4 ms·

Your language is rather imprecise. "Conspiracy theory" and "evidence" are not opposites. "Speculation" and "conspiracy" are not synonyms. Conspiracy is a par

Your language is rather imprecise. "Conspiracy theory" and "evidence" are not opposites. "Speculation" and "conspiracy" are not synonyms. Conspiracy is a particular act for which there may or may not be evidence. In fact, there are a variety of federal and state laws that criminalize different types of conspiracies--in order for individuals to be prosecuted under those laws, evidence of conspiracy is by definition required to be presented. Excuse me for being pedantic, but I think that the tendency of people to equate "conspiracy theory" and "wild speculation" is too often taken advantage of by public relations types to discredit whistleblowers and critics of the status quo. Don't forget how many things we know for certain today that only five months ago would have been dismissed as "conspiracy theories". It is good advice for people here to avoid speculation, but it's worth pointing out that if foul play were involved at all in this man's death, it most certainly would involve a criminal conspiracy. That's a very big if, though, in my opinion.

InclinedPlane 13y ago
I say "conspiracy theory" because that's the category of thought that falls into a particular kind of rationality anti-pattern. Here's a general formula for most "conspiracy theory" thinking: Step 1: Characterize the "official theory" of some event or phenomenon, often in an overly simplistic manner. Step 2: Identify some sort of inconsistency or counterintuitive result in the relationship between the "official theory" and the purported evidence. Step 3: Use that inconsistency to leap to the conclusion that an alternate theory must necessarily be correct. I've seen this pattern played out a million times in as many different scenarios. For example, look at the moon landing denialists. They point out that the shadows look unusual in Apollo footage. THEREFORE THE WHOLE THING WAS FAKED ON A SOUND STAGE ON EARTH. Or, look at the JFK conspiracy theorists. They point out that if you position JFK and Governor Connally in the seemingly most normal riding positions in the presidential limousine then the bullet alleged to have passed through JFK's neck and also to have injured Connally would have had to travel a very unlikely route. THEREFORE THE WHOLE THING IS A FRAUD AND IN REALITY JFK WAS ASSASSINATED BY THE CIA. Or, look at the 9/11 truthers. They point out that the temperature that structural steel melts at is higher than the temperature that jet fuel burns at. THEREFORE THE WHOLE THING IS AN ELABORATE RUSE BY THE US GOVERNMENT AND THE BUILDINGS WERE DEMOLISHED USING PLANTED EXPLOSIVES. And so on. Here we have a perfect example of the beginnings of another conspiracy theory in progress. Hastings' car didn't appear to leave much damage on the palm tree he allegedly collided with. Logically the only conclusion is that a vast government conspiracy remote controlled his car to veer off the road and trigger the explosion of a fire bomb in order to prevent him from revealing secrets that they didn't want revealed. It's just simple logic right?
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  Or, look at the Gulf of Tonkin Incident deniers. People alleged that Pres. Johnson made up his own pretext to initiate the Vietnam War. Or, look at the people who alleged that the CIA had agents operating as journalists in domestic and foreign media. Or, look at those loonies who said that the gov't listened to all our phone calls. They even had a name for that lunacy, they called it ECHELON. Or, after ECHELON was disproven, the nutters continued to insist that the gov't was spying on citizens. Crazy eh? Sure, conspiracies are rare. But, you can't dismiss them with hand-waving, and, your comment is the prototypical hand-waving ad-hom comparing anyone who dares admit consideration of a conspiracy to Flat-Earthers. It's a cheap tactic.
  - Symmetry 13y ago
    None of your examples follow the three step process InclinedPlane outlined.
    - legutierr 13y ago
      And yet, they are all best described as "conspiracy theories". The process that InclinedPlane outlined needs a better label.
      - anigbrowl 13y ago
        Not really, no.
  - InclinedPlane 13y ago
    I know, isn't it so weird how we know whether or not things are true based on evidence? Such a complicated world we live in.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    When was ECHELON disproven?
    - 13y ago

InclinedPlane 13y ago

I say "conspiracy theory" because that's the category of thought that falls into a particular kind of rationality anti-pattern. Here's a general formula for most "conspiracy theory" thinking: Step 1: Characterize the "official theory" of some event or phenomenon, often in an overly simplistic manner. Step 2: Identify some sort of inconsistency or counterintuitive result in the relationship between the "official theory" and the purported evidence. Step 3: Use that inconsistency to leap to the conclusion that an alternate theory must necessarily be correct. I've seen this pattern played out a million times in as many different scenarios. For example, look at the moon landing denialists. They point out that the shadows look unusual in Apollo footage. THEREFORE THE WHOLE THING WAS FAKED ON A SOUND STAGE ON EARTH. Or, look at the JFK conspiracy theorists. They point out that if you position JFK and Governor Connally in the seemingly most normal riding positions in the presidential limousine then the bullet alleged to have passed through JFK's neck and also to have injured Connally would have had to travel a very unlikely route. THEREFORE THE WHOLE THING IS A FRAUD AND IN REALITY JFK WAS ASSASSINATED BY THE CIA. Or, look at the 9/11 truthers. They point out that the temperature that structural steel melts at is higher than the temperature that jet fuel burns at. THEREFORE THE WHOLE THING IS AN ELABORATE RUSE BY THE US GOVERNMENT AND THE BUILDINGS WERE DEMOLISHED USING PLANTED EXPLOSIVES. And so on. Here we have a perfect example of the beginnings of another conspiracy theory in progress. Hastings' car didn't appear to leave much damage on the palm tree he allegedly collided with. Logically the only conclusion is that a vast government conspiracy remote controlled his car to veer off the road and trigger the explosion of a fire bomb in order to prevent him from revealing secrets that they didn't want revealed. It's just simple logic right?

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
Or, look at the Gulf of Tonkin Incident deniers. People alleged that Pres. Johnson made up his own pretext to initiate the Vietnam War. Or, look at the people who alleged that the CIA had agents operating as journalists in domestic and foreign media. Or, look at those loonies who said that the gov't listened to all our phone calls. They even had a name for that lunacy, they called it ECHELON. Or, after ECHELON was disproven, the nutters continued to insist that the gov't was spying on citizens. Crazy eh? Sure, conspiracies are rare. But, you can't dismiss them with hand-waving, and, your comment is the prototypical hand-waving ad-hom comparing anyone who dares admit consideration of a conspiracy to Flat-Earthers. It's a cheap tactic.
- Symmetry 13y ago
  None of your examples follow the three step process InclinedPlane outlined.
  - legutierr 13y ago
    And yet, they are all best described as "conspiracy theories". The process that InclinedPlane outlined needs a better label.
    - anigbrowl 13y ago
      Not really, no.
- InclinedPlane 13y ago
  I know, isn't it so weird how we know whether or not things are true based on evidence? Such a complicated world we live in.
- mpyne 13y ago
  When was ECHELON disproven?
  - 13y ago