How to tell the difference between true and false conspiracy theories

15-06-2011 01:15PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It is dishonest.

Guilt by association as an ad hominem fallacy

You see that would be true, if I was trying to attack an unrelated point you've made.
This is not what I am doing.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Sort it out Mob.

Plenty = 3 posters?
Frequently posted = 5 posts?

But there's been tons of people who've posted from Natural News, David Icke and other sources all who subscribe to the vaccine/autism link and are supportive of Wakefield.
And then it's clear to see what sort of support that idea has among conspiracy theorists.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Based on the evidence i.e. posts for and against Wakefield's autism link it'd be a clear vote against Wakefield.

But of the only three conspiracy theorists, which you were able to identify as conspiracy theorist, they all unquestioningly support Wakefield.
You've yet to find a single example, besides yourself or a conspiracy theorist rejecting Wakefield's claim.
But then, I don't think you're being truthful about you opinion about him as you've ignored the follow up questions, such as:
Why do you not trust him?
Why do people trust him?
Is it consistent to trust him over Big Pharma?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yes you did as you often do. I don't think you do it on purpose. I don't think you are a prick just unintentionally judgemental.

But it's simply not true BB. But you can pretend if you like.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No. PEOPLE "believe different often conflicting things to each other". That's what you are dealing with here.

Yes, and a distinct yet disparate group like conspiracy theorists since they are people, have differing opinions amongst themselves.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No, all that is evidence of is that I was addressing it from your perspective and the people who you would label a CTer as I was dealing with your statement.

An identifiable group? Identifiable by you you mean. tut tut tut. Can everyone play that game? Can I label everyone who disagrees with me as cynical pricks?

So barring psychic powers, how where you able to identify these people as what I call conspiracy theorists?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No. 3!

Well 3 who directly mention Wakefield by name.
But then you already know that there's plenty of support for Wakefield's claims and that there's plenty of people who use sources that support him.
Then I also showed a few examples of people believing in the thing about the patents.
Then I've found two popular conspiracy theory sources who espouse the exact conflicting and hypocritical I was referring to.

Now you can keep arguing semantics if you'd like to avoid my actual point.

15-06-2011 01:24PM

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

But the problem in trying to point this out is that any CTer can always state, “that’s not my kind of Conspiracy Theory” in the same way that when you point out some of the contemptible edicts of the Catholic Church and the actions of some of its followers, many believers will say, “that’s not me or my kind of Catholicism”.

A better analogy would be "Comic Book Fan".
They are easily definable as "someone who is a fan of, or reads a lot of comic books." But it's clear to everyone that not all comics fans like the same thing and often have diverging opinions.
And of course any reasonable person can see that when you refer to comic book fans as a whole you are not saying they all believe the exact same thing without exception. Similarly when you refer to the opinion of the group (say, comic book fan didn't like the film Batman and Robin) it's understood that this person isn't referring to every single last comic book fan, rather just pointing out a notice trend in the group.

Brown Bomber · 15-06-2011 11:20PM

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

FYI Brown Bomber, the populace of the boards.ie CT forum is hardly going to be an accurate representative example (I can think of 5 people I know who live and breath CT’s but don’t post on boards.ie, at least to my knowledge anyway).

I mean, there was absolutely no posts here of the aforementioned event in which Wakefield, Corr et al. spoke at last weekend. Can we therefore assume that from the lack of posts here in the CT forum there must have been no interest in the event and subsequently nobody turned up? I think you’d agree that would be a ludicrous assessment, but that’s exactly what you’ve tried to imply here regarding the visible lack of support for Wakefield from the CT community.

Ey? So rather than focus on the visible lack of support for Wakefield we should focus on the invisible, imaginary support he has?

And what specifically is the "CT community"? Serious question.

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

It sounds like your frustration lies in being tarnished with a brush that gets applied to other CTers whom you do not identify with when they are subject to the derision and laughter of others.

No. It has nothing to do with the derision and laughter (though that is unnaceptable in polite discourse regardless). I have my own individual opinions on various subjects. They are entirely unrelated to anyone else's here; they are not based on membership of any fictional ideological group.

