# Ask the conspiracy theorist **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [October 27, 2012, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-conspiracy-theorist/639012 "2012-10-27T05:07:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2012, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-conspiracy-theorist/639012/261 "2012-12-05T12:23:23Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > I believe that _The New York Times_ is trustworthy because it is arguably the preeminent [newspaper of record](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_of_record): You are citing “societal opinions” when looking for reliable news sources? Just admit it, you have no logical basis for singling out CNN and NYT as the font of knowledge. It just makes it easier for you to be lazy when looking for the Truth. And that’s all this is; lazy logic when faced with the complexity of the real world. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2012, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-conspiracy-theorist/639012/262 "2012-12-05T13:26:14Z")
We have among the regular contributors to this board lawyers, practicing physicians, researchers, professional writers, editors, and educators at all levels. We have a good number of persons who can construct a solid argument and who can point out the weaknesses in others’ arguments. We might not be able to determine whether a given statement is “true” but we are very good at finding if it is “unsupported” and can give guidance on how to better state a case. I would like to ask \*\*Kozmik \*\*if this is the first time he has been asked to support his ideas in this type of atmosphere, and whether he understands that objections to his statements are intended to help him clarify his position, not to necessarily disprove his ideas (except in those instances wherein his ideas are orthogonal to reality). ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2012, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-conspiracy-theorist/639012/263 "2012-12-05T15:34:04Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > The reason I reject those theories is because if I did not reject those theories then I could not believe _anything_ I read in _The New York Times_ or believe _anything_ I see on CNN. So I reject September Clues because that is implausable and I reject The Matrix because that is unknowable. OK, you reject alternate theories because not rejecting them would be unpleasant - if you believed them, it would make life difficult. Do you see that this is not a logical argument? It’s true - life would be very difficult if those theories were true - but that’s not a position of logic. There’s no evidence to back up your decision. It’s just your own personal feeling. > [@](#): > > I believe that _The New York Times_ is trustworthy because it is arguably the preeminent [newspaper of record](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_of_record): OK, well, this is a new argument you haven’t mentioned before. Now you’re saying it’s trustworthy because other people in the past have said that it’s trustworthy. This is an appeal to authority. It’s still not a logical argument, in that there’s still no evidence to back you up. You’re choosing to trust these people based on a (presumably) educated assessment of their character, not based on any hard evidence of their trustworthiness, but fine. That can work. In fact, this is probably the best argument you’ve come up with so far. I’m not saying it’s a _good_ argument, but it’s the least flawed out of all of them. However, you’ve been saying all along that the upper echelons of society are controlled by the Illuminati. So how can you turn around and say that you can trust the opinions of well-respected people? Aren’t those the exact people you _shouldn’t_ trust if your theories are true? And also, you have yet to explain why the Times and CNN are _more_ reliable than other, similar news outlets. There are other papers out there that are as respected - why do you reject them, and rely only on the Times? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2012, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-conspiracy-theorist/639012/264 "2012-12-05T15:53:26Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > _The New York Times_ and CNN. You still haven’t explained why (because you can’t). > [@](#): > > I believe that _The New York Times_ is trustworthy because it is arguably the preeminent [newspaper of record](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_of_record) “Newspaper of record” means “respected newspaper,” and that’s all it means. This does not mean everything they print is true. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2012, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-conspiracy-theorist/639012/265 "2012-12-05T16:34:57Z")
The New York Times buries the lead so deeply that I rarely bother to read it. Typical New York Times first paragraph: \*Sally walked down the street on sunlit autum day with her child Jimmy. They had been making this walk every day for several weeks. Their home was three blocks away from his school. They often met other parents and children walking to school. Sally and Jimmy enjoyed talking to each while walking. They talked about his friends and teachers. \* Typical BBC first paragraph: _A mother and child were struck by a car in Pembry. The eight year old child was killed. The 29 year old mother was released. The driver was taken into custody._ ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2012, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-conspiracy-theorist/639012/266 "2012-12-06T04:43:34Z")
I usually find most conspiracy theories to be illogical. But usually they at least have internal logic. But Koz your “theories” have no internal consistencies or logic. In such a glaring way that it is obvious to everyone. But you seem incapable of seeing it. Which makes me suspect mental illness and that concerns me. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2012, 11:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-conspiracy-theorist/639012/267 "2012-12-06T11:13:34Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > I usually find most conspiracy theories to be illogical. But usually they at least have internal logic. But Koz your “theories” have no internal consistencies or logic. In such a glaring way that it is obvious to everyone. But you seem incapable of seeing it. Which makes me suspect mental illness and that concerns me. I am in agreement with you. Most conspiracy theorists I have encountered have a dogged attachment to a few concepts, and have the ability to twist any further observations into accordance with their theories. **Kozmik** ’s magpie-like attraction to whatever story catches his interest in the Times this morning shows a distinct lack of focus, and therefore never builds to anything other than a Ripley’s Believe It or Not potpourri of unrelated (and unrelatable) factoids. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2012, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-conspiracy-theorist/639012/268 "2012-12-06T11:42:43Z")
