A Facebook friend of mine is a conspiracy nut. She was tagged in a post by a friend of hers, so up in my ‘news’ feed comes a post offering incontrovertible evidence that persistent contrails are in fact chemical spraying of the populace or the planet for nefarious purposes. I was dimly aware of this notion but was taken aback when encountering such people in the (virtual) flesh.
People who don’t buy it are portrayed as ‘ignorant’ or ‘duped’, and are urged to open their eyes and their minds to the Obvious Truth. Just Look Up! A rash of ‘proof’ videos gets posted in comments. If the statements were subsequently retracted, they’ve been ‘got at’. If they admit hoax, they’ve been got at or it was all part of the plot. The world is sharply divided into Believers and Non-Believers; the latter are either ‘sheeple’ or part of the Disinformation Plot. There is no conceivable evidence that can convince a Believer that they err, that the trails have a simple physical explanation, or that there is not a massive international Them out to get us. Non-believers could be convinced, but their evidential standards are clearly different. Yet both sides wrangle on, certain that if they can just find the right form of words, the other will see sense.
This all has a familiar ring.
To me, conspiracy theories don’t even get out of the starting gate because of basic human nature. The implausibility of a sustainable conspiracy involving even a handful of people with no blabbing, pricked conscience or deathbed confession, is enough to dismiss the entire lot. In the case of chemtrails we have airlines, airports, security allowing tankers airside, mechanics, ATC, airplane breakers yards, chemical factories, transportation, governments of every conceivable political hue, including those whose relations extend only to grudgingly allowing each others’ planes to land … tens of thousands of people having supposed knowledge of and complicity in the spraying of toxins on family, friends, neighbours or foreign nationals (and, incidentally, on Them), in a co-ordinated manner coming in from all points of the compass. Yet none of these people carries a smartphone? This elaborate hogwash is preferred over the physical explanation, that under certain atmospheric conditions contrails (like clouds) persist. It’s an approach to evidence I cannot even begin to comprehend. It beggars belief that people should subscribe to such tosh, but subscribe they do, in droves. One sees some amusing exchanges – such as here, where a surprising number of people takes it seriously, and is subjected in return to some hilariously deadpan responses (“Who needs mass vaccination anyway?” “You do”). Of course such sites, to the committed, are part of the disinformation plot, to make chemtrailers look ridiculous (!). It stops being funny when one sees people so incensed by the ‘poisoning’ to which they believe they are subjected that they advocate violence to pilots and planes. I suspect it is only a matter of time before someone takes action.
I know that some here have supported one conspiracy or another, so I thought an OP may generate some interest.
Read tom’s definition to find out!
Posted this before, probably more than once. Still funny.
I don’t see why that helps. Human affairs may also exhibit characteristics that are contrary to ‘common sense’ why wouldn’t they? Many behaviorists, for example, believe that much of what seems obvious in ‘human affairs’ is false. Freudians would say the same thing.
walto,
It’s the reason quantum physics does not fall within the realm of ‘conspiracy theory’. It’s not meant to either help or hinder!
I’m merely using a common term here. I didn’t coin it.
As indicated, taking care of quantum physics with ‘human affairs’ doesn’t handle the deficiencies of that definition. But Tom’s has other problems (as also indicated). The point is that it’s not actually that easy to define ‘conspiracy theory’ unless you”re just stipulating something.I think Petrushka’s post on the subject should make people realize that conspiracies seem to actually occupy some area on the intersection of a few continua–one involving insufficiency of evidence–one involving the alleged ‘power’ of the conspirer, another the inherent implausibility to common sense.
No point being frustrated at counter-examples. Defining terms in ordinary use is often quite difficult.
I have always liked this “moon landing” video.
Glen Davidson
walto,
A precise definition of “conspiracy theory” isn’t needed in order to dispute your claim:
The pencil neck geeks may be grit-eatin’ and scum-suckin’, but they aren’t conspiring.
Likewise the biochemists. Their rudeness and poor personal hygiene are sufficient to qualify them as “Them”, no conspiracy needed.*
*A purely hypothetical example. Any resemblance to actual biochemists, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
Biochemists don’t die, they just become inert.
I believe I already conceded that groups are not sufficient for conspiracies. Did you forget or were you not paying attention?
Then that quashes that suspicion of conspiracry!!
Unless you didn’t talk to everyone(get them drunk) .
Hmm. No wink wink about how sure the evidence is???
Okay i guess you said no!
Hmm.
Methinks we are beginning to chase our tails here.
There are various incarnations of delusion including paranoia. A subset of paranoia includes “conspiracy theory” as as generally understood in common parlance.
So if we were to draw three concentric Venn circles – delusion encompasses paranoia encompasses “conspiracy theory”.
