(I'm going to regret this)

Someone asked in another thread (that I am not going to link to, for obvious reasons): 

Quote

Do you even know the origin of the term "conspiracy theory"?

Oooh! I thought, maybe it has an interesting origin. Nope. It just developed over time from a phrase meaning "a plausible postulate of a conspiracy" to the modern meaning of "an intellectual construct ... a template imposed upon the world to give the appearance of order to events."

So, I am guessing that there is a conspiracy theory about the origin of the term! (If there is, I really don't want to know. I used to find conspiracy theories mildly amusing but now they are just boring and often dangerous.)

Some people will inevitably react to statements that something is a conspiracy theory by pointing out that there are actually conspiracies. It can be quite hard to put into words exactly what the difference is between a conspiracy (or even a theory about a possible conspiracy) and a conspiracy theory.

And, so, to the point: Wikipedia has an excellent article on the subject which very succinctly characterises the differences: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory (that is really all I wanted to say)

If anyone wants to read more, I can recommend Voodoo histories : the role of the conspiracy theory in shaping modern history
by David Aaronovitch. After that, I never want to hear from another conspiracy theorist. 

Conspiracy as a subject in online discussion format, especially science discussion, isn't viable, imo. It's too full of conjecture and subjectivity to yield anything meaningful. 

The nature of confirmation bias works against the conspiracy theorist as well. They start out suspicious and skeptical, and when shown evidence that refutes them they become even more convinced they're right. How do you use critical thought and reasoned arguments when they have the opposite effect on the listener?

To me, it's like discussing the supernatural. If there was any real evidence for it, we wouldn't think of it as supernatural, it would just be natural, and we could assess it normally. And if there was actual supportive evidence for a conspiracy theory, it wouldn't be considered a conspiracy, it would just be a theory, and we could assess it normally.

16 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Conspiracy as a subject in online discussion format, especially science discussion, isn't viable, imo. It's too full of conjecture and subjectivity to yield anything meaningful.

Well, actual conspiracies are (you know, the ones where there is documentary evidence, a whistle-blower or criminal proceedings) 🙂

16 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

The nature of confirmation bias works against the conspiracy theorist as well. They start out suspicious and skeptical, and when shown evidence that refutes them they become even more convinced they're right. How do you use critical thought and reasoned arguments when they have the opposite effect on the listener?

There's a bit in Aaronovitch's book where he goes to interview one of the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail and spots a a document on the desk which completely refutes their fairy tale. But the author has obviously just ignored (or misinterpreted) it because it doesn't fit his chosen narrative. You would imagine he might have thrown it away, because of that, but it is almost as if it doesn't exist: he can't even see it.

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

Well, actual conspiracies are (you know, the ones where there is documentary evidence, a whistle-blower or criminal proceedings) 🙂

There's a bit in Aaronovitch's book where he goes to interview one of the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail and spots a a document on the desk which completely refutes their fairy tale. But the author has obviously just ignored (or misinterpreted) it because it doesn't fit his chosen narrative. You would imagine he might have thrown it away, because of that, bit it is almost as if it doesn't exist: he can't even see it.

 

 

This is the nature of conformation bias: it means one is putting blinders on from the start. For those that don't know what 'blinders are: they are eye covers put on horses that restricts their side vision so that they can only see what is in front of them.

Edited May 8, 20205 yr by StringJunky

My neighbour is big into this, he means no harm; I think he wants to believe, because he isn't satisfied/content with how his life turned out and wants "someone" to blame; it's easier than putting the spotlight on himself.

Edited May 8, 20205 yr by dimreepr

Conspiracy theories propagate among non-critical thinkers, simply because you cannot disprove something that has no evidence, or basis in facts.