Saturday 11 April 2015

Conspiracy Theorists and the Edge of Reason.



Recognising a Conspiracy Theorist and other bad thinking.


When considered, the title Conspiracy “Theorist” might lead someone to believe that what this person thinks is somehow based in fact and evidence. The word ‘theory’ rings synonymous with scientific research to many people; theorising is something learned intellectuals do. However, when one goes deeper into the opinionated and fallacy filled world of conspiracy theorists it becomes clear that the title in itself appears rather oxymoronic. Conspiracy Theorists, or perhaps a better title; Conspiracy 'Assumptionists', come in all shapes and sizes but like most Assumptionists (Creationists, Anti-‘Vaxers’, etc) there are common trends which make then easily identifiable. Furthermore, it stops you wasting your time trying to discuss things with them. It seems that in recent times the internet has become full of these self-styled Assumptionists, maybe it is the lax rules for joining the internet; one only needs a router an something capable of connecting to it after all, there is no entrant’s exam. Maybe it’s the lack of decent training in Critical Thinking. Maybe it has something to do with gullibility and how suggestible certain people are.


There are certainly links between gullibility and conspiracy Assumptionist behaviours, indeed, Stephen Greenspan defined gullibility as referring to  “...a pattern of being duped, which repeats itself in different settings, even in the face of warning signs”1. It could be fairly argued that Conspiracy Assumptionists are prone to believing wild and inconceivable things despite the evidence that points to the opposite. Though there is indeed little research around the area of gullibility, so we shall have to suffice with sighting the warning signs before getting sucked into a world of crop circles, chem-trails, far reaching government conspiracies and Big Pharma.


The trend usually starts with an outright rebuttal of established fact/s. However, on closer inspection one will discover that it is not a rebuttal proper. It is more a cobbled together group of assumptions that vaguely (strongly, in the mind of the Conspiracy Assumptionist) support each other by way of very select and cherry picked evidence, outward denial of contrary evidence and various forms of confirmation biases and logical fallacies. Here I have compiled a top X of things to look out for...

1) Use of unqualified statements of fact. 

You've all heard it "Vaccines cause Autism"2, "At least 33% of people have been abducted by Aliens", "It it well known that...". Unsubstantiated statements of fact are the enemy of intelligent discussion and debate. A Conspiracy Assumptionist will come out with some truly wild claims, however, they will never back them up and if they do it will be with...


 2) "Spurious References" 

If a Conspiracy Assumptionist ever does back up a wild claim it will be from a very select source; one that ultimately is heavily biased in favour of their position on the subject. It will almost never be and academic source and if it is they will cherry pick it, typically you can expect to see Blogs, Conspiracy websites and YouTube videos cited as "references" or as they like to call it; "proof". Yes, the Bible/Quran falls under this heading too – just because it’s old and millions of people think they are right does not mean they actually are (argument from popularity and anachronistic thinking).


3) Higher conspiracies as an avoidance of facts. 

Often when challenged about some fact they will retort not with a qualification but a get out clause "it's a [government] conspiracy". What they mean to say is that they have no clue what they are talking about; therefore it must be a conspiracy.

4) The "TRUTH". 

The majority of Conspiracy Assumptionists are obsessed with the truth. But their truth and actual reality are very different things. What constitutes as “truth” to a Conspiracy Assumptionist is anything that supports their argument. Anything that doesn't support their argument is a conspiracy.

5) Lack of Reason and Logic 

Conspiracy Theorists have one agenda; to push their agenda and ignore everything else. They are not interested in discussion unless it supports their argument; they are not interested in debate unless it concludes that they are right. During a debate or discussion you can expect to see a good load of logical fallacies fielded in support of their claims (see; list of logical fallacies most encountered when discussion something with a Conspiracy Assumptionist). 

6) Mixing philosophic and subjective 'experiences' with established logic and/or scientific facts. 

This is used as a way to interpret something which would not typically fall within the sphere of a particular subject in order to support an argumentative position on that subject. You’ll often find things like quantum mechanics cropping up in places that it has no place in, like a philosophical debate about ethics. Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle seems to be a favourite, the Conspiracy Assumptionist of course ignoring the fact that it has nothing to do with uncertainty or probability in a general sense. Thermodynamics and laws of entropy, because of their links to the mathematical concept of chaos, are often fielded wildly out of context as well.