I think some conflation of terminology has occurred here. Now there happen to be experts in the field who have taken such definitions further and parsed their terminology quite carefully.
That is why I referred everyone’s attention to the relevant Wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
I am particularly enamored of Michael Barkun’s insights
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#To_explain_evil_forces
…which reminds me muchly of the historical development of Christianity and current illucid manifestations of some (not all) Christian belief systems rendered untenable by a minimum of critical scrutiny.
But we rehash.
Before going to bed – I want to reiterate something worth repeating:
But again, we rehash.
Again, I repeat – I think Allan has come up with an excellent OP that merits further discussion.
How is it that LARGE segments of our society can so egregiously reject the authority of science and subscribe to conspiracy theories such as Darwinism as Ideology/Faith or Global Warming is a Hoax or the Da Vinci Code is based on fact.
Understanding the answer to this question is IMPORTANT! Would psychological insight permit readier resolution of dispute and facilitate saner public policy?
I do not believe that the sandwalk.blogspot approach of gratuitous and abusive dismissal of “accomodationism” in any form is the way to move forward. ITMT, the stakes are too high to get this wrong if indulging some puerile sense of self-superiority at others’ expense stalls public exchange and translates into failed political policy.
Robert Byers,
In my sincere opinion the evidence is comprehensive and compelling. I went through 5 years of university level biology education, and was exposed to a great deal of the nuts and bolts of it. I’ve studied it in more depth since. I don’t think anyone ever tried to pull the wool over my eyes or persuaded me to go along with something nefarious.
In my experience people who struggle with it have particular reasons for doing so. One cannot understand science reluctantly. It takes effort. But there is no conspiracy.
walto,
Perhaps, like art, one simply knows it when one sees it. I don’t see what particular pupose is served by one party pointing to something one considers to be within the set ‘conspiracy theory’ in order to discuss it, and the other party saying ‘but it lacks necessary condition X to be termed a conspiracy theory’, or, ‘how about this other thing, then?’.
The term has gained currency, and is a useful label for certain kinds of explanatory framework, but not others. It tends to be used by an ‘out-group’ to describe the beliefs of an ‘in-group’, where the latter considers some level of secrecy or cryptic action to be part of the framework.
walto,
Your concession was half-hearted:
walto:
keiths:
walto:
If you can have one without the other, I wouldn’t characterize them as “hand-in-hand”.
Yes, exactly. The terms “conspiracy” and “conspiracy theory” are not being used the same way throughout this thread.
You mention with approbation the Wikipedia definition. It is:
I think it’s interesting that when we consider the “harmful” here, it’s not clear that it does anything if the very fact of the conspiracy makes the “event or situation” harmful. I mean, if being lied to is intrinsically harmful, then any situation or event that conspirers know to be real and nevertheless deny will be have the makings of a conspiracy if the other criteria are met. So if we want to be lawyerly about this, we will take all the words in the definition to have been put there for a reason and suppose that the insertion of “or harmful” means that something that is or would be OTHERWISE harmful (like chemtrails, e.g.) is being lied about–that that is essential to a conspiracy being present.
But then consider that your own favorite examples,
may not cut it on the Wiki definition. Take global warming. If we assume that the scientific consensus is correct, then what is actually harmful is ignoring the situation. Or consider another example that’s been used on this thread several times–a faked moon landing. What is the illegal or harmful event or situation there–again, other than the alleged fact of a conspiracy itself? Not actually being capable of going to the moon?
As you indicate, some IDists take Darwinism to be a conspiracy theory, and you also suggest that early Christian teachings were conspiracies. Both of those claims seem OK by my intuitive sense of what a conspiracy is, but I’m not sure how well they fare by the Wikipedia entry. I note also that several of these paradigm examples don’t involve governmental authorities–so the wiki author(s) may be right not to require that.
The moral to all this may be found, I think, in petrushka’s post on this above. It’s a continua (or, better, a bunch of continua) centering around what everyone “knows (or should know if they weren’t off the wall) to be obviously the case.” Thus, the branding of something as a conspiracy is secondary to determinations of what actually constitutes good evidence, what is actually harmful, and so on. As one man’s conspiracy is another’s good science, it is better to concentrate on what good science consists in than in seeing who can yell “NO, YOU’RE THE CONSPIRACY THEORIST!!” more loudly.
I’m sorry my concession was not full-hearted enough for you, keiths. But I think the two are hand-in-hand. That groupishness is not sufficient for conspiracy mongering does not mean it is not a necessary condition. And it may be more than that, it may be a necessary condition that provides a psychological impetus.
