How to tell the difference between true and false conspiracy theories

Just to calrify beacause afer your post im unsure:

This is the Conspiracy Theory Froum?
Conspiracys are basically an widely unaccpeted and debateable expelnation for an occurance, an event, a group etc...?
That when something describe as theory it means that it was neither proven true nor false.(usually not possible to do either or just currently unexplored areas that can prove it either)

Basically you can't have a true of false (good or bad)conspiracy theory because if you do then the name changes from conspiracy theory to FACT! Every conspiracy theory is a theory, some may be wacky, some may be made up, some maybe true but the truth not revealed but untill proven otherwise it remains just a Conpiracy thoery .

I recently heard of a Conspiracy theory that this thread does not exist as it is just a glitch in all human minds which visit boards. Prove me right or wrong?

I can understand people being vehement even about defending their point of view regarding 9/11 as something like 3k people died and the ones involved many feel haven't been brought to justice be they from the middle east somewhere or the west somewhere.
I guess everyone in the end does have a right to an opinion,but can also be an ass when they are holding that opinion for gain instead of truth.
Its hard to tell who is wearing the sheeps clothing.

Just thought I'd scan through the list.

• Proof of the conspiracy supposedly emerges from a pattern of “connecting the dots” between events that need not be causally connected. When no evidence supports these connections except the allegation of the conspiracy or when the evidence fits equally well to other causal connections—or to randomness—the conspiracy theory is likely to be false.

Rampant in the CT world. Look at any 911 video and see just how many events are mentioned without any information on exactly how they are connected.

• The agents behind the pattern of the conspiracy would need nearly superhuman power to pull it off. People are usually not nearly so powerful as we think they are.

Well seems quite reasonable to believe that people are not superhuman.

• The conspiracy is complex, and its successful completion demands a large number of elements.

Given that governments are poor at running pretty much everything they get involved in why would a large CT be any different.

• Similarly, the conspiracy involves large numbers of people who would all need to keep silent about their secrets. The more people involved, the less realistic it becomes.

In the film Layer Cake, Colm Meaney's characters tells Daniel Craig's character that if you ever kill anyone never tell another living soul (or words to that effect). If one person is told it increases the chance of it being discovered by 100%. When you're looking at hundreds or thousands of people it's incredibly unlikely it wouldn't get out.

• The conspiracy encompasses a grand ambition for control over a nation, economy or political system. If it suggests world domination, the theory is even less likely to be true.

Powerful people are unlikely to sit around a room and all agree.

• The conspiracy theory ratchets up from small events that might be true to much larger, much less probable events.

Seems reasonable.

• The conspiracy theory assigns portentous, sinister meanings to what are most likely innocuous, insignificant events.

Seems reasonable.

• The theory tends to commingle facts and speculations without distinguishing between the two and without assigning degrees of probability or of factuality.

Again reasonable.

• The theorist is indiscriminately suspicious of all government agencies or private groups, which suggests an inability to nuance differences between true and false conspiracies.

Governments can be very dishonest but the belief that governments = bad/lying and truthers = good/truthful has always bothered me. Anyone can lie, for many difference reasons.

• The conspiracy theorist refuses to consider alternative explanations, rejecting all disconfirming evidence and blatantly seeking only confirmatory evidence to support what he or she has a priori determined to be the truth.

Given how selective, dare I say dishonest, CT sites can be it's a fair point.



Personally I don't doubt for a second that there are conspiracy's going on right now. However way too many of the proposed CT's would need literally many hundreds of people to be involved. By default it becomes incredibly unlikely it wouldn't get out. So unlikely it just couldn't have happen that way.

AnthonyHall wrote: »

The meme, "conspiracy theorist," has been twisted and abused by the anti-skeptic Shermer to dismiss and demean en masse those with an interest in exploring the darker side of power's workings. Various efforts along these lines might be good, bad or indifferent but they need to be considered on a theorist by theorist, case by case, point by point, footnote by footnote basis. Rather than doing the hard work, with due respect for every individual and every specific argument being considered, Shermer's approach is to paint vast arrays of humanity with the same brush. That is not scholarship. That is hate talk.

Nonsense. Cast your eyes over the range of topics thrown up by the self-selecting goup that comprise 'CT'ers' in this forum. The alien and fluoridation obsessives are clear fellow travelers to the 'Truthers'. Shermer is right to point that the clear consensus amongst the various experts in the various fields related to the events of 911 support the 'official' narrative. The lazy avoidance of an over-riding theory to frame piecemeal (supposed) evidential 'anomalies' and single-interest CT groups speaks loudly as to the validity of the 'Truther' movement.

And yes - you've clearly been caught out in your misrepresentations by own video. But that's stock in trade for the Truther game, so no surprise there.

