Talk:Conspiracy theory/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Conspiracy theory. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

As for the argument from design, yes, I think this is the salient feature of conspiracy theories. A conspiracy theorist observes patterns in the sense-data of the world and infers that these reveal the work of some designing intelligence, some individual or group "mind", whose presence is not otherwise obvious. Is this a valid inference?

Obviously, in some cases, it is not, as conspiracy opponents never seem to tire of pointing out. Yes, people sometimes see ice cream cones in clouds. If they think someone is shaping the clouds to look like ice cream cones, they are mistaken. A pattern can be the result of accident. Is it ever valid to infer the presence of a mind on the basis of patterns in sense-data? One of the great parlor games in philosophy is "try to refute solipsism". Solipsism is the belief that your mind is the only one in the universe; the rest of the world is just some kind of phantasm of your mind. I'm not going to get into whether this is refutable (Descartes says no, Witgenstein says yes), but do you in fact believe it and, if not, why not? Since you are bothering to read this, I assume you believe that some mind not your own shaped these words to some end. All the universe has ever given you is sense-data. By examining that sense-data, you found patterns in it and, sometime in infancy, concluded that the world was full of minds other than your own. Never have you had direct experience of the existence of such "minds" - they just seem to explain the sense-data better than assuming that all the behavior of these apparent "other people" is just random and purposeless.

If you accept that this is a valid methodology, then you have no objection in principle to what the conspiracy theorist does; it is merely a question of whether the inference is valid in a particular case. If this situation seems far removed from the political world that conspiracy theorists address - well, so are ice cream cones in clouds. Either you accept the principle as valid (without necessarily accepting all applications of it), or you don't, and, in the latter case, I think you have no choice but solipsism. Hieronymous 04:16, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Interesting. You have a solipsist position which rejects logical thought and historical scholarship, and demands that we accept all claims as equally valid, yet you attack others as solipsist?

My position is that a person's opinions about a thing are not an attribute of the thing itself and therefore do not belong in its definition. This directly affirms the independence of the outside world from the person's mind and is therefore an anti-Solipsist position. There: another example of how to show that your position has been mischaracterized. If you hope someday to be able to deploy logical thought yourself, you might practice with this kind of problem. Hieronymous 08:23, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You are not only out of the mainstream, but you are so deeply emmeshed in your anti-mainstream stance that you have slipped out of anything close to reality. RK 16:43, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Oh, now I get it! RK - the Red Knight. Wasn't the Red Knight that torso in Monty Python and the Holy Grail that kept insisting it was winning the fight even after all its limbs were redistributed about the landscape? Have I been mistaking a Monty Python imitation for actual arguments?

Hieronymous no, that was the Black Knight. Kwantus =)

HeeHee! I like how generally considered is invoked as a kind of credibility. It is also "generally considered" that Columbus was trying to prove thw world is round and that raindrops are pear-shaped, but they're both still false. Kwantus (PS everyone "knows" vaccine prevents smallpox, Pearl Harbour was a surprise attack, and HIV causes AIDS, too…but the first has been discredited for centuries, Stinnet recently put paid to the second, and I think Duesberg, Rasnick, several "HIV" patietns, et al are crippling the latter.)

Nonsense. It was never generally considered that Columbus was trying to prove that the world is round. That is only a myth spread by people who believe in conspiracy theories, to justify their belief in theories that have absolutely no basis in historical fact. RK

Well then, you live someplace more enlightened than Northa America, to think that.[the "world is round" was never generally considered]. =p - Kwantus

Heehee - i wonder which is the bigger conspiracy theory, that Columbus was trying to prove the world was round or that he was rescuing a bunch of important Jews from Torquemada's edict =) - Kwantus

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)

Please stop bringing up the long discredit rebuttal argument "Well, no one can prove a conspiracy theory false, so who is to say it is false." Anyone can make up an infinite number of inane, complicated and bizarre conspiracy theories, all of which are false, and none of which can be proven false. You misunderstand the very process of history, and the nature of knowledge, if you miss this critical point. I can make up a conspiracy theory involving you, if I so choose. And could any historians disprove it? Nope. So should we regard it as legitimate? Nope. Not unless you want to throw critical thinking right out the window. We in history and science can never accept that a conspiracy theory is true unless there is a substantial amount of proof. RK 02:27, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be more fair to call what you are describing "superstition" rather than "conspiracy theory". From the American Heritage Dictionary -
superstition. n. 1. A belief that some action or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome. 2. Any belief, practice, or rite unreasoningly upheld by faith in magic, chance, or dogma. 3. a. Fearful or abject dependence upon such beliefs. b. Idolatry.
Definitions 1 and 2 seem to fit what you are describing quite nicely.

