Conspiracy theories

leo

It is well-accepted that many powerful individuals do not have the interests of the people at heart, and even work against the interests of the people. It is also well-accepted that many powerful individuals meet one another in private and make secret dealings unbeknownst to the general population. And yet most people are not willing to go the next step and accept that powerful individuals do conspire against the interests of the people.

A conspiracy is precisely that, “a secret plan by a group to do something harmful”. History is full of such examples that are proven to have occurred. A specific conspiracy may be proven, or it may be a theory that has supporting evidence but that remains to be proven. And so a conspiracy theory is not necessarily false, it may very well be true, and many conspiracy theories turned out to be true.

And yet every time people come up with the idea that some powerful individuals are conspiring against the general population on some matter, that idea gets quickly ridiculed and arbitrarily dismissed as a “conspiracy theory”, as if the very idea that powerful individuals may be doing that was laughable, was a fantasy. It seems the label “conspiracy theory” evokes the same emotional reactions as the label “pseudoscientific theory” commonly used to ridicule and dismiss particular ideas. And yet historically many ‘conspiracy’ and ‘pseudoscientific’ theories turned out to be correct.

The intellectually honest behavior is to analyze the claims made by a specific theory and the evidence that exists in support of that theory, not to dogmatically ridicule and dismiss it by labeling it ‘conspiracy’ or ‘pseudoscience’, which is precisely not a good philosophical or scientific attitude.

Psychologically it can be understood why most people do not want to consider conspiracy theories seriously: because they do not want to believe that individuals more powerful than them are working against their interests. They want to believe they are free, that they have their life in control, that their cherished beliefs are true and not lies that they were deceived into accepting, they want to believe they are their own masters and not unsuspecting slaves or tools, they want to believe they live within such a reality because the alternative would be too difficult to face.

They want to believe that the hardships and the suffering they face are the unfortunate product of unchangeable laws of nature that they have to deal with, or in some particular cases the product of isolated disturbed/evil individuals or groups who can be controlled or dealt with through justice or through war. They do not want to believe that powerful organizations such as mainstream media, law enforcement, pharmaceutical companies, intelligence agencies, their own government or secret societies may be actively and insidiously working against them, not by accident but by design. And well-meaning people working for these organizations do not want to believe that they may be manipulated into working towards fulfilling an agenda that goes against the interests of the people.

And yet when the evidence is thoroughly researched and analyzed, it turns out that many conspiracy theories that are arbitrarily dismissed as ridiculous or as the fantasies of sick minds, have actually much more substance than we are led to believe at first glance, and that the body of evidence does point to some of these theories being true rather than false, in fact it appears as extremely unlikely that some of these theories would be false.

When the only argument that remains against these theories is that “these individuals or these organizations wouldn’t lie to us like that! they wouldn’t do that to us!”, it may be time to change our beliefs about them, even if the truth is hard to accept. It isn’t easy to accept that we’ve lived within lies our whole life, it isn’t easy to wake up and see the horror of reality for what it truly is, we would prefer to keep living in our dream bubble and ignore that reality. But sooner or later that reality will catch up to us, and the longer we ignore it the tougher the wake up call will be, and the more impossible it will be to turn things around.

tim wood

And yet when the evidence is thoroughly researched and analyzed, it turns out that many conspiracy theories that are arbitrarily dismissed as ridiculous or as the fantasies of sick minds, have actually much more substance than we are led to believe at first glance, and that the body of evidence does point to some of these theories being true rather than false, in fact it appears as extremely unlikely that some of these theories would be false. — leo

History is full of such examples that are proven to have occurred. — leo

Some examples? And to be sure, "conspiracy" has shading of meanings, from being a crime, depending on the nature of the conspiracy, to being a sign of mental aberration. To not distinguish between these usages of a word and to suppose that all conspiracies stand or fall by the same standard, is an invitation to error and nonsense, both of which, when made, show surprising resistance to truth and facts.

creativesoul

...to suppose that all conspiracies stand or fall by the same standard, is an invitation to error and nonsense, both of which, when made, show surprising resistance to truth and facts... — tim wood

What?