Kozmik, what is the highest level of education you have received, and in what field or discipline was it? ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2012, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-conspiracy-theorist/639012/269 "2012-12-07T05:53:19Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > You are citing “societal opinions” when looking for reliable news sources? Just admit it, you have no logical basis for singling out CNN and NYT as the font of knowledge. It just makes it easier for you to be lazy when looking for the Truth. And you know what the Truth is I take it? > [@DrFidelius](#): > > I would like to ask \*\*Kozmik \*\*if this is the first time he has been asked to support his ideas in this type of atmosphere, and whether he understands that objections to his statements are intended to help him clarify his position, not to necessarily disprove his ideas (except in those instances wherein his ideas are orthogonal to reality). Yes, this is the only place where I would do this, and I understand most objections. > [@Smeghead](#): > > OK, you reject alternate theories because not rejecting them would be unpleasant - if you believed them, it would make life difficult. Do you see that this is not a logical argument? Yes, it is not a logical argument - it is a philosophical argument. > [@Smeghead](#): > > However, you’ve been saying all along that the upper echelons of society are controlled by the Illuminati. So how can you turn around and say that you can trust the opinions of well-respected people? Aren’t those the exact people you _shouldn’t_ trust if your theories are true? Those are the exact people I shouldn’t trust, and I _trust_ them. 😉 I’m smarter than most people give me credit for. > [@Smeghead](#): > > And also, you have yet to explain why the Times and CNN are _more_ reliable than other, similar news outlets. There are other papers out there that are as respected - why do you reject them, and rely only on the Times? I “reject” them and only “rely” on the Times because it takes me approximately one hour to read through _The New York Times_. Yes, I realize that there are other newspapers out there. However, I cannot spend three or more hours of the day reading newspapers! It’s just not realistic or practicable. > [@Loach](#): > > I usually find most conspiracy theories to be illogical. But usually they at least have internal logic. But Koz your “theories” have no internal consistencies or logic. In such a glaring way that it is obvious to everyone. But you seem incapable of seeing it. Which makes me suspect mental illness and that concerns me. What do you mean, “internal logic”? Could you give examples of CTs with internal logic? > [@Muffin](#): > > Kozmik, what is the highest level of education you have received, and in what field or discipline was it? Associate degree in pre-business. ---
**Author:** ![wheresmymind](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/91b2a8/32.png) [@wheresmymind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wheresmymind)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2012, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-conspiracy-theorist/639012/270 "2012-12-07T06:42:20Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > Yes, I have read the article and I have read the headline of the article. The headline states that the C.I.A. drugged Frank Olson. I believe that. In the article, it says that “the Olsons came to believe that he had been murdered to keep him from talking about disturbing C.I.A. operations that he uncovered”. I believe that. I believe that in the article, _the Olson family_ asserts that Frank Olson was murdered by the CIA. I believe that the article provides convincing evidence that Frank Olson was murdered by the CIA and the convincing evidence is that Frank Olson was drugged by the CIA. How is the fact that he was drugged by the C.I.A. evidence that he was murdered by the C.I.A? He wasn’t poisoned, he was unwittingly given LSD at a weekend retreat so that they could study it’s effects. It was a very immoral, illegal thing for them to do, but the C.I.A. was doing the same thing to LOTS of people at the time, and they didn’t end up dead. That’s a good example of the classic CT way of thinking. “The week before he died, he was given LSD by the C.I.A. Therefore, the C.I.A. must have murdered him.” Admittedly, the circumstances surrounding his death are suspicious but that doesn’t mean him being an unwitting participant in MKUltra is evidence that he was murdered. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2012, 9:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-conspiracy-theorist/639012/271 "2012-12-07T09:27:04Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > Associate degree in pre-business. What is that? ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2012, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-conspiracy-theorist/639012/272 "2012-12-07T13:04:25Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > And you know what the Truth is I take it? Yes I do. It is an imaginary ideal. There is no “Truth” as you are looking for it. It’s a messy, complex, confusing, contradictory world out there. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2012, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-conspiracy-theorist/639012/273 "2012-12-07T15:17:01Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > What do you mean, “internal logic”? Could you give examples of CTs with internal logic? The moon landing was filmed in a movie studio because we didn’t have the technology to go to the moon, but we wanted to show up the Soviets, so the US faked the whole thing as a propaganda effort. One can disagree with the premise that we did not have the technology to go to the moon, but the logic that the US would be motivated to beat the Soviets in the space race is reasonable, and the idea that the moon could be recreated on a sound state is also reasonable. Even though the facts do not support the conspiracy theory, the logic used to make the claim is fairly sound. The idea that high ranking people in this world take orders from people who call them up anonymously to give them orders is not reasonable at all. It’s preposterous. If you would not eat a sandwich due to the direction of an unknown caller, and I think it is clear that the average person wouldn’t do something substantive at the direction of an anonymous caller, there is no reason to expect that people in high positions would randomly do big things (including very serious things like ordering crimes to be carried out) at the insistence of unknown callers. Likewise, the idea that something significant would happen if all world leaders were in the same room together. I can’t even explain why you think this makes sense. There isn’t just a fault in the reasoning on this point, it’s just an absurd claim on its face. It’s like saying, “The G-192 would do big things because Illuminati,” or “ **Ravenman** controls the world because pizza.” There’s really no logic to carefully evaluate. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2012, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-conspiracy-theorist/639012/274 "2012-12-07T15:33:32Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > The moon landing was filmed in a movie studio because we didn’t have the technology to go to the moon, but we wanted to show up the Soviets, so the US faked the whole thing as a propaganda effort. > > One can disagree with the premise that we did not have the technology to go to the moon, but the logic that the US would be motivated to beat the Soviets in the space race is reasonable, and the idea that the moon could be recreated on a sound state is also reasonable. Even though the facts do not support the conspiracy theory, the logic used to make the claim is fairly sound. > > The idea that high ranking people in this world take orders from people who call them up anonymously to give them orders is not reasonable at all. It’s preposterous. If you would not eat a sandwich due to the direction of an unknown caller, and I think it is clear that the average person wouldn’t do something substantive at the direction of an anonymous caller, there is no reason to expect that people in high positions would randomly do big things (including very serious things like ordering crimes to be carried out) at the insistence of unknown callers. > > Likewise, the idea that something significant would happen if all world leaders were in the same room together. I can’t even explain why you think this makes sense. There isn’t just a fault in the reasoning on this point, it’s just an absurd claim on its face. It’s like saying, “The G-192 would do big things because Illuminati,” or “ **Ravenman** controls the world because pizza.” There’s really no logic to carefully evaluate. Thank you, you answered it well. Although I would pick Kosmik’s Bloomberg/hurricane conclusion to be his least logical. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2012, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-conspiracy-theorist/639012/275 "2012-12-07T16:37:46Z")
That dead nurse in England did something substantive based on an unverified caller. I wonder if the Duchess’ baby will be half-human/half-alien (just like Charles was). ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2012, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-conspiracy-theorist/639012/276 "2012-12-07T18:02:38Z")
Bloomberg wants Hilary to be the next mayor of New York City. Should I start boarding up my windows now? ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2012, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-conspiracy-theorist/639012/277 "2012-12-08T02:44:37Z")
> [@wheresmymind](#): > > How is the fact that he was drugged by the C.I.A. evidence that he was murdered by the C.I.A? I’m just going by what the Olson family is claiming: > [@](#): > > the Olsons came to believe that he had been murdered to keep him from talking about disturbing C.I.A. operations that he uncovered. > [@Muffin](#): > > What is that? A piece of paper that shows that I successfully completed two years of college. > [@Telemark](#): > > Yes I do. It is an imaginary ideal. There is no “Truth” as you are looking for it. It’s a messy, complex, confusing, contradictory world out there. It does not follow, though, that one’s _understanding_ of the “world out there” is messy, complex, confusing, contradictory. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2012, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-conspiracy-theorist/639012/278 "2012-12-08T02:57:17Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > It does not follow, though, that one’s _understanding_ of the “world out there” is messy, complex, confusing, contradictory. Yeah, but there’s a world of difference between taking complex data and simplifying it to make it comprehensible and taking complex data and creating fiction to make it nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2012, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-conspiracy-theorist/639012/279 "2012-12-08T03:04:54Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Yeah, but there’s a world of difference between taking complex data and simplifying it to make it comprehensible and taking complex data and creating fiction to make it nonsense. Would any sentence in [this](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/07/world/middleeast/egypt-islamists-secular-opponents-clashes.html?ref=todayspaper) article be such nonsense? ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2012, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-conspiracy-theorist/639012/280 "2012-12-08T03:23:35Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > Would any sentence in [this](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/07/world/middleeast/egypt-islamists-secular-opponents-clashes.html?ref=todayspaper) article be such nonsense? And there you go with a non-sequitor again. You are NOT being Socratic, you are simply being obtuse. Say what you mean; you suck at hinting. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-conspiracy-theorist/639012.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-conspiracy-theorist/639012.md?page=15)