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

This is understandable but unfortunately it’s a game of evasion that can go on forever. When someone makes a generalisation about conspiracy theorists and what many of them share in common (a tendency towards pattern-seeking, cognitive biases, etc.) a lot of individuals will take offense and retort, “but that’s not me!” .

Naturally. Let's say you don't consider yourself a Facist. Some people who don't like you (or know you) or Facists decide they have the right to categorise you as a Facist based on their percieved common traits and behaviours. When they talk to you or about you publically they talk as if it is a given that you want to exterminate Jews. Unreasonable, no?

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

However, this is a bit like asking people to rate their own driving ability. We all think we are above average drivers yet this is mathematically impossible. Obviously, there has to people who fall below average but will they tell us so? I doubt it. In general, people tend to think highly of themselves.

Patronising insinuations unworthy of a response.

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

I get that CTers will take extreme personal offense at being labelled as swallowers of crap but clearly, what with the mountain of pseudoscience stories, movements and public speaking events, SOMEBODY is paying a helluva lot of attention to it all. While many CTers will hold contrasting views and disagree with one another, the point still stands that just about all of them do share lots of the same beliefs (though not necessarily personal qualities) and more importantly, flawed ways of interpretting data.

So "CTers" shouldn't take personal offense at being labelled swallowers of crap because they essentially all are swallowers of crap? They do so because they "fall below average". Almost "all of them" crap swallowers are primarily sharing the same beliefs due to the amount of crap that they swallow owing to their "their flawed ways of interpretting data".

That is essentially what you are saying here isn't it?

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

But the problem in trying to point this out is that any CTer can always state, “that’s not my kind of Conspiracy Theory”

Of course they can. Why couldn't they?

This is so absurd it's making my head hurt. Tell me why I, for example, who thinks the Bin Laden raid may have been a politically motivated hoax in light of there being no body or photographic evidence should automatically believe in Bigfoot or that the world is going to end in 2012 for example.

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

In the same way that when you point out some of the contemptible edicts of the Catholic Church and the actions of some of its followers, many believers will say, “that’s not me or my kind of Catholicism”.

No. Not at all in the same way. MEMBERS of the Catholic Church are simply that MEMBERS i.e. they opt in (or choose to not opt out). How can I be a CTer when I don't opt in?

Brown Bomber · 15-06-2011 11:35PM

King Mob wrote: »

A better analogy would be "Comic Book Fan".
They are easily definable as "someone who is a fan of, or reads a lot of comic books." But it's clear to everyone that not all comics fans like the same thing and often have diverging opinions.

Again no. Not even close. A fair comparison with the "comic book fan" would be the conpsiracy theory enthusiast/hobbyist which would be reasonable description for one aspect of me. This is entirely different to the "CTer"

King Mob wrote: »

And of course any reasonable person can see that when you refer to comic book fans as a whole you are not saying they all believe the exact same thing without exception. Similarly when you refer to the opinion of the group (say, comic book fan didn't like the film Batman and Robin) it's understood that this person isn't referring to every single last comic book fan, rather just pointing out a notice trend in the group.

What you are describing is a question of preference/taste and has no relevance to the discussion.

A better analogy would be schoolboys calling another straight one gay. I haven't got anything against gays and don't consider it an insult to be called gay but it depends on the context. It can be used as slur against a straight person much like "CTer" can against a non-CTer. Similarily it is not the accusers call to decide if the other person is gay/CTer.

15-06-2011 11:45PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Again no. Not even close. A fair comparison with the "comic book fan" would be the conpsiracy theory enthusiast/hobbyist which would be reasonable description for one aspect of me. This is entirely different to the "CTer"

What you are describing is a question of preference/taste and has no relevance to the discussion.

Ah so you agree that the definition I'm actually using to define "CTer" is one of an identifiable, distinct group of people.
It's progress at least.
However what you think I define "CTer" as is another strawman you've made up, despite me giving you the definition.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

A better analogy would be schoolboys calling another straight one gay. I haven't got anything against gays and don't consider it an insult to be called gay but it depends on the context. It can be used as slur against a straight person much like "CTer" can against a non-CTer. Similarily it is not the accusers call to decide if the other person is gay/CTer.