I disagree that a conspiracy theory cannot be proven true or false. Conspiracy theories can be proven true or false, but there is insufficient data to do so. Many conspiracy theories are based on circumstantial evidence, and there is not enough "hard" evidence to take it from the "theory" stage to a universally-acknowledged "truth" (or falsehood). Maybe there would be less confusion if it was called "conspiracy hypothesis" instead of "conspiracy theory".

Conspiracy theory has gotten a bad rap largely because some people are unable or unwilling to make a distinction between superstition and theory. There is nothing inherently incompatible between conspiracy research and the scientific method. While some conspiracy theories are rather far-fetched and are not well substantiated, others are very plausible and do explain facts which are difficult to account for otherwise. Some conspiracy theories tend to explain the facts better than the "official" accounts. In some cases, I don't see a difference between what an "investigative journalist" does and the work of a conspiracy theorist. Conspiracies have been known to happen, and it's quite rare that those involved have come out voluntarily to spill the beans. Remember the Maine! -- Greta, 27 Oct 2003

hm. I went looking for Northwoods on Google and this was the only WP page that mentioned it; I added a link to a IMO reputable copy of the plan before noticing the mention of plan had been zapped. IMO Northwoods should be mentioned as a CT with a little more foundation than some... Kwantus

I originally zapped it from here because it's no longer a theory, having been declassified and verified. But I think it could work here as a "see also." - Hephaestos 17:51, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

A search on Google for "northwoods wikipedia" shows Operation Northwoods as the first result. You could add a link to the Wikipedia article to the section Conspiracy theory#Real life imitates conspiracy theory.—Eloquence 17:55, Sep 3, 2003 (UTC)

I be darned - Google("site:wikipedia.com northwoods") was behind on that one. Usu it's WP search that i find omittive =\ - Kwantus

No mention of Pearl Harbor, either (acc to Ctrl-F ;^). Where should it go, given Stinnett's body of declassified evidence? --Kwantus

Asking "Who benefited from this death?" after an assassination is not the sole province of conspiracy theorists; it is a standard investigative question posed by police after any homicide, and certainly the public in general would be interested in asking it after an assassination about which there was any doubt (and, as it can certainly be argued by some philosophers that nothing is knowable, at least beyond a certain point...). --Daniel C. Boyer 18:37, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

As a newcomer to this page, the section 'Real conspiracies vs ct' is incredibly unclear and repetative. I suspect this is to do with editorial disputes, and don't want to boldly edit, but was the definition ever agreed on? If so this could do with a re-write.2toise 19:15, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The subject matter itself makes the trap of POV almost inevitable. The least that could be said is to gang warily here, but perhaps major problems are unavoidable. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:49, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I tried a reworking of it, but forgot to log in when I posted it, still, it was me ;) Let me know what you think, revert it if it offends... 2toise 04:00, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I wonder about the listing of celebrities as "assassinations" and "deaths."

For example, why is John Lennon listed as not assassinated, while John Paul 1 is listed as assassinated? Does "assassinated" not mean "killed by homocide while famous?"

