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 Creation”3. 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
