

 

[laptop]

Of course you don't, you already know.. You've got the gift for knowing delusion when you see it, and presumably for knowing truth when you see it as well.

I chose the example of stylistic cues because I have a great deal of experience of examining them, making much of much of my living as an editor.

"Theories" that invite the response "but if that were true, the laws of physics would have to be different, and such that we'd be plagued by flying hippos" offer another good cue.

I take it from the style of the rest of the post that your plaintive argument about people being "free" to put forward speculation was indeed insincere, and that in fact you're pleading for True Believers to be allowed to disrupt discussion with their rantings. Do tell, what's your True Belief?

 

[ZWord]

How do you work that out? Are you sure you're not jumping to a hasty conclusion?

What's my true belief? Christ, why would I tell you? So you can mock it? No thanks. If you're really interested, I'm sure you can find out for yourself, but I'll give you a clue. It's a really popular true belief, shared by millions and millions of people.

Stylistic cues as a guide? Frankly, I don't believe you, I'm pretty sure that the only guide you accept as to where the author's coming from, is whether what he says fits into your worldview.

I can imagine arguing with a republican true believer, and giving Chomsky as my source, and, like I said earlier, he'd say, well, believe that and you'll believe anything, and if you pointed out that Chomsky's argument is meticulously well-documented, he'd probably say, well that kind of meticulous footnoting of the trivial, with glaring leaps at the crucial parts of the argument is just typical of a paranoid obsessive conspiraloon.

Chomsky -- Respectable political analyst, or paranoid half-crazy obsessive?
You don't have to be a genius to work out that the answer someone gives to this is almost always going to be predictable from their political views?
Similarly with Pilger. Similarly with a bunch of people.

I take it from the content of your posts in general that you're a fundamentalist materialist, and that you will not hear your idol blasphemed and stand by idly.

It's odd that you mention the "laws" of physics. Which laws did you have in mind? Are they eternal?
It's kind of amazing that it's 2005, and yet you seem to be busy touting a worldview that people were demolishing 20 years ago. Ever heard of Bell's theorem?
20 February 1983 London Sunday Times, Dr David Bohm was interviewed on the subject,
"It may mean." said Dr Bohm, "that everything in the universe is in a kind of total rapport, so that whatever happens is related to everything else; or it may mean, that there is some kind of information that can travel faster than the speed of light; or it may mean that our concepts of space and time have to be modified in some way that we don't now understand. ..

Elsewhere in the interview, Dr Bohm apparently went so far as to say, it's possible that the "laws" of physics (actual physicists are quite sceptical about the concept) are not static but are "evolving in time".

Evolving in time? ...related to everything else; ? Great God.

And then there's the case of toads and on other occasions other things falling out of the sky, or at any rate appearing to fall out of the sky, or at least, being reported to have appeared to have fallen out of the sky.

Either it happened or it didn't, I suppose, --hmm maybe that's a bit dogmatic, maybe there's a third alternative.

But I suppose there must be some explanation for it. Which do you prefer?
Lies, unscrupulous reporting, teleportive forces, mass hallucination, freaky whirlwinds, something else. ?? Check the source, it's Scientific American.
But hey, what does Scientific American know. Americans, can they honestly be called scientific? Well if it reports that, it's not science as I understand it.

Of course not.

 

[gurrier]

How do you work that out? Are you sure you're not jumping to a hasty conclusion?
.....

Calm down. You seem to be arguing with 300 different, mutually contradictory opponents and they all live in your head.

If you want to argue with real people, even the ones who just appear as characters on the other end of the interweb, it's a good idea to focus on what they say and respond to that without assuming that they are manifestations of every one of the arguments that you dislike.

 

[ZWord]

Focus on what they say? Well that's what I did, as far as I can tell.

e.g.

I take it from the style of the rest of the post that your plaintive argument about people being "free" to put forward speculation was indeed insincere, and that in fact you're pleading for True Believers to be allowed to disrupt discussion with their rantings. Do tell, what's your True Belief?

