# Popularity (not validity!) of conspiracy theories is a meaningful measure of honesty/openness **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 18, 2010, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/popularity-not-validity-of-conspiracy-theories-is-a-meaningful-measure-of-honesty-openness/525437 "2010-01-18T16:45:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2010, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/popularity-not-validity-of-conspiracy-theories-is-a-meaningful-measure-of-honesty-openness/525437/61 "2010-01-20T03:22:14Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I would agree that a lack of true and complete information will encourage conspiracy theories [nitpick] A lack of true and complete (or accurate) information will encourage doubt and denial of various forms, but a full blown CT is something else altogether. For instance, I find it quite believable that jealously guarded ‘turf’ and inter-agency rivalry and bigotry prevented our intelligence services from properly identifying and preventing the patterns behind 9/11. I do not, however, believe that the Mossad, carrying out the will of an international conspiracy of evil Jews, controlled the US government and got them to destroy the Twin Towers in order to create a casus belli for a series of wars against Israel’s enemies. There’s distrust and skepticism, and then there’s a CT. [/nitpick] ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2010, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/popularity-not-validity-of-conspiracy-theories-is-a-meaningful-measure-of-honesty-openness/525437/62 "2010-01-20T04:42:04Z")
Note that I said “encourage,” not spawn or even justify. If there are wackos out there\*, then being sneaky and shifty certainly pushes their “I’m a nutcase” buttons. - (And there are always wackos out there.) ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2010, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/popularity-not-validity-of-conspiracy-theories-is-a-meaningful-measure-of-honesty-openness/525437/63 "2010-01-20T04:46:29Z")
_looks about nervously_ They…are…everywhere… -XT ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2010, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/popularity-not-validity-of-conspiracy-theories-is-a-meaningful-measure-of-honesty-openness/525437/64 "2010-01-20T05:49:17Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Religion and CTs may both be attractive to people for some similar reasons\*, but religions generally fail to actually qualify as CTs for the simple reason that they usually don’t imagine that there’s a conspiracy of those in power in place to hide the truth. Without that, all you have is an ordinary theory. Oh, I’m not trying to say religion = CT, just that they both serve a basic human need to believe that life isn’t random. Usually, coming to terms to the randomness of life requires seeing two German Shepherds fighting over a human femur. ---
**Author:** ![Defero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/8797f3/32.png) [@Defero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Defero)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2010, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/popularity-not-validity-of-conspiracy-theories-is-a-meaningful-measure-of-honesty-openness/525437/65 "2010-01-20T22:57:32Z")
Finn Said: Your argument is risibly failing. You just provided your own cite for the fact that there was a massive CT perpetrated by McCarthy, with government approval and backing… as an attempt to debunk the fact that there was a massive CT perpetrated by McCarthy, with government approval and backing. Well, a conspiracy is not a conspiracy theory, is it? Or are criminal convictions for conspiracy actually CTs? If person says “government officials conspired to…etc.” and then FOIA proves that it happened, there is no remaining element of “theory”, which is very obvious. For instance in the JFK instance, the official position of the government is that there was probably a conspiracy. So is the investigating committee composed of CTers? About my points - perception of government and corporate transparency and benevolence is at an all-time low leaving room for people to speculate wildly - government and corporate uptake of public dollars in the last several years is greater than at all previous times combined Fin politely said: C-c-c-c-c-c-ombo breaker! I mean, cite? Confidence (with emphasis on long term trend since 50’s) [http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/trust.htm](http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/trust.htm) > **[Report: Anti-Americanism handicaps U.S. aid in Pakistan](https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2012/07/30/report-anti-americanism-handicaps-u-s-aid-in-pakistan/95/?