Could someone who is preferably not militantly pro-Israel explain what is meant by the term "anti-semitic" in the context of this article? -- Greta, 28 Oct 2003

From the article: "Many African-Americans in the US believe that HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, was invented..." Is this really a commonly held belief? Is it accurate to say "many" in this case? --Minesweeper 10:37, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well, acording to a 1995 report, "A survey of about 1,000 black church members found 35 percent believed the AIDS conspiracy theory and another 30 percent would not rule it out." (Yikes!) A 1990 survey found that 30% of Blacks in New York City believed that AIDS was created to wipe out blacks. -- Khym Chanur 05:22, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)

I have worked in New York City, and a great number of African-Americans I have worked with are convinced that white American scientists deliberately created AIDS as a weapon against blacks. A few believe that AIDs was created by "the Jews". In inner city areas, this (sadly) is a fairly respectable position to have, and no one is ostracized for saying such things aloud. RK 16:54, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)

I'm moving some of this to List of alleged conspiracy theories.2toise 14:41, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The following apologetics for belief in conspiracy theory have been removed. Explanations follow: RK 14:46, Nov 9, 2003 (UTC)

The text read There will inevitably be heated debate between those proponents of the theory, who consider it apparent that a conspiracy is afoot, and those skeptics who claim that stringing together what appear to them to be isolated and unconnected events to find sinister meaning is irrational. The waters are muddied by the fact that powerful groups or individuals may have an interest in trying to discredit those who accuse them of real or imagined crimes. The label of "conspiracy theory" has been used to mock or denigrate social and political dissent, for instance when a powerful public figure is accused of corruption.

Yes, we all know that paranoid people truly believe that "powerful groups or individuals may have an interest in trying to discredit those who accuse them of real or imagined crimes" Of course. Conspiracists (people who believe in multiple conspiracy theories) are certain that some evil government or organization is out to get them, is out to hide the truth, and is creating an attack on "conspiracy theory" in order to hide the facts! So? Instead of discussing this phenomenon impartially, the author of this paragraph writes as if he is out to defend the believers from the manipulations of these evil groups! This is not an impartial discussion; this is conspiracist advocacy. RK 14:46, Nov 9, 2003 (UTC)

The text stated Conspiracy theorists are sometimes accused of being paranoid, at least in a metaphorical sense, and are sometimes compared to the symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia. In contrast, it is also true that the diagnosis of schizophrenia has been used as a means of silencing political dissent, for example in the Soviet Union, Britain, and the United States. (See: anti-psychiatry; Francis Farmer; lobotomy; Phil Russell, Thomas Szasz).

This has nothing to do with the topic. Communist and facists governments murdered people they disagreed with, and sent others to mental institutions. This has nothing to do with conspiracy theory. I am disturbed by the way this is being used to imply that the beliefs of some conspiracists may in fact be real and justifiable. The logic is flawed. RK 14:46, Nov 9, 2003 (UTC)

The text stated Whether particular theories of power and causal attribution fall within the category of conspiracy theories or not depends greatly on one's point of view, and is also affected by the emergence of evidence to support the theory. Some theories which, when first presented, appeared to most people to be wildly improbable, were later adopted as orthodoxy.

This totally missed the point. The article already states, in great detail, that some conspiracy theories turned out to be true, and it explains the difference between actual history and conspiracism. This is just a rewrite of the more detailed material, but with a pro-conspiracist bias. It is innuendo used to cast doubt and to make conspiracy theories seem reasonable. Not NPOV. RK 14:46, Nov 9, 2003 (UTC)

Hi there RK - I tried to edit this to get it to read a little better, and felt I had to put back some of the things you edited out - I don't think that the term 'conspiracy theory' can have a meaning that is not POV. As I think we all agree:

The term is exclusively used to negatively describe ideas that people disagree with.
It (and much harsher tactics) have been used by goverments to silence dissent.
Powerful political interests have often called ideas that threated them 'conspiracy theories' see the debate on 'global warming', 'tobacco' or 'genetically modified foods' for example. Theories of 'global warming' are particularly good because the evidence is complex and difficult to form a watertight case with - proponents are accused of being conspiracy theories by industry funded groups.
On many occasions ideas that were called conspiracy theories have turned out to be correct.

I am not defending any particular theory, simply saying that there is no definition of the term that is not inherently POV. The evidence for any given theory (whether it is global warming or alien abduction) should stand on its own and be judged on its merits, we don't need to apply our own judgements about whether the theory is lunatic or the proponent insane.2toise 06:24, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)