To meglome et al,
Well i speak in generalisations for the most part.Its a habit i just cant shake lol
For example i consider some traits to be associated with a majority of use with one side of the brain or the other.
You might appear to me to be very left brain dominant from your posting style.That doesnt mean you definetly write with your right hand(or its your dominant hand for example) but i think it makes it more likely than not.It just depends on your enviornment and how you choose to think as your brain grows amonst other things.
With that said it doesnt mean either that if you were a "lefty" you would automatically reject all new ideas or a "righty" and automatically are open to all ideas.People use different sides for different things and choose each side i believe based on many things as they mature.
I do agree to be skeptical is healthy, but i believe in being skeptical of everything even my own views and reality.
I might say i believe or feel or think that a CT is the case but i take it as granted that people understand i dont fully accept anything.
When i speak of something i have to immerse myself in it visually in my head and it leads me to write as if i am a part of it sometimes.
I express myself better through art than writng, hence the massive walls of text i am always posting to explain something that should be quite simple to put down in words.
The fact you took it upon yourself to presume i ment you or from your response it sounds like you thought i ment everyone who is left side dominant,which i dont i promise.I realise saying neurotic might get other people offended too but for me it is just as the word means nothing more and i am neurotic in my own ways.
So no offence ment to anyone else its just how i see the world.

I really do think though that a large portion of people who find it easy to get along in life in the west are dominant left thinkers and find it easier in general to accept the reality posed to them.
The opposite goes for right side dominants in general i feel.
Its dependant on many things but when you view politics,the brain,conspiracy theories it appears to me everything is being either naturally or artificially seperated to left and right.Its possible this is just to do with how the brain works or i am seeing patterns

To keep on topic, how to tell the difference between a true ct and a false,with regarding left and right brain dominance aswell.
Maybe first find out which side i am dominant and then work on utilizing the other side for balance.I need to be more analytical and less intuitive i know.But its hard to change our way of thinking and i think this is at the core of ct's and mainstream life.
We grow up with a certain view and it becomes part of us.Its been said that alot of left side dominant thinkers have trouble shifting from an idea once they are settled with it(but that depends on which part of the brain is delaing wth the changing of ideas and wether we utilize that more with the left or right side maybe).And rights are always seeking new ideas or creating new ones.
Of course a right might also be very good at maths and become a great scientist too.A left can be good at art and draw with the right hand or left.
But again i take this as accepted and hope people see the bgger picture of what im saying(which again is a right side trait i think).

The guy addressing the audience as a skeptic on 9/11 ct's is approaching it from as i see it a strong left side view.The others a strong right side view as they will seek the alternative.The balanced and possibly real situation i believe lies down the middle and thats where i aim to go more so these days with everything.
Im not going to think to reply to the rest as i doubt people will want to read this much ive written let alone three times more haha.

First off I understand you hadn't got a microphone & understand that you
had to speak a bit louder. I also understand that you have every right to
ask questions about Shermers grasp of the literature he is claiming to
have read. I do recognise that you are correct to ask a question & tell
Shermer you think he's wrong for dismissing work on 911. I can even
understand why you insulted him in your question & told him he was a
fool for equating 911 work with holocaust deniers.

I don't understand why you had to go shouting from the crowd more than
once @ him which is why everyone in the crowd continually turned &
gave you those looks (watch the video). I don't understand why you had
to shout from your seat more than once after you'd asked your question.
If you watch the video you'll see this is the reason why he threatened
to eject you & I think you'll see that were we talking about a flat
earth advocate doing the same thing to a physicist lecturing about
astronomy or something we'd all be justifiably critical.

The problem with what you've done is that it's literally archetypal of the
classic crank attacking people @ their own shows with claims about 911.
I don't mean to suggest you are but your actions at the show, and after,
are just exemplar of this. Lets be serious here, you are insulting &
going after someone who, in their own opinion & their personal research,
has come to a conclusion that is different to yours & holds a different
opinion. This is his crime, having a different opinion based on his own
look at the evidence. Now, it doesn't matter how well his research into
this topic was, going after Shermer & exposing him for a fraud, not saying
he is btw, is going to do nothing for the credibility of 911 claims. All it
shows is that you've wasted a hell of a lot of time focusing on someone
who is telling the world that he doesn't believe in a conspiracy theory
for which no conclusive evidence has been presented. The only honest
way to show Shermer was wrong would be to actually vindicate your
claims about 911 to the world.

