Conspiracy theories

[Beorhtnoth]

With the prevalence of fake news, conspiracy theories, logical fallacies and such coming from many areas, as well as the general problem of interpreting science articles, thinking they claim something when they don't, or recognizing when claims are being misconstrued, etc, I thought this might be a good place to generally approach learning how to recognize and counteract these, not to debate specific topics or argue, but to examine how to approach things like critical thinking or fact checking, and how to prevent falling into fallacies and misinterpretations, either discussions about or links to resources on the topic.

I think the fundamental approach should be caution; and begin by examining how language is employed. What words are being used, who is employing those words, and what are the motives ? Take "fake news". Does it describe the news or is it more indicative of who is determining what is fake? Or "logical fallacies". Should an appeal to authority be dismissed? Whither then expert advice?
And then there is "conspiracy theories". Beware the loaded label. Employing terms that induce a negative response is indicative of design rather than accident.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Of course, sometimes a cigar really is a cigar.

Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk

[Beorhtnoth]

Of course, sometimes a cigar really is a cigar.

Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk

And sometimes those cigars were designed to explode.

[elengil]

Does it describe the news or is it more indicative of who is determining what is fake?

It describes the phenomena of wanting to reverse truth and fiction. Whether it is crying 'fake' to something that one doesn't want to be true, or pointing out the factual failings of something being put forth as true.

The idea that there is "someone" determining what is fake is itself a rather suspect statement that seems to defy the very caution you urged.

Should an appeal to authority be dismissed? Whither then expert advice?

Yes, because an appeal to authority as a logical fallacy when debating is not the same as an expert in their field giving a consensus view of those in their field as a solid basis for making decisions.

My IT guy suggests setting up my router this way is not the logical fallacy. My IT guy said this is the best diet, and he was right about my router, is.

And then there is "conspiracy theories". Beware the loaded label. Employing terms that induce a negative response is indicative of design rather than accident.

And sometimes the negative response is the design, perhaps to delegitimize and blur the lines between truth and fiction.

[Beorhtnoth]

Does it describe the news or is it more indicative of who is determining what is fake?

It describes the phenomena of wanting to reverse truth and fiction. Whether it is crying 'fake' to something that one doesn't want to be true, or pointing out the factual failings of something being put forth as true.

The idea that there is "someone" determining what is fake is itself a rather suspect statement that seems to defy the very caution you urged.

Is that all it describes? How does someone distinguish the former from the latter?

There is nothing wrong with the term "fake news" per se. It is how it is employed that's the rub. It can be used honestly, or dishonestly. Someone can do either, wittingly or not.

Should an appeal to authority be dismissed? Whither then expert advice?

Yes, because an appeal to authority as a logical fallacy when debating is not the same as an expert in their field giving a consensus view of those in their field as a solid basis for making decisions.

My IT guy suggests setting up my router this way is not the logical fallacy. My IT guy said this is the best diet, and he was right about my router, is.

And if you had a second IT guy tell you the first IT guy was talking nonsense?

And then there is "conspiracy theories". Beware the loaded label. Employing terms that induce a negative response is indicative of design rather than accident.

And sometimes the negative response is the design, perhaps to delegitimize and blur the lines between truth and fiction.

We agree, then, "conspiracy theory" is a loaded term designed to induce some sort of "negative association". Is that not manipulation, and something to be aware of?

I sometimes wonder if people dismiss so much as "conspiracy theory" because the alternative is just too threatening to their comfortable worldview. People don't do bad things, and they don't plot in groups...

[elengil]

We agree, then, "conspiracy theory" is a loaded term designed to induce some sort of "negative association". Is that not manipulation, and something to be aware of?

No, you misunderstood. Sometimes a term is designed to invoke a negative response, and sometimes the negative response is manufactured for its own sake. Manufacturing a negative response is its own kind of manipulation.

Conspiracy Theory is a descriptive term. That it invokes negative responses in some is something that can be investigated but does not itself make an argument against using the term.

[Beorhtnoth]

We agree, then, "conspiracy theory" is a loaded term designed to induce some sort of "negative association". Is that not manipulation, and something to be aware of?

No, you misunderstood. Sometimes a term is designed to invoke a negative response, and sometimes the negative response is manufactured for its own sake. Manufacturing a negative response is its own kind of manipulation.

