Talk:Conspiracy theory/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

On the question of whether a conspiracy theory is by definition something that is held to be false by the majority of mainstream historians, let's take one of the longest-standing conspiratorial debates: did Nero order Rome burned? Historians reputable and otherwise have been debating this from Nero's day to ours, and it is pretty clear that no definitive answer is likely to emerge (Chomsky says that history in general does not admit of definitive conclusions but, of course, he's controversial). The "consensus" has varied over time; I believe the pro-Nero forces have pulled ahead in recent years. We can't hire Pew to run a survey to establish whether this notion is a paranoid fantasy or an uncontroversial fact based on what 51% say this year. There simply is not a hard line to be drawn here. The notion that you can distinguish globally between conspiracy theories that are true and those that are false and define the two as different sorts of fish assumes a hubristic and completely unfounded certainty to your own view of the world.

Uh, no. First off, you over simplified my definition, to the point where what you write is not what I said. RK

OK, here is what you said: " I am trying to distinguish between legitimate historical speculation, and faith in non-existent conspiracies. In general English useage, the term "conspiracy theory" does not refer to speculations about what historians may consider conspiracies. Rather, that term is used solely to discuss a belief in non-existent conspiracies. This distinction is critical." If a conspiracy theory refers to a non-existent conspiracy, it is false. That is prejudging the case. It is true that you later muted this position by talking about what "mainstream" opinion considers false, but this raises other questions, which I'll get to.

Hieronymous 12:39, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Second, this has nothing to do with "my own view of the world", as you incorrectly claim.

If you view a conspiracy theory as false, that is part of your view of the world.

I think you need to re-read what I wrote, above, and also do some mainstream reading on the mentality behind conspiracy theory believers. RK 15:12, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You notice I referenced Hofstader and Albert already? I've done a fair amount of such reading. If you have an argument make it, don't hide behind homework assignments.

If a conspiracy theory is a theory that has not yet been proven, but may (as you have conceded) be proven in the future, that means the theory is potentially true at the moment it is conceived. Therefore, no assertions about the "mentality" of the author of said theory that assume the theory is false are valid. Given that, what assertions would you like to make? Hieronymous 12:39, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The notion that mundane conspiracies such as the Mafia have always been uncontroversial is also false. For years, many Italian intellectuals insisted that the Mafia was a paranoid fantasy. An informal network of Silcilian "mafias", sure, but not a single hierarchical organization directing much of Italian crime and politics (I'll forego the cheap shots here). A series of trials in the early 90's refuted this position.

You are contradicting a claim that no one is making. Again, you have totally misread what I wrote. In fact, I totally agree with you that real conspiracies do exist, and I personally added a lot to this article on precisely this point. There are many actual conspiracies that people at one point in time do not believe, but at a later point in time admit exist, because evidence to prove this conspiracy has come to light. All of us editing this article have taken great pains to say this. However, the subject of this article is not about conspiracies that have been proven to be true. RK 15:12, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I have not misread anything. If you think that I am simply arguing the existence of mundane conspiracies, it is you who are not following me. The argument is not whether real conspiracies exist, on that matter we agree, but whether there is a fundamental difference between conspiracies that are accepted by the mainstream and those that are not. If there is, this difference should be definable in reference to the conspiracy theory itself, regardless of what anyone thinks of it. The purpose of a definition is to render the identity of something intelligible, not to encapsulate judgments of it, "mainstream" or otherwise.

I disagree. Mainstream historians point out that there is a fundamental difference between actual conspiracies that are regarded as factual, or at least as highly possible, and those conspiracy theories which are known or believed to be false, if not inane. Perhaps it is my fault for not writing a section on this topic; I plan to do so this week. RK 02:27, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

After all, other types of theories are not defined in reference to who believes them. Suppose I defined Darwinism as follows:

"Darwinism: a theory about the development of life that is not believed by the majority of the American people"

Now, that's a funny definition, isn't it? It's a true statement, last I heard, but it doesn't tell us about Darwinism - it tells us about the beliefs of the American people. But what is the difference between that and

"Conspiracy Theory: A theory about the causes of current or historical events that is not believed by the majority of mainstream opinion"

Note that the problem is not solved if I toss in some appropriate material:

"Darwinism: A theory, disbelieved by the majority of the American people, that the development of life is guided solely by random mutation and natural selection"

