Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Antioch]

I would like to start a topic about WHY so many people believe in conspiracy theories that (in my opinion) or completely devoid of fact and why reason is failing to resolve the debate.

Things that I have seen recently:

International space station doesn't exist
Holocaust did not happen
Moon landing are a hoax
9/11 conspiracy shit
Nukes don't exist

and of course:

The flat earth society - http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/


I will take the flat earth society as an example. If you take a look at those forums you can see how many people try to come up with completely sound evidence of why the earth is round, only to be refuted by arguments such "did you witness that yourself" personal attacks, statements that the used sources are not accurate or simply by ignoring entire arguments and focusing on details. etc. etc.

You will see the same in virtually any other conspiracy discussion.

Does this demonstrate a failure in reason to triumph over ignorance and fallacies?

[GoblinCookie]

It always amazes me why anybody decent believes in the concept of 'conspiracy theory' at all.

Why are people just humble enough to say 'beliefs I do not agree with'. 

[Frumple]

Missed a not, there, I do believe. And they don't use that term because a conspiracy theory is a fairly specific sort of belief. Notably, it involves and requires a conspiracy, which most beliefs don't.

In any case, ant, I don't think it really does display a failure of reason and whatnot. The subset of beliefs that fall under conspiracy theory generally are held by marginal populations -- most people are not convinced by them. That some are is usually not so much a failure of reason so much as a failure of neurology. In any human population you're not going to have a 100% consensus on basically anything. A strong methodology can only do so much with flawed technology, and there's no fault in the methodology implied when the technology involved fails.

[GoblinCookie]

Missed a not, there, I do believe. And they don't use that term because a conspiracy theory is a fairly specific sort of belief. Notably, it involves and requires a conspiracy, which most beliefs don't.

In any case, ant, I don't think it really does display a failure of reason and whatnot. The subset of beliefs that fall under conspiracy theory generally are held by marginal populations -- most people are not convinced by them. That some are is usually not so much a failure of reason so much as a failure of neurology. In any human population you're not going to have a 100% consensus on basically anything. A strong methodology can only do so much with flawed technology, and there's no fault in the methodology implied when the technology involved fails.

Normally a conspiracy theory is a perjorative term that involves a belief involving a conspiracy that I do not agree with.  If you believe in it, it isn't a conspiracy theory anymore; it is a political theory. 

[Antioch]

Missed a not, there, I do believe. And they don't use that term because a conspiracy theory is a fairly specific sort of belief. Notably, it involves and requires a conspiracy, which most beliefs don't.

In any case, ant, I don't think it really does display a failure of reason and whatnot. The subset of beliefs that fall under conspiracy theory generally are held by marginal populations -- most people are not convinced by them. That some are is usually not so much a failure of reason so much as a failure of neurology. In any human population you're not going to have a 100% consensus on basically anything. A strong methodology can only do so much with flawed technology, and there's no fault in the methodology implied when the technology involved fails.

Well a quite substantial amount of people believe certain theories. The numbers I can find on the fly say 15% of people believe the US goverment was involved in 9/11 and 7% think the moon landings were faked.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/04/conspiracy-theory-poll-results-.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/09/10/us-sept11-qaeda-poll-idUSN1035876620080910

[mainiac]

No, GoblinCookie, the defining characterize is the belief in a conspiracy.  There is plenty of silly political beliefs that are not conspiracies.  For instance the Laffer curve diehards who believed that the Regan and Bush tax cuts increased rather then decreased revenues was a political theory however it was not a conspiracy theory.

[Tiruin]

Mostly, there is no actual 'failure of reason'; the very idea of the conspiracy theory presents forth the idea of reasoning--just something that, generally from another's perspective, it seems to hop onto conclusions based on a ton of assumptions.