This doesn't make a lick of sense BB.

So any chance we can go back to my actual point or would you prefer to continue arguing semantics?

AnthonyHall · 16-06-2011 12:36AM

Shermer and Jonathan Kay are more or less the last of the Mohicans when it comes to making careers built on the defense of the sacred myth of 9/11, a myth that is without doubt one of the most audacious and unfounded official conspiracy theories of all time. Neither of these hacks-for-hire has any credibility whatsoever in the academy, although Shermer does seem to have some role in Professor Zak's psy ops lab at Claremont U, where he also does a sessional part-time, team-teaching gig in something called Transdisciplinary Studies. Shermer's abandonment of his effort to represent himself as some sort of economist is part of a process that is leaving him more and more isolated except for his swarm of Shermeresque wannabees like Scott Sommers.

Basically the wheels have been falling off the old recycled Cold War propaganda vehicle based on the increasingly transparent technique of guilt by association. Thus it is becoming increasingly clear that all this generalizing about CTists or "conspiracists" emanating from the well-funded psy ops "underground" is a mark of desperation aimed at holding back, say, some inevitable reckoning with the science of what brought down WTC7. Phoney computer animation, without full disclosure of the informational inputs to produce NIST's ridiculous cartoon of WTC's collapse, cannot forever serve to replace genuine engagement with evidence-based research that can be verified through independent testing.

What a tragedy that an institution as important to the good working of society as NIST has caved into the power of politics over the imperatives of sound science and its expert application to technological innovation. If NIST is right about Building 7 then I suppose controlled demolitions will no longer be necessary. All it takes is a strategically placed office fire to bring down in an instant steel-framed skyscrappers into their own footprints.

If NIST is correct in its account of the demise of Building 7 (which it isn't), imagine the transformation that will have to take place in the insurance industry. If NIST is correct its report on Building 7 this so-called study would serve as a good illustration to demonstrate the failure of the United States to remain viable in the global economy. Who would want to buy the products of American industry if the quality of American skyscrapper construction is so shoddy that two planes could bring down three towers--- towers that before 9/11 were supposed to stand in a class of their own for engineering prowess?

In order for USA to reverse its fall into the abyss of uncompetitiveness its leaders will have to come to grips with the subordination of science, technology and insurance to the political requirements of those presently controlling discredited institutions like NIST and the info-entertainment cartels that hire the likes of disinfo agents such as Shermer, Kay, Scott Sommers, Patrick Ross and James Randi.

If the USA is to reverse its fall into the abyss of Cheneyesque superstition it will have to recapture once well-regarded institutions like Scientific American from the grip of huststers willing to sell out to climate change deniers and those whose power-serving agenda on 9/11 is becoming increasingly obvious.

Yitzhak Rabin · 16-06-2011 03:59AM

:rolleyes:

You've posted here 20 times, and yet you've not done anything apart from try to slander Shermer.

How about you get off your hobby horse of bashing someone who made you look foolish and actually present some evidence that 9/11 is "a myth that is without doubt one of the most audacious and unfounded official conspiracy theories of all time."

So far all you've done is come across as a sore whiney attention seeking loser, and anything but an academic.

:rolleyes:

Penn · 16-06-2011 05:48AM

AnthonyHall, please try and make your posts as relevant to the discussion as possible. This is not your personal blog. You're supposed to interact and discuss things with your fellow posters. Any more posts like this will be deleted and/infractions given. Thanks.

My name is URL · 16-06-2011 11:23AM

160 posts in and still no real guide on how to differentiate between true and fake CTs. It seems that the consensus is, if it's posted on a CT forum, or discussed by people deemed to be "CT'ers", then it's of the fake variety. Well that's just dandy isn't it!