_legacy_redirect=95)** > **[Americans’ Trust in Legislative Branch at Record Low](https://news.gallup.com/poll/122897/Americans-Trust-Legislative-Branch-Record-Low.aspx)** > > A record-low 45% of Americans currently trust the legislative branch of government, far fewer than trust the judicial (76%) or executive (61%) branches. Three in four Americans (73%) trust the people of the country when it comes to making judgments... [http://books.google.ca/books?id=Ee9TMSvER7sC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=Polls+confidence+in+government&source=bl&ots=corX05NiFo&sig=cPUygttM6BL7KiExiMpTAnmN5DQ&hl=en&ei=C25XS7O3GZOKswO2ss3AAQ&sa=X&oi=book\_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CCgQ6AEwCTgU#v=onepage&q=Polls%20confidence%20in%20government&f=false](http://books.google.ca/books?id=Ee9TMSvER7sC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=Polls+confidence+in+government&source=bl&ots=corX05NiFo&sig=cPUygttM6BL7KiExiMpTAnmN5DQ&hl=en&ei=C25XS7O3GZOKswO2ss3AAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CCgQ6AEwCTgU#v=onepage&q=Polls%20confidence%20in%20government&f=false) > **[Confidence in Congress: Lowest Ever for Any U.S. Institution](https://news.gallup.com/poll/108142/confidence-congress-lowest-ever-any-us-institution.aspx)** > > Just 12% of Americans express confidence in Congress, the lowest Gallup has measured for any institution in the 35-year history of the confidence in institutions question. HMOs (13%) are rated about as poorly as Congress, while Americans have the... > **[Americans Are Losing Confidence in Government - LewRockwell](https://www.lewrockwell.com/2006/09/bill-sardi/americans-are-losing-confidence-in-government/)** > > Public Confidence in Government Falling by Bill Sardi by Bill Sardi DIGG THIS Americans grow up with great pride that they live in the greatest country on Earth, a country that has Constitutional protections, and an economy and other freedoms that... Spending (Bush outspent all previous admins combined, Obama set to outspent all combined) > **[Create Custom Government Spending Chart: United States 2019-2029 - Federal...](http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1792_2010&view=1&expand=&units=b&fy=fy10&chart=F0-fed&bar=1&stack=1&size=l&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s)** > > Create custom chart of government spending and download data series, federal, state, and local from US Budget and US Census Data. Customize chart; download data. > **[Create Custom Government Spending Chart: United States 2019-2029 - Federal...](http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1792_2010&view=1&expand=&units=b&fy=fy10&chart=H0-fed&bar=1&stack=1&size=l&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s)** > > Create custom chart of government spending and download data series, federal, state, and local from US Budget and US Census Data. Customize chart; download data. > **[Create Custom Government Spending Chart: United States 2019-2029 - Federal...](http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1792_2010&view=1&expand=&units=b&fy=fy10&chart=G0-fed&bar=1&stack=1&size=l&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s)** > > Create custom chart of government spending and download data series, federal, state, and local from US Budget and US Census Data. Customize chart; download data. (note that the data is listed in a chart beneath each) Scientific correlation between economic anxiety and CT [http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:m282vMQgwuUJ:crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/CONSPIRE.doc](http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:m282vMQgwuUJ:crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/CONSPIRE.doc) tomndebb, nice post, rational. You say > [@](#): > > Now, is trust of the government lower today than in previous decades? Quite possibly. Does a general fearfulness among the citizenry promote Conspiracy Theories and does a mistrust of government feed into that? Again, quite possibly. > However, the general break in U.S. society with citizens losing trust in the government occurred at the convergence of the lies told regarding the Vietnam War and the abuse of power by the Nixon White House. There had always been a certain amount of distrust of government prior to that time, (see fluoridation and any discussion of taxes), it was simply exacerbated by those events. A very balanced view. And you mention next that while they are factors, the government and corps can’t be the SOLE cause of the outbreak of CTs, and I fully agree especially in the sense that CTs would spring up without them doing conspiracy-like or secret things. I regard the upsurge in CTs as potentially very, very bad news for everyone. If the trend continues they will be in the majority. So it would be good to understand how to decrease their popularity. When a CT is levelled at a gov’t body, as far as I know the only way to make it go away is to open up the books. Another, and much better, way to put if would have been that gov’t and corps have the SOLE key to assuaging the phenomenon, transparency. But then again in the minds of CT people, FOIA requests seem to fuel the fire: [http://www.fact-index.com/c/co/conspiracy\_theory.html#Falsifiability](http://www.fact-index.com/c/co/conspiracy_theory.html#Falsifiability) > [@](#): > > Note: Please only add things to this category if their existence is non-controversial. > > - The United States Department of Defense Information Awareness Office (IAO) has many similarities to conspiracy theories. First, its avowed purpose is to gather and correlate information on ordinary citizens for the purpose of predicting terrorism and other crime. Second, its logo depicts the eye in the pyramid, a symbol associated with Illuminati and Masonic representations of power or divinity, casting a beam over the globe of the Earth. Lastly, the name “Iao” is a Gnostic word for God, used in the Golden Dawn and Thelema among others. [1] > - From the 1950s to the 1970s, the CIA and the U.S. Army operated a research program into mind control, codenamed MKULTRA. In this program, CIA agents gave LSD and other drugs to unwitting and unconsenting victims, in an effort to devise a working “truth serum” and/or mind-control drug. MKULTRA was uncovered by Presidential and Congressional research committees in 1975, and discontinued at that time. Many prominent writers and drug figures were first exposed to LSD under this program, including Ken Kesey of the Merry Pranksters, Timothy Leary, Allen Ginsberg, and Baba Ram Dass (Richard Alpert). An excellent source on this is the book “Acid Dreams” by Bruce Shalin and Martin A. Lee. > - ECHELON is a communications interception network operated by the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It is designed to capture telephone calls, fax and e-mail messages. New Zealand has openly admitted the existence of Echelon, and the European Union commissioned a report on the system. > - In the 2003 Iraq War, Iraqi resistance was strong at first and then collapsed suddenly. A conspiracy theory emerged in Iraq and elsewhere that there had been a “safqua” - a secret deal - between the US and the Iraqi military elite, wherein the elite were bribed to stand down. This conspiracy theory was ignored or ridiculed in the US media. > In late May, 2003, General Tommy Franks, who had been the head of the US forces in the conflict, confirmed in an interview with Defense News that the US government had paid off high-level Iraqi military officials and that they had stated that “I am working for you now”. How important this was to the course of the conflict was not entirely clear at the time of this writing (May 24, 2003). > - Operation Northwoods (q.v.), before its declassification, was long considered by most to be a conspiracy theory. > - The Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male. For a period of 50 years, the US Government used the black population of a town in Alabama as unwitting human guinea pigs in a covert experiment. > - The US Federal Reserve lends money to the government at interest. This scheme had been predicted by conspiracy theories prior to its implementation in 1913. > - The Bin Laden - Saddam Hussein connection: According to opinion polls large parts of US population believed in this link. However, it was never explicitely confirmed by the US government. Colin Powell presented a tape during the Iraq war that was said to show a ‘link’ between Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. This turned out to be misleading. They would argue something to the effect of “every time we are allowed to get at the information our worst fears are confirmed” type of thing. Nobody denies that, for instance, corporations often pollute or don’t advise of health risks and sort of thing in order to increase their profits, and when that comes out, as it routinely does, it throws gas on the whole CT effect, because all such convictions actually do turn out to have been conspiracies. So corps too, like governments, might hold the solution, but they can’t come out with the truth (which probably does not involve space aliens) or they will be arrested for something slightly more mundane. Same with governments: secrecy is deemed necessary to cover endemic crimes, so the records are sealed and again the CT effect is huge as the public seems to invent a narrative that is likely more sinister than whatever crime was behind the original desire for secrecy. Obviously things like Iran/Contra, etc., too would have been vigorously called CT’s before they were merely called truths. “What, you think the govt is importing drugs and giving weapons to kidnappers?” kind of thing. Yet it turned out to be true. Perhaps from this perspective increased transparency would be a very bad thing. Perhaps it would wipe out our institutions. On a last note, for Finn, I’m not sure if you know much about causality or how to prove it, but it generally requires a control group, for one, and at least one layer of blindness separating the experimenter from the subject(s). So if you can find me another Earth with transparent govts and corps, I can help you out with that. Proving causality in even what would seem to be the most trivial things, like “does this food cause cancer”, can be very challenging. Often times hundreds of studies have to be surveyed to get the “answer” and there are often low