:brow:

Facts are events, happenings, states of affairs. Truth is correspondence to/with facts. Judging the quality of an historical account - determining if it's worth seriously considering - determining if it is true, and what the impact of it's being so is requires comparison between what's been said about the past, and what actually happened(assuming there is a difference).

Are you seriously suggesting that we do not use that single standard?

All conspiracy theories are historical accounts/renderings.

Is the account truth apt? Does it consist of verifiable and/or falsifiable claims? Does it rest it's laurels upon logical possibility alone?

Judging using truth and facts is judging using a single standard. A complex one, consisting of individual elemental constituents, but a single whole standard nonetheless.

creativesoul

↪leo

Well done. It begins the important nuance that is - and has been - in dire need of understanding.

Virgo Avalytikh

From Murray Rothbard, For a New Liberty:

It is also particularly important for the State to make its rule seem inevitable: even if its reign is disliked, as it often is, it will then be met with the passive resignation expressed in the familiar coupling of “death and taxes.” One method is to bring to its side historical determinism: if X-State rules us, then this has been inevitably decreed for us by the Inexorable Laws of History (or the Divine Will, or the Absolute, or the Material Productive Forces), and nothing that any puny individuals may do can change the inevitable. It is also important for the State to inculcate in its subjects an aversion to any outcropping of what is now called “a conspiracy theory of history.” For a search for “conspiracies,” as misguided as the results often are, means a search for motives, and an attribution of individual responsibility for the historical misdeeds of ruling elites. If, however, any tyranny or venality or aggressive war imposed by the State was brought about not by particular State rulers but by mysterious and arcane “social forces,” or by the imperfect state of the world—or if, in some way, everyone was guilty (“We are all murderers,” proclaims a common slogan), then there is no point in anyone’s becoming indignant or rising up against such misdeeds. Furthermore, a discrediting of “conspiracy theories”—or indeed, of anything smacking of “economic determinism”—will make the subjects more likely to believe the “general welfare” reasons that are invariably put forth by the modern State for engaging in any aggressive actions.

Bartricks

↪leo

I agree that conspiracy theories should not automatically be dismissed. But a conspiracy theorist does, surely, have the burden of proof?

Your interests and my interests are not perfectly aligned. But that doesn't mean you should default distrust me, even in cases where it may be in my interests to lie.

This is just a special instance of a more general principle or injunction of reason. Namely, to trust appearances. If something appears to be the case, then we are default justified in believing that it is the case until some countervailing evidence is provided to think otherwise.

So, if I say that I will be there at 7pm, you are default justified in trusting that I will be, even if it is not in my interests to be.

The fact, then, that there are powerful people whose interests do not perfectly align with ours does not mean we are default justified in distrusting what they say. And thus a conspiracy theorist owes us evidence for the conspiracy. 'Conspiracy' is not the default.

TheMadFool

↪leo

Well, the term "conspiracy theory" applies to improbable and thus less plausible theories then alternatives which are more probable, ergo more plausible. Speaking in scientific terms, conspiracy theories, are junk theories that, although possessing explanatory power, are just too convoluted to be plausible.

However that something is less probable doesn't mean it's false. The fact of the matter is that people are drawn to conspiracy theories if only because it gets the adrenaline rushing; there's a sense of mystery, a feeling that one is privy to some kind of secret information, etc. Thus conspiracy theories are born and sustained. I've come across a lot of conspiracy theories but most of them fall apart at some level; the more well-crafted the conspiracy theory the deeper one has to go to see the inconsistencies, the subtle glossing over of important details, the weak but professed links between events, etc.

NOS4A2

Nice essay.

But I believe humans lack the capacity to organize any significant conspiracy that wouldn’t result in their jailing or demise. People have consciences, differing wants, motives, and fears, that any cabal is doomed from the outset.

creativesoul

↪leo

Is there any room for unintended harm? Ignoring it after it's been disclosed?

creativesoul

I believe humans lack the capacity to organize any significant conspiracy that wouldn’t result in their jailing or demise. — NOS4A2

If that were true, there would be no cases of guilt and pardon, and/or guilt and no accountability. There are such cases. Therefore, the belief is false.

creativesoul

Talking in terms of probability is nonsense here.

A true explanation is one hundred percent correct, regardless of whether or not it has been dubbed "a conspiracy theory".

