Conspiracy theories have a bad rep. Why is it that the phrase seems to immediately conjure up a sinister image of misinformed misfits, crackpots, weirdos, and loonies?
Examine, if you will, the term itself. Conspiracy simply implies more than one person, or entity, is involved. Theory merely means, well, a theory, such as the theory of relativity or the theory of evolution. One of these theories, based on empirical “science,” is seen by most folks as “fact.” The other is seen by many as fiction.
But theory, by definition, is not the same as fact...though theories may become facts, aka scientific or proven facts or common knowledge. In the latter sense, theories can be converted to facts, if you will, if democratically accepted as sufficiently believable even in the absence of immediate empirical evidence. And how, pray tell, can one fault democracy (even if it results in the majority electing a corrupt dictator or president?) But, and there's the rub, what if the majority of voters are misinformed about the facts? Is it still democratic? Or is it a — conspiracy? See what I’m getting at?
Some theories cost proponents their lives. Take the Middle Ages, also known as the Dark Ages. The theory that the world was round, not flat; that the earth revolved around the sun, these theories were dangerous because the (conspiratorial?) powers that be considered them a threat and/or blasphemy.
Which leads us to religion. Folks who would never consider the notion of extraterrestrial life may nonetheless believe that Jesus rose from the dead, had the power to revive others from the dead at will, was born to a virgin via, um, extraterrestrial means, and turned water into wine, among other unverifiable phenomena. Millions of folks believe that when they take the consecrated host they are ingesting the body and blood of Christ. Is this theory or fact? Depends on whom you ask. One man’s theory is another man’s blasphemy. And vice versa.
.jpg?t=20120209092158)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Barga
For starters, you do not seem to understand what a scientific theory is. There is no such thing as scientific fact, as that assumes that all variables are accounted for. Scientific theories (evolution, gravity, oxygen reaction during breathing, etc.) are all 99.9999% provable, we can't call them facts though
Then you repeat the standard stuff. Sure, some conspiracy theories end up being correct, but the vast majority are not. You are what you surround yourself with
2 - Elvira Black
And how, pray tell, can you prove your "theory" that the vast majority of "conspiracy theories" are not correct?
There is no such thing as scientific fact?
I'm well aware of your agenda, which seems far from "factual" in nature; much more personal, I'd say.
Bah.
3 - Elvira Black
You might consider graduating from college before you start talking down to the world at large. You are what you surround yourself with...indeed. Books would be a good start. If everyone was an, er, "skeptic" like you, we would be in a worse place than we are now. A closed mind sees nothing but its own ignorant reflection, and that's a scary thought indeed.
4 - Cindy
(Hi Elvira Black,
I loved your Pomo for Dummies. Very well-written. entertaining, and helpful.)
5 - Mark
Is there a useful distinction to be made between conspiracy theories and conspiratorial fantasies?
6 - Elvira Black
Cindy:
Thank you so much...That's quite an old BC piece; I appreciate your comment.
7 - Elvira Black
Mark:
I don't know...what do you think?
8 - Mark
Not sure. It does seem to me that there is a difference between the conspiracy theory that rich people get together to plan how to shape the future (duh) and the lizard fantasy.
9 - Elvira Black
What's the lizard fantasy?
10 - Ruvy
A lot of stuff that get called "conspiracy" theories are not conspiracies at all.
The CFR, Council on Foreign Relations, for example, is no conspiracy. It is a think tank, the first ever founded - with the goal of protecting the biggest businessmen in the States AND THEIR INVESTMENTS after WWI. And it has done an admirable job. Its members are all over the American government, and you do not get anywhere in American politics unless you toe their line.
I enjoyed your article, though, and it's nice to see you writing again.
What happened to your blog? Did a big nasty cat do in the Shithouse Rat?
11 - Mark
Lizard shape shifter thriving on pain and suffering control the power centers of the world. See David Icke.
12 - Ruvy
Oh, and a thought for you. If there is Has v'Halíla a nuclear war, cockroaches will NOT inherit the earth. A few hearty roundworms will. The radiation will kill off the cockroaches.
When I see the giants of their kind crawling in streets in J-lem, that thought is consolation....
13 - Dr Dreadful
Elvira, Barga is quite correct. In science, no idea is ever promoted beyond the status of a theory; even though some theories - evolution and gravity, for example - are so well-proven that for all practical purposes they may be regarded as facts.
Facts, in the non-scientific world, are simply bits of data. They may be true or they may not be, but they do have evidence to support them. Your hypothetical Middle Eastern paradigm that all non-Muslims are Satan's minions is therefore not a fact - it is a belief.
14 - Cindy
I agree with Robert and Dr.D on the theory/law side however, I agree with Elvira on the facts side.
Scientific fact: Humans have 46 chromosomes. Anteaters eat ants.
(at least I think that is what scientists call facts, observable things)
[BTW, Dr.D, friends and family alike agree that our new favorite be called 'Dr. Dreadful's Infamous Salmon'.]
15 - Cannonshop
The problem with Van Jones' belief in the 9/11 "Conspiracy" Truther crap, is that even the most plausible versions require too many low-probability minority statistical outcomes to fall into place at exactly the right times and places to be believeable.
Occam's razor basically says that in any given experiment, the explanation that carries the fewest un-proveable or un-testable variables while turning out the observed result is likely the closest to being true.