It's an improvement, but that "disbelieved" phrase still doesn't belong there. Indeed, it sounds like the originator of the definition is trying to manipulate you into a certain conclusion about Darwinism, doesn't it? It adds nothing to the description and it creates an entirely artificial problem: what if the American people throw down their Bibles and embrace Darwinism? That doesn't simply mean that Darwinism was refused and is now accepted. No, since Darwinism was by definition something the American people disbelieved, if the American people embrace it, it is no longer Darwinism. It is something else. We need two categories to parallel your "real conspiracies" and "conspiracy theories". How about "far-fetched Darwinism" and "credible Darwinism"; the two are completely identical in content, but entirely different in essence, because one is sprinkled with the magic pixie dust of widespread belief. You could even print out a description of the theory and mount it on the wall, watching its essence change as the American people embraced then abandoned it.

Alternatively, we could define Darwinism thusly:

"Darwinism: A theory that the development of life is guided solely by random mutation and natural selection"

Notice that this definition stays the same even as people's beliefs about Darwinism change. This tells us that it is defining Darwinism, not people's beliefs. It is also non-manipulative.

This is how theories in general are defined. There are a variety of physical theories regarding dark matter, including theories that it does not exist. They can't all be true, but we don't know yet which, if any, are true. Some are believed by many scientists, and some by few, so there is a "mainstream" and a "fringe". However, all these theories as their fortunes rise and fall remain scientific theories. They do not become theories of another type depending on who believes them or why. Even if they are proven false, they remain scientific theories, just ones that weren't true.

Now, there may also be non-scientific (e.g., "new age") theories about dark matter. But what makes these theories non-scientific is their nature - that they do not generate falsifiable predictions, for example. They are not non-scientific because scientists don't accept them; rather, scientists don't accept them because they are non-scientific. Even if scientists did accept them (though this is unlikely), they would be non-scientific. These theories would remain non-scientific no matter how many people believed in them, no matter how many scientists believed in them, and no matter even if they were somehow true. Now, I have shown many reasons why I think this distinction between "conspiracy theories" and "real conspiracies" is invalid. Give me a reason it is valid. Can you establish any advantage to your definition at all? Hieronymous 12:39, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Are you joking? Those theories about dark matter are scientific, and they are falsifiable, and people I once worked with are working on experiments to prove or disprove the existence of dark matter as we speak. You truly know nothing about what you claim to know about. RK 02:27, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

The nature of "communist conspiracy" during the Cold War was also far from uncontroversial, nor was it entirely "in the open". Most Western intellectuals did not believe that the Communist Party USA was directed and funded by the Soviet Union until the opening of the KGB archives after the fall of the SU proved the matter conclusively. Nor is it true that the terms "conspiracy" and "conspiracy theory" are consistently used with two distinct meanings. When the power was flipping off in California, some argued that the situation was being manipulated for profit by the power companies. Dick Cheney responded that "there are always those who want to see collusion or conspiracy". He said "conspiracy", not "conspiracy theory", but he was obviously implying that the conspiracy was not there.

Indeed, Joshua Micah Marshall holds that "conspiracy theory" is now a term so flexible it is used to discredit any alternative to the official version of events. For example, before all the facts now known about the famous "16 words" in the State of the Union address were public, White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett said "There is a conspiracy theory out there that there was some protracted negotiation, or this was information that was in a clandestine way being forced into the speech by various factions of the administration. It's simply nonsense. " In light of what is known now, this "conspiracy theory" is one of the more favorable interpretations of the event. But see what has happened: simply to suggest that the President is lying or that members of the Administration are negotiating behind the scenes to push an agenda is now conspiracy theory. Yet such things are the commonplace material of politics.

That is a totally separate topic; this has to do with propaganda and semantic disputes, and deliberately using words in a misleading way to confuse the issue. This has nothing to do with conspiracy theory as such. As it happens, I agree you on ll this. RK 15:12, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It is the same topic. One of your arguments for your definition of conspiracy theory, and distinction between it and "real conspiracies", which I am attacking, is that this definition was simply standard usage. Even if this were true, it would not justify an invalid definition, but it is not true because it is not how the terms are actually used. This and the Cheney example are not unusual; this sort of thing is ubiquitous and is therefore part of the common use of the terms "conspiracy" and "conspiracy theory". Moreover, these are high-level government officials; there is no source more "mainstream" than that. Hieronymous 12:39, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