confidence values even then, especially with non-causal cofactors. It has led to countless reversals of policy re: what is healthy. One thing I could do to help determine causality would be to find something a bit like a control group by trying to get cross-cultural view and correlating it to the transparency of the institutions of each culture. But oddly, as transparency has increased (from opaque to semi-opaque) the thousands of emerging scandals small and large have caused mayhem, so perhaps I would end up prove the opposite of my own thesis in so doing. Perhaps the present trend will worsen unless we can actually get rid of the FOIA altogether for the public good. That or make it absolute so that govt and corps couldn’t amass things to hide in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2010, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/popularity-not-validity-of-conspiracy-theories-is-a-meaningful-measure-of-honesty-openness/525437/66 "2010-01-20T23:07:12Z")
Anyone want to discuss it from the point of view of memes spreading a la Susan Blackmore? I don’t have time but I have faith (:)) that other folks here can do the debate justice. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2010, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/popularity-not-validity-of-conspiracy-theories-is-a-meaningful-measure-of-honesty-openness/525437/67 "2010-01-20T23:47:59Z")
> [@Defero](#): > > Finn Said: Your argument is risibly failing. You just provided your own cite for the fact that there was a massive CT perpetrated by McCarthy, with government approval and backing… as an attempt to debunk the fact that there was a massive CT perpetrated by McCarthy, with government approval and backing. > > Well, a conspiracy is not a conspiracy theory, is it? Or are criminal convictions for conspiracy actually CTs? If person says “government officials conspired to…etc.” and then FOIA proves that it happened, there is no remaining element of “theory”, which is very obvious. For instance in the JFK instance, the official position of the government is that there was probably a conspiracy. So is the investigating committee composed of CTers? You have made a number of mistakes and some glaring failures to grok. 1. The CT was not that McCarthy led with hunts. That’d be beyond absurd, as it’s a matter of public record. The CT was that there were commies under the beds who’d take over the nation if we weren’t intensely vigilant. That you seem not to understand is… strange. 2. Obviously, if a government body endorses a CT, then those who endorse it are CTers, this is a tautology. 3. You seem to be using an incorrect and/or idiosyncratic definition of CT. It doesn’t mean “non-government endorsed idea”. It means a wild and inaccurate gloss which purports to explain complex phenomena with simplistic actions of shadowy/secretive/covert agents, whose actions (and often very existence) has no actual proof, at all. They most often rely on the conspirators being Genius Fools and/or a willful misinterpretation/ignorance of available information (e.g. JFK CTers and 9/11 Troofers). The hallmark of a really mindfucked CT is that all counter evidence just goes to prove how much power the Conspiracy has. 4.Yet again, just to drive this point home, the ruling power/government endorsing a CT has nothing, at all, to do with it being a CT. This, in large part. eviscerates the nonsense-premise of your OP. During the Black Death when official agents of government/the Church said that Jews spread the plague, it was still a CT even when they endorsed it. When the US government endorsed the popular view that there were commies all over the place aiming to take down society, it was a CT. When the US government endorsed the view that JFK was murdered by an evil conspiracy, it’s, yep, still a CT. This goes for every single CT that ever was or ever will be; the people who endorse or refute a CT has nothing to do with whether or not it is a CT. > [@Defero](#): > > Confidence (with emphasis on long term trend since 50’s) > [http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/trust.htm](http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/trust.htm) > [Report: Anti-Americanism handicaps U.S. aid in Pakistan | Pew Research Center](http://people-press.org/report/95/) > [Americans’ Trust in Legislative Branch at Record Low](http://www.gallup.com/poll/122897/Am...ecord-Low.aspx) Bait and switch. Your original claim was about perceptions of “benevolence and transparency”. You’ve evidently provided me with Google Vomit. Your first cite does not address benevolence, and only addresses the public’s perception that the government will do what is right. The two are vastly different as a bumbling but benevolent government can be trusted to mean well but not be able to accomplish what is right. Nor did you provide the raw data of the poll itself, just a shabby link to the results, as such there is no way to analyze the sample size, format of questions, etc… Your second cite actually explicitly contradicts your claim and says: > [@](#): > > Refining