6 ms·

the point is, the validity of particular conspiracy theories lends no particular credence to others.

thaumaturgy 11y ago
You're exactly right. Otherwise, this logic would lend support to, for instance, the notion that the moon landings were faked, merely because other conspiracies have turned out to be true. And nobody that's sane really thinks the moon landings were faked, so we find that other conspiracies being true doesn't really help with evaluating any given conspiracy. Or maybe more succintly: we need more Edward Snowden and less Alex Jones.
- hugh4 11y ago
  What we need is more people capable of entertaining an idea without necessarily believing it. People who can acknowledge multiple possibilities and put reasonable plausibility ratings on them without getting too emotionally involved with any of them. People who can say "Yes, the widely accepted story is probably true, but here's five or six low-probability alternative possibilties."
  - thaumaturgy 11y ago
    Internet culture doesn't foster that sort of attitude, unfortunately. Funny, I wrote some notes on this exact thing a couple of nights ago while I couldn't sleep but deleted them because they sucked. Crowded forums, especially those with points systems like Reddit and HN, have become contests and the people that win those contests are usually the ones that can argue a position with the most veracity. Nobody is impressed by anyone that says, "hmm, well, that might be true too, maybe"; that person is perceived as naive or weak or ignorant or wishy-washy. This isn't limited to internet culture either. Any politician that dares to change their mind on an issue is "waffling", it's a sign of a weak leader, not an introspective one. And this is really, really hurting the way that debate happens, at least in the US. You generally can't have a civil, thoughtful, enlightening discussion about gun control, abortions, religion, climate change, race and gender issues, or any of a number of other hot-button political topics. People instead pick a position and cling to it with all their might, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. When one argument for their position stops working, rather than reconsider their position they just migrate to a new argument for the same position. (This is happening right now for instance with anti-vaccers, who have moved from "it's not safe" to "it impinges on my religious freedom".) ... Y'know, I think the world has gotten too connected too quickly. I don't mean that this interconnectedness is altogether bad; it is amazing to me that we live in a time now where two people in politically opposed countries can get together with a minimal amount of effort over vast distances and talk to eachother. That's fantastic. But I think it has also become overwhelming for a lot of people. We haven't had enough time to adapt. The relentless news cycle, the constant distractions from Twitter and social media feeds, the nonstop barrage of email and texting, the vast social timewasting (and often hostile) networks like Reddit, the unimaginable amount of information being pumped into a blogosphere that's expanding at rates resembling the earliest moments of the Big Bang ... I think most people are just completely overwhelmed by it, and coupled with this culture that reveres certainty and conviction over measured consideration, people have retreated to finding comfortable positions on every issue they care about and then clinging to them with all their might. It would be nice if there was a way to turn the dial back just a notch or two, to have some kind of network where we could easily limit ourselves to connections with a much smaller number of people, the same people on a regular basis, where it can become comfortable again to say something like "I don't know" in a context where you don't feel like you're in a gladiatorial arena and will get downvoted by the spectators for it.
  - cryoshon 11y ago
    What makes the widely accepted story probably true? In my mind, it has no truth weight greater than any other probability. The most accepted story has a very high chance of being gamed/controlled.
  - mirimir 11y ago
    This! This is one of the key skills that I got from my training in science. That and literature research. And designing experiments. Getting emotionally attached to some hypothesis is very dangerous. But on the other hand, sometimes the hypothesis is OK, and it's the experimental design and technique that are hosed.
mirimir 11y ago
That's true. But on the other hand, maybe the category "conspiracy theory" isn't so useful? I'm reminded here of Kuhn. I do agree that untestable hypotheses are bullshit. But most "conspiracy theories" aren't untestable, as nontrivial as the requisite tests might be.
- hugh4 11y ago
  > maybe the category "conspiracy theory" isn't so useful? Maybe not. The defining aspect of silly theories isn't just that they involve conspiracies. However many silly theories do wind up involving conspiracies, because assuming the existence of a conspiracy is the easiest way to explain away any differences between your theory and observable reality. Think that President Obama comes from Mars? Well why is there a birth certificate that says he was born in Hawaii? Easy: someone faked it. Why didn't the records office notice it was faked? They were in on it. Why hasn't one of the President's medical examinations shown up his Martian physiology? The doctor is also in on the conspiracy. Why didn't anyone notice his spaceship landing? They did, the government covered it up. And so forth. There's practically no fact you can't explain away by asserting a giant conspiracy between all the people who tell us this fact. Ridiculous conspiracy theories can usually be distinguished from vaguely sensible ones by looking at whether the asserted conspiracy would actually be a sensible way for the purported actors to achieve their goals. Ridiculous people claim that George W Bush plotted 9/11 as a way to achieve... something, but always some goal that could have been achieved in a much easier and less risky way. On the other hand, the idea that the CIA would build a giant ship to raise a Russian submarine while pretending it's for some other purpose? That's actually a sensible way for them to achieve an actual goal.
  - mirimir 11y ago
    Yes. Concepts of elegance and Occam's razor come to mind.

