When people feel that government, media and corporations that control their lives are trustworthy, most will not gravitate to conspiracy theories (and therefore away from mainstream media sources and official statements). Conversely, the massive growth of belief in conspiracy theories and the exodus away from mainstream media outlets does reflect real and growing distrust. It does not result from mere disagreement or dissatisfaction, but specifically from distrust. In other words, conspiracy theories can only flourish in a vacuum of official information that seems to be more or less true and complete.
But:
Is there anything to this distrust? Is it justified?
By which I specifically mean:
Do there exist non-controversial examples that suggest that the distrust is legitimately deserved?
NOTE: I do NOT want to talk about the truth or falsehood of particular conspiracy theories or debate controversial facts in this thread. I do want to debate my belief that the very rise in their popularity itself has a real and non-controversial correlation to institutional secrecy and/or deceit. I think the two correspond mathematically most or all of the time. I think there is non-controversial evidence that in fact the government, corporations, and the corporate media have caused conspiracy theories to become a viral phenomenon and are solely responsible for it.
Or could it be the result of some other effect? I would like to know what you think!
Is there a massive growth of conspiracy beliefs? I’ve seen an increase in paranormal shows about ghost hunting or psychic children but I haven’t seen a massive growth in conspiracy stuff since the 1990s (not counting 9-11 stuff).
I think it’s a little more than just distrust. There are plenty of people who distrust the government but don’t agree with the 9-11 truthers, believe that humans walked on the moon, and that Ted Kennedy wasn’t framed to prevent him from running for president. Conspiracy theorist construct elaborate fantasies to explain to themselves why the world is the way it is.
I don’t know about non-controversial but in recent years I think a lot of people have gotten pissed over how the Bush administration sold the war in Iraq to the American people. I honestly believed him when he said there were WMDs in Iraq.
Okay, thanks, good place to start. Aparently some people don’t yet realize that these conspiracy folks are gaining in numbers like nobody’s business. Here’s a smattering of polls on the topic. Looks like a solid quarter to third (at least) of the public now thinks 9-11 was an inside job, 50-75% believe the JFK shooting was a gov’t conspiracy, and…well you’ll see:
Scientific, 1009 polled, US
More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll. Other results were:
� More than half (51%) believe it is very likely or somewhat likely that government officials were “directly responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy.”
� More than half (60%) believe is likely that military officials covered up the dangers of the Agent Orange chemical.
� Four-fifths (80%) believe it is likely that military officials are covering up information about American soldiers’ exposure to nerve gas or germ warfare in the Gulf War.
� More than one-third (40%) believe it is likely that the FBI burned down the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas.
� More than half (52%) believe it is likely that the CIA allowed drug dealers from Central America to sell crack cocaine to African-Americans in US inner cities.
� More than one-third believe it is likely the Navy shot down TWA Flight 800 either intentionally or accidentally.
� Nearly half (47%) believe it is very likely or somewhat likely that “The U.S. Air Force is withholding proof of the existence of intelligent life from other planets.”
Respondents were asked if the above situations were likely to some degree. The above responses included the “very likely” and “somewhat likely” answers.
Non-scientific, 6000 polled, Germany Atlantic Review
“The results (with over 6,000 votes registered) indicate that 65% - or nearly two-thirds - of ZDF participants blame either George W. Bush (26%), US authorities (24%) or the nebulous and ever sinister arms lobby (15%) for 9/11. By comparison, only 27% selected Osama Bin Laden as the culprit and 9% said they didn’t know.”
Non-scientific, 53934 Votes, US CNN - Content
“Do you agree with Charlie Sheen that the U.S. government covered up the real events of the 9/11 attacks?”
Yes 83% with 44827 votes
No 17% with 9107 votes
Scientific, Zogby Poll #1, 808 polled, NY State You searched for readnews.cfm - Zogby
"49 percent of New York City residents and 41 percent of New York state citizens believe individuals within the US government ‘knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act’. The margin of error for this poll was 3.5 percent.
…
Scientific, Zogby Poll #2, 1200 polled, US-Wide
“with a 2.9 percent margin of error. 48% believe there was a cover up, 38% say building 7 should have been investigated, 45% say 9-11 should be reinvestigated”
… Opinion polls about 9/11 conspiracy theories - Wikipedia
Rasmussen Reports published the results of their poll May 4, 2007. According to their press release, “Overall, 22% of all voters believe the President knew about the attacks in advance. A slightly larger number, 29%, believe the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. White Americans are less likely than others to believe that either the President or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. Young Americans are more likely than their elders to believe the President or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance.”, “Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure.” and “Republicans reject that view and, by a 7-to-1 margin, say the President did not know in advance about the attacks. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 18% believe the President knew and 57% take the opposite view.”