7) Ad-hominen. 

When all else fails with the Assumptionist don’t be surprised when they start hurling abuse in your direction; “you’re just f*cking ignorant”, “you wouldn’t know the truth if it f*cked you in the ass”, “why don’t you do your reading you f*ggot” are just some of my favourites.   

8) Esotericism. 

Nothing inflates the Conspiracy Assumptionist ego quite like the belief that they know something that no one else does. What they have actually done, however, is usually one of two things; either they have misinterpreted something to such a degree that it has become something that often bares little or no resemblance to the original thing or they will have simply made it up completely.

9) Cognitive Dissonance. 

Overtones of the ongoing conflict with reality will really start to ring when the Conspiracy Assumptionist is challenged heavily; when they begin to run out of answers and don’t know enough about their own subjects to comment on it. Some truly believe what they are saying, like devout creationists, for most their investment in what they believe is not so strong and the cracks of the conflict of what they think is true and what actually is true will start to open.  

10) Making up their own “reference” material

Nothing pleases a conspiracy Assumptionist more than being able to cite various references as proof of their assertions. This leads back to the spurious reference material and quite often a Conspiracy Assumptionist will point their opponent to their own blog/YouTube channel/website as a place to find supporting evidence for their position. In these places one will typically find copy-pasted materials or opinions from other biased sources. Creationism has gone a step further and has an “academic” Journal; the Journal of Creation. Which claims to feature “in-depth, peer-reviewed comment, reviews and the latest research findings that relate to origins and the biblical account of Creation3. Naturally their peer-review process is in complete support of the biblical creation account rendering the entire publication extremely biased in favour of creationism. Subsequently, outside of Creationism The Journal of Creation is generally not considered to be a reliable academic source for anything other than religious opinion.

11) Parroting.  

Because a Conspiracy Assumptionist typically has one agenda (to push theirs) and sources all their information from very select sources that agree with their opinions when asked to expand on a topic they are discussion or debating they simply cannot; usually they end up parroting what they have already said, some of the more creative ones will change some words and rearrange the sentences but it will still be a carbon copy of what they have already said.

In summation

One thing you may have noticed about this little list is that there is one glaringly obvious trend running though everything; bad thinking. There is a reason why people often fall into the bad thinking hole and seem not to want to, or be able to, climb out again. The reasons were discussed in an article by Joel Achenbach, in March 2015, in the National Geographic. In relation to scientific method he tells us that quite often it leads us to conclusions which are not only hard to swallow but are also inherently counter intuitive. When, in the 17th century, Galileo claimed that the Earth spins on an axis and orbits the sun he was not just refuting established doctrine – he was asking people to believe something that defied common sense – it looks like the sun goes around the Earth.

Most people’s understanding of the world comes from personal experience and anecdotes, writes Achenbach. We prefer to rely on stories rather than statistical evidence. We are prone to rejecting things that counter common sense as concluded in a study by Andrew Shtulman4 which showed that even people who were professional scientists still had to think a bit before responding true or false to questions like “Does the Earth orbit the Sun?” (counter-intuitive). While questions such as “Does the moon orbit the Earth?” (intuitive) were answered with much less thought.


People like to feel safe; whether that is in their home, while on holiday or in the comfort of their mind.  Personal experience and anecdotes are safe, they do not require going out on a limb or into the unknown. If they surround themselves with supporting “evidence” and like-minded people they can extend that wall of safety that protects them from anything that might infringe on their world view. This is why, when challenged, a Conspiracy Assumptionist will simply retreat to a position of safety by parroting or resorting to fallacious evidence and arguments. They are not trying to convince you that they are right as much as they are trying to reaffirm their position for themselves. 

Does this grant them some concession in logical discussion or debate however? 


No. Every instance of fallacy or bad thinking should be called out and challenged.



Commonly encountered Conspiracy Assumptionists;Though there are essentially distinct areas of conspiracy thinking many cross over and the assumptions in place in one will be present in a different form in the others as well.

Creationists – Odd though it may seem, Creationists absolutely fit under the umbrella of Conspiracy Assumptionists for the fact that they display all of the qualities above.

Crop-Circle believers – This, in a way, fits under the Alien Theorists category, but some have differing views about what causes crop circles.

