3 ms·

> From a scientific point of view, the problem is that there are no definition of what a "conspiracy theory" is. But there is, isn't it? I mean, it's a theory

by rualca 6y ago

> From a scientific point of view, the problem is that there are no definition of what a "conspiracy theory" is. But there is, isn't it? I mean, it's a theory regarding conspiracies. And colloquially, the theory is supported by no rational basis or evidence, or it's basis is so twisted and convoluted that its main premise isn't even falsifiable. > And then there are theories or rumors that happened to be correct after all ( watergate, contras, etc). You're confusing hypothesis with conspiracy theories. Hypothesis are open questions that are falsifiable and verifiable. Conspiracy theories are illogical leaps of faith supported by barely any rationality. There was evidence supporting the theory that Nixon was engaged in shady tactics to steal the election. There is absolutely no evidence that "the masked singer" was produced to condition the public to believe that wearing a mask was cool. > This is not a black or white thing. It pretty much is. At most, the shade of grey between the blackest of blacks and the whitest of whites is very thin. If someone is presenting baseless assertions as facts supporting a conspiracy that is supported or hinted by no rational basis whatsoever then where's the doubt?

purplecats 6y ago
your bias is leaking pretty heavily
- rualca 6y ago
  > your bias is leaking pretty heavily Please explain what you personally interpreted as bias.
bsaul 6y ago
There are indeed theories about a secret organisation plotting to take over the world, and if we were rigourous that's the only time we should be talking about "conspiracy theory". This is clearly not what people are doing. The "protocol of the elder of zion" conspiracy theory is this kind of example, but there aren't a lot of them. However, even with this definition it is still not clear-cut. If you were to say in the cold war that some US secret services were financing authoritarian regimes in south america to fight communism (or islamic extremists in afghanistan), this could easily qualify as a conspiracy theory today. Until you get the evidence that it is true. At the moment, it looks to me like the only purpose of this label is to prevent people from trying to investigate into it. It's a concept that prevents you from thinking rather than helps you think better.
- rualca 6y ago
  > There are indeed theories about a secret organisation plotting to take over the world, and if we were rigourous that's the only time we should be talking about "conspiracy theory". No, not really. There is a constant stream of idiotic and entirely baseless and outright irrational conspiracy theories popping up all the time, which is proportional to the amount of stupidity and ignorance in the universe. Take for example the ridiculous conspiracy theory of how "the masked singer" is a psyops project designed to manipulate people into accepting mask usage. No one in their right mind would be pushing that gem of idiocy. But here we are, with lunatics selling that off as true. > (...) It's a concept that prevents you from thinking rather than helps you think better. It really isn't, and you are not helping your case by trying to shamelessly misrepresent your point and move the goal post. The key aspect that you are trying to disregard and avoid is the fact that conspiracy theories share a common trait: misrepresent baseless assumptions and unfalsifiable assertions as unquestionable facts, no matter how silly or ridiculous or crazy they are. That's what separates mere hypothesis or suspicions from the crazy train which are conspiracy theories: how they push baseless allegations and unverifiable brain farts as undisputable facts. To make matters worse, the loons pushing conspiracy theories use all sort of sociopath tricks to force their conspiracy theories onto others, including but not limited to attacking those who dare point out logic flaws in their craziness. That's the touchstone test that separates the conspiracy theory loons living in crazy town from those living in reality which recognize the fact that conspiracies do exist: how facts and hypothesis and proof are treated differently.
  - bsaul 6y ago
    you seem to really forget that history is full of example of crazy things that people would have undoubtedly labeled as "baseless unverifiable brain farts" on their time. You try to make a black / white distinction between "factual" and "idiotic", but reality is much more diverse (although there are some extreme cases for sure). The things become even more complex when you consider that real scandals often start to be unveiled by thin hints, rather than obvious proofs. My point is that it's a spectrum, not a binary thing.

by rualca 6y ago

purplecats 6y ago

your bias is leaking pretty heavily

rualca 6y ago
> your bias is leaking pretty heavily Please explain what you personally interpreted as bias.

bsaul 6y ago

There are indeed theories about a secret organisation plotting to take over the world, and if we were rigourous that's the only time we should be talking about "conspiracy theory". This is clearly not what people are doing. The "protocol of the elder of zion" conspiracy theory is this kind of example, but there aren't a lot of them. However, even with this definition it is still not clear-cut. If you were to say in the cold war that some US secret services were financing authoritarian regimes in south america to fight communism (or islamic extremists in afghanistan), this could easily qualify as a conspiracy theory today. Until you get the evidence that it is true. At the moment, it looks to me like the only purpose of this label is to prevent people from trying to investigate into it. It's a concept that prevents you from thinking rather than helps you think better.

rualca 6y ago
> There are indeed theories about a secret organisation plotting to take over the world, and if we were rigourous that's the only time we should be talking about "conspiracy theory". No, not really. There is a constant stream of idiotic and entirely baseless and outright irrational conspiracy theories popping up all the time, which is proportional to the amount of stupidity and ignorance in the universe. Take for example the ridiculous conspiracy theory of how "the masked singer" is a psyops project designed to manipulate people into accepting mask usage. No one in their right mind would be pushing that gem of idiocy. But here we are, with lunatics selling that off as true. > (...) It's a concept that prevents you from thinking rather than helps you think better. It really isn't, and you are not helping your case by trying to shamelessly misrepresent your point and move the goal post. The key aspect that you are trying to disregard and avoid is the fact that conspiracy theories share a common trait: misrepresent baseless assumptions and unfalsifiable assertions as unquestionable facts, no matter how silly or ridiculous or crazy they are. That's what separates mere hypothesis or suspicions from the crazy train which are conspiracy theories: how they push baseless allegations and unverifiable brain farts as undisputable facts. To make matters worse, the loons pushing conspiracy theories use all sort of sociopath tricks to force their conspiracy theories onto others, including but not limited to attacking those who dare point out logic flaws in their craziness. That's the touchstone test that separates the conspiracy theory loons living in crazy town from those living in reality which recognize the fact that conspiracies do exist: how facts and hypothesis and proof are treated differently.
- bsaul 6y ago
  you seem to really forget that history is full of example of crazy things that people would have undoubtedly labeled as "baseless unverifiable brain farts" on their time. You try to make a black / white distinction between "factual" and "idiotic", but reality is much more diverse (although there are some extreme cases for sure). The things become even more complex when you consider that real scandals often start to be unveiled by thin hints, rather than obvious proofs. My point is that it's a spectrum, not a binary thing.