Why does the term "conspiracy theory" automatically conjure up an image of losers, weirdos, and loonies?
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?…
Article comments
26 - roger nowosielski
For anyone really interested in the complexity of such a seemingly simple English word as "fact," may I suggest J. L. Austin's "Unfair To Facts" in Philosophical Papers.
27 - Fran
Elvira, I enjoyed your article, and I also enjoyed all the discussion regarding the article as well.
There is so much in this world that is in flux. Facts and theories can in time be expanded on, or overturned in favor of new facts or theories, or even be disproved over time.
I remember a certain Jedi Knight saying to Luke (in Star Wars) something about finding that most of what we believe to be true is often from our own point of view (paraphrase).
One person doesn't have to believe the same things as another person to gain respect, but we all do have a right to believe what as we will -- "as long as it doesn't hurt others or destroy property," as I heard many times growing up. ;-)
So, in my mind, given the above, I would not want others' opinions forced on me, nor would I force my opinions on others. I may state my opinion, but I don't expect others to necessarily be swayed by them.
I would not want anyone's rights to free speech, religion, etc., to be infringed on, even if I don't believe what they believe. I would hope others would pay me the same respect.
It's a careful balance but one that I think is very important to the survival of us all.
It is only when opinions become so polarized that things like the Inquisition, or The Third Reich, or any type of extremism can take root. When one person's or group's opinion is considered 'absolutely' right and someone else's or group's is considered 'absolutely' wrong, especially if those people have any real power, that is when life becomes truly dangerous.
There are very few if any absolutes in life ... except death and taxes, right? ;-)
There has to be an understanding that life has many more facets than any of us -- as humans -- can fully see. None of us has all the answers. We all see from our own point of view and that doesn't necessarily make it fact.
28 - Baronius
It seems like Elvira and Fran are confusing conspiracy theories with open-mindedness. Really, the opposite is true. Conspiracy theories were big in Germany between the wars, and they're big in the Middle East these days. Look at the US - does anyone think that the birthers and truthers and Diebold recount crowd are creating a new era of moderation? When societies stop pursuing truth, they focus in on power. Humans are very consistent in that way.
29 - Brian aka Guppusmaximus
"we still live within a belief system that colors and affects our tendencies to favor some theories or "facts" over others."
I don't,but, it is now evident that you do. Science has far more stages than Religion does for a theory to be accepted as an accurate guide to what takes place in our Universe. These accepted theories also get challenged and changed as we get smarter and progress with technology. For example, The Newtonian laws of gravity are now being questioned as we are finding out new information about Quantum Physics and a mesh-like theory is replacing the "String Theory". Usually, with enough mathematical proof and years of testing then the science community will accept a new theory and change the way it views the world.
My problem with Religion is that none of this ever occurs. You have a book that never revises its edition. A book that has no proof to support its claims and the Religious community doesn't peer review anything. Plus, to get people to follow, Religion uses Fear & Guilt tactics based,ultimately, on fiction. [Ex."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)."]. On top of that, you cannot challenge a religious person's beliefs. It is fact for them because they are emotionally connected. They perceive it as an insult because they have been programmed since a young age to accept it as truth, no matter how ridiculous it may seem.
So, NO, I don't let "beliefs" color my view. I let a little thing that can be tested in front of my eyes called Science change my, quite often inaccurate, view.
30 - Brian aka Guppusmaximus
*Oops* So, that leads to my major problem with Conspiracy Theories... There is never any proof or peer reviewed evidence to back up these "beliefs" which are usually fueled by some sort of mental health issues and inability to cope with the truth.
31 - Elvira Black
Thank you Fran, I couldn't agree more!
Maybe it has something to do with the female brain (lol)...but yes, we are "only" human, not gods, so to speak. Many people (including those who treat science as the be all and end all of provable reality) are very rigid in their beliefs.
Every field, including science, depends on a certain openness to new data. Bias in science is not scientific, IMO.
The zietgiest of the time colors our values intrinsically. The Dark Ages were replaced by the Age of Reason, and IMO to deny the fact that we too can be "unreasonable" despite our desire to consider ourselves rational, reasoned beings is one of the conundrums of being human.