NOS4A2

↪creativesoul

If that were true, there would be no cases of guilt and pardon, and/or guilt and no accountability. There are such cases. Therefore, the belief is false.

If there are such cases, maybe provide an example.

RegularGuy

I'm BACK! Back in the TPF groove!
I'm BACK! Back in the TPF groove!
I'm BACK! Back in the TPF groove!

Anyway, every empire that has ever existed constitutes a master/slave society. The United States empire is no exception. ExxonMobil is the biggest master but not the only one. Corporations (and those who run them) run the United States. The working class are the servants/slaves. The middle class are also servants/slaves but maybe house slaves. The police are the overseers. Freedom amounts to very little besides consumer choice. The state-sanctioned entertainment keeps you from questioning your status as nothing more than a consumer. Businesses are mini-kingdoms. You are never more aware of your slave-hood than when you are at work. The supervisors are overseers at the business kingdoms. The owners are the masters.

There are only so many state-sanctioned religions. You have "freedom" to choose among them, but just don't try to start one (think Waco, TX).

Freedom of choice? Sure. You can choose between PC or Mac, Android or iPhone, MSNBC, CNN, or Fox News, etc... All of these are corporations that keep you boxed in a prison. Our several domiciles are also prisons that are constantly "watched" by Google, Apple, Microsoft ... even your smart TV has a camera on it.

The judicial system works to exonerate the rich and condemn the poor (masters and slaves). The prosecutor has a team. The rich can hire an arsenal of lawyers to debate the best strategy and pick the best jurors. The poor have one public defender with a gigantic workload. S/he is paid a pittance, and s/he knows you are probably going to get convicted. Well, what did you expect? A slave would walk free?

The NSA, CIA, and Pentagon (read "War is a Racket" by General Smedley Butler) work on behalf of the corporations as does the President, Congress, and the judicial system. There are too many unconstitutional laws that are legal to be counted here because of the corrupt judges and justices. Never mind that judges relate to the rich as people, and they look down on the servants/slaves. The slaves get life sentences and the wayward masters get parole after slaps-on-the-wrist sentences.

Edward Bernays and Walter Lippmann conceived of this society to keep our minds shackled (just Google them and read their books). Personal responsibility? Sure. Everyone is responsible for themselves. That's by design. The system doesn't create working-class crime. It's bad individuals. Sure. Crimes of poverty, in reality. Think "Prison Song" by System of a Down (the metal band).

Not convinced yet? Just ask questions and I will try to respond to all of them.

TogetherTurtle

If find it hard to believe we're having a discussion about conspiracy theories and nobody has brought up Edward Snowden yet.

The man is wanted in the US for uncovering a "conspiracy theory" in which the US government and tech giants work together to spy on the American public. This happened in 2013, and if you asked the common person about the situation, they would probably tell you they thought it was one of the other conspiracy theories like aliens in area 51 or wearing a tin foil hat.

For the foreseeable future he's living in Russia, because if he ever returned to the US, he will face one of the most one sided trials of all time.

It seems that while a theory is still a "conspiracy theory", it is assumed false, and as someone above mentioned, that is how it should be. The burden of proof lies on those who make claims. But when those who make claims are correct, their theories are suddenly credible and they lose that "conspiracy" part of the name. The theory is given credibility, but its past is forgotten. It's a fundamental disconnect, sort of a doublethink, where one moment something is completely impossible, and the next it is the only way things have ever been. Maybe we forget the history because it's too painful to remember that we were wrong or that we could be wronged. That kind of thinking will only cause more pain in the long run.

What's interesting is how nobody seems to care about these kinds of situations, the above in particular. It isn't that they deny or accept, it's that they are unaware. Crazy things happen, people just don't see them. It's interesting how the world is so chaotic, history is unfolding right before our eyes, and you may have just been blinking when it happened.

fishfry

I believe humans lack the capacity to organize any significant conspiracy that wouldn’t result in their jailing or demise. People have consciences, differing wants, motives, and fears, that any cabal is doomed from the outset. — NOS4A2

This is a common claim of people trying to debunk conspiracy theories. I have four points of refutation that have been on my mind. I'm so glad we're talking about conspiracy theories. I love conspiracy theories.

Now, the claim is that "All those people couldn't keep a secret." I disagree.