Conspiracy Theory is a descriptive term. That it invokes negative responses in some is something that can be investigated but does not itself make an argument against using the term.

Okay. Can we agree that the use of the term "conspiracy theory" can be, and is, manipulated in the knowledge it induces a negative reaction. It is also a legitimate description. It is the association of "conspiracy theory" with "false" in popular currency that elevates the intent of using the term above any value to its use. If a claim that is true can be determined false simply by dismissing it as a "conspiracy theory", then there is no meaning to truth.

[elengil]

We agree, then, "conspiracy theory" is a loaded term designed to induce some sort of "negative association". Is that not manipulation, and something to be aware of?

No, you misunderstood. Sometimes a term is designed to invoke a negative response, and sometimes the negative response is manufactured for its own sake. Manufacturing a negative response is its own kind of manipulation.

Conspiracy Theory is a descriptive term. That it invokes negative responses in some is something that can be investigated but does not itself make an argument against using the term.

Okay. Can we agree...

No, and I don't think that's quite what I intended for this thread. It wasn't to argue (or agree). Rather, it was meant to discuss how to not fall victim to being manipulated, how not to fall victim to fallacies in our thinking or in others' arguments, how to approach even controversial topics with rationale instead of knee-jerk or emotional reactions.

I am absolutely open to discussing what makes something a conspiracy theory - or what causes that to be applied to ideas - and whether that is always a fair assessment or whether it can be used to dismiss questions. But understand this is covered territory - we aren't starting from scratch trying to make these assessments, we can draw on the copious amount of material that already covers this topic.

As for agreeing to anything - I do want to agree to definitions - to make absolutely sure we are applying the same definitions to the same terms. Just because a person or persons uses the term does not mean that is necessarily the correct use of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable. The term has a negative connotation, implying that the appeal to a conspiracy is based on prejudice or insufficient evidence. A conspiracy theory is not simply a conspiracy; instead, it refers to a hypothesized conspiracy with specific characteristics, such as an opposition to the mainstream consensus among those people (such as scientists or historians) who are qualified to evaluate its accuracy.

A conspiracy theory is not a term used to dismiss without evidence an idea. Rather it is used to identify an idea that is without evidence. Simply saying that the only reason there is no evidence is because it is being suppressed then requires one to ask if the evidence is being suppressed, how did you come by this unknowable evidence in order to form the idea in the first place? You cannot claim that the lack of evidence is itself evidence of a cover-up.

The term is not created to evoke a negative reaction, rather it is a description of beliefs that have very specific characteristics.

[Beorhtnoth]

If I understand you correctly, I would suggest that your faith in the utility of the term "conspiracy theory" is challenged by its ubiquity. Any term that is commonly used as a pejorative is open to manipulation. We are expected to believe that x, or y, or z is invalid because it is rejected as "conspiracy theory". One rarely has first hand evidence whether x, or, y, or z is true or false, so there is a reliance on the filter of secondary sources. To reiterate, "conspiracy theory" is a term almost universally employed to cast doubt. Furthermore, the secondary filter knowingly employs it to cast doubt. If knowledge is power, ignorance is weakness. Most of the information we receive has multiple gate-keepers.

To some degree, it boils down to how much one trusts ones information gatekeepers, and how much one believes one is immune to manipulation.
If a person doesn't believe they are subject to manipulation, they have a hard time believing they are being manipulated.

Words and their meanings, both dictionary and "street", how they are used, are fundamental to understanding rhetoric, debate, logical fallacies. etc. I hoped my contribution was interesting. My apologies if it was intrusive.

To end, I believe that the term "conspiracy theory", like "fake news", has been rendered redundant if its purpose is to further knowledge. It is obfuscatory, and when I see it employed, alarm bells ring...

[elengil]

To end, I believe that the term "conspiracy theory", like "fake news", has been rendered redundant if its purpose is to further knowledge. It is obfuscatory, and when I see it employed, alarm bells ring...

But they are useful - particularly for examining when they are being employed as a distractive or manipulative measure.

Some people will cry fake news and there does need to be a degree of awareness of its use and some rational basis for either rejecting the claim or accepting it has merit. Same with Conspiracy Theory. The terms exist and they are used. Pretending these terms do not exist - or spending all our time arguing over whether the term should be used - does not help a person apply a reasonable response to them or their use.