Alien Theorists – No I do not mean those that support and make an effort to understand the work of the SETI institute, I mean the ones who believe ardently the stories of abduction and probing.

Government Conspircists – This often rears its head as an outward rejection of the government or ‘system’ as a dysfunctional machine that requires urgent resolution. Though this may or may not be true in some cases, the Conspiracy Assumptionist when pressed will rarely if ever provide an effective alternative. They much prefer to pick holes rather than solve the issues they complain about.

Refuters of Established Education – This often comes as extension of the greater government conspiracy and shares much of the same thinking; again preferring to poke holes in established education rather than seek an effective alternative. Oddly enough, many Conspiracy Assumptionists seem not to have had much experience with established education. 

Commonly Encountered Fallacies


Confirmation Bias – Searching for only that which confirms ones preconceptions about a topic or point. People who quote the bible in support of the bible for instance show astounding amounts of confirmation bias.

Strawmen – Misinterpreting the opponent’s argument in order to make it easier to attack.

X: “We should have tighter gun laws”
Y: “No, we shouldn’t. Because then crime would run rampant if people were not allowed the right to defend themselves.”

Y has exaggerated X’s position for the sole purpose of attempting to make it harder to defend - X did not say anything about restricting people’s rights to defend themselves.

False-Dichotomy – When someone proposes that there are only two options, when there are in fact more. Probably one of the most famous false-dichotomies ever was made by President Bush in 2001 when addressing Congress. The infamous words were of course “either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists”.

Reductio ad Hitlerum – Where someone makes an observation that their opponent’s views are comparable to that of Hitler or the Nazi part. Essentially this is a form of ad hominen.

X: “Well I honestly think that Atheism gives us a better and clearer world view”
Y: “Hitler was an atheist you know”.

Ignoratio elenchi - Presenting an argument that may or may not be valid but nonetheless fails to address the point/topic; an irrelevant conclusion.

X: A Welshman smashed into my car the other day; I’d like to use the unwritten law allowing an Englishman to kill a Welshman with a longbow.
Y: No judge is going to recognise that unwritten law.
X: Well, they should.

Whether the any judge should recognise it is irrelevant, the point is that murder is illegal under the current judicial system.

Argumentum ad lipidem – Dismissing something as absurd or outrageous without providing proof of its absurdity.

Historian’s Fallacy - Occurs when one assumes that decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam - It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option; which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false.

Argumentum ad infinitum – Constant repetition of the argument until no one cares to discuss it further. Once this point is reached the person repeating the argument assumes victory. The most common reason people resort to argumentum ad infinitum is that they have no other means of supporting their position.
~

A good counter to a suspected logical fallacy is Reductio ad Absurdum or to ‘reduce to absurdity’. When a suspected fallacious argument is analysed, or reduced, into its logical parts it will more often than not reduce to absurdity; take the following example borrowed from (http://www.logicallyfallacious.com):

X: I am going into surgery tomorrow so please pray for me. If enough people pray for me, God will protect me from harm and see to it that I have a successful and speedy recovery.

Now to reduce - We first assume the premise is true: if “enough” people prayed to God for her successful surgery and speedy recovery, then God would make it so.  From this, we can deduce that God responds to popular opinion.  However, if God simply granted prayers based on popularity contests, which would be both unjust and absurd.  Since God cannot be unjust, then he cannot both respond to popularity and not respond to popularity, the claim is absurd, and thus false.

Please share this and help to stop the rampant spread of stupidity, because ultimately, it affects us all.

Democracy does not mean- “my ignorance is just as good as your fact”.

~
1 Greenspan, S., (2009). The Annuls of Gullibility; why we get duped and how to avoid it. Praeger Publishing: Westport.
2 The doomed paper by Andrew Wakefield that linked MMR vaccines to Autism was thoroughly debunked and called out on its fraudulent conclusion. If you’re of a scientific bent you might still like to view the paper though; http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-paper.pdf
4 Shtulman, A., & Harrington, K. (in press). Tensions between science and intuition across the lifespan. Topics in Cognitive Science. Sourced: http://sites.oxy.edu/shtulman/vitae.html

#LogicShotgun
@ARB_itrary
Written by A.R Bell 2015





No comments:

Post a Comment