Science can help explain our emotional selves, but cannot change the fact that human beings are a combination of "animal" and "human" (or, divine, if you prefer.) And again, even an adherence to "pure" science can become as rigid as any religious belief.
Merely because some phenomena cannot yet be fully explained does not mean they should be dismissed. That is hubris...another trait that humankind (esp mankind lol) is heir to.
32 - Barga
@2
I simply look at the historical record and notice that most are not true and never came true.
As for an agenda, I don't have one
33 - Barga
@3
my dear, I am not that close minded
You have no idea what I believe
34 - Barga
@28
exactly, being open minded means accepting the theories at face value, then judging them
most conspiracy theorists that I know think that the theory is 100% true, no matter what else is shown - closed mind
35 - Barga
@31
I don't think that any scientist adhears to straight science, merely that we defult to it when needed
36 - Elvira Black
Baronius #28:
I see your point, however I think that the First Amendment is key here. Everyone gets their say, no matter how "ridiculous," and hopefully people can make up their own minds. That's why I watch CNN, MSNBC, and FOX. That's why I respect the politics editors, though I may not agree with them. That's why I love to write politics pieces.
The gist of my article was that people use the term "conspiracy theory" on either side of the political spectrum as an ad hominem attack and dismissal, as if that alone is enough to "settle" the matter.
The truth--and the neverending search for it, and knowledge--as much as you can get of it--and dialogue--as respectfully as you can manage it. If it could all be settled so simply, the world would be a boring place indeed.
37 - Elvira Black
Brian:
Many scientific "proven" phenom or theories cannot be seen with the naked eye, though many more can now. On the other hand, we can't always believe what we see; hence, identity theft, fraud, etc etc.
The problem I have with the fact that science seems to be our "gospel" now is that there are things in the universe that are ineffible; there are mysteries to life that will never be completely solved. We are mortal; we all die. Hence philosophy and art and music and, yes, religion. All cultures, as far as I know, seem to "need" some explanation to the basic questions about life, death, existence etc.
If you lived in a different country, or were a different color, spoke a different language, had a different education, were a different sex--all these will influence your world view.
I guess the point is: what makes life worthwhile? Is it all about reducing everything in life to a black and white "fact?"
There's a reason we have two brain halves (one more reasoning, one more intuitive) as well as the limbic system (primitive) and the cerebellum (if memory serves). We are animal and we are also reasoning and self aware.
But that doesn't make us a god. And religion can also be seen in a non-linear (scientific) way. Fundamentalists forget the poetry of the bible, for starters. They are just as reductive and soulless in their approach as someone who refuses to address the "spritual" nature of life (or the unexplained, ineffable, what have you).
38 - Elvira Black
Oh and scientific research has shown that men's and women's brains (whether via nature, nurture or both) "work" differently in many ways. Including, I believe, a higher ability to "bridge" the left brain/right brain divide (which results in more flexibility and a combination of intuitive/feeling as well as reasoning).
Pooh pooh that all you want, but most wars are still a man's game.
39 - Elvira Black
Barga:
I must give credit where credit is due. You inspired my article, and left comments. I appreciate both.
But smoking a pipe does not turn you into William F. Buckley. The more you know, the more you realize you don't know.
Twenty somethings today want instant gratification, and the thing is that even though the internet now makes it so much easier to find things out, check spelling, definitions, etc--the world at one's fingertips-- even that seems to be too much for them to handle.
Scholars, scientists, et al can spend a lifetime pursuing knowledge. Likewise, it takes some time and effort to research a topic enough to back up one's claims with some sort of evidence.
One must consider the source or one's information as well. I don't automatically jump on some one for typos, but it does tend to indicate a certain carelessness. The devil is in the details--and this goes quadruple for anything so precise as "scientific" "proof."
40 - Brian aka Guppusmaximus
Elvira,
Although I agree with your lust for life and envy your passion for having an "open mind", the fact that us Human beings are an imperfect & flawed species doesn't give Religion any more merit.