There is merit in discussing the use of certain terms, yes. But the point of the thread was to discuss how to determine - with what information we actually have available - whether an idea has merit or not, whether an argument is reasonable or distractionary, some red flags that indicate we are being manipulated... we must base that evaluation on something or else we end up having to believe literally everything that comes our way if we cannot employ any kind of determination of factualness.

Sure there are people who refuse to believe they can be manipulated but again this thread was meant to help us understand when manipulation tactics are being used against us so we can identify them and avoid to what degree we are able falling victim to them. Not to argue about whether those things are manipulation or not.

So this thread isn't about whether we should use the term Conspiracy Theory. It would be much closer to say it's about whether any particular theory to which the term is applied is actually an unsupported theory that is meant to inflame or confuse, or whether it is being applied to an idea that has actual verifiable evidence and so the application of the term should be rejected in favor of that evidence.

This thread is about how to identify logical fallacies being used - either by us or against us - because this can often lead one to an incorrect conclusion based on the evidence at hand. This thread is about identifying common tactics used to manipulate.

[Beorhtnoth]

Words matter, and how they are used even more. There was a reason Trump was so keen on "China flu". It is not strictly accurate, but then, neither is "Spanish flu". Or "French Disease", for that matter...

Thank you for engaging.

B

[Voronwë the Faithful]

So this thread isn't about whether we should use the term Conspiracy Theory. It would be much closer to say it's about whether any particular theory to which the term is applied is actually an unsupported theory that is meant to inflame or confuse, or whether it is being applied to an idea that has actual verifiable evidence and so the application of the term should be rejected in favor of that evidence.

This thread is about how to identify logical fallacies being used - either by us or against us - because this can often lead one to an incorrect conclusion based on the evidence at hand. This thread is about identifying common tactics used to manipulate.

But if I am reading what Bëor is saying correctly, he is saying using the term Conspiracy Theory is in fact a common tactic used to manipulate. I'm not yet convinced that that is true, but I think it is valid argument to make, and one that clearly belongs in this thread.

[elengil]

I guess?

Okay... discuss: is the term Conspiracy Theory a manipulative label or used in a manipulative manner?

If so, what is the desired outcome of deploying the term? If not, how can we differentiate Conspiracy Theories from actual conspiracies?


In my opinion, the term is not manipulative. It is a label, yes, but the term was not coined as a manipulation, and the negative reaction some have to the term is not evidence that it was created to be inflammatory.

The term is descriptive of the thing being described - theories that rely on there being a mass conspiracy of some sort - the government is responsible for something, the illuminati runs the world, NASA is deceiving us as to to the shape of the planet, etc.

Does that mean that nobody uses Conspiracy Theory as a way to dismiss an idea or argument? No. But that does not mean the term itself is manipulative.

As for the second - that is a good question and not one I can quickly give an answer to. You can't say absence of evidence is evidence of a cover-up, but neither can you dismiss the idea that a successful cover-up necessarily then produces an absence of evidence. Excepting that the conspiracy would have to be so large and involve so many people as to make it statistically impossible to be kept secret for long.

[Beorhtnoth]

I guess?

Okay... discuss: is the term Conspiracy Theory a manipulative label or used in a manipulative manner?

If so, what is the desired outcome of deploying the term? If not, how can we differentiate Conspiracy Theories from actual conspiracies?


In my opinion, the term is not manipulative. It is a label, yes, but the term was not coined as a manipulation, and the negative reaction some have to the term is not evidence that it was created to be inflammatory.

How the term was coined to be used and how its use has developed is important. "Conspiracy theory" was re-employed by the CIA as a means to denigrate journalists who were raising uncomfortable questions regarding the assassination of President Kennedy. That was the genesis of its negative impression

The term is descriptive of the thing being described - theories that rely on there being a mass conspiracy of some sort - the government is responsible for something, the illuminati runs the world, NASA is deceiving us as to to the shape of the planet, etc.

You have equated "conspiracy theory" with extreme examples, apparently to ridicule the term. Is Corey Feldman's claim that there is a vast paedophile ring in Hollywood to be dismissed because it is a "conspiracy theory" and particularly because it is a strand of the QAnon "conspiracy theory"?
Feldman's accusations are supported by some evidence, yet it is a "conspiracy theory", so...