Another flawless victory for the pigeonholers.

tony 2 tone · 16-06-2011 12:24PM

My name is URL wrote: »

160 posts in and still no real guide on how to differentiate between true and fake CTs. It seems that the consensus is, if it's posted on a CT forum, or discussed by people deemed to be "CT'ers", then it's of the fake variety. Well that's just dandy isn't it!

Another flawless victory for the pigeonholers.

Well if the only evidence provided for the validity of a CT is anecdotle stories, or that some one has a "gut feeling" about it, or a rambling youtube video, people aren't going to be too bothered in viewing it (the CT) as true or factual.

16-06-2011 02:13PM

My name is URL wrote: »

160 posts in and still no real guide on how to differentiate between true and fake CTs. It seems that the consensus is, if it's posted on a CT forum, or discussed by people deemed to be "CT'ers", then it's of the fake variety. Well that's just dandy isn't it!

Another flawless victory for the pigeonholers.

So how do you tell the difference between real ones and fakes?
Why do you think people believe in ones that are fake?

hooradiation · 16-06-2011 02:17PM

My name is URL wrote: »

160 posts in and still no real guide on how to differentiate between true and fake CTs. It seems that the consensus is, if it's posted on a CT forum, or discussed by people deemed to be "CT'ers", then it's of the fake variety. Well that's just dandy isn't it!

Another flawless victory for the pigeonholers.

The blog post in the OP is a fair attempt, but if you disagree with it there are better ways to voice that sentiment then playing at being a martyr.

My name is URL · 17-06-2011 01:37AM

hooradiation wrote: »

The blog post in the OP is a fair attempt, but if you disagree with it there are better ways to voice that sentiment then playing at being a martyr.

Shermer's blog post is nothing more than a thinly veiled tirade against Hall.. and a blatant attempt to label 'conspiracy theorists' as uninformed, ignorant, potentially unstable, and of little credence.

It's funny, that such a comprehensive guide to critical thinking contains no example of when it can be used to give credit to an idea likely to be ridiculed, sidelined, or dismissed as a deviation to the status quo.

My point was that in the context of a forum (presumably) designed to harbour and necessitate the more outlandish & downright absurd fringe ideas, that such a thread, obviously geared towards widening the void between those posting is unhelpful, overall.

King Mob wrote: »

So how do you tell the difference between real ones and fakes?
Why do you think people believe in ones that are fake?

I don't try tell the difference.. I give everything the benefit of doubt and take it all on its own merits. I don't have any fixed mindset when reading threads, and try my best to ignore those that simply don't interest me enough to either argue against incessantly or blindly and naively back up.

Surely you have copped on by now that the most entrenched have no intentions of reconsidering their positions on a forum like this?

17-06-2011 01:55AM

My name is URL wrote: »

I don't try tell the difference.. I give everything the benefit of doubt and take it all on its own merits. I don't have any fixed mindset when reading threads, and try my best to ignore those that simply don't interest me enough to either argue against incessantly or blindly and naively back up.

I seriously doubt that's actually true.
Cause if it was then you'd have to hold a patently silly conspiracy theory such as a secret earthquake machine or reptilian overlords would be just as valid as a "serious" one such as Osama Bin Laden having died years ago.
I really doubt you believe this.

Now you've also didn't answer the other question I asked: Why do people believe in fake conspiracies, or at least ones you don't believe?

My name is URL wrote: »

Surely you have copped on by now that the most entrenched have no intentions of reconsidering their positions on a forum like this?

Oh I'm very much aware of this.

hooradiation · 17-06-2011 09:35AM

My name is URL wrote: »

Shermer's blog post is nothing more than a thinly veiled tirade against Hall.. and a blatant attempt to label 'conspiracy theorists' as uninformed, ignorant, potentially unstable, and of little credence.

That's a bit dramatic. Whatever the history between Hall and Shermer the article itself is nowhere near the hatchet job you think it is.
The core "rules" are sensible guidelines to approaching anything really, not just those that would be considered conspiracy theories.

My name is URL wrote: »

It's funny, that such a comprehensive guide to critical thinking contains no example of when it can be used to give credit to an idea likely to be ridiculed, sidelined, or dismissed as a deviation to the status quo.

