[QUOTE=Zoe]
jtgain, how can you tell when a theory about a conspiracy has some merit and when it is stupid and outlandish? You are labelling all “conspiracy theories” as foolishness. Or have I misunderstood you?
You are aware that people do conspire to commit crimes. And if that conspiracy ever comes to light it is usually because someone gets a hunch or develops a theory that there was a conspiracy.
[/QUOTE]
This is an unfortunately common misconception, and one repeated often by those espousing conspiracies theories. It is entirely wrong.
I attacked it in greatest detail in two posts in this thread, which are worth copying here.
[QUOTE=Exapno Mapcase]
Oh, please.
Conspiracy theories are something very specific. They occur after an official, usually government, explanation of an event has been propounded, and insist, usually in so many words, that the officials have been lying about the explanation.
Conspiracy theories are not conspiracies. Conspiracies happen all the time. A few people got together and decided to assassinate several government officials. That’s a conspiracy. Everybody agrees that it happened. A conspiracy theory would be that the Radical Republicans wanted Lincoln dead so that they could punish the South more than he wanted to, so they got Booth and the others to do their bidding, knowingly or unknowingly. That’s a conspiracy theory. Nobody sane believes that. And there is not a particle of evidence to show that it’s true.
All conspiracy theories boil down to the same propositions. The Mafia isn’t a conspiracy theory. It’s not even a conspiracy, except for the often overblown RICO definition. It was open and known to everyone, except the FBI. Why the FBI refused to acknowledge the existence of the Mafia is the subject of conspiracy theories, but no good evidence exists for any of them either.
Actually, the existence of conspiracy theories is possibly the best empirical evidence of confirmation bias around today. To believe in any conspiracy theory, to believe that such a thing can ever possibly be true, requires complete denial of all contrary facts, all standards of evidence, all basic meanings of the very words involved. But anything that confirms a conspiracy theory in the lunatic minds of those who believe is given total credence, no matter the source or likelihood of the evidence.
Bah. Humbug. There are no conspiracy theories that have ever been proven true. None.
[/QUOTE]
and
[QUOTE=Exapno Mapcase]
The necessary part that would make this a conspiracy theory is missing. The government never put forth an official declaration that the tobacco industry was entirely innocent. On the contrary, the government prosecuted the industry for its knowing falsehoods.
Again, there are many conspiracies. But they don’t turn into conspiracy theories until after people start saying the real “truth” in the face of official denials.
I understand the desire to label every event that somebody didn’t want you to know a “conspiracy” and every exposure of the facts to be a vindication of your beliefs that… well, I’ve never been sure of how to coherently express these beliefs except for “so there!”
That’s what all believers in conspiracy theories fall back on. The CIA did LSD experiments on people in the 1950s! Yes, they did. Did anybody run around screaming that the government was hiding the truth about these experiments from us? No. A conspiracy, not a conspiracy theory. But after they were exposed, some people were able to say, “see, the CIA did things! That proves everything else I’ve ever said about the CIA.” Enron manipulated electric prices in California! Yes, they did. This was obvious to everyone in the field, although the fraudulent parts weren’t exposed until later. Did people run around screaming that the government was hiding the truth from us? No. A conspiracy, not a conspiracy theory. But after they were exposed, some people were able to say, “see, a corporation screwed us. That proves everything else I’ve ever said about evil corporations!”
As long as you can’t (or don’t or won’t) properly define a conspiracy theory, you get the freedom to claim that anything you see that was meant to be a secret was part of a conspiracy and any exposure to be proof that your notions about the world are correct. This is confirmation bias at its finest.
Take a step back, define what elements a conspiracy theory has to have to be properly dubbed one, and then compare reality to your definition. That’s the scientific way. Unfortunately, it yields zero satisfaction because no conspiracy theories are left standing. No wonder people back away from doing so. What’s the fun in denying conspiracy theories? Why, that would be like denying dousing, or feng shui, or aliens, or whatever your favorite bit of mysticism is. That’s what They want to you to think.
I’m with They on this one. Conspiracy theories can’t be anything that proves your case. Either they have an exact definition that makes them analyzable or else they’re sloppy thinking at best, and paranoid delusions at worst.
[/QUOTE]
While it is possible to rationally attack conspiracy theorists, neither the theories nor the theorists are monolithic. You attack individuals individually. Those who come in just to mock are best served by being mocked back in return. If they are there solely to demonstrate their superior mind powers, humor is a better offensive maneuver than reason, which is what they expect and are best able to deflect.
Personally I try to give a solid and fact-based answer. If someone is clearly not listening, I’ll still try again with a different response. If the third post does nothing but repeat the first two, the gloves come off. As is often said, we’re not trying to persuade the posters as much as the lurkers. They are far less likely to repeat the moronic claims elsewhere if they see they will be treated with derision rather than respect for their anti-establishment bravery.
No one policy is right. Some issues have sides and unanswered questions and those must be taken with the utmost seriousness. But all conspiracy theories are wrong, and almost all are wrong in identical ways. It’s takes a trivial amount of time to identify these, just as it normally takes a trivial amount of time to recognize that a statement on physics is so wrong as to be gibberish.
Mocking is better than simple name-calling. Humor is a disinfectant. They scurry when it is applied. Name-calling makes them martyrs to their cause. It may be a subtle distinction, but it is an important one.
At the very least, can we try to stomp out that piece of supporting logic that so much of their intellectual position rests on, namely that the true existence of conspiracies necessarily implies the true existence of conspiracy theories. Not so. Treat it as you would the claim that Creationism is science and it will retreat under a storm of scorn.