Does that mean that nobody uses Conspiracy Theory as a way to dismiss an idea or argument? No. But that does not mean the term itself is manipulative.

Agreed, but if we don't know when the term is being used manipulatively, confidence in its usage should be qualified.

As for the second - that is a good question and not one I can quickly give an answer to. You can't say absence of evidence is evidence of a cover-up, but neither can you dismiss the idea that a successful cover-up necessarily then produces an absence of evidence. Excepting that the conspiracy would have to be so large and involve so many people as to make it statistically impossible to be kept secret for long.

Where do you gain your certainty about the impossibility of keeping secrets? That appears a particularly subjective conclusion.

[elengil]

"Conspiracy theory" was re-employed by the CIA as a means to denigrate journalists who were raising uncomfortable questions regarding the assassination of President Kennedy. That was the genesis of its negative impression

Citation, please.

You have equated "conspiracy theory" with extreme examples,

Yes.

apparently to ridicule the term.

No, because the term applies in the extremes.

Is Corey Feldman's claim that there is a vast paedophile ring in Hollywood to be dismissed because it is a "conspiracy theory"

No, for exactly the reason you said, it is supported by some evidence, and that evidence should be examined. Conspiracy Theories are not simply accusations of a conspiracy, and they are almost always an extreme without any evidence at all, and use even the lack of evidence as if that was itself evidence.

Where do you gain your certainty about the impossibility of keeping secrets? That appears a particularly subjective conclusion.

No, it's actually based in fact. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35411684

[Beorhtnoth]

Citation? "Conspiracy Theory in America" by Professor Lance Dehaven-Smith. 2013

The term "conspiracy theory" may apply in the extremes, but it is not restricted to the extremes. Furthermore, by your acceptance of Corey Feldman's evidence, you validate the QAnon conspiracy theory, of which Corey Feldman's evidence is a strand, as it doesn't fulfill your criteria that a conspiracy theory is "almost always an extreme without any evidence at all". There is evidence...

However, I think how you phrased your introduction, grouping "conspiracy theory" with the definitively false "fake news" and "logical fallacies" indicates you have prejudged the validity of conspiracy theories, and I suggest that might be conditioning.

And I am sorry, but the BBC "facts" are voodoo science.

[elengil]

I realize Voronwë thought this was an appropriate thread for this discussion, based on what was already said - but I disagree. This is not at all what I wanted in this thread. This isn't a thread FOR debate. This was a thread for learning how to approach debate, how to understand it and be effective at it, recognizing - look, I already said this.

I really don't want to debate this. Surely a new thread can be made to host this debate, but this was a thread for learning.

Voronwë, would you kindly split off the last several posts?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I did so, though somewhat reluctantly.

[elengil]

Citation? "Conspiracy Theory in America" by Professor Lance Dehaven-Smith. 2013

That may be, but as I don't have that lying around to verify...

We seem to fundamentally disagree on the definition of Conspiracy Theory. I would very much like to hear your definition, as you have not actually provided one.

However, I think how you phrased your introduction, grouping "conspiracy theory" with the definitively false "fake news" and "logical fallacies" indicates you have prejudged the validity of conspiracy theories,

You seem to have a problem with the very idea of calling things false.

and I suggest that might be conditioning.

Please don't. I don't recognize your authority to diagnose me with anything at all.

And I am sorry, but the BBC "facts" are voodoo science.

I am sorry, but you are not the gatekeeper of truth. If you disagree, provide a rebuttal or source for a differing opinion. You don't get to write off sources you don't like as 'voodoo' just because you disagree with them.

You have said a great deal but have provided, so far, absolutely nothing to actually back up your statements. The book may support your stance but as I don't have it, and you didn't provide any kind of passage or quote from it for me to see, for all I know you have completely misrepresented its contents.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Asking tough questions and connecting the dots across decades of suspicious events, from the Kennedy assassinations to 9/11 and the anthrax attacks, this book raises crucial questions about the consequences of Americans’ unwillingness to suspect high government officials of criminal wrongdoing.

I don't think I will be running out to purchase Mr. DeHaven-Smith's book.