However, as I know you like people to say when they were wrong, I want to do so as clearly as possible and with a full heart. To wit:
ETA: BTW, keiths, where the heck is your OP on how we should be more like you with respect to admissions of errors?
I have learned from this thread that while I said I was wrong about something, I didn’t say it full heartedly enough. I do hope you’ll get into those niceties so I won’t make THAT mistake again too!
So c’mon already, keiths! I know we’d all benefit from your wisdom on this issue!!
Weirdly (moderators take notice!) I see two posts by Allan on my dashboard that I cannot see here. One is a response to Mr. Byers, the other is a complaint about my attempts to figure out what conspiracy theories are when we all know what they are.
I think it’s a useful exercise, myself, although I admit that it may be impossible to define precisely. As indicated in one of my last posts, I think the fact that it doesn’t really express anything terribly clear, helps show that bandying it as a kind of weapon doesn’t float my boat. It’s just more groupspeak.
walto,
Personally, I find it expresses something very clear – the involvement of a shadowy group, or general secrecy and collusion, without firm evidence, in someone’s explanatory framework. I don’t use the label as a ‘weapon’, though obviously I think the people espousing these notions are, in the main, misguided. A significant part of that opinion is formed on the unlikelihood of such widespread secrecy. If that’s ‘groupspeak’ … meh. Others happen to be of similar opinion. It’s hard to avoid being part of one group or another, since there are more people than shades of opinion.
I have no problem with that as a general description of conspiracy theories. It’s better than the wiki def., I think. (You should consider making an edit!)
Of course, what you take as “firm evidence” and what, e.g., FMM does, may not be quite the same thing.
[BTW, mods, the reason I couldn’t see Allan’s posts here was that I must have accidentally hit the “Ignore Commentor” button instead of Reply with respect to one of his posts during the last couple of days. Allan is off my blacklist and back where he belongs now. Sorry for any inconvenience.]
walto,
Granted. My Facebook interlocutors were completely mystified as to why I could not see that the failure of contrails to disappear in some circumstances was firm evidence that we are being sprayed with something, with all that flows from that.
Allan:
Yes, and the chemtrail delusion certainly qualifies as a conspiracy theory.
Do you disagree, walto?
I think there are perfectly rational conspiracy theories that involve a reasonable degree of cynicism, but not paranoia.
What differentiated a “conspiracy theory” from a conspiracy theory is implausibility.
The remarkable thing about government sponsored conspiracies is that they require a remarkable degree of competence over many years or decades. That in itself argues against them.
I would speculate that inhuman levels of competence and solidarity are a hallmark of “conspiracy theories.”
I mentioned the NSA. Prior to the Snowden revelations, there were decades of minor leaks and widespread speculation. The leakiness of the projects supported belief in their existence. It’s difficult to cover up the construction of massive data centers and connections to the internet.
In the real world it is rare to achieve perfect solidarity or perfect secrecy for any length of time.
walto,
That’s just you making stuff up again. I said I was going to do an OP on the psychology of admitting mistakes.
Another characteristic of “conspiracy theories” is the technical ignorance of true believers. We see this in IDists and in 911 theories that the Trade Center buildings would not have collapsed due to fire alone.
One popular conspiracy theory here at TSZ is that the DI is trying to get ID taught in the public schools. But I guess when you’re ignorant about ID you can make up all sorts of things.
No. I think it’s a good example.
I think we have a demarcation problem. It’s fairly easy to classify extreme cases, but how do you distinguish paranoia from whistle blowing?
They provide the background for many SF conceits, from The Foundation novels to the Matrix and pod people.
And, after all, those of us who are sims are programmed not to recognize these things.
I think you are neglecting an essential nested component in the definition of of “conspiracy theories”, namely “COVER-UP”
IOW – some implicit notion of “harmful” is really not necessary…
The COVER-UP criterion of wrongdoing, error, incompetence or other embarrassing information now makes the cut of conspiracy theory.
Authority need not be governmental – authority can also be ecclesiastical or scientific; as we can witness for ourselves right here on this forum.
I beg to differ – I think the boundaries between science and pseudo-science can be agreed upon in Popperian fashion.
Maybe so–and maybe some Kuhnian would disagree.
In any case, as I said above, what constitutes good evidence is the significant question here, the rest of it is largely a matter of mass psychology, fluff and insult.
Again. I think I’m just reiterating petrushka’s point above that it comes down to what constitutes warrantable beliefs.
Re your ‘cover-up thesis, I take it that an entirely undiscovered–or merely suspected–conspiracy wouldn’t be cast out of conspiracy land because it hasn’t yet had need for any cover-up, would it? And suppose once discovered the concocters don’t bother making up any fibs, but just split the scene. Shall we deny it was ever a conspiracy at all?
In extreme cases.