No, it is a totally different topic. This topic (the real Communist conspiracy in the USA) differs from bizarre conspiracy theories in many ways, including the fact that there is indisputable proof on many levels. In contrast, what historians refer to as conspiracy theories have no proof at all all, but rather exist only in the mind of beholders as a tight and complex web of allegations between unrelated facts. RK 02:27, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Spoken like a true neo-con. Hell, you're the neo-con poster-boy. Let me guess...you also think everyone was being just a little bit rough on McCarthyism, right? That Pinochet was Chile's savior, right? It's clear what's going on here...everything that contradicts your views, you want to label a "conspiracy theory", but it bugs the hell out of you when people apply YOUR definition of "conspiracy theory" to YOUR OWN views. Hypocrite.

Let me return to what Dick Cheney said. In a sense, he was right. Those who thought that the power companies were manipulating the situation in California were indeed seeing the covert hand of design behind apparently spontaneous events - they were "conspiracy theorists". As we now know based on court investigation, they were also correct. Those who invoked Hanlon's Razor and refused to make this intellectual leap were simply wrong. But this was only ascertained because some people took the situation seriously enough to take it to court. One problem with treating conspiracy theories dismissively until they are proven is that proof very rarely falls like apples from the trees. Extensive investigation is usually necessary. Conspiracy theory has become a term of ridicule, and applying it to any theory will both discourage investigation and discredit any investigation that does occur. Indeed, the notion that conspiracy theories are conspiracies that are disbelieved by reputable scholars quickly dovetails with the notion that reputable scholars are those that disbelieve in conspiracies, creating a textbook piece of circular logic.

Think I'm kidding? RK cited Daniel Pipes. Do you know that Daniel Pipes is a highly controversial figure widely accused of fanaticism, racism, and factual distortions? Christopher Hitchens (http://slate.msn.com/id/2086844/), who is these days on the Right and has called for a war with political Islam, regards Pipes as a virulent, anti-Muslim racist who plays fast and loose with reason and fact. Is Pipes reliable on questions of fact? According to Hitchens, he has slandered Edward Said and insinuated that there were no Palestinian refugees created by the formation of Israel, a contention that most "reputable historians" would rate with denial of the Stalinist gulags. Lest you think Hitchens is alone, here is a whole set of unfavorable reviews of Pipes, largely from mainstream sources(http://www.cair-net.org/misc/people/daniel_pipes.html). And here is an analysis of one of his distortions of fact (http://www.bertramonline.com/)(he maintained that Sweden had a higher murder rate than the US and that this was because of its Muslim population. Sweden's murder rate is considerably lower than the US, and there are no statistics on how much of the murder is Muslim).

Daniel Pipes is slandered on a daily basis by extremists Muslims who are unhappy with the way that he brings facts to light that the Islamist movement woudl prefer kept hidden. The angry hateful way that extremist Muslims slander him is no different than the way that they give death threats to those who disagree with them. I am disappointed to see you refer to CAIR as a "mainstream" source. CAIR is an extremist Muslim group whose leaders public support terrorist groups like Hamas and Hizbollah, and who have leaders who publicly state that they would like the United States to become a Muslim nation. (All this is on the public record.) To certain Muslims these views may be mainstream, but to most people this is considered extremist, if not dangerous. RK 15:12, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Christopher Hitchens is by no definition a Muslim extremist. He is a secular humanist with a considerable animus towards all religion. He has been an ardent supporter of the war on terror, the war with Iraq, and, with qualifications, President Bush generally. He favors the United States imposing a more modern culture on the Middle East by force. The fact that others may have invalid criticisms of Pipes is irrelevant. I cited Hitchens. Hieronymous 12:39, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You misunderstand. Many liberal humanists are totally unread on this subject, and accept lock, stock and barrel the claims of CAIR and other fanatic Muslim groups that (in English) claim to be moderates.

Nice try, but Hitchens stated specifically that his information was first-hand. Hieronymous 08:23, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

P.S. I would venture to guess that Slate has heard of fact checkers and would not publish scurrilous rumors without verification. Though your whole argument is based on respect for mainstream opinion, you do not hesitate to dismiss mainstream sources out-of-hand when they contradict your prejudices.

