And here is misunderstanding regarding such conspiracies.

lizard people, those proclaimed by David Icke, this isn't really a conspiracy in full meaning, obviously there is no such thing as "lizard people" literary, instead he is figuratively referring to tiny portion of wealthy individuals that have control over wide aspect of economy world wide such as banksters and similar master minds who push new world order agenda, which is a fact that is observable.

A better question is, why does he speak of them as "lizards" rather than referring to them directly? — SpaceDweller

I believe the misunderstanding is yours sir.
Look a little deeper into it. He actually believes its lizard people, aliens. Nothing figurative about it. They secretly control the world and hide various truths and kill people who oppose them and all manner of blatant conspiracies. When you go deep, all the different conspiracy theories start to intertwine once you get to the Qanon people.
The “illuminati” theory your talking about is conspiracy light these days, unfortunately.

And "flat earth" isn't conspiracy either except it's labeled as such, obviously it's clear the earth is not flat plate, but in old times no one was aware that the earth is round and that it's not the center of universe, not even the church.
If the church leaders knew that fact (or didn't believed) then surely wouldn't call N. Copernicus heretic.
Even ancients believed the Earth is the center around which stars are circling.

But that's not unknown, including the answer to, why was flat earth labeled as "conspiracy" (much later) even though it has nothing to do with conspiracy as theory or intentional plotting? — SpaceDweller

Again, you simply cannot be familiar with modern flat earth theories and think it isnt a conspiracy. If you look deeper you will find that they think the earth is flat and there is a global conspiracy of all mainstream science and modern governments to hide that truth from the populace. The moon landing was fake as well as any photos or video of the earth being a globe. Airlines are all in on it, falsifying records of flights and suppressing or removing eye witnesses to the flat earth, the ice wall that surrounds it and the airline routes that would “prove” flat earth. They even have their own “scientific” data and experiments (awful, laughable, non-scientific experiments) that “prove” mainstream science and NASA lie and suppress the truth about flat earth.


The fact that flat earth used to be widely believed is irrelevant. It wasnt a conspiracy theory back then but rather erroneous science. Today, it fits every metric of a conspiracy theory.

You are conflating scientific error and ignorant belief with conspiracy theory. They are not the same thing, even if there is some overlap with terms and references. You conflate modern conspiracy theory with erroneous scientific theory. (And if you want to talk about the churches suppression of a spherical earth theory you still arent talking about a conspiracy theory…there was nothing secretive about it.)
When we refer to flat earth conspiracy we are making a specific reference to people who believe that the earth is flat and that their is a secret global effort to deceive everyone about it and specifically NOT about humanities ignorant past errors. (Though of course modern conspiracy theorists would say the ignorant humans of the past had it right).

Honestly, I don't follow Icke nor am I interested in his views, but what I do know is that his narrative changed greatly.

The fact that flat earth used to be widely believed is irrelevant. It wasnt a conspiracy theory back then but rather erroneous science. Today, it fits every metric of a conspiracy theory. — DingoJones

Agree with that.
But I guess you'll never figure out what force is behind them or what are their motives :wink: (at least those few more "sophisticated")

What I want to say is that conspiracy theory doesn't require you to choose your side, but rather ask questions and find answers to unlock the meaning.
There is always something special to be learned.

If you are talking about the motivations of conspiracy theory folk for believing what they believe I think its a few different things. Its about having special knowledge, being part of a special group of “insiders” who are special as opposed to numbed out masses fooled by the “elite”. Then there is the delivery…many of these conspiracies have a staggering amount of content, argument and “science” out there for people to research. These two things make for a very seductive influence for people who don’t have a lot going on in their lives.
I don’t want to paint with a broad brush but when it comes to Qanon levels, I think the above is a large factor.

Bravo, looks like you found 2 opposing sides :wink:

I dont know what you mean by that.

Nothing sorry, it appeared to me as if you're comparing 2 groups based on those who have proofs and those who don't, while in fact you generalized :grimace:

Well neither is ideal I suppose but in my defence I did tag a disclaimer of sorts in the end. :wink:

I would think that conspiracy is indicated when abundant circumstantial evidence indicates the impossibility of it being the willful act of one person. As in the murder of John F Kennedy, when so many of the standard precautions for protecting a presidential motorcade were suddenly missing. Considering these abundant circumstances, the story later presented disrespects the intelligence of the American public, or does it?

As in the murder of John F Kennedy, when so many of the standard precautions for protecting a presidential motorcade were suddenly missing. — boagie

I tend to accept the Oswald verdict. But the idea of a conspiracy is so intrenched regarding JFK that it has almost become an accepted 'fact'.

Tom,
As I said, when there is a mountain of circumstantial evidence that points to conspiracy, sometimes a duck is just a duck, and not a reasonable facilely. Read, L. Fletcher Prouty, X CIA man. His book is a wealth of inside knowledge. Book: "JFK - The CIA, Vietnam and the Plot to assassinate John F Kennedy." It was this book that inspired the making of the movie JFK, by director Olver Stone. Perfect, if your going to kill someone, try to be heading the investigation of your crime. The book left no doubt in my mind that the powers that be that pulled this off, would have no trouble framing that poor soul Oswald. Much has come to light about Oswald's activities, he was true a patsy.

Nuh. I know all about Prouty and that terrible Oliver Kidney-Stone movie.

