3 ms·

Here's an idea: treat conspiracy theory as theory, an explanation of a set of facts, rather than as social contagion or pathological disorder. Allow open discus

Here's an idea: treat conspiracy theory as theory, an explanation of a set of facts, rather than as social contagion or pathological disorder. Allow open discussion of all sides of an issue, admit controversial facts, and structure the discussion in such a way that truthfulness and explanatory power rises to the top. I'm picturing some kind of hybrid of Reddit and Wikipedia. Censorship, ostracism, and certain debunking styles are counterproductive in the sense that they harden the "conspiracy theorist" in his beliefs, confirming that "the establishment" is protecting sacred cows and forbidden knowledge. These approaches are unnecessarily combative and condescending. I think a more open approach is called for. Sabine Hossenfelder handled "flat earth theory" in a way I found refreshing. She said, "Huh, this is interesting. I appreciate that they aren't afraid to question fundamental assumptions. That is a scientific attitude. But here's why I think they're wrong."

Majromax 1y ago
> Here's an idea: treat conspiracy theory as theory, an explanation of a set of facts, rather than as social contagion or pathological disorder. Allow open discussion of all sides of an issue, admit controversial facts, and structure the discussion in such a way that truthfulness and explanatory power rises to the top. That's well worth doing when evaluating the merits of a potential conspiracy theory for yourself. However, it's not evident that this approach will convince people who incorrectly believe conspiracy theories of their errors. Eponymous conspiracy theories have a built in 'immune system' to reject logical, scientific argumentation, since most if not all refuting facts can be attributed to the untrustworthy or malicious conspiracy itself. Ultimately, scientific argumentation depends upon all involved parties having a shared understanding of what observed facts are true or false, and if that agreement is not there then otherwise rational parties can still reach different conclusions with no persuasion possible. > Sabine Hossenfelder handled "flat earth theory" in a way I found refreshing. She said, "Huh, this is interesting. I appreciate that they aren't afraid to question fundamental assumptions. That is a scientific attitude. But here's why I think they're wrong." Was this approach persuasive to any 'flat earthers', or was it instead interesting to watch as a 'round earther'?
regularjack 1y ago
If you make outrageous claims for which there is abundant proof of the contrary (e.g. flat earth), it's on you to provide proof, it's not on me to pretend that you're not making outrageous claims.
intended 1y ago
Well, what do we do about people who don't read the article? Even if you tell them what is being discussed, they will interject about their pet theory, and insist on having you discuss their PoV. Discussion about the topic is now hostage to whoever has the least understanding but the most willingness to interject. At that point, it wouldn't be surprising to find experts leaving the conversation, to form more specialized groups to discuss the topic. How would you solve this?
- burnt-resistor 1y ago
  We should really be calling it their wild-haired, pet conjecture.
- Jensson 1y ago
  Do you think experts are more likely to read the article? In my experience experts are less likely to read these pop articles about their domain, because they are so wrong.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]

Majromax 1y ago

> Here's an idea: treat conspiracy theory as theory, an explanation of a set of facts, rather than as social contagion or pathological disorder. Allow open discussion of all sides of an issue, admit controversial facts, and structure the discussion in such a way that truthfulness and explanatory power rises to the top. That's well worth doing when evaluating the merits of a potential conspiracy theory for yourself. However, it's not evident that this approach will convince people who incorrectly believe conspiracy theories of their errors. Eponymous conspiracy theories have a built in 'immune system' to reject logical, scientific argumentation, since most if not all refuting facts can be attributed to the untrustworthy or malicious conspiracy itself. Ultimately, scientific argumentation depends upon all involved parties having a shared understanding of what observed facts are true or false, and if that agreement is not there then otherwise rational parties can still reach different conclusions with no persuasion possible. > Sabine Hossenfelder handled "flat earth theory" in a way I found refreshing. She said, "Huh, this is interesting. I appreciate that they aren't afraid to question fundamental assumptions. That is a scientific attitude. But here's why I think they're wrong." Was this approach persuasive to any 'flat earthers', or was it instead interesting to watch as a 'round earther'?

regularjack 1y ago

If you make outrageous claims for which there is abundant proof of the contrary (e.g. flat earth), it's on you to provide proof, it's not on me to pretend that you're not making outrageous claims.

intended 1y ago

Well, what do we do about people who don't read the article? Even if you tell them what is being discussed, they will interject about their pet theory, and insist on having you discuss their PoV. Discussion about the topic is now hostage to whoever has the least understanding but the most willingness to interject. At that point, it wouldn't be surprising to find experts leaving the conversation, to form more specialized groups to discuss the topic. How would you solve this?

burnt-resistor 1y ago
We should really be calling it their wild-haired, pet conjecture.
Jensson 1y ago
Do you think experts are more likely to read the article? In my experience experts are less likely to read these pop articles about their domain, because they are so wrong.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]