All the things you've mentioned,imho, are just more evidence that we are not some sort of being made from a "perfect" creator. A being with a path laid out for us. We are just a species in a long line of evolution & progress, and YES, we may never figure out all the answers but what fun would it be if we did?!
I never said that people shouldn't live their lives the way they want to. That's usually what a lot of religious nuts say to spin the conversation in their favor. I'm saying the exact opposite!! I don't think we should be a slave to any kind of oppressive control. Science is there for the people who want to really figure things out. To have the answers to the basic questions in life and not be in some sort of denial or belief that someone will take care of everything from above.
Yes, life can be mysterious but only to those who don't want to challenge their own perceptions....
41 - Elvira Black
OK, to be scrupulously fair (as I try to be):
You didn't have too many typos here, and I'm sure you could spot typos here and there in my writing. I'm referring more to intellectual integrity and mutual respect; ie. not taking quotes out of context, making broad generalizations without backing them up with viable examples; cheap, meaningless dismissals of others' assertions based primarily on trying to be "right," etc.
As far as agendas, or worldviews for that matter, everyone has one. As a species, we all have certain built in needs and requirements which are necessary for survival, and nurture as well as nature play a major role in what we "are."
42 - Elvira Black
Oy vey;
Comment 41 was directed at my young friend Barga, not Brian.
43 - Elvira Black
Brian:
One can be "spiritual" without being "religious." Organized religion has many flaws, but my point is that even if one believes in evolution, there are things that we will never be able to get to the "bottom" of--or even begin to scratch the surface of.
I'm not saying that there is necessarily some omniscent, omnipresent "being" (which we usually envision in our own humanoid or matter-based image), but the universe is vast indeed, and we are merely a speck. I do believe that what we do matters, but I also think that hubris is one of our "fatal" flaws.
We've been here a drop in the bucket evoution-wise. We still have a long ways to go, if we even survive our own tendencies to self destruct. So all the knowledge we have attained won't mean a lot if we don't pursue a "higher" knowlege or wisdom as well.
We battle against ourselves which is one of the reasons religions operate on a mythical or methaphorical level...it is our attempt as a species to try to gain some meaning since we are aware of our mortality.
Even an agnostic or athiest can take some comfort in the Hebrew edict: plant a tree, write a book, bear a child. All of these acts (and others) leave something behind and give us a sense of metaphysical immortality or continuity with our species. It is part of the survival mechanism that keeps us "caring" about consequences.
In previous ages, religion provided this "check" on our "animal instincts." In more enlightened times, we can proceed with both reason as well as the "spritual" or "emotional" and less abstract notion of something beyond ourselves individually.
Thus the concern with environmental issues, global poverty, etc etc etc.
Just my two cents.
44 - Val MacEwan
Congratulations, Elvira. You've got all the inmates rattling the asylum doors. Excellent beginning -- discuss, discuss, discuss.
45 - Baronius
Brian, interesting comments.
Science is about the natural. Philosophically, "nature" means that which always or almost always happens. So science has the obligation to explain things that are repeatable, and it's very testable.
Religion often deals with meaning-of-life stuff and the supernatural. We can't test a supernatural claim, because it by definition is something outside the rules of nature.
It's back to the old bit about a professor tossing a piece of chalk in the air, and saying that if God exists, he could suspend the chalk in the air. The chalk hitting the ground doesn't prove anything except that a supernatural event didn't happen at that moment. If the chalk floated every time a professor tried that experiment, that would be nature, and we'd try to explain it scientifically.
There's one semi-disputable point I've made so far, and that's whether nature is what always happens, or what almost always happens. If it's what always happens, you've defined the supernatural as impossible. If it's what almost always happens, you leave the possibility of the supernatural. I prefer the "almost" definition because I believe in the supernatural, but also out of respect for Occam's Razor.
That addresses the supernatural side of religion. There's also the meaning-of-life side. You say that people don't change religion, and that you can't challenge a person's religion, but that's not true. People change their religious thinking over their lives. People may not like it at the time when you question their religion, but over time people consider many different beliefs and understandings of religion. It's not as rigorous as peer review, but it happens.
