5 ms·

Conspiracy theory often happens when coincidence becomes unbelievable. (I like the phrase someone else coined in this thread, 'coincidence theory', when we hol

by ColanR 6y ago

Conspiracy theory often happens when coincidence becomes unbelievable. (I like the phrase someone else coined in this thread, 'coincidence theory', when we hold onto the coincidence explanation too long.) NSA spying was believed by many long before snowden, because the coincidences were piling up even though intent was not proven. I don't think it's fair to conclude there's a mental health defect in people more skeptical of the status quo (If we want to go that route, perhaps there is a similar mental health defect that allows belief in improbable coincidence to flourish among some people and not others?).

JoeSmithson 6y ago
> NSA spying was believed by many long before snowden, because the coincidences were piling up even though intent was not proven What were the inexpiable coincidences that were piling up?
- philipkglass 6y ago
  I wouldn't say so much "coincidences" as "significant prior evidence." Here's what led me to believe that the NSA was engaged in large sale interception of communications years before the Snowden disclosures: "The Puzzle Palace," published in 1982: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Puzzle_Palace https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Puzzle_Palace Report from the EU's investigation of ECHELON in 2001: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Committee_on_the_ECHELON_Interception_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Committee_on_the_ECH... Disclosures around room 641A in 2006 (discussed yesterday on HN): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A The NSA's capabilities were correctly speculated upon by technically adept civil libertarians before the Snowden disclosures. The details were certainly fuzzier before 2013. But mass surveillance capabilities were no more in doubt than the existence of Israel's nuclear weapons program. In both cases there was plenty of concrete evidence despite official denial and/or stonewalling.
  - JoeSmithson 6y ago
    Yes, I agree with you completely that there was significant prior evidence. I would go as far to say as a very large amount of what Snowden revealed was in fact already known. This seems to be the opposite of it being a conspiracy theory - that's why I asked specifically about these "coincidences piling up".
    - ColanR 6y ago
      You're changing the definition of "conspiracy theory" in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample you were given of NSA spying.
      - JoeSmithson 6y ago
        What's an example of a claim that you think was considered a conspiracy theory pre-Snowden, that now isn't? The existence of "NSA spying" I don't believe was ever considered a conspiracy theory.
        ColanR 6y ago
        > What's an example of a claim that you think was considered a conspiracy theory pre-Snowden, that now isn't? "The NSA has a giant secret building in the midwest where they store surveilance." "The US government is spying on US citizens." I remember the pre-snowden discussions online and offline, and saying the US government was spying on US citizens was tinfoil hat territory. I even had conversations with government contractors who used the line, 'the government could never keep a secret that big'.
austincheney 6y ago
> I don't think it's fair to conclude there's a mental health defect in people more skeptical of the status quo. It’s not about fair, popularity, perceptions, or belief systems. It is only about the inability to separate evidence from belief. The strength or popularity of the belief does transform that belief into evidence.
- ColanR 6y ago
  Let me say it differently then. It isn't intellectually honest to dismiss someone's opinion by claiming them mentally defective. It would be just as easy to say that you're in denial, because you're asking for unreasonably high levels of evidence.
  - austincheney 6y ago
    I can dismiss conspiracy theories as nonsense, regardless of any mental defect, because they are nonsense. Perhaps that is horribly unfair, but it’s entirely intellectually honest. If you want intellectual honesty pursue evidence instead of agreement.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - ColanR 6y ago
      a) You're skipping right past my point, that dismissing a conspiracy theory by calling its proponent mentally defective is intellectually dishonest. Also, it comes dangerously close to an ad homenim, if not done right. b) NSA surveilance was a conspiracy theory 15 years ago. Was that nonsense?
      - austincheney 6y ago
        > Also, it comes dangerously close to an ad homenim, if not done right. Equating mental illness or impairment to an ad hominem ignores the medical nature of the subject in preference for an ignorant social stigma. See the last paragraph of this comment to discover what mental illness is according to the medicine: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23329867 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23329867

by ColanR 6y ago

JoeSmithson 6y ago

> NSA spying was believed by many long before snowden, because the coincidences were piling up even though intent was not proven What were the inexpiable coincidences that were piling up?

philipkglass 6y ago
I wouldn't say so much "coincidences" as "significant prior evidence." Here's what led me to believe that the NSA was engaged in large sale interception of communications years before the Snowden disclosures: "The Puzzle Palace," published in 1982: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Puzzle_Palace https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Puzzle_Palace Report from the EU's investigation of ECHELON in 2001: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Committee_on_the_ECHELON_Interception_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Committee_on_the_ECH... Disclosures around room 641A in 2006 (discussed yesterday on HN): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A The NSA's capabilities were correctly speculated upon by technically adept civil libertarians before the Snowden disclosures. The details were certainly fuzzier before 2013. But mass surveillance capabilities were no more in doubt than the existence of Israel's nuclear weapons program. In both cases there was plenty of concrete evidence despite official denial and/or stonewalling.
- JoeSmithson 6y ago
  Yes, I agree with you completely that there was significant prior evidence. I would go as far to say as a very large amount of what Snowden revealed was in fact already known. This seems to be the opposite of it being a conspiracy theory - that's why I asked specifically about these "coincidences piling up".
  - ColanR 6y ago
    You're changing the definition of "conspiracy theory" in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample you were given of NSA spying.
    - JoeSmithson 6y ago
      What's an example of a claim that you think was considered a conspiracy theory pre-Snowden, that now isn't? The existence of "NSA spying" I don't believe was ever considered a conspiracy theory.
      - ColanR 6y ago
        > What's an example of a claim that you think was considered a conspiracy theory pre-Snowden, that now isn't? "The NSA has a giant secret building in the midwest where they store surveilance." "The US government is spying on US citizens." I remember the pre-snowden discussions online and offline, and saying the US government was spying on US citizens was tinfoil hat territory. I even had conversations with government contractors who used the line, 'the government could never keep a secret that big'.

austincheney 6y ago

> I don't think it's fair to conclude there's a mental health defect in people more skeptical of the status quo. It’s not about fair, popularity, perceptions, or belief systems. It is only about the inability to separate evidence from belief. The strength or popularity of the belief does transform that belief into evidence.

ColanR 6y ago
Let me say it differently then. It isn't intellectually honest to dismiss someone's opinion by claiming them mentally defective. It would be just as easy to say that you're in denial, because you're asking for unreasonably high levels of evidence.
- austincheney 6y ago
  I can dismiss conspiracy theories as nonsense, regardless of any mental defect, because they are nonsense. Perhaps that is horribly unfair, but it’s entirely intellectually honest. If you want intellectual honesty pursue evidence instead of agreement.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - ColanR 6y ago
    a) You're skipping right past my point, that dismissing a conspiracy theory by calling its proponent mentally defective is intellectually dishonest. Also, it comes dangerously close to an ad homenim, if not done right. b) NSA surveilance was a conspiracy theory 15 years ago. Was that nonsense?
    - austincheney 6y ago
      > Also, it comes dangerously close to an ad homenim, if not done right. Equating mental illness or impairment to an ad hominem ignores the medical nature of the subject in preference for an ignorant social stigma. See the last paragraph of this comment to discover what mental illness is according to the medicine: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23329867 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23329867