But it's not a failure of reason. The base point is cognitive association which is a natural process on how we think organizes how we interact with our environment. The thing is, the context is important in discerning all these. Context which is usually skipped and which usually gives off this 'failure of reason' [ie Omg it's not working why don't you believe me, good person. :I ]. The presence of bias, or 'I'm leaning to believe x over y...{because x comes before y! or some kind of unknown-to-the-other-party reason which isn't spoken yet.}

There's been research into this, as far as my vague memory recalls. x_x In regards to why these assertions are being made...though I forget where I've read about it [usually offline]. A nice online reference is available though! With a long list of references present. :3

[GoblinCookie]

No, GoblinCookie, the defining characterize is the belief in a conspiracy.  There is plenty of silly political beliefs that are not conspiracies.  For instance the Laffer curve diehards who believed that the Regan and Bush tax cuts increased rather then decreased revenues was a political theory however it was not a conspiracy theory.

A conspiracy is simply a political actor that is not acting in the open.  If you expose a conspiracy then it is no longer a conspiracy any more; that is how the whole term is loaded, the fact that something is being called a conspiracy theory implies it is false, since a conspiracy that actually exists is not any longer if it is exposed. 

Not being believed in is the requirement for a conspiracy to work.  Once people believe you are doing what you are doing, you become a political actor and not a conspiritor; equally if a political actor does something openly but people refuse to believe in it then their actions then become conspiritorial despite the fact they were done openly. 

To say that you are conspiracy theorist is kind of a paradox.  It means that you believe that something that you have exposed is acting secretly, despite the fact that your knowing about it means that it is not a secret any more. 

[Cheeetar]

Conspiracy theorists used to surprise me with how common they were (I am now more jaded). In high school, I recall a classmate telling me all about how NASA had faked the moon landing because of the way the American flag wobbled. Hell, there was a fairly recent conspiracy theory about NASA on these very forums.

[Loud Whispers]

Inb4 Nazis landed on the moon
Inb5 Nazis were working for NASA
Inb6 They actually were
Inb7 The American government funded NASA
Inb8 m8 the American government is the National American Socialists Army

[Reelya]

No, GoblinCookie, the defining characterize is the belief in a conspiracy.  There is plenty of silly political beliefs that are not conspiracies.  For instance the Laffer curve diehards who believed that the Regan and Bush tax cuts increased rather then decreased revenues was a political theory however it was not a conspiracy theory.

idk, 9/11 was a conspiracy no matter how you look at it. The difference is that most people accept the official conspiracy story. Both 9/11 mainstream and 9/11 crackpot are about an event that transpired via conspiracy. The crackpots just accept the alternate version which has poor evidence. Nobody has "proof" that things are like they assume, we just go off preponderance of evidence.

Hence, "conspiracy theory" is a perjorative only applied to people who do not believe the offical version, rather than people who accept that conspiracies happen in general.

[scriver]

No, GoblinCookie, the defining characterize is the belief in a conspiracy.  There is plenty of silly political beliefs that are not conspiracies.  For instance the Laffer curve diehards who believed that the Regan and Bush tax cuts increased rather then decreased revenues was a political theory however it was not a conspiracy theory.

A conspiracy is simply a political actor that is not acting in the open.  If you expose a conspiracy then it is no longer a conspiracy any more; that is how the whole term is loaded, the fact that something is being called a conspiracy theory implies it is false, since a conspiracy that actually exists is not any longer if it is exposed. 

Not being believed in is the requirement for a conspiracy to work.  Once people believe you are doing what you are doing, you become a political actor and not a conspiritor; equally if a political actor does something openly but people refuse to believe in it then their actions then become conspiritorial despite the fact they were done openly. 

To say that you are conspiracy theorist is kind of a paradox.  It means that you believe that something that you have exposed is acting secretly, despite the fact that your knowing about it means that it is not a secret any more. 

Well a a conspiracy needs several actors conspiring together to achieve something. If it is exposed it is an exposed conspiracy, but that doesn't change that people were conspiring together.

[mainiac]

A conspiracy is simply a political actor that is not acting in the open.

con·spir·a·cy
kənˈspirəsē/Submit
noun
a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

[Bohandas]

Don't forget the hollow earth and the additional JFK shooters

[i2amroy]

IIRC one of the big core groups of most conspiracy theorists is just people for whom the part of their mind that is responsible for drawing patterns (which is a very important part of how humans learn) is slightly too overactive, and thus results in them seeing patterns ("conspiracies") where none really exist.