46 - roger nowosielski
One can't define "supernatural" as impossible, if only from logical standpoint. Any such definition does away with the concept.
47 - Brian aka Guppusmaximus
Baronius,
You make some interesting points and seem to understand where I'm going with this. Or, you just know how to more accurately get your point across with typing. (No offense, Elvira)
BUT, with that being said...
Sure, I believe that Science can be about what naturally occurs,BUT,Science can also provide answers to what can be created which isn't necessarily perceived as natural. I mean,look at what science did to prove a 30 year old Theory. The "supernatural" is only that way because we haven't the knowledge to explain these occurrences or "shine a light" on where they occur all the time(speaking of a subject that still boggles my mind,yes,"Light"). Yet, that does not make them spiritual or proof of a creator. IMHO, that doesn't make them beyond natural with respect to Quantum Physics and how we are now perceiving the universe.
I can appreciate your tale about the professor,but, it is always the scientist or investigator to provide evidence to support his/her theory. That responsibility does not fall on the skeptic's shoulders. I believe the Professor in your tale was merely making a mockery.
"People change their religious thinking over their lives. ... but over time people consider many different beliefs and understandings of religion."
I think this only happens when they feel they haven't seen any substantial results from their belief system. I think it is, ultimately, a complex system of denial,because, it's obvious that there aren't any theories or tested science to support these changes in their belief pattern. I'm sorry,but, to go by this excuse of "feeling" or an emotional connection is rather immature. Feelings aren't always accurate...
48 - Brian aka Guppusmaximus
*Oops* it's obvious that there aren't any theories or tested science to support these changes in their belief pattern never mind their respective Religions alone.
49 - Brian aka Guppusmaximus
One can be "spiritual" without being "religious."
Yes I agree,but, to imply that spirituality wasn't created from Religion or ancient beliefs is false.
Beyond that statement, a lot of what you say makes plenty of sense and I agree for the most part but that still doesn't prove anything beyond our own capabilities. I firmly believe that we must remove the spiritual or religious mist from our eyes to see the truth, to find the real answers, how good or bad they might be. Does that mean that people can't live their lives the way they want, again, NO. But, I don't feel that this non evident creator & our supposed beginning should be the defining rules for which we live our lives.
Sure, there could possibly be some sort of "creator", I just don't think it is anything like what you find in all these books nor do I want to waste my energy & life trying to figure it out. I mean, it's not necessarily a waste,but I do think people put way too much emphasis on these things. Maybe to make them feel bigger then what they really are, especially as a species.
50 - Elvira Black
Thanks Val, and please do join in: the boyz are busy dissecting the metaphorical frogs again...yuck! (lol)
51 - Ruvy
the boyz are busy dissecting the metaphorical frogs again...yuck!
I love it, Elvira, I just love it! I ain't one of the "boyz" who needs to dissect metaphorical frogs. aní ma'amín ben ma'amínim - I'm a believer, the child of believers....
52 - Elvira Black
Many thanks, Ruvy:
I feel like I'm trying to wade my way through a discussion that is, er, Talmudic in its hair-splitting reductionism, but my particular passions lie more in the realms of the social "sciences" (if that isn't an oxymoron). These, by the way, include political science and economics.
It's exciting to see that the brain sciences have become a bit more "verifiable" via MRI imagery, but I doubt that it will ever become "exact": in part because humans studying human behavior are inherently biased (lol), and bias is the bane of scientific research.
I do appreciate and enjoy all the comments, but my feeling (am I allowed those?) is that just as the premise of my piece was the knee jerk, even "irrational" reaction to the term "conspiracy theory," certain responders are making assumptions about religion, spirituality etc. based in part on Western perceptions and also, frankly, a rather "religious" zeal in our current cultural bias in scorning the ephemeral, the unprovable, the supernatural, etc. etc.
We rely so much on machines and computers that I sometimes wonder if we realize how much we have become truly dependent on them for our existence, and perhaps our collective demise.
I reviewed a book a long time ago entitled "Are We Unique?" in which, if memory serves, a scientist whose specialty was computers/robotics proposed the question of whether we are any different in essence from artificial intelligence (or potentially so.)In other words, what can we "do" that machines can't?