You're exactly right. Otherwise, this logic would lend support to, for instance, the notion that the moon landings were faked, merely because other conspiracies have turned out to be true. And nobody that's sane really thinks the moon landings were faked, so we find that other conspiracies being true doesn't really help with evaluating any given conspiracy. Or maybe more succintly: we need more Edward Snowden and less Alex Jones.

hugh4 11y ago
What we need is more people capable of entertaining an idea without necessarily believing it. People who can acknowledge multiple possibilities and put reasonable plausibility ratings on them without getting too emotionally involved with any of them. People who can say "Yes, the widely accepted story is probably true, but here's five or six low-probability alternative possibilties."
- thaumaturgy 11y ago
  Internet culture doesn't foster that sort of attitude, unfortunately. Funny, I wrote some notes on this exact thing a couple of nights ago while I couldn't sleep but deleted them because they sucked. Crowded forums, especially those with points systems like Reddit and HN, have become contests and the people that win those contests are usually the ones that can argue a position with the most veracity. Nobody is impressed by anyone that says, "hmm, well, that might be true too, maybe"; that person is perceived as naive or weak or ignorant or wishy-washy. This isn't limited to internet culture either. Any politician that dares to change their mind on an issue is "waffling", it's a sign of a weak leader, not an introspective one. And this is really, really hurting the way that debate happens, at least in the US. You generally can't have a civil, thoughtful, enlightening discussion about gun control, abortions, religion, climate change, race and gender issues, or any of a number of other hot-button political topics. People instead pick a position and cling to it with all their might, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. When one argument for their position stops working, rather than reconsider their position they just migrate to a new argument for the same position. (This is happening right now for instance with anti-vaccers, who have moved from "it's not safe" to "it impinges on my religious freedom".) ... Y'know, I think the world has gotten too connected too quickly. I don't mean that this interconnectedness is altogether bad; it is amazing to me that we live in a time now where two people in politically opposed countries can get together with a minimal amount of effort over vast distances and talk to eachother. That's fantastic. But I think it has also become overwhelming for a lot of people. We haven't had enough time to adapt. The relentless news cycle, the constant distractions from Twitter and social media feeds, the nonstop barrage of email and texting, the vast social timewasting (and often hostile) networks like Reddit, the unimaginable amount of information being pumped into a blogosphere that's expanding at rates resembling the earliest moments of the Big Bang ... I think most people are just completely overwhelmed by it, and coupled with this culture that reveres certainty and conviction over measured consideration, people have retreated to finding comfortable positions on every issue they care about and then clinging to them with all their might. It would be nice if there was a way to turn the dial back just a notch or two, to have some kind of network where we could easily limit ourselves to connections with a much smaller number of people, the same people on a regular basis, where it can become comfortable again to say something like "I don't know" in a context where you don't feel like you're in a gladiatorial arena and will get downvoted by the spectators for it.
- cryoshon 11y ago
  What makes the widely accepted story probably true? In my mind, it has no truth weight greater than any other probability. The most accepted story has a very high chance of being gamed/controlled.
- mirimir 11y ago
  This! This is one of the key skills that I got from my training in science. That and literature research. And designing experiments. Getting emotionally attached to some hypothesis is very dangerous. But on the other hand, sometimes the hypothesis is OK, and it's the experimental design and technique that are hosed.

mirimir 11y ago

That's true. But on the other hand, maybe the category "conspiracy theory" isn't so useful? I'm reminded here of Kuhn. I do agree that untestable hypotheses are bullshit. But most "conspiracy theories" aren't untestable, as nontrivial as the requisite tests might be.

hugh4 11y ago
> maybe the category "conspiracy theory" isn't so useful? Maybe not. The defining aspect of silly theories isn't just that they involve conspiracies. However many silly theories do wind up involving conspiracies, because assuming the existence of a conspiracy is the easiest way to explain away any differences between your theory and observable reality. Think that President Obama comes from Mars? Well why is there a birth certificate that says he was born in Hawaii? Easy: someone faked it. Why didn't the records office notice it was faked? They were in on it. Why hasn't one of the President's medical examinations shown up his Martian physiology? The doctor is also in on the conspiracy. Why didn't anyone notice his spaceship landing? They did, the government covered it up. And so forth. There's practically no fact you can't explain away by asserting a giant conspiracy between all the people who tell us this fact. Ridiculous conspiracy theories can usually be distinguished from vaguely sensible ones by looking at whether the asserted conspiracy would actually be a sensible way for the purported actors to achieve their goals. Ridiculous people claim that George W Bush plotted 9/11 as a way to achieve... something, but always some goal that could have been achieved in a much easier and less risky way. On the other hand, the idea that the CIA would build a giant ship to raise a Russian submarine while pretending it's for some other purpose? That's actually a sensible way for them to achieve an actual goal.
- mirimir 11y ago
  Yes. Concepts of elegance and Occam's razor come to mind.