these views, most Americans describe themselves as frustrated with government, not angry at it. > […] > Conducted over the last six months, these surveys show Americans to be less critical of government in a variety of ways than they were just a few years ago. Despite broad-based distrust of government, the polling finds improved public evaluations of federal workers and specific departments and agencies of government. Just one of the 19 federal agencies and departments tested was not rated favorably by a majority of respondents. Seven received significantly better ratings than they did in the mid-1980s. > > A softening of general attitudes toward the federal government is also apparent today. Fewer people than in 1994 criticize Washington for being inefficient and wasteful, too controlling and unresponsive. Further, the percentage thinking that government regulation of business does more harm than good fell over this same period, as did the percentage who think that elected officials lose touch with people. > […] > However, 56% of Americans temper their distrust of government by saying they are frustrated with it. Just 12% say they are angry with government. In fact, more than twice as many people – 29% – say they are basically content as say they are angry. > […] > But even at that, the Pew Research Center surveys find little indication that distrust of government is having dangerous consequences for the country. The exception is among the small segment of the public that describes itself as angry at the government, where as many as 38% could see justifications for violent acts against the federal government. > […] > A principal finding of this research is that distrust of the federal government is not only about the workings of government per se. A significant part of this distrust reflects how people feel about the nation more generally. > > Discontent with the state of the nation is both a cause and an effect of distrust of government. Both sentiments are expressions of a broader disillusionment with the country as a whole, which is not apparent in people’s lives, nor is it as evident at the state and local levels of government. It goes on to show that 1997 actually showed a level of trust in government substantially _higher_ than in 1980 and 1994. Your third cite also doesn’t say what you’re claiming, as the question was not as to the benevolence and transparency of the government, but how much trust and confidence people have in it. Moreover, your own cite clearly shows that the American people overwhelming trust the executive and judicial branches and even the legislative branch is pretty damn close to 50%. For obvious reasons, I’m not going to waste time with the rest of your cites. Well, except one more, as you are still using a fallacy that I’ve pointed out at least once and I really do want to drive home the point that those reading along should make sure to check your cites rather than your claims about them. > [@Defero](#): > > Scientific correlation between economic anxiety and CT > [http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:m282vMQgwuUJ:crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/CONSPIRE.doc](http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:m282vMQgwuUJ:crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/CONSPIRE.doc) 1.Yet again, correlation does not imply causation. 2. You just provided a survey localized in southern New Jersey of only 348 respondents. Thereby committing the fallacies of Hasty Generalization and Biased Sample. 3. You are not being at all accurate. The (shitty) study, itself, says that CT beliefs were correlated “with anomia, lack of interpersonal trust, and insecurity about employment.” It specifrically states > [@](#): > > Belief in Conspiracies was significantly correlated (r = .43) with a three-item scale of “Anomia” (alpha = .49) made up of items taken from the General Social Survey of 1990. These items measured the belief that the situation of the average person is getting worse, that it is hardly fair to bring a child into today’s world, and that most public officials are not interested in the average man. These items tapped into feelings of discontent with the established institutions of contemporary society which were widely observed by pollsters and pundits in 1991 and 1992. A comparison of scores from this sample with those from the national 1990 sample confirmed that Anomia in this sense was higher in 1992 than in 1990. > > ``` > The Belief in Conspiracies scale was significantly correlated (r = -.37) with a three-item scale of trust (alpha = .57), which asked whether respondents felt that they could trust the police, their neighbors or their relatives. The Belief in Conspiracies scale was also significantly correlated (r = .21) with the item "thinking about the next 12 months, how likely do you think it is that you will lose your job or be laid off." > > ``` Hardly your blanket gloss of “economic anxiety”. And of course, _correlation does not imply causation._ > [@Defero](#): > > When a CT is levelled at a gov’t body, as far