1) Consider the Manhattan project to build the atom bomb in WWII. 130,000 people worked at 32 separate locations for three years and nobody breathed a peep. There was one German spy and he got caught. So a very large group of people CAN keep a secret, if the reason for secrecy is good enough.

2) The fact that secrets usually leak out is a kind of survivor bias for secrets. The only secrets you know are the ones that leaked. You don't know all the secrets you don't know. The things the CIA and FBI and other alphabet soup agencies do in your name that you don't know about are highly numerous and mostly evil. You don't know about them because people DO keep secrets.

3) Not everybody needs to know. The 1977 movie Capricorn One, is about a US mission to Mars that is faked by the government. Only a few people know about the plot. The workers in Mission Control are fed fake tapes. They think they're getting the live data.

So even if a thousand people are involved, only a handful at the top might actually know what's really going on; and the rest have no idea they're participating in a nefarious activity.

4) Who says you have to keep secrets? Say you have 1000 people in a room, and you are the Evil Leader of their terrible plot. You COULD say to them, "If any of you talk, you'll be in big trouble." Guaranteed that at least a few of them will get their story to Wikileaks or equivalent. Your plot will be on the front page of the New York Times by morning, even if just to call Wikileaks liars.

So no, that doesn't work. What do you do instead? You say to them: When the plot is complete, I want you all to go out and tell every wild story you can think of to the press! Some of you can even tell them the truth. Use my name! Tell the truth. Tell lies. Sow confusion!

Isn't that much more effective? And doesn't it fit the pattern? Take the JFK assassination. Is the problem that nobody's talking? No, it's that everybody's talking. You have so many people out there putting forth alternative theories that the average American doesn't bother to listen to any of it. There's a guy named James Files who has actually confessed to being one of the grassy knoll shooters. Nobody believes him!

So that's what you do. You don't keep secrets. You sow confusion. Look at 9/11. Dozens of alternative theories, all of them conflicting with each other. Planted explosives. Thermite. Micro-nukes. Reports of explosions in the basement. Real planes. CGI-projected fake planes. Missiles disguised as planes. Cheney did it. Mossad did it. The Saudis did it. No plane wreckage was every recovered at Shanksville. Yes there was! No there wasn't! The alternative literature on 9/11 is huge. Buried in there somewhere is the truth. But you can't separate it from the lies. The average person sees all this confusion and goes, "Well they're all nuts. What the government told me must be right."

The "Nobody can keep a secret" theory stands refuted.

David Mo

Conspiracy: the activity of secretly planning with other people to do something bad or illegal. — Cambridge Dictionary

Conspiracy is in the nature of states, large corporations and other centers of power. State secrets, intelligence services, hidden lobbies, etc. Power justifies secrecy with different excuses: efficacy, self-protection, etc. but when some of these conspiracies are revealed we can see that they are bad or even illegal and against people in general. They usually serve to the groups of power.

Less democracy and more conspiracies. Given the significant amount of secrecy in today's democracies, everyone can draw conclusions.

I suppose the expression conspiranoia is legitimate to point to some fantastic conspiracy theories that only serve to hide the real conspiracies.

leo

As examples of conspiracy theories that turned out to be true: mass spying by the NSA and tech giants and other intelligence agencies (as mentioned above), mind control project of the CIA (project MKUltra), false flag operations used as a pretext to invade a country or start a war (Gulf of Tonkin incident, Operation Northwoods), weather modification programs (Operation Popeye), Nazi scientists who went to work for the US government on a large scale (Operation Paperclip), tobacco and pharmaceutical companies manipulating politicians and scientific research to push their harmful products, CIA manipulating public opinion through mainstream media (Office of Policy Coordination, Operation Mockingbird).

And so many more:

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/wtf/7-bizarre-conspiracy-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-true/news-story/51a5e8dee2b311fafa11511d72afa7b5

https://bestlifeonline.com/true-conspiracy-theories/

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/lopc

It all happened, and that’s only ones that were acknowledged as correct. How many more conspiracy theories are true while being still presented as false by the mainstream media or thought to be false in the public opinion?