The guidelines supplied by Shermer work both ways, if meeting the criteria gives an idea less credit then the opposite must hold true.

My name is URL wrote: »

My point was that in the context of a forum (presumably) designed to harbour and necessitate the more outlandish & downright absurd fringe ideas, that such a thread, obviously geared towards widening the void between those posting is unhelpful, overall.

I would argue that echo chambers are even more unhelpful than a single article claiming to be an easy way to distinguish between conspiracy theories that are more likely to be true.
Even if this article is an continuation of a spat started by grown men who ought to know better doesn't automatically invalidate what it has to say.

Lefticus Loonaticus · 18-06-2011 10:26AM

(in relation to first few pages of post and Shermer) -

Have been monitoring this thread from a safe distance

. A thread which is about CT's in general, but ends up being about 9/11. Not surprising really given that 9/11 is the loose cork in the wine bottle of CT's. If it gets a little looser and pops, there would be a far retching chain reaction that would completely derail the current political direction the world is taking.

Thus the reason why the most amount of energy is being exerted by both sides during this particular battle. If the official story of 9/11 can hold, officially at least, then anything else can hold aswell. But if it were to fail, there would most certainly be a re-evaluation and a distinguishing between what is a CT and what is a V.U.R (e.g. a very uncomfortable reality).

The 9/11 truth movement is like a dog with an unbreakable grip on a large juicy bone. The only problem with this bone is that it belongs to a bigger dog. This bigger dog will show its nasty side before it ever lets go, if it ever does.

There was an interesting interview on tv3's morning Ireland last week with Richard Gage, here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5_3sJevhZc

Cagney: "They could have done somthing just as spectacular but with an awful lot less lives, american lives, american citizens paying the price for it........."

Gage: "......not only about 9/11, but several other problems that the american government, the irish government don't want people to know about..........we have some real problems in getting this publicized, we don't have conspiracy theories...."

Cagney: "so you don't know why......?"

Gage: "...i don't know.... how wide this is, it's obviously some sort of an inside operation, that's the only way you can get the most sophisticated nano-thermite composite materials in all of the wtc dust or have access to these highly secure buildings."

YoCuzwaasup · 19-06-2011 12:27PM

So I guess the family who wishes "Someone" ... Conected the dots against that sinister disease ... Cancer so their live wouldn't have been drastically*changed.
See ... Some virus' ARE MAN CONTRIVED.

AnthonyHall · 04-07-2011 04:02PM

"a spat started by grown men who ought to know better"

That patronizing characterization is blind to the reality of the high stakes involved in the debate over what really happened on 9/11.

Powerful interests have a huge vested interests in the outcome of this debate. Society generally will be greatly affected by history's verdict on the substance and meaning of 9/11. Much more is at stake than the professional reputations of Shermer and I.

Yitzhak Rabin · 04-07-2011 04:06PM

AnthonyHall wrote: »

"a spat started by grown men who ought to know better"

That patronizing characterization is blind to the reality of the high stakes involved in the debate over what really happened on 9/11.

Powerful interests have a huge vested interests in the outcome of this debate. Society generally will be greatly affected by history's verdict on the substance and meaning of 9/11. Much more is at stake than the professional reputations of Shermer and I.

Yet another post, and yet not a single shred put forward to back up your claim that 9/11 is "a myth that is without doubt one of the most audacious and unfounded official conspiracy theories of all time."

hooradiation · 05-07-2011 09:38AM

AnthonyHall wrote: »

"a spat started by grown men who ought to know better"

That patronizing characterization is blind to the reality of the high stakes involved in the debate over what really happened on 9/11.

Powerful interests have a huge vested interests in the outcome of this debate. Society generally will be greatly affected by history's verdict on the substance and meaning of 9/11. Much more is at stake than the professional reputations of Shermer and I.

Not that i believe your assertion but I would hope that someone who honestly considers the stakes to be really that high could at least conduct themselves in a manner that didn't resemble a bout of teenage drama.