Basically, the more "Faith" (untestable or unproveable elements accepted as facts without (or with very little, and often contradictory) supporting evidence) your explanation relies on, the less probable it becomes.
Explanations that require (or DEMAND) large-scale conspiracies tend to be less credible than explanations that rely on more mundane, but frequently-demonstrated explanations, for instance, the allegation that the Administration "Knew" 9.11 was coming and even set it up, ignores the documented problems of Illegal immigration and lax security in our travel infrastructure prior to the incident (and after it!), ignores the fact that GW was walking into a presidency after eight years of a very partisan (though not Ideological) predecessor who'd done considerable manpower-reorganization over that time to put his supporters into positions of responsibility necessary for this to work. (it also presupposes ultra-level competence in the Bush team-supernatural levels of access and knowledge not available to mere mortals no matter their wealth or position.)
The loonier versions, of course, REQUIRE even greater levels of ultracompetence and access at ALL levels-not just policy-making, but policy execution levels. In a government that runs on paper, that has accounting procedures right down to the last bullet and screw, it requires enough things off-the-books to be HIGHLY improbable, even with the ultra-hyper-competence of supernatural levels at the policy-making end.
REally, it makes Van Jones about as credible as Pat Buchanan. Noting that he was hired to do a job made especially FOR him to do, involving large amounts of statistical analysis and prediction, and he's a Troother? well...that probably explains some of why our unemployment rates didn't drop as Obama predicted...the guy makes decisions and predictions based on bullshit, he's not going to be able to handle economics.
16 - Baronius
There's a difference between a theory that's 100% supported by fact (gravity) and one that's 100% unsupported by fact (Obama's Kenyan birth).
17 - roger nowosielski
Is "gravity" a fact? It would seem a theoretical explanation (a concept) to explain the behavior of physical bodies.
18 - Dr Dreadful
Correct, Roger. Newton's predictions are borne out by the observed behaviour of celestial bodies, but the theoretical 'graviton' - the particle which conveys gravity - remains elusive.
There is actually far less evidence to support the theory of gravitation (a no-brainer for just about everybody) than there is to support the theory of evolution (hotly disputed in some circles).
19 - Baronius
The theory of gravity is 100% supported by fact; the theory that Obama was born in Kenya is 100% unsupported by fact. There is no evidence indicating that the theory of gravity is wrong, or that the theory of Obama's Kenyan birth is right. I'm sorry if I phrased that unclearly.
20 - roger nowosielski
I got your meaning, B-man. Only that clarification was in order.
21 - Elvira Black
Thank you Ruvy...as it happens, I meant to mention to you that I'm in the middle of reading "The Rise of the Fourth Reich" which is chock full of revelations such as the one you mentioned.
As for that other blog, the dog ate it...
Always thought the cucharachas would inherit the earth, but interesting to know...guess they can burrow really deep into, er, bunkers and such...
22 - Elvira Black
Mark:
Re #11: Thanks...I never heard of David Icke til you mentioned him and I did a Wikipedia search. But to be fair, I always did think there was a certain...reptilian quality to some of our fearless leaders; or at least simian...and "snakes" fits the bill nicely.
23 - Elvira Black
Dr. Dreadful:
Re: #13:
Well, in my "defense," some of my terms were in quotes, but were removed in editorial. Not that I'm complaining, since if everything is in quotes, nothing is in quotes...I just saw it the postmodern/pomo way, i.e., "everything" can be put into "quotes" lol...hence, in the article, it went something like "theories" can morph into "facts"--the key point being that if enough people believe it to be so, it "becomes" so. And when you think about it, as human beings if we didn't have any belief systems, all would be madness (or more than it already is).
And of course, even with DNA the odds are something like 99.999999 that the person is the person (unless they're the evil twin), and juries must try to ferret out the "truth" from witnesses and defendants and lawyers who may play fast and loose with the "facts." Thus the best we can do, in law and in life, is reasonable doubt, I suppose?
24 - Elvira Black
Cannonshop:
Re #15:
I have to disagree with you on that one. It's not a matter of individual competence in all cases; in our day and age, many "facts" have been uncovered about events, past and present, that can lend more credence and probability to events that were heretofore somewhat of a mystery.
In most cases, folks have preconceived notions, especially in their political leanings, and are inconsistent in their logic. They may believe that there was no deliberate attempt to deceive the public re: Iraq, in the face of much evidence of what apparently happened in the Administration. These same people may believe, despite all provided evidence, that Obama was not born in the US.
I don't think you can equate political or social science with "hard" science, which is also not infallible, though in our more secular age we tend to take it as "gospel" truth.
25 - Elvira Black
As for evolution, many seem to feel that evolution and religious belief are mutually exclusive. To me, the idea of "intelligent design" does not necessarily discount evolutionary theory, or vice versa.
The thing is, so much depends on semantics. Again, the "truth" is subjective, and though Dr. Dreadful did have a good point about beliefs versus facts, we still live within a belief system that colors and affects our tendencies to favor some theories or "facts" over others.
There was a time, for example, when most folks believed without question that the Kennedy assassination was not conspiratorial. Although it's still controversial, I daresay more people are open to a number of "theories" thanks to additional evidence.
Just as many in previous generations did not consider blacks as equal, or gays as "normal," different groups will sustain their fervent beliefs and support them with evidence that may be flawed, incomplete, or otherwise "fashionable."