For instance are we to believe that there is no more mass spying? No more mind control programs? No more false flag operations used as a pretext to start a war or invade a country or topple some government? No more weather modification programs? No more powerful companies pushing harmful products while manipulating politicians and scientific research? That the public opinion is no more manipulated? That somehow powerful governments/agencies/companies have all come clean and everyone is suddenly working for the public interest now, that there are no more lies?

I’d like to talk about conspiracy theories that are still widely ridiculed or dismissed as false today, and yet when the evidence is thoroughly researched and analyzed it appears that they are most likely true, beyond a reasonable doubt. The first one I want to talk about you will probably laugh when I mention it, not long ago I thought the idea to be ridiculous myself because I had never really looked into it, it seemed so far-fetched, and yet once you look at all the evidence and consider the arguments for/against, it is true beyond a reasonable doubt. And if we can be lied to on such a great scale for so long, it is a sign that this may be just the tip of the iceberg.

deletedusercb

Some examples? — tim wood

Of conspiracies? The Gulf of Tonkin attack that was used to justify mobilizing us forces in Vietnam. The whole WOMD, Colin Powell thingie to get the second Iraq war going. That the government encouraged producers of alcohol to add dangerous chemicals to alcoholic beverages during Prohibition. That the NSA was snooping into, well, all sorts of stuff.

deletedusercb

↪leo

Spot on.

deletedusercb

↪Bartricks

I think the OP is arguing that one should not per se dismiss a conspiracy theory, which is a common practice, not that one should consider, for example, government officials guilty until proven innocent. It think a dash of distrust is not a problem. In fact I think it is healthy. To be skeptical of those in power seems a healthy attitude. This doesn't mean one assumes that really they are lying. It does mean that one considers it possible that powerful people are capable of pretty much any level of immoral behavior (as are people with less power) if it furthers their interest. Everyone bears the onus for any assertion of a new hypothesis, not just conspiracy theorists. If someone argues that a goverment official is right for saying we should go to war, that person has a burden to demonstrate this. If someone argues that the government official is lying, they also get the onus.

deletedusercb

↪fishfry

Spot on. Marginalization of whistleblowers is one factor.

The Bletchly Circle kept their work secret for decades after WW2 despite it not being a threat to national security.

creativesoul

So, the label "conspiracy theory" has a negative connotation such that calling an explanation of events/history by the name implies that it just ought not be believed.

It becomes a matter of what constitutes sufficient and/or adequate reason to believe.

What counts as evidence, and is it adequate and/or relevant to the explanation, and in what way?

creativesoul

I've seen no good reasoning and/or evidence to believe any of the alternative explanations for 9/11.

I've seen and heard plenty to believe that those in power went into Iraq knowing that there were no weapons of mass destruction aside from the chemical ones that were already known about.

The Gulf of Tonkin. Well... that's already been proven. So much of our involvement in Vietnam was based upon lying to not only the American public, but the world as well, including the puppet government we put in place in the south.

I've seen no good evidence to suggest that Oswald acted in cooperation with anyone else.

I've seen no good evidence that there have been aliens and alien spacecraft recovered and/or captured by US governmental agencies.

I've seen plenty of evidence to suggest that the American electoral process is corrupt.

I've seen plenty of evidence to suggest that elected politicians have enacted legislation that has resulted in demonstrable and quantifiable harm to a very large majority of Americans.

The crash of 08...

Well, that looks remarkably like it was not an unforeseen accident.

In the past fifty to sixty years, I've seen more than enough evidence that nearly all of the governmental agencies put in place to protect American citizens from the negative affects/effects of certain kinds of business practices have been systematically rendered toothless. "Drain the swamp" has been the continued systemic removal and/or dismemberment of many American safeguards originally put into place as a means to protect less fortunate Americans and cultivate a more robust socio-economic landscape with increased levels of equal opportunity.

creativesoul

The one issue I have with nearly all explanations of powerful people taking advantage of powerless is talking in terms of "rich" and "poor". Not all rich people are the same. That sort of explanation loses it's bite immediately.

leo

Your interests and my interests are not perfectly aligned. But that doesn't mean you should default distrust me, even in cases where it may be in my interests to lie.

