4 ms·

> Conspiracy theories aren't 100% irrational. The term is often used to refer to implausible "theories" that make very strong claims, but have zero supporting

> Conspiracy theories aren't 100% irrational. The term is often used to refer to implausible "theories" that make very strong claims, but have zero supporting evidence and make zero testable predictions. Of course, it's true that people conspire all the time. Implausible "theories" that make strong claims are exciting and entertaining. They're fun to play with. They become a problem when they go viral, among groups of people with limited critical thinking skills. The internet has been responsible for this, by democratising information. Anyone who failed at school can still look up shifty research papers online, misunderstand them, and not not know how to evaluate the evidence. This is a social pandemic, and I have no idea what the cure is. But I'm certain the cure isn't more censorship. > you can always point to incredibly large groups of people who believe some facts that you perceive to be incorrect. Hardly any propositions about the world are "mathematically rigorous" - there's nearly always a big chunk of judgement needed to decide the truth of a proposition. That doesn't mean that all judgements have equal value; some beliefs are "wronger" than others. There seem to be large groups of people with opinions that are screamingly, obviously, completely wrong, and as close to 100% irrational as makes no difference. Some "conspiracy theories" lack adequate supporting evidence, but are at least arguable. For example, it's a fact that in the past, groups of people have been given vaccines that were deliberately contaminated by the manufacturer. It's therefore not unreasonable to ask for evidence that this hasn't happened in the case of e.g. COVID vaccines. I prefer to reserve the term "conspiracy theory" for that class of opinions that is obviously completely batshit.

notreallyserio 5y ago
> They become a problem when they go viral, among groups of people with limited critical thinking skills. Agreed, and to expand on this: I believe another problem is that these conspiracy theorists also believe that they have secret knowledge that the man doesn’t want you to have. Finally, they are smarter about something than those folks with education and success. This makes them an easy target for real conspiracies, conspiracies by folks that merely want to take their money. See, for example, the anti-GMO movement and specifically the anti-GMO seed packs you can buy.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  > See, for example, the anti-GMO movement I'm against GMO. Not because I believe retail GMO food is likely to be harmful; I mean, harmful foods could be made, but we have testing. I'm against GMO because (a) a lot of GMO plants have been engineered to be grown with heavy use of herbicides and pesticides, (b) GMO crops make a farm non-organic, and I'm in favour of organic farming for environmental reasons; and (c) GMO companies lobby incessantly against food labelling. If a food supplier doesn't want to label my food, then absent any other excuse, I presume there's something they don't want me to know (yes, I read food labels in supermarkets. I carry a credit-card-sized magnifier in my wallet, for that purpose). What is an "anti-GMO seed pack"? Would that just be a pack containing seeds that are not genetically modified?
  - bulatb 5y ago
    It's rational for them to lobby against GMO labeling because it's a lose-lose proposition, even if they honestly believe their food is safe and eat it themselves. Either it scares off consumers (some of whom won't know what GMO means but understandably assume it's bad because it's disclosed) or they have to spend a bunch of money on "consumer education" and lose some of them anyway. That's whether GMOs are safe or not. Water companies would also lobby against "Warning: heavy water" and Cisco would lobby against "gigahertz radiation" labels, but not because they have something to hide.
    - denton-scratch 5y ago
      > Doesn't mean they're hiding something. No it doesn't. But without a label of the form "contains GM ingredients", I am being deprived of choice about what I eat. It's reasonable to expect people to care a lot about what they eat. > Water companies would also lobby against "heavy water" labels If you mean labelling ordinary water as "heavy" because it contains a tiny amount of deuterium, I'm not that's analogous. Even if it is, I'm not sure that saying "They would say that, wouldn't they" makes their arguments against labelling more persuasive.
      - 5y ago

notreallyserio 5y ago

> They become a problem when they go viral, among groups of people with limited critical thinking skills. Agreed, and to expand on this: I believe another problem is that these conspiracy theorists also believe that they have secret knowledge that the man doesn’t want you to have. Finally, they are smarter about something than those folks with education and success. This makes them an easy target for real conspiracies, conspiracies by folks that merely want to take their money. See, for example, the anti-GMO movement and specifically the anti-GMO seed packs you can buy.

denton-scratch 5y ago
> See, for example, the anti-GMO movement I'm against GMO. Not because I believe retail GMO food is likely to be harmful; I mean, harmful foods could be made, but we have testing. I'm against GMO because (a) a lot of GMO plants have been engineered to be grown with heavy use of herbicides and pesticides, (b) GMO crops make a farm non-organic, and I'm in favour of organic farming for environmental reasons; and (c) GMO companies lobby incessantly against food labelling. If a food supplier doesn't want to label my food, then absent any other excuse, I presume there's something they don't want me to know (yes, I read food labels in supermarkets. I carry a credit-card-sized magnifier in my wallet, for that purpose). What is an "anti-GMO seed pack"? Would that just be a pack containing seeds that are not genetically modified?
- bulatb 5y ago
  It's rational for them to lobby against GMO labeling because it's a lose-lose proposition, even if they honestly believe their food is safe and eat it themselves. Either it scares off consumers (some of whom won't know what GMO means but understandably assume it's bad because it's disclosed) or they have to spend a bunch of money on "consumer education" and lose some of them anyway. That's whether GMOs are safe or not. Water companies would also lobby against "Warning: heavy water" and Cisco would lobby against "gigahertz radiation" labels, but not because they have something to hide.
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    > Doesn't mean they're hiding something. No it doesn't. But without a label of the form "contains GM ingredients", I am being deprived of choice about what I eat. It's reasonable to expect people to care a lot about what they eat. > Water companies would also lobby against "heavy water" labels If you mean labelling ordinary water as "heavy" because it contains a tiny amount of deuterium, I'm not that's analogous. Even if it is, I'm not sure that saying "They would say that, wouldn't they" makes their arguments against labelling more persuasive.
    - 5y ago