Hieronymous 08:23, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

This dispute isn't about Hitchens. It isn't about Pipes, either. The fact that you keep dragging him into this is a red-herring. RK 02:27, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Actually someone, I rather suspect you, put Pipes into the article. If he's in the article, he's fair game for this discussion.

Hieronymous 08:23, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

As for CAIR, they just hosted the site. The material was from sources including Peter Rodgers, the former Australian ambassador to Israel, the Baltimore Sun, the Dow Jones News Service, The Nation, The Oregonian, The Chicago Tribune, The Vancover Sun, The Washington Times, The Boston Globe, and the San Francisco Chronicle. The relevance of all this is that your position, and Pipes', place great stock in "mainstream opinion". This implies a) that there is a mainstream that can be uncontroversially identified, b) that there is sound reason to consider this mainstream more reliable than the non-mainstream (otherwise, there would be no point), and c) that Daniel Pipes is uncontroversially part of the mainstream, otherwise his credibility is undermined by his own argument. Without belaboring the point, the fact that Pipes can be attacked by the likes of Hitchens for fostering hate and using propagandistic language (that "so-called" business was the cheesiest trope in all of Soviet cant. It is an attempt to cast doubt on a concept or fact without having to argue about it, simply by playing with language. Rather like defining conspiracy theories as false, come to think of it) shows that it can be disputed where the mainstream lies, whether Pipes is in it, and what the basis of its legitimacy is. But I'm not actually interested in the dispute, because I don't see where the need for any glorification of the mainstream has been established anyway. Hieronymous 12:39, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

You totally have missed the point. There is a mainstream subject called history, and historians do distinguish between historical fact, and the appealing bu ludrcrous fantasy of conspiracy theories. Your arguments to the contrary simply mean that you are very far outside the mainstream, and you hold to some extremist thoughts when it comes to historical scholarship. RK 16:43, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Mainstream opinion "knew" that the Earth was flat, it "knew" that the Sun was our satellite, it "knew" that blacks were genetically less intelligent than whites, and it "knew" that homosexuality was a clinical disorder. Mainstream opinion can be grossly wrong. Luckily, there is a corrective for this, which is called "rationalism", whereby even the most authoritative positions can be rudely overturned. One of the fundamental precepts of rationalism is that arguments from reason trump arguments from authority. Flat trump them. Period. If this were not the case, it would be impossible for rationalism to function as a corrective to authority, which is one of its primary functions. My argument is based on reason and yours is based on authority. Even if your argument were perfectly formed and valid as an argument from authority - which it is not - it could not stand up to an attack from reason. All this business about challenging the constitution of the mainstream was superfluous to my argument - it's just when you cite Pipes as the voice of the mainstream it's hard to resist.

Ultimately, then, if you want to refute my view, you must resort to logic. Let me offer some hints. The argument about Darwinism I gave is of a style called "Reductio Ad Absurdum". This means I provisionally accepted your premise (that it is legitimate to place theories in fundamentally different categories depending on whether someone gives them credence) and logically followed it to an absurd conclusion (that the nature of Darwinian theory would itself change whenever popular belief about it did). There are two basic ways to refute such an argument: you can show that the conclusion is not absurd, or you can show that the reasoning that led to it is faulty. Got it? Good. OK, I'm letting go of the bike now. Ride! Hieronymous 08:23, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It is clear to me that you are so taken in by conspiracy theory, that there is no talking to you. Too bad. :( RK 02:27, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Did you know all this, RK? I would like to give you the benefit of a doubt and assume that you did not. But if Pipes were *defending* conspiracy theory, would you have given his pedigree a more critical eye? This whole business of defining conspiracy theories as intrinsically false puts enormous faith in the opinions of "reputable historians". Is Pipes a reputable historian, simply because he attacks conspiracy theory? If so, are we not back to circular logic?