The fact, then, that there are powerful people whose interests do not perfectly align with ours does not mean we are default justified in distrusting what they say. And thus a conspiracy theorist owes us evidence for the conspiracy. 'Conspiracy' is not the default. — Bartricks

I somewhat agree, but even though a conspiracy theory shouldn’t be blindly believed it should at least be seriously considered, based on its arguments and on the evidence supporting it, instead of being blindly dismissed.

Surely when we evaluate a theory we should evaluate it on its merits, and neither blindly believe nor blindly dismiss it simply because it is about a conspiracy.

Yet the default behavior is precisely to blindly dismiss conspiracy theories, to ridicule them without seriously considering their arguments and the evidence supporting them, and that’s a big problem, because it prevents us from uncovering the true conspiracies that are carried out against us, and enables the conspirators to harm us or take advantage of us without our awareness.

And in fact I would say the default behavior should be to consider conspiracy theories very seriously, and even to distrust powerful individuals by default until we have very good evidence that they are truly working for the interests of the people, because history is full of powerful individuals working against the interests of the people, and powerful individuals working for the good of the people are the exception rather than the rule. Also by virtue of their power powerful individuals can harm us greatly if that is their desire, and that’s why we should be extremely careful with them, question their true motives, look for inconsistencies in their narrative, look for contradictions between what they say and what they do, and not blindly trust them.

deletedusercb

I've seen no good reasoning and/or evidence to believe any of the alternative explanations for 9/11. — creativesoul

Start with the architects and engineers for truth about 9/11 regarding building 7. Youtubing or googling that should get you started at the easiest hole in the official story.

creativesoul

↪Coben

The building was evacuated... yes?

deletedusercb

I've seen no good evidence to suggest that Oswald acted in cooperation with anyone else. — creativesoul

The House select committe on assassinations considers it likely there was more than one shooter. The do dismiss a number of conspiracy theories but I find it interesting how few people realize that the lone gunman theory is considered likely incorrect even by official government positions:

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/summary.html

I.C. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy — House Committee on Assassinations

ssu

So, the label "conspiracy theory" has a negative connotation such that calling an explanation of events/history by the name implies that it just ought not be believed. — creativesoul

There's also the actual definition of a conspiracy. The definition you refer to, basically making and/or believing wild assumptions on the cause of some event is another thing, actually.

What counts as evidence, and is it adequate and/or relevant to the explanation, and in what way? — creativesoul

With time there emerges a historical agreement, which very likely is at least close to the truth (even if details become unknown and forgotten). This takes many years, even decades.

True conspiracies or false conspiracies, which emerge either from disinformation (false information which is intended to mislead) or misinformation (incorrect or misleading information), do tend to be exposed once:

a) The matter is not anymore of political importance
b) the conspirators are around anymore
c) the archieves and data are open for historians to work on them.

So much of our involvement in Vietnam was based upon lying to not only the American public, but the world as well, including the puppet government we put in place in the south. — creativesoul

Yet was believing the Domino theory a conspiracy or simply an error of judgement? Communists looked quite the same (or at least their rhetoric was the same) and I think no Western analyst would forecast in the sixties or even in the early 70's that China and Vietnam would fight a border war in 1979.

And how much of a puppet state is South Korea? I like it that there's South Korean gadgets and cars and pop videos. And not more people that have starved to death under North Korean dictatorship. At hindsight we can spot the differecence. Knowing that Vietnam would be different could perhaps been anticipated, but still it would have been a long shot.

The crash of 08...

Well, that looks remarkably like it was not an unforeseen accident. — creativesoul

Yet a speculative bubbles bursting is something that truly isn't a conspiracy. Many saw this coming, and remember that a lot of the most irresponsible culprits got their millions and didn't go to jail.

deletedusercb

↪creativesoul

that's my understanding

creativesoul

The crash of 08...

Well, that looks remarkably like it was not an unforeseen accident.
— creativesoul
Yet a speculative bubbles bursting is something that truly isn't a conspiracy. Many saw this coming, and remember that a lot of the most irresponsible culprits got their millions and didn't go to jail. — ssu

It's not just speculative bubbles.

I'm referring to the financial agents who created financial instruments as a means to leave those depending upon them with inevitable fallout of the bad mortgages when it occurred. Those mortgages were going to be defaulted on, and everyone involved on the lending side knew it...

Here, you call them "irresponsible". I find the exact opposite to be true.

Conspiracy theories

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions