Bronze-level articleConspiracy theory

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m (teh --> the)
m (bronze rating)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Fun|Conspiracy theories}}
+
{{bronze}}{{Fun|Conspiracy theories}}
 
{{cquote|There’s a similar kind of logic behind all [conspiracy theorist] groups, I think ... They don’t undertake to prove that their view is true [so much as to] find flaws in what the other side is saying.|||Ted Goertzel, sociology professor<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/science/space/14hoax.html?_r=1&ref=science</ref><ref>Also a good description of [[Young earth creationism|certain ''other'' nutjobs we know]]...</ref>}}
 
{{cquote|There’s a similar kind of logic behind all [conspiracy theorist] groups, I think ... They don’t undertake to prove that their view is true [so much as to] find flaws in what the other side is saying.|||Ted Goertzel, sociology professor<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/science/space/14hoax.html?_r=1&ref=science</ref><ref>Also a good description of [[Young earth creationism|certain ''other'' nutjobs we know]]...</ref>}}
 
A '''conspiracy theory''' is a theory ([[Theory|sort of]]) that some event in the world didn't actually occur how it was "officially" described. Was it secretly organized by people who are not claiming credit for it, or are even actively suppressing information that they did? Are they [[Extraterrestrial|aliens]] working with the government? Are they the [[New World Order]]? The usual definition of the term implies that the conspiracy being posited is not [[falsifiable]] by normal standards of evidence.
 
A '''conspiracy theory''' is a theory ([[Theory|sort of]]) that some event in the world didn't actually occur how it was "officially" described. Was it secretly organized by people who are not claiming credit for it, or are even actively suppressing information that they did? Are they [[Extraterrestrial|aliens]] working with the government? Are they the [[New World Order]]? The usual definition of the term implies that the conspiracy being posited is not [[falsifiable]] by normal standards of evidence.

Revision as of 17:43, 11 May 2010

Icon fun.svg For those of you in the mood, RationalWiki has a fun article about Conspiracy theories.
There’s a similar kind of logic behind all [conspiracy theorist] groups, I think ... They don’t undertake to prove that their view is true [so much as to] find flaws in what the other side is saying.
—Ted Goertzel, sociology professor[1][2]

A conspiracy theory is a theory (sort of) that some event in the world didn't actually occur how it was "officially" described. Was it secretly organized by people who are not claiming credit for it, or are even actively suppressing information that they did? Are they aliens working with the government? Are they the New World Order? The usual definition of the term implies that the conspiracy being posited is not falsifiable by normal standards of evidence.

Contents

Real conspiracy vs "Conspiracy Theory"

A real conspiracy eventually fails this test by being possible to expose, or often, by having credit claimed for it. For example, since Al-Qaeda claimed credit for the 9/11 attacks in the United States, which they surely conspired to do, it is no longer a "conspiracy theory" in the accepted sense (unless they are lying to cover up the real planners). The parenthetical at the end of the previous sentence is a conspiracy theory.

Some conspiracy theories are theories about real conspiracies, while other deviate gently from reality until they approach the asymptote of lunacy. Conspiracy theory fodder most often occurs organically — for example, sketchy details reported early on after a significant event are later treated as gospel by conspiracy theorists. Much conspiratorial thinking comes from assuming the conclusion and then mining the data to support it.

Denial

Government employees' denial of on-going conspiracies can be taken as proof that said employees are "in on" whatever conspiracy they are busily denying. Usually, the more they deny, the more conspiracy theorists will take it as proof. Furthermore, if government employees do not deny the theory, this can also be taken as proof on the grounds that "it has never been denied". The same goes for those involved in any large, perhaps mysterious, enterprise, such as "scientists", "the Army", "automobile manufacturers", "Big Science/Petroleum/Tobacco/Florists" etc.

A conspiracy theory becomes a crackpot conspiracy theory when all evidence that might disprove the theory instead becomes co-opted as proof of the "cover-up" of said theory, requiring loyalty, resources, and competence on the part of the conspirators far in excess of what any actual conspiracy can muster.

"Conspiracy theory" can be used as a snarl word to dismiss a valid worry that a group is up to something.

You know, what I think I might be upset over BushCo more than anything is the fact that talking about what they DID do is so amazingly far-fetched that I have to cast a new eye at the conspiracy people.

See, many, many years ago, I was seeing reports from citizens about a "Black CIA jetplane" that was taking prisoners secretly from the US to other countries for torture.

"Psssh" I said, "As if. We're America, you 'tards. We don't DO that."

A year later, the stories continue, with photos of the planes and tracking the tail numbers.

"Guys, what, photoshop or something? Please. Yeah yeah, the FAA won't talk about what plane that is. Still not true."

Then we find out that, yeah, we are having the CIA send people oversees for "interrogations".

Son of a BITCH.
—Wakshaani

Remember, you're not paranoid if They really are out to get you.

Questions to ask about a conspiracy theory

Don't count on converting a conspiracy theorist. However, some questions can expose a theory's weaknesses to a neutral party.

  1. How many people are part of this conspiracy? Are there enough of them to carry out the plan? (For instance, the moon landing hoax would require tens of thousands if not more to carry out)
  2. Explicitly who gains what from the conspiracy? If it's an old conspiracy — who gains what from maintaining it?
  3. If there are thousands of conspirators, and the conspiracy has gone on for decades, why have none of them defected? Why have none of them leaked the story? If many conspirators are dead, why have none of them told the truth on their deathbeds, or in their wills?
  4. If there are many thousands of conspirators, how are they organized? Where are the secret conferences held? How do they keep track of membership?
  5. There are many intelligence agencies associated with rival nations, with the ability to expose secrets. If, say, the US government is running a global conspiracy, why haven't the French, Russian, or Chinese intelligence agencies revealed it, to cause a major scandal in the United States? (If all intelligence agencies are involved, see #2.)

See also

External links

Footnotes

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support