As I've said before, words that encapsulate a judgement about a thing into the definition of the thing itself are the hallmark of prejudicial language. "African American" and "nigger" denote the same group of people - they have the same literal meaning - but the latter term is illegitimate because it encapsulates a (negative) value judgement. If "conspiracy theory" means "false" by definition, then it is just a term of prejudice like "nigger", or, for that matter, "paranoid" or "tin-foil hat". As to the connections between conspiracy and arguments from design and totalitarianism, well, I have a lot to say on those subjects too, but I'm tired now, so I'll leave it for later. Hieronymous

I actually agree with you on many points, but you spend so much time attacking positions that have nothing to do with the topic, or with what I said. I disagree with you on the reliablity of Daniel Pipes, especially because what you wrote literally has nothing to do with what he wrote. On the specific topic that I am discussing, Pipe's research is very mainstream, and I can quote dozens of other authors to the same effect. I cannot being to imagine why you are dragging Muslims into this, because none of this has to do with Muslims at all. In fact, his book that I am discussing focuses on the French Revolution, World Wars I and II, and the Russian Revolution. It appears you are having such a knee-jerk reaction to his name, that you started attacking statements no one wa making! RK 15:12, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It has to do with his crediblity, however, and this whole glorification of mainstream opinion comes down to crediblity, doesn't it? Why else would we care about "mainstream opinion" more than any other opinion? Nothing I have said is off-topic. The bulk of it is directly to the point of whether it is legitimate to have a hard separatation between conspiracy theories that mainstream opinion accepts and those that it does not to the extent that they are characterized as two different kinds of entities and discussed separately and in different terms. Hieronymous 12:39, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. There is a mainstream; it is the sum of historians at Western universities. History is not about opinion.

Now, that is an extremely naive statement. Ask five historians why the French Revolution or WWI occurred and you are likely to get five distinct answers, albeit with some common elements. History tries to answer the question "why" and answers to this question are always interpretations. Try to find a "mainstream" historian who will claim that writing history does not involve opinion. Hieronymous 08:23, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

History is about, to the best of our ability, discovering historical facts, and explaining why things were the way they were, and why things are the way they are. Your nihilism makes any claim equally real. That's nonsense. RK 16:43, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

My view is not nihilism and doesn't hold all claims equally valid. In fact, in the discussion of dark matter theories, I specifically distinguish between true and false theories. See, this is how you show that your views have been misunderstood or mischaracterized. Typing the word "wrong" just shows that you can type. You have to actually point out at least one difference between your position and the other person's rendition of it. Hieronymous 08:23, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hey, RK...your definition of what history is all "about" is almost identical to that of the Institute for Historical Review. Interesting.

Let me elaborate a bit about definitions. To me the purpose of a definition is to capture the features of a phenomenon that distinguish it from other phenomena - that give it its identity. If the definition is appropriate, it should still apply so long as the thing itself does not change. A definition that does not do this fails the test of identity; the identity of the thing has not changed, yet the definition no longer fits. This tells me that the definition has failed to capture the identity of the thing and has instead captured irrelevancies.

If a conspiracy theory is held by definition to be false, ridiculous, or unproveable, it should retain these features regardless of events external to the theory itself. Yet RK wants to say that conspiracy theories are false or unproveable (two different things, which he conflates) until verified, at which point they are no longer conspiracy theories, but geniune conspiracies. Somehow, the conspiracy theory has not changed, yet its definition has. This indicates a very poor definition.

You have totally misunderstood everything I wrote. RK 15:12, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

OK, I'll tell you what. I'll summarize your position in my own words. If I get it wrong, please explain my mistake. If I get it right, please stop claiming that I don't understand you.

Your position is that there are genuine conspiracies in the world, and that there is a distinct entity called "conspiracy theories". Genuine conspiracies are regarded as true or at least plausible by the mainstream, however defined. Initially, you defined conspiracy theories as belief in non-existent conspiracies, that is to say, as false beliefs. When someone pointed out that this is not NPOV, you revised the definition of conspiracy theory to be belief in conspiracies held by mainstream thought to be false or implausible. If, because of new evidence or some other reason, mainstream thinking changes and now holds that a particular conspiracy theory has become true or plausible, it is no longer a conspiracy theory, but a genuine conspiracy. You hold, further, that these definitions of the terms reflect how the terms are conventionally used in political discourse and therefore are not the expression of a point-of-view, but simply something that is true by definition. Right?

Sigh. Wrong. You still are missing my point. RK

Successfully typing the word "Wrong" is not an argument - not even when preambled by an Al-Gore-style ostentatious sigh. You have to actually show how what I said differs from your position. Hieronymous 08:23, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

But if you don't admit that there really is a mainstream historical consensus that rejects the reality of wacko conspiracy theories, then I do not see how you can possibly discuss this subject with anyone at all. RK 16:43, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

In fact, I discuss this subject with people all the time, both those sympathetic to my views and those not. Hieronymous 08:23, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)