The pair of ye have been acting like goddamn children and no amount of earnest pleading about how important this all is will change that.

ed2hands · 05-07-2011 11:34AM

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

I say that apparently some people want there to be some sinister conspiracy because there seems to be no disconfirming evidence you can show them that will seemingly change their minds on certain issues. They have already assumed the conclusion and are attempting to piece together the evidence like a diligent lawyer would. Plus, the stronger the yearning, the greater the confidence in what they believe. The brain is adept at supplying a conveniently biased array of evidence and arguments to bolster its opinion and as humans we often tend to ignore (usually unconsciously) our own fallibility.

It’s also why persuading others can sometimes be a futile endeavour. To be honest, I didn’t come into this sub-forum to try and seriously change anyone’s mind. I was doing a boards search and came across the OP’s link to the Shermer piece on how to tell the difference between true and false conspiracies. As for speeches, nah, I’ll leave that to the people who love to eat this stuff up and regurgitate the ignorance of others. I’ll admit, it’s entertaining to say the least but I’m just an observer who is a little jaded and apathetic from hearing the same kinds of stories being repeated again and again, with the usual array of rhetoric thrown in for dramatic effect.

The funny thing is that even though conspiracies get debunked all the time, new believers are always coming to the fore. For instance, even now 10 years after 9/11 people are still using the same old tired arguments and “evidence” of an inside job that was debunked years ago. Many conspiracy theorists scrutinise any evidence that rubbishes their position. Yet evidence that supports their position is often evaluated uncritically. Anything contradictory is downplayed or ignored.

That’s the biggest problem. If something cannot be falsified then you can never be proven wrong and so can keep the whole spiel going on ad infinitum.

I don’t mean to tar all CT’s with one brush as there is obviously many different levels where some conspiracies are rejected on certain grounds yet other plots are deemed plausible on the exact same grounds. There is no area more plagued by erroneous beliefs and credulous points of view than the sphere of Alternative Medicine, Conspiracy Theories and New Age wishy washy flapdoodle. Take any particular story and you will find examples of at least one of the following: Post hoc, ergo propter hoc; exposure to a biased example; reasoning by representatives; exaggeration of a kernel of truth; terminological confusion; confirmation bias; illusory correlation… the list goes on.

We are pattern-seeking primates, and I wish more people really understood exactly how this evolved mechanism actually works.

I love the irony of how conspiracy theorists espouse a “Question Everything!” attitude. They’re all for questioning authority and mass media information, except when it comes to their own sources. “Question everything, except for what we’re telling you on our website.”

I agree in principle, but how do you look further, when the rabbit hole is plagued with conspiracy nuts and people with cognitive biases? People don’t trust the media yet they trust what some blogger writes because they are genuine and trying to uncover the truth? Sometimes it just seems like the blind are leading the blind. The Internet has a lot to answer for.

Governments do indeed lie, but it does not follow that therefore any plausible conspiracy is valid because of past/current deception.

Anyways, as Ben Goldacre says in ‘Bad Science’: You can’t reason people out of positions they didn’t reason themselves into.

Hello again. Came across a nice morsel about Groupthink which is below. Seeing as you're our resident shrink;), Could it say be relevant to Shermer? Or even 9/11? Or neither, or both?

GROUPTHINK;

To make groupthink testable, Irving Janis devised eight symptoms indicative of groupthink (1977).

Type I: Overestimations of the group—its power and morality
1. Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.
2. Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.

Type II: Closed-mindedness
1. Rationalizing warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions.
2. Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, impotent, or stupid.

Type III: Pressures toward uniformity
1. Self-censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
2. Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.
3. Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of "disloyalty"
4. Mind guards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.

Groupthink, resulting from the symptoms listed above, results in defective decision-making. That is, consensus-driven decisions are the result of the following practices of groupthinking[13]
1. Incomplete survey of alternatives
2. Incomplete survey of objectives
3. Failure to examine risks of preferred choice
4. Failure to reevaluate previously rejected alternatives
5. Poor information search
6. Selection bias in collecting information
7. Failure to work out contingency plans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

How to tell the difference between true and false conspiracy theories

Comments