Also, lets take another look at the psychology of this situation. When
Shermer asked you who caused 911 you seen it as a trap & didn't take
the bait you assumed he'd set with that question. The reason you
didn't do this, among others, was because you had to go into the
detailed theory, incomplete as it is, that you have regarding this matter.
However, when you & your student set your own bait to catch Shermer
out, both by asking him to name one of those books & by the e-mails
you sent, he also responded with the obvious belief you were trying to
catch him out. In your case it's okay to respond like that to loaded
questions but Shermer is a fraud for employing the same cognitive
abilities for some reason.... I'm sure you'd be a strong advocate of
people looking at the evidence themselves & coming to their own
conclusions yet here we have an example of someone who has done just
that & come to their own conclusions, but it differs from yours so obviously
you're justified in shouting at him from the crowd & going deep into
his personal life to catch him out. This is the craziness people see
when they look at how the main advocates of conspiracy theories
act, honestly it is & is possibly the main reason why so few people
get sucked in, & it's just got to stop. You could have taken the
noble route & continued to accumulate evidence & bring a convincing
case to scientists & others who could do something about this but
as always we see people attacking Shermer, or Moore, or Goodman, or
Chomsky, or Parenti etc... etc... who are the 'gatekeepers of the left'.
All this rhetoric of Shermer being subservient to power is another
example of the confirmation bias of a critic of power. If someone comes
to a conclusion different to yours they are power's servants etc...
It's shameful. We'll put this in grteater perspective, you've accused
Shermer of being deceitful about his employment but got a letter
acknowledging he was in fact employed by these people.
Before you got that letter you implied he was being paid by the
government & implied he was simply their servant at least that's
the feeling I got from the videos & analysis of Shermer you wrote.
The confirmation bias went crazy & once evidence came to show you
were wrong is there an acknowledgement of that? I could be wrong
about this but it's really just how I read the analysis, & certainly how I
perceive the claim that he "probably does not work with the framework
of peered-reviewed scholarship in universities". Is this not a good example
of why people should not jump to conclusions before evidence is
given seeing as there is no evidence he doesn't work within
scholarship?

Finally, the onus is on those who bear the extraordinary claim to
convince those who doubt it through extraordinary evidence. So far
the evidence has not convinced the mainstream & that includes the
people who are skilled to judge the evidence properly. Berating those
who've done their own research is not going to reflect badly on those
who've come to their own conclusions as they can just acknowledge
they were wrong once better evidence comes along that can convince
them. However you are the only one who stands to suffer by sinking to
extreme depths & my advice is to just leave Shermer & the other
people alone until convincing evidence is brought up. If you have
convincing evidence then bring it to the people who can evaluate it
properly. I think the consortium of engineers etc... who doubt this
are the best hope for pushing for a satisfying analysis but that's just
my opinion.

That's quite a thoughtful response demolishing my argument, good job.
So there's no contradiction between you trying to catch Shermer out
& him 'trying to catch you out' by asking you to respond to a question
that you first brought up. Once again we see the level of cogency
when discussing 911 :rolleyes:

AnthonyHall wrote: »

I was responding to Meglome and his comments on the silly list Shermer proposes as replacement for actual engagement with the evidence.

Apologies, your response said "above me" & I'm above you & was afraid of
this discussion degrading into something nasty but I'm wrong so apologies

AnthonyHall wrote: »

I was responding to Meglome and his comments on the silly list Shermer proposes as replacement for actual engagement with the evidence.

They are two different things though. One is a set of observations about conspiracy's generally. The other is specific evidence for each conspiracy. There's nothing wrong with his observations, and the evidence would seem to back them up.

AnthonyHall wrote: »

The plural of conspiracy is conspiracies, not conspiracy's. Can you explain conspiracy theories generally? Is it a conspiracy theory to posit that companies get together to set prices and limit competition? Is it a conspiracy theory to believe that in war, experts are hired to manage public opinion? Is it a conspiracy theory to notice in Wikipedia that the founder of the company that recently purchased Scientific American was a Nazi whose specialty was getting collaborators for the National Socialist Party within the universities? Is it a conspiracy theory to believe companies hire experts to help sell their products? Define "conspiracy theory."

Well more a grammar issue. Being self taught will always have it's flaws. Is there a point to all this otherwise?

And sorry stating that Germans who were alive from the 1930's to 1945 were National Socialists is like suggesting that it's weird that Irish people are Catholic. Pretty much everyone was a National Socialist in Germany then.

AnthonyHall wrote: »

To observe Shermer the TV performer who pretends to be a professor, rich and powerful Americans never conspire to advance their class interests. Does Shermer serve the interests of power by teaching anti-skepticism to divert attention away from the machinations of the plutocrat class in monopoly capitalism?

It's interesting I don't know either Shermer or you but I dislike your tactics and attitude. And it's only taken a handful of posts for you to shine through.