But a look at Larry Moran’s blog makes it clear there’s a lot of heated discussing withing the mainstream.
If you believed ID is really science why wouldn’t you want it taught in public school science classes?
With ID, it isn’t even like that. It was always a rather open conspiracy (and yes, in the looser–yet still commonly, though not always, accepted–sense, I think it’s a real conspiracy), mostly in the hope of passing through judicial tests. The Wedge “exposed” ID, but really, the Wedge was pretty much a more concise statement of what Phillip Johnson had written out in his books.
I don’t think that being silent has ever been required for a plan or plot to be a conspiracy, just that it’s usually rather more effective that way.
Glen Davidson
They “switched” from pushing to have ID taught in schools, to having “critical thinking” about “Darwinism” taught “instead,” after Dover.
There is hardly any difference, since ID doesn’t have the slightest bit of actual evidence for design, rather it wishes to be the default when evolution is demolished by their crude misuse of probability. “Critical thinking” means little more than attacking evolutionary theory, of course, in their language.
Glen Davidson
A further common component of the “conspiracy theory” is the unwillingness of proponents to consider alternative explanations. This is unrelated to conspiracy per se, but is the reason the conspiracy is deemed necessary, because the simpler, fewer-assumptions explanation is believed not to hold water. It becomes pseudoscience (yeah, another groupspeak label) when there is no possibility of a disconfirming observation.
In the case of chemtrails, the simple fact that contrails are clouds, and will behave broadly in the same not-particularly-mysterious way that they do depending on temperature and humidity, is resisted to a significant degree. One soon realises one is arguing with people who Will Not Be Swayed. Something that may resonate with both sides of arguments here.
“Although Discovery Institute does not advocate requiring the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, it does believe there is nothing unconstitutional about discussing the scientific theory of design in the classroom. In addition, the Institute opposes efforts to persecute individual teachers who may wish to discuss the scientific debate over design in a pedagogically appropriate manner. ”
From DI website
From the Wedge Document:
I have to say that as a conspiracy, ID is not very secretive. It’s true that they propose legislation on a regular basis, without broadcasting the fact, but the names of the people involved are pretty well known, and legislation itself cannot be secret.
They haven’t yet succeeded in attaching ID legislation to a budget bill, or something like that.
That would involve a real, effective conspiracy.
Patrick,
chortle!
No True IDist would want ID taught in school.
walto,
And:
As if those were the only options. “Conspiracy theory” is a useful concept, appropriately employed by Allan in the OP. The chemtrail delusion qualifies as a conspiracy theory.
I see nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade. It isn’t “a matter of mass psychology, fluff and insult”, contrary to your characterization.
What is it useful for?
petrushka,
yet again… chortle!!!
you guys are killing me!
Agreed! Provided we define our terms in advance and parse our words carefully!
This OP of Allan’s has the potential of being very instructive and illuminating! I am sorta jealous I did not come up with it first.
Conspiracy Theorist, YEC, Flat Earther, Kook, Wingnut, Fundie. All words to label people who believe stuff I know not to be true.
Life is too short to engage pig headed people in detail. They will not change anyway.
Serious? Or sarcasm?
Right. It’s just one more insult to add to the quiver. If we’ve demonstrated that some reasoning or evidence is bad, have we added something useful by tacking on that name?
Of course. It’s important to know how people are shielding their beliefs from the evidence if we wish to change some minds (many will never change no matter what, some will). Conspiracy theorists typically see the world the opposite of how we do, which can be surprising to some (seems to have been an eye-opener to Miller), and doubting their claims merely “proves” that you’re either part of the conspiracy or you’ve been duped by them.
To be sure, one thing one realizes about conspiracy theorists is that they’re pretty hard to reach. On the other hand, there seems to be some chance of breaking the cycle by engaging with them, and if you do you should at least know what to expect as far as the psychology goes. When you’re “untrustworthy” merely for disagreeing with them, you’re probably going to go meta pretty quickly.
This in contrast to the merely naive, who will typically be defensive as well, but not as much by merely discounting your statements as being what the conspirators say. And you’re going to run across, say, IDists who are very much conspiracy-minded and others who are rather less so. The latter might be somewhat susceptible to evidence-based arguments, while the former are not likely to be.
Glen Davidson
I think it’s useful to engage mistaken ideas, so long as one doesn’t expect to change minds. There are always new people, some of whom will look at the evidence.
Useful, if you think in terms of generations and centuries.
I think the internet has speeded up the cycle.
keiths:
walto:
It’s useful as a concept and a category, just as “conspiracy” and “theory” are separately useful as concepts and categories.
For example, conspiracy theories have been studied collectively as a psychological phenomenon.
Paradoxically both