His most cogent arguement came when he described meeting his future wife, and realized that no algorythm could explain the certainty of his feelings of love for her. That was the crux of the matter for him.
So just as "conspiracy theory" produces an automatic, and dare I say, unreasoned response in others, so does any mention of religion, or spirituality, or the supernatural, etc etc....a very biased, unscientific response, I maintain...precisely because we are "all too" human.
But yes, boyz will be boyz...most women know that if you have a problem and just want to kvetch or get emotional support, the last thing you should do is talk to a man about it. They will just try to "solve" it the same way they take apart the engine of a car lol.
Speaking of which, political correctness is starting to be challenged in the realm of science as well. There do appear to be differences in the male and female brain, and the burgeoning field of evolutionary psychology has proposed theories that some may find uncomfortable.
I maintain that everything is politicized. It's in the air we breathe. And for men especially (who would rather be lost for hours than ask directions), the fact that we are shaped by our culture, our experiences, our "inner" consciousness, may be anathema to them, but "science" is "science,"--even if it refutes one's conscious or subconscous world view (or collective unconscious) and hopefully makes one realize that many things are beyond our individual control.
53 - Baronius
Elvira, I'm no fan of the term "conspiracy theory" either. As the truther love to point out, the conventional theory about 9/11 is a conspiracy of 19 hijackers. And the birther thing really isn't a conspiracy theory. But truther and birther theories have a lot in common.
I think the key thing is that the theories are unsubstantiated. Historical conspiracy theories can be proven or disproven, but ongoing conspiracy theories are impossible to disprove.
54 - Barga
@38 what research showed this (I am interested, want to read)
@39 I hate that people use age to dismiss. That said, I am dyslexic, so please excuse my spelling
@41 of course I have an agenda, but not a real one concerning this site except using it eventually to help me get a later writing career.
55 - Walker
Hmmmm so much here.
We could write volumes on the subjects here
The way I see it and this is my opinion and armed with seeing things from both sides of the fence somewhat, I’d have to say everyone is right and wrong.
Democracy is when people have the chance to support a leader through his vision and promises.
That person is democratically elected even if that person was elected on a mountain of lies.
That’s not relevant to the democratic process.
The voters were honest and sincere in how they voted.
We can democratically hang the bastard after, if we so choose too.
.
Conspiracy theory.
I heard one the other day.
Rich Canadians living in Toronto are supposedly conspiring to pay off the owners of all the NHL teams to let the Leafs win the cup this year.
As with everything in life there are countless possibilities and scenarios to the unanswered questions in, scientific or not and until a question is answered then the best we could do is speculate to a close possibility of what an answer might be, a theory and it remains a theory until it become fact.
Be it scientific or not.
You can argue that point all you want but the facts are the facts.
I just had to say that.
Ignorance of fact creates a lot of fiction.
Combine fiction with ignorance then you get a false reality.
It’s still real to the people who were brought up under this system.
Look at the Middle East and any other country in the world that controls the media going in and out of there.
The people, general population are subjected to what their leaders allow them to hear.
Their news agencies, as ours, pick and choose what to show the public.
We live is a fractured world of different societies who are quickly growing and slowly impeding on another’s space.
As we slowly become one big melting pot, cultures will clash but people will learn.
They will learn on their own from what they see more than what they hear.
Conspiracy, it has such and evil feel about it.
Theory, an idea.
The two together in the right hands or wrong can create a powerful weapon.
Conspiracy theories work on peoples minds causing them to think and when fueled with information, be it true or false, they will form an opinion.
An honest one mostly based on the information they got.
We can sit and say are you nuts to these people, by the way they are saying the same on the other side, but until we both live the same way we will never see eye to eye 100% because we don’t understand first hand how the other lives.
Do you get the feeling that someone is watching?
We are all pawns in a big game of Risk.
Conspiracy theories to unanswered questions should always be explored but when they go against fact, backed with corroborating evidence, then they only insult the truth.
Like the Holocaust.
Nice to see you back Elvira