Well he did say that. 300 different opponents who live in my head? I don't think so. Speaking to an audience, maybe, but I don't think it's a sign of an overactive imagination to assume that whoever's reading this thread actually exists.

It's wonderful, the predictability of it, though, you run out of arguments, or can't answer the things I say, so you resort to subtly questioning my sanity, both you and laptop. It is normal in a debate of this sort, I guess, people who are attached to their worldview and don't want it challenged tend to start to argue that people who do, if they can't be talked out of it, are crazy.

Personally, I can't see how I can prove what you're saying to be false though, -is it possible to prove that I'm not arguing with 300 different opponents I've imagined?- Can't see how.?

What was it you said earlier about unfalsifiable statements?

 

[phildwyer]

Are you phildwyer's other login? One of his themes (apart from some form of made-up religion and creationism) is that he resents the authority with which science gets to speak and wants [whatever-it-is-he-teaches] to get the same respeck'

You cheeky monkey Laptop, talking about me behind my back. You know perfectly well that I'm no creationist, not everyone who points out the obsolescence of Darwinism is a creationist. And its not a matter of resentment: I believe the post-Baconian instrumental science is deeply involved in rationalizing the dominance of exchange-value, and as such is evil, in the profoundest sense of the word. Furthermore, if you disagree, the onus of proof is on *you,* since instrumental science and exchange-value rise to dominance in exactly the same place and at exactly the same time--seventeenth-century England. I wish this were my own argument but, as I have told you numerous times before, it is in fact a well-known case that has been made by literally hundreds of historians, philosophers and--yes--scientists. Why you cling to the manifestly absurd concept of instrumental science as ameliorative is a mystery to me, I suspect the explanation is psychological and/or professional rather than rational.

 

[phildwyer]

Probably the biggest thing that distinguished Greek civilisation from most other civilisations before and since was that they went a long long way towards abandoning superstition in favour of reason. Even their early attempts at understanding physiology, hampered as they were by their lack of access to the microscopic, were the first real attempt to understand the body in physical, rational terms.

In short, you are trying to claim for your side of this argument people who were moving in exactly the opposite direction to you.

Horseshit. The post-Socratic Greek philosophers were the first to prove, rationally, that human experience is predicated on an Absolute Idea, aka God. If you imagine for a moment that they would look benignly on the kind of base, mypoic materialism that you advocate, you are a monster of ignorance. The kind of science practiced in the West for the last three hundred years was referred to by the Greeks as "banausic" knowledge, and it was considered the proper preserve of slaves, bespeaking as it does a servile, ignoble and unprincipled consciousness. For contemporary instances of which we do not have to search very far, if you don't mind my saying so.

 

[laptop]

Furthermore, if you disagree, the onus of proof is on *you,* since instrumental science and exchange-value rise to dominance in exactly the same place and at exactly the same time--seventeenth-century England.

Eh? Simultaneity proves what?

The seventeenth century also saw the rise to dominance of, er, trousers.

Blame trousers for the evil that is exchange-value!

* Constructs theory based on the notion that the codpiece was the last thrust of use-value-based clothing for men in NW Europe *

Why you cling to the manifestly absurd concept of instrumental science as ameliorative is a mystery to me, I suspect the explanation is psychological and/or professional rather than rational.

You're projecting, again.

 

[Azrael23]

I`m with phil

Its quite logical that if the major scientific mindset encourages nothing more than a materialist philosophy then it will go hand in hand with an economic system that subscribes value only to material objects/services.
I don`t believe this is any kind of cartesian conspiracy it was simply the consequence of the current circumstances. I would agree however that such a view of the world can only have negative connotations as they discourage an interest in spiritual concepts and basic humanism. To argue that such a system is right would be to argue that our society as a whole has reached its pinnacle and that our race has only better technology to look forward to. Obviously thats crap.

EVERYTHING evolves, life, minds, souls, the laws of physics, perhaps even the universal conciousness itself is in a state of evolution. Afterall evolution is simply progression against entropy.