as I know the only way to make it go away is to open up the books. \*\* As already pointed out to you, several times, the government did just that with 9/11 and it’s one of the most popular CT’s in the entire world. \*\* > [@Defero](#): > > Another, and much better, way to put if would have been that gov’t and corps have the SOLE key to assuaging the phenomenon, transparency. Which reminds me, please retract your earlier fiction that the US government somehow withheld information about 9/11. > [@Defero](#): > > On a last note, for Finn, I’m not sure if you know much about causality or how to prove it :rolleyes: Suffice it to say you’ve conflated the mechanics of proof and falsification and have mistaken double blind laboratory experiments for the sum total of epistemology. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2010, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/popularity-not-validity-of-conspiracy-theories-is-a-meaningful-measure-of-honesty-openness/525437/68 "2010-01-21T02:22:11Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > :rolleyes: > Suffice it to say you’ve conflated the mechanics of proof and falsification and have mistaken double blind laboratory experiments for the sum total of epistemology. And I agree with the point that Defero is once again not looking carefully at what his sources say. Indeed, that was a classic Google expectoration. I’m beginning to conclude, based also on his posts on the climate thread, that he is most likely attempting to make the [del]world[/del] dope safe for conspiracy theorists. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2010, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/popularity-not-validity-of-conspiracy-theories-is-a-meaningful-measure-of-honesty-openness/525437/69 "2010-01-21T03:09:47Z")
The Dope grinds slowly, but it grinds exceedingly fine. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2010, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/popularity-not-validity-of-conspiracy-theories-is-a-meaningful-measure-of-honesty-openness/525437/70 "2010-01-21T03:21:59Z")
Kind of the conclusion I came too early in the thread. It’s good that the OP has finally come out in the open, though it’s even more obvious in the climate change thread GIGO is referring too… -XT ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2010, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/popularity-not-validity-of-conspiracy-theories-is-a-meaningful-measure-of-honesty-openness/525437/71 "2010-01-21T03:37:46Z")
Rather than strange responses to our posts, or claims that we’re ‘religious’ (he don’t know us very well, do he?), or that he’s a scientist and knows a lot of scientists and boy do we need to be taught proper epistemology… I’d like to see the thesis of the OP supported rather than tangential comments used for a variety of the Mexican Hat Dance. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2010, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/popularity-not-validity-of-conspiracy-theories-is-a-meaningful-measure-of-honesty-openness/525437/72 "2010-01-21T03:46:45Z")
lol…no, he doesn’t know most of us too well if he is claiming we are ‘religious’. 😛 His responses seemed off to me, but then so did the OP. It SEEMED like a somewhat clever attempt to justify CT’s…something that a CTer would try to do to preemptively poison the well. Which is seemingly what he tried to pull on GIGO in the climate thread. That was REALLY off the deep end, IMHO and FWIW. As for his claim to be a scientist, well…I’ll just say I’m militantly skeptical about that, but I suppose it could be true. He COULD be a scientist who is studying mass psychology of posting provocative OPs on certain scientifically oriented message boards in order to study the mating patterns of flatworms in null g… -XT ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2010, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/popularity-not-validity-of-conspiracy-theories-is-a-meaningful-measure-of-honesty-openness/525437/73 "2010-01-21T04:34:27Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > He COULD be a scientist who is studying mass psychology of posting provocative OPs on certain scientifically oriented message boards in order to study the mating patterns of flatworms in null g… > > -XT Well, yes, he could have “a Masters Degree… in science!” and remember.. “He knows more than you do.” 😉 Yes, he reminds me of Dr. Science. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Elpbs6kb8Ys](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Elpbs6kb8Ys) 🙂 But returning to the matter at hand… [QUOTE=Defero] For instance in the JFK instance, the official position of the government is that there was probably a conspiracy. So is the investigating committee composed of CTers? [/QUOTE] That comes BTW not from the Warren Commission but from the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations, they based most of that “provable a conspiracy” say so on a Dictabelt recording alleged to be from a stuck transmitter on a police motorcycle in Dealey Plaza during the assassination. Unfortunately later investigations showed that that the sound recordings on the Dictabelt could not have come from Dealey Plaza, the sounds alleged to be gunshots occurred about a minute after the assassination. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16686272?dopt=Abstract](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16686272?dopt=Abstract) So no, that what you said is not official, the current position of the government is that there is no good evidence for a conspiracy, but that does not stop the CTs from continuing to beat this item even to this day. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2010, 8:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/popularity-not-validity-of-conspiracy-theories-is-a-meaningful-measure-of-honesty-openness/525437/74 "2010-01-21T08:26:00Z")
> [@Defero](#): > > “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 I am _not_ trying to “hijack” the thread, but some polls, when combined with other polls, amaze me! I don’t agree with Mr. Sheen but surely those who do blame cynics like Cheney, not naive do-gooding liberals. How can Cheney et al get more than 17% of the vote? Similarly, Americans who believe in UFOs and Americans who believe in Genesis _sum to more than 100%_ (if we believe polls). Aren’t the theories incompatible? (Or are extraterrestrials the descendants of Cain? :smack: ) ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2010, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/popularity-not-validity-of-conspiracy-theories-is-a-meaningful-measure-of-honesty-openness/525437/75 "2010-01-21T13:25:38Z")
> [@Defero](#): > > In other words, conspiracy theories can only flourish in a vacuum of official information that seems to be more or less true and complete. I think it might have been better not to state this as an absolute. A vacuum of reliable official information _may_ cause conspiracy theories to flourish, and a flourishing conspiracy _may_ be the result of an information vacuum, but as **FinnAgain** pointed out, there are counterexamples that demonstrate this cannot be considered a strict principle. ---
**Author:** ![MarcusF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/67e7ee/32.png) [@MarcusF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MarcusF)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2010, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/popularity-not-validity-of-conspiracy-theories-is-a-meaningful-measure-of-honesty-openness/525437/76 "2010-01-21T13:27:38Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > I am _not_ Similarly, Americans who believe in UFOs and Americans who believe in Genesis _sum to more than 100%_ (if we believe polls). Aren’t the theories incompatible? (Or are extraterrestrials the descendants of Cain? :smack: ) “Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2010, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/popularity-not-validity-of-conspiracy-theories-is-a-meaningful-measure-of-honesty-openness/525437/77 "2010-01-21T23:11:22Z")
Seriously, it’d be cool to see a clear and cogent statement by the OP as to exactly what his argument is, is not, what its implications are, are not, and what he expects out of a debate on his premises. Also, a pony. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2010, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/popularity-not-validity-of-conspiracy-theories-is-a-meaningful-measure-of-honesty-openness/525437/78 "2010-01-21T23:21:46Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Seriously, it’d be cool to see a clear and cogent statement by the OP as to exactly what his argument is, is not, what its implications are, are not, and what he expects out of a debate on his premises. Also, a pony. The pony indsutry manipulated you into feeling this way. You’re deep in the pocket of Big Horse. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2010, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/popularity-not-validity-of-conspiracy-theories-is-a-meaningful-measure-of-honesty-openness/525437/79 "2010-01-21T23:28:25Z")
If all the secret files on horsies were opened up to [the public](http://doctorbulldog.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/horses-ass.jpg), this wouldn’t be an issue. And, MKULTRA. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2010, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/popularity-not-validity-of-conspiracy-theories-is-a-meaningful-measure-of-honesty-openness/525437/80 "2010-01-21T23:31:09Z")
No no no, if the secret files were opened on horses, the ugly truth about horses would be so very ugly that we’d slaughter them all. Not that I’m supporting the anti-horse conspiracy theorists, of course. I’m just askin’ some questions over here. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/popularity-not-validity-of-conspiracy-theories-is-a-meaningful-measure-of-honesty-openness/525437.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/popularity-not-validity-of-conspiracy-theories-is-a-meaningful-measure-of-honesty-openness/525437.md?page=5)