…
CANADA:
In September 2006 an Ipsos-Reid poll found that 22 percent of Canadians believe “the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden and were actually a plot by influential Americans.”[20]
A September 2008 Angus Reid poll showed that 39% of respondents either disagree or are unsure that Al Qaeda carried out the attacks. About a third of those surveyed believed the United States Government allowed the attacks to happen and 16% believe the U. S. government made the attacks happen.[21]
Scientific, 16,000 polled, 17 countries Global Poll Shows Doubt About al-Qaida Role in 9/11 Attacks
An average of only 46% blames al-Qaida for the attacks!
15% say the U.S. government plotted the attacks
7% of the people polled blame Israel
OK, let’s see about the JFK assasination
Various Gallup polls, scientific, US http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/US/JFK_poll_031116.html
Kennedy Assasination, 40 Years Later
Time / Suspect Plot / One shooter
Sep. 1966 / 46% / 34%
Feb. 1967 / 44% / 35%
Sep. 1967 / 60% / 24%
Nov. 1983 / 80% / 13%
Dec. 1991 / 73% / 11%
Nov. 2003 / 70% / 22%
…
ABC poll, not scientific:
Belief in a broader plot peaked at 80 percent in a 1983 ABCNEWS poll; it’s since eased a bit, to today’s 70 percent. Similarly, the number of people who think there was an official cover-up has moved back from its peak, 81 percent in 1993.
Okay, then we got almost 3/4 of the public thinking the JFK conspiracy theory is true, and you saw the other numbers. I didn’t cherry pick these polls. I just found all that I could. If you can find more (pro or con) then I would be grateful.
BrainGlutton, I can’t imagine why they would need to be. There is no need to bring in controversy here by discussing the validity of the theories themselves. Nor are controversial sources needed to demonstrate an untruthful media/government.
For instance it is uncontroversial that there were no WMD’s in Iraq. We all accept this now but at the time the Media, Corporations, and Government spoke with one voice that there absolutely, factually, 100% for sure, were. I’m looking for whether or not people think that there are enough such proven (but at least fairly uncontroversial) events to warrant the distrust. I don’t want to get into whether the theories themselves have any merit. I’m postulating that the popularity of them is a legitimate sociological measurement, and that they measure distrust. To argue that the measured distrust is attributable to the establishment, I want to see if people can support or undermine the idea that however right or wrong the theories they turn to are, the underlying mistrust was self-inflicted by a demonstrable lack of honesty and transparency on the part of the powers that be.
I think even the most left-leaning are now very clear on the fact that Obama lied in his campaign promises. And that Timothy Geithner has probably lied about enriching himself and his friends with tens of millions, and many billions to their companies. These are now commonly held beliefs among sane, rational, normal people and don’t tend to invite controversy. They certainly do suggest rife establishment dishonesty though.
Yes – but there is enormous controversy (yes, even now) over whether that instance “warrants mistrust,” i.e., whether the Bush Administration should have known better, or actually did know better but lied.
No. We’ve had exhaustive reports on JFK and 9/11, and wackjobs still believe in all sorts of lunacy. Conspiracy theories exist because of stupid, irrational, credulous folks (in general), not because of some external justification. And they have accelerated not because the government has gotten more corrupt, but because the world we live in is much less simple than it was even 30 years ago and information flow has reached the overflow/overload level for many people.
You’re most likely using the fallacy of equivocation. Distrust/doubt/skepticism is always justified, but rational skepticism does not lead to claims that the Jews destroyed the WTC, or what have you. So if you’re asking if there is anything to justify the raving paranoid fantasies of the Troofers or their ilk? No, there isn’t.
No. We know about the problems with WMD claims, for instance, because of full and complete investigation and reporting on the governmental, non-governmental, fourth estate, etc… levels. Same with Watergate, or what have you. The idea that there could be anything hidden with the single greatest structural failure in American history that’s been investigated more than any other in human history is implausible to the point of comedy.
You can’t do one without the other. Conspiracy Theories are only possibly-not-bonkers-bazoooie if their claims somehow flow plausibly from the facts under discussion. You cannot ignore the claims, and the facts, and then ask if they’re still driven by reasonable concerns.
Not only are Conspiracy Theories very, very old, and they used to be very, very popular (check out some around the time of the Black Death) but if anything our government is more transparent now and open to scrutiny than it’s ever been.
Nothing attracts a crowd like a crowd.
Never underestimate the depth of human stupidity.
Never, ever underestimate the impact of a large group of very stupid people.
Right, but that’s where transparency enters in. That question would take two minutes to solve if a commission had access to the right documents. They don’t. That’s why I say “honesty/openness” (either would be fine). All of the conspiracy theorists could be shut right up if we just opened up all the pertinent files right?
The fact that corruption has been legalized and institutionalized (ie: lobbyism/campaign contribution) makes it reasonable to assume that anything the Government or Politicians says is untrue, or at the very least quite slanted.
Obvious lies from leading politicians (I did not have sex with that woman), or the whole power elite (There are WMD’s in Iraq) being found out to be lies obviously helps to prove people right in being distrustful. If there is no good information being presented, or the information sources are viewed as dishonest, it creates a breeding ground for others.
Every official lie helps strengthen the case of the conspiracy people, and makes people trust the official information less. Marijuana is addictive/dangerous/lethal, is one example that has been going for years. One could speculate that this is one reason why the US is so split on issues that other nations aren’t, like AGW or Evolution.
The above was to BrainGlutton. FinnAgain, the truth or falsehood of the theories has nothing to do with anything, and it is perfectly possible to be rational and unemotional about the effect (the popularity) itself. One in no way has to be a proponent of these views to theorize about the significance of their burgeoning popularity. I hope that a conspiracy theorist didn’t kill your cat or something, but I have to wonder at the rage in your tone. Are you religious?
Wrong.
“We don’t trust the government, so let’s dream up a scenario where government leaders are really aliens who rule the planet via flouridation of the water and nanobots hidden in vaccines” does not suddenly become a rational response just because an unclear level of ‘distrust’ exists.
The truth and, more importantly, rational support for a CT is of prime importance when you’ll looking at whether or not it has any real justification. I’m surprised you’re arguing this point as it’s pretty much a tautology: “Whether or not a CT has possible rational support governs whether or not the CT’s support is possibly rational.”
I just did.
Lots of stupid people able to congregate virtually and/or absorb more information than they’re able to process who collectively take leave of reason and play a rousing game of Let’s Pretend in order to explain a world which they are poorly equipped to model, let alone understand.
I have to wonder why you see simple statements of fact as “rage”. Curiouser and curiouser. Most CT’ers are harmless and hardly worthy of much more than mild pity, let alone contempt. Why, do you think, that a factually accurate statements about the ignorance and lack of cognitive/critical thinking skills that typifies CTers upsets you?
Are you an Inuit?
P.S. you are selling bullshit when you claim that the 9/11 investigation was somehow hampered or relevant documents are being hidden, therefore ‘justifying’ the ‘distrust’ behind Trooferism.
Remembering the last TWA 800 discussion and the Davidian fire, the answer is no. There are individuals that will forever ignore the evidence and most of the time the demands of requesting more information are done with the intention to continue the controversy. If the controversy ends, their 15 minutes of fame are over.
The issue is not transparency, we have that in spades compared to anywhere else.
The issue is credulousness combined with lack of education resulting in abysmal identification and analysis skills.
Combine that with a worldwide platform for mentally ill people who used to type up dense flyers and put them on bulletin boards around town but now find a worldwide audience online for their rantings, and you have, well…what? The Republican Party? The poll results in the OP seem to match up…
This is actually a more clever tactic than most CTers take. If you can (somehow) make it plausible that a CT can exist (without looking at any individual CT and it’s nutball claims), then you can cast doubts on a skeptical position as a sort of preemptive strike. Sort of poison the well from the get go, and cast the CTers in a more reasonable light.
It’s not a VERY clever tactic…just more clever than the usual CT position. I think it’s become fairly clear just what the OP is getting at though…
Is there a reason to distrust the government? Absolutely. Is there a reason to allow that distrust to take one down the nutbar trail to a serious assertion that, say, the government was behind 9/11 and have managed to cover it up? Don’t be ridiculous. Is such a position (that the government was behind 9/11, as an example) justified based on justified distrust of the government? Um…no.
There are myriad examples of why one should distrust the government. There are generally inconsistencies in any large event (like 9/11, just to stay with that example) where there will always be questions. The real world is messy, and unlike in a movie or computer game, there isn’t any script. It’s real people reacting (badly in a lot of cases) to real world situations and trying to make sense of things, generally after the fact. However, it’s really silly to jump from a healthy distrust of the government to a theory that the government would or COULD be behind something like 9/11 and manage to successfully cover up something that big. It’s, simply put, not possible. Anyone who jumps from a reasoned distrust of the government to something that loony is, well, loony…and they are also, frankly, out of touch with reality, either technical reality or the reality of how our government works. Most CTers really have no idea how the government works, sadly…no idea what is and isn’t possible for the government to cover up, what is or isn’t possible for the government to do, and how many people would be involved in any such operation.
Truly, the validity of conspiracy theories is irrelevant to the question of what their popularity signals. This really is not a difficult concept. My premise is that they can only gain currency in a relative vacuum of trust. I extend this to ask the question: is the lack of trust justified?
The reaction is very interesting from FinnAgain and Xtisme, but I’m shocked by the emotional nature of it. I’ve only seen an attempted thread-derailment of that vehemence when I attempt to debunk creationists. I’m quite amazed, really. I’ve spent my entire life around scientists and am most unused to this sort of reaction. I bet if we were sitting face to face or on the phone you might even feel weird acting that way. But at any rate, I am undaunted.
I repeat the original scope: the validity of the theories themselves is irrelevant, the line of inquiry masks nothing and is entirely valid and very simple to understand. If you want to be all priestly and forbid certain lines of questioning then please go start up an evangelical revival. Hey, or perhaps start your own thread! You could call it “on whether certain topics should be forbidden as heresy on supposedly scientific boards” or “how knee-jerk religiosity masquerades as rationalism in bigoted, impolite gate-keepers”. Or maybe “how some topics make me go all mental for no reason and I turn into a snarling dog”. Otherwise, try, try, try to stay on topic if you would. Politeness wouldn’t be a bad thing either. After all, what do you have to fear from this discussion, right?
This is how CT can happen to even good people. You are 1.2 rhetorical step away from preaching one, and you may have already convinced some readers of what you don’t really believe yourself.
then they start repeating it, maybe without understanding it, but since you said it first, it must be true. If anyone doubts, they make up explanations as needed to sound authoritative.
Then, it spreads over and over the same way.
More interesting is, what is the difference (if any) between CT’ers, and those who are susceptible to cult messages, multi-level marketing messaging, certain self-help theories and so on? I’d maintain not much, and I’d maintain is it much more fundamental than lack of education or facility with rhetorical skills.
I do not think that the sprouting of conspiracy theories is (if you like) a ‘symptom’ of the ‘disease’ of actual “relative, justified lack of trust” in the government, etc.
There are several problems with this theory - the first being that there has never been a time when the governments of various western nations have ever been substantially more transparent than now.
Indeed, I have no idea whether the central premise (that folks are more prone to conspiracy theories now than in the past) is true.
Assuming that it is, I’d put it down to the opposite - that the relative ease of communications, for example via the Internet, as well as increasing transparency by enabling anyone to publish more or less what they want, also gives more life to crazy conspiracy notions. In the past, you would have to convince someone to publish this stuff. Now, any lunatic can (and does) publish on their own, finds like-minded lunatics, and create a “presence” on the Internet; given that many people are prone to be credulous, there us a ready audience for this stuff.
It’s not a difficult concept. It is what we like to call a “bullshit concept”, however.
You are resisting the obvious fact that the validity of a CT is absolutely essential to seeing what its popularity signals. If it’s got some plausibility behind it, then it shows something. If it’s batshit nuttery, then it shows something else entirely. This is elementary.
Yes, and that premise has already been refuted, why are you repeating it? Seriously, read up on some history. There were truly insane CT’s circulating around the time of the Black Death, and they generally had nothing to do with the authorities (who were generally seen to be God’s own representatives on Earth).
XT and I have directly addressed your argument, repeatedly. It’s revealing that this is your reaction.
:dubious:[sup]2[/sup]
Wrong. Again.
Yet again, since you seem to have missed it in your rush to dismiss arguments via ad hom fallacies: The truth and, more importantly, rational support for a CT is of prime importance when you’ll looking at whether or not it has any real justification. I’m surprised you’re arguing this point as it’s pretty much a tautology: “Whether or not a CT has possible rational support governs whether or not the CT’s support is possibly rational.”
If people believed that intergalactic bankers from a corporate sin galaxy were stealing people’s kidneys in Las Vegas and selling them to lizard-people for use in blood rituals… you’d have us believe that was indicative of something having to do with the government. The character limit on posts will not allow me to give that nonsense the number of rolleyes it deserves.
Whether or not a claim is a CT directly goes to whether or not it has reasonable support or reveals a reasonable thought process. You are deliberately trying to dodge this essential question.
“Okay okay, so let’s not look at whether or not this is rank tinfoil hattery of the first order based on ignorance, stupidity and raving paranoia with no rational support or cause at all. Instead, let’s just assume that it might have a rational cause and that cause is distrust of the government.”
The degree to which the CT is obviously stupid is relevent, because it signals something about the thought processes of the person who believes it. Specifically, they’re willing and able to ignore reality when adhering themselves to a theory or opinion.
It’s also worth nothing that not everyone accepts a given CT - and what the people who do accept it think is no reflection at all about the trust held by people who do not accept the CT. So the lack of trust we’re talking about is specifically that held by the people who come to believe the CT.
So, we’re specifically asking whether the vaccuum of trust that’s held by people who are demonstrably willing and able to ignore reality when adhering themselves to a theory or opinion. Given that, I’d say that it’s hard to gain much confidence about these people’s ability to rationally assess the trustworthiness of anything they’re believing CTs about - they’ve already shown they’re irrational and biased on the subject! So no, I’d say that the fact that some people believe CTs is no reflection on the actual trustworthiness that would be justified or not to a non-irrational, non-biased individual.