Tom,
What was it about the book that you did not find impressive. I am in wonderment that anyone could read the book and still buy the warren commissions interpretation. Please, enlighten me.

No interest in getting into a debate on this, that's for a different type of site. But the lesson here is that one man's conspiracy is another's load of bollocks. And this banality really only becomes interesting when the conspiracy is so widely believed it is almost understood by the culture as a fact. PS I think Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy by attorney Vincent Bugliosi is a better starting place.

Ok, will do!!! Thanks!

Some conspiracy theories will turn out to be true, others false. Somehow it has come to be identified as applicable to only irrational theories. — bert1

Yes, it's an absurd term in current usage. Obviously there are conspiracies, some involving governments in collusion with other major players. There are also all sorts of conspiracy to committ type laws. So, everyone believes in conspiracies. Everyone has their theories or what in science might be called hypotheses. 9/11 was not pilot error. It was some kind of conspiracy. So, to label one group's theory ridiculous because it is a conspiracy theory, when one believes it was a conspiracy of some kind, is silly.

Then the discussion often stays at an abstract level, with both sides psychoanalyzing the other side's reasons for believing. Which would be an ad hom in a philosophy discussion, at least in a discussion of the theory itself.

Those who like to lump all of what get called conspiracy theorists into one group (with one level of sophistication and evidence and rationality) often refer to the psychology of the entire group, not realizing that this, while not being a conspiracy theory, is just broadstroke speculation that anyone with a little respect for the problem of other minds should be hesitantly to flatly state as if it was a fact.

It's even more embarrassing when, as it often is, it is used by someone openly or implicitly identifying themselves as being on team reason.

Essential features of a conspiracy theory:

1. Abductive inference. An explanatory framework is offered for a certain event.

2. Conspiracy. The explanation involves some kind of well-orchestrated deception involving governments and/or big business. The deception is aimed at keeping people from the truth for nefarious reasons.

3. Occam's razor/principle is, on most occasions, violated. The conspiracy theory is vastly more complex than the alternatives.

4. Cherry picking. Confirmation bias is the cornerstone of conspiracy theories.

5. Self-sealing i.e. ad hoc fallacy. Objections to the theory are dealt with by making minor adjustments to the conspiracy theory that don't affect its overall theme.

Basically, conspiracy theories are poor-quality imitations of scientific theories. They are based on evidence though but it's just a namesake - they ignore the nuances and subtleties as found in the distinction between good evidence and bad evidence. :joke:

Bylaw, yeah, team reason gets on my tits. Don't like the other teams much either.

So, Saddam Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction that the Bush Admin knew about.

I mean, seriously. Have you ever interacted with, say, the better arguers in Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Inc? These discussions generally strike me as so facile. Go out and find the better proponents of what gets called a conspiracy theory and argue your case that you present here. IOW tell them that really it is based on ad hoc, cherry picking and other fallacies. Point out to them where, see how it goes. The people who end up in a philosophy forum have no skin in the game and have done less research, generally, than people who are groups of scientists or other experts, who are right now engaged in lawsuits or other organized approached to making their case. It's easy sniping generally and vaguely.

As I said, when there is a mountain of circumstantial evidence that points to conspiracy, sometimes a duck is just a duck, and not a reasonable facilely. — boagie

I think the bombing of USS Liberty was a conspiracy.

So, Saddam Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction that the Bush Admin knew about. — Bylaw

The vast inspections done after the country was invaded actually showed just how successful Operation Desert Fox actually was under Clinton. But then Saddam himself kept the myth alive...and their were people keen to attack Iraq in the Bush Whitehouse. But prior to that (and the Gulf war), Saddam did had chemical weapons, yes. Not so much as Nazi Germany had during WW2, but still. And an nuclear program that would likely have produced a nuclear weapon if the Gulf war hadn't happened (even with the Israeli bombing of the Osirak reactor).

I mean, seriously. Have you ever interacted with, say, the better arguers in Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Inc? These discussions generally strike me as so facile. Go out and find the better proponents of what gets called a conspiracy theory and argue your case that you present here. IOW tell them that really it is based on ad hoc, cherry picking and other fallacies. Point out to them where, see how it goes. — Bylaw

Yep. I'd be interested as well. I'm baffled as to how anyone can look at the collapse of WTC7 and think it was office fires. None of the NIST stuff is convincing.

So, Saddam Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction that the Bush Admin knew about. — Bylaw

Where did you get that from? :chin: If you ask me, Saddam, more accurately Iraq, was simply a scapegoat, a fall guy in the great American game. See :point: Great Game. :grin:

I mean, seriously. Have you ever interacted with, say, the better arguers in Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Inc? These discussions generally strike me as so facile. Go out and find the better proponents of what gets called a conspiracy theory and argue your case that you present here. IOW tell them that really it is based on ad hoc, cherry picking and other fallacies. Point out to them where, see how it goes. The people who end up in a philosophy forum have no skin in the game and have done less research, generally, than people who are groups of scientists or other experts, who are right now engaged in lawsuits or other organized approached to making their case. It's easy sniping generally and vaguely. — Bylaw

Unfortunately or not, I haven't had a one-on-one conversation with a conspiracy theorist but compared to philosophers, conspiracy theorists are bumbling amateurs who have no idea how deep the rabbit hole goes. See :point: skepticism, radical doubt, Cartesian deus deceptor, brain in a vat, Maya, to name but a few.