When is a theory regarded as a conspiracy?

Verdi

There are many theories about happenings in the world which are difficult to prove wrong but nontheless are considered as "conspiricy" thinking. While a "globally" flat Earth can easily be seen to be wrong from outer space, theories around 9/11 (the cowardly, terrible, and inhuman attack being thought to actually be made with airplanes that were government-controlled, with the purpose of power consolidation and obtaining excuses for going to war), or about the origins of the Covid19 virus (the pharmaceutical companies developing viruses and marketing the cure, exploiting the ensuing panic) are more difficult to actually be proven wrong. We all know they are wrong, but actual proof lacks. Or do we wrongly assume that they are wrong? The Nazis set fire to the Reichstag, and blamed communist Marinus van der Lubbe for doing this, after which an excuse was there for prosecuting communists. Or was it actually van der Lubbe who set the fire?

When is a theory a conspiracy? What are its qualities? Are they unprovable in principle? But if so, then who says the standard is not a conspiracy?

I'm not sure if it's related, but I mention it nontheless. I recently commented on a question asked on a science forum. There was the question of a farmer who complained that his cows had a diminished lust to drink (water), after he stalled them in a new stable. A fellow farmer advised him to use a compass and check the magnetic field in there. And he found a divergence from the Earth magnetic field indeed. I could remember I read an article in which the relation between cows and the magnetic field of the Earth was explored and it was observed that cows can feel this field. So I gave a link to it. I suggested that the farmer could easily check if there was a connection between the reduced drinking and the magnetic field. If he would put a few cows apart, out of their new stable, this could be checked. But it was made clear from the start: "A magnetic field has no influence on cows." How scientific. Even thinking about is is wrong, since my link and tip to the farmer were deleted, after another commentator even demanded moderator intervenience!
Somehow, there is a connection here with conspiracy thinking. Was I considered the conspiricist here? Or were they? Or were they just narrow-minded? Sticking to the dogma, and me attacking it, while not even having the slightest intention to do so. Just had some farmer advice.

SpaceDweller

Word conspiracy is a new linguistic invention because old fashioned "plotting", "rumors" and similar doesn't have an effect as wanted.

Conspiracy is almost always aimed against larger authorities or populations, when you hear about conspiracy that's something big and almost never about small things such as ex. you and your neighbor.

Conspiracies are valid theories, the reason why they are called conspiracies is to label theories that are either "harmful" for social order or some authority, and are viewed as a tool to undermine some authority or to cause confusion among larger population. (from the perspective of those who defend)

But this does not mean conspiracies are ultimately false, because conspiracies may also be used as a tool against truth, ex. to label truth as lie because not every truth is for public, so conspiracy may be good labeling tool to reverse damage.

When is a theory regarded as a conspiracy? — Verdi

When it has negative connotations, a theory that is not all about common good.
Conspiracy can be either defensive label tool or offensive. (depends on authority vs population perspective, or authority vs authority), therefore either true or false but likely newer known for sure.

Verdi

↪SpaceDweller

Thanks for this constructive reply! I am digesting it...

SpaceDweller

↪Verdi

You may also want to study about "information warfare" and "psychological warfare"

It should help you to better understand what makes conspiracies so strong apparatus and how authorities exercise their power behind the scene.

ssu

↪Verdi

Of course there are the definitions found in any dictionary that show what is meant by the words.

But that isn't what makes conspiracy theories so interesting, the secret plots to do harm or something unlawful. It isn't the interesting issue here. It is more about a public narrative where some ideas and theories are accused to be conspiracies. It is a public narrative where conspiracy theories are promoted and some politicians accept them on face value... at least publicly. Naturally conspiracies do happen, but I guess it is far more usual that something is accused to be a conspiracy theory as to ridicule and critique it. Conspiracy theorists, as we all know, aren't held in respect and the definition has an obvious negative view. And, it should be mentioned, there really is a lot of goofy theories that stay in the media limelight.

As @SpaceDweller referred to "information warfare" and "psychological warfare", I would refer also simply to "populism". Note that populism doesn't mean something popular, but a specific viewpoint of there being the bad elite and on the other hand the ordinary (good) people.

And populism, both right-wing or left-wing, is the environment where conspiracy theories prosper as the populism basically is in the end a conspiracy theory: a conspiracy of the elite to disregard the common people.

god must be atheist

Conspiracy theories are like wanton, unabashed, gratuitous violence in a movie with no plot, which describes now all and every show, movie and tv series on Netflix. The theory goes that people who suspect conspiracies are hungry for more blood-thirsty news, and their hunger is not satisfied. There are enough blood-and-gore news, but they do not penetrate the sympathy of conspiracy theory believers. It's a little like you can give tons of insulin to the diabetic type 2, but if he gets no metformin, little if any of the insulin will help the sugars walk through the cell walls.

Similarly, the conspiracy-believer wants more scandal, blood, vengeance and revenge, because his or her receptor to vengeance, blood and gore is dulled or jaded.

SpaceDweller

↪ssu

In addition to "information warfare" and "psychological warfare", it's worth understanding how counter espionage and foreign interference works.

Usual opinion of espionage is as some sort of information gathering to either gain advantage or to construct conspiracies and cause social unrest, however it's far from as simple as in James Bond movies.

Spies don't just come to some country and start doing things, some actually establish their life there, get married and activities of their families remain undetected for decades and even centuries.
They don't actually have to do anything except to gather sensitive information.
Usual operatives are actually recruited within population to perform the task, while those before mentioned only supply vital information required for the job.
If the operative fails, family remains hidden and unrooted.
Of course the operative doesn't know anything about it's contact, he only gets paid (from someone else)

This is one reason why conspiracies tend to be sourced within some country rather than from the out side.
Conspiracies born on the inside and more plausible and less detectible, and as such it also becomes more difficult to figure out who started them.
Public unrest and riots is the usual goal of such activities.

I like sushi

It is a term that had a legitimate meaning until governments put a 'this guy's a crazy' spin on it.

ssu

↪SpaceDweller

Even if intelligence services do have active measures and are active in "information warfare", the popularity and mind set of conspiracy theorists are far more abundant and popular to view this phenomenon as something instigated for intelligence services. Add there political parties and other political pressure groups and you have a better picture of the landscape.

Yet part of it emerges from the desire to basically have a community. If your views make you ostracized or even laughed upon, what better way to find similarly thinking companions from the internet! The "conspiracy theorist" often has this idea of people that oppose or who are indifferent of their theories as being "sheeple", the ignorant masses successfully controlled by the puppet masters, while they are part of the small crowd that has "seen the light". In a way, it works like a religious cult sometimes. And for the true conspiracy theorist that someone busts the myth in your supported theory, especially in the media, just shows how large the ominous conspiracy is and how much the "powers in be" are willing to silence their opposition.

Add to the picture how partisan the modern media can be (that makes it nearly similar to what the media was like in the 19th Century), and it's no wonder people are so suspicious that even whacky conspiracy theories take ground.

SophistiCat

It is a term that had a legitimate meaning until governments put a 'this guy's a crazy' spin on it. — I like sushi

There you go - a conspiracy theory about "conspiracy theories"!

I like sushi

↪SophistiCat

Glad you got it :D

Philosophim

A look at science can help us identify a conspiracy. Science seeks to disprove its hypothesis. If for example I say, "Cows do not drink water at this location because of a change in the magnetic field," then I would set up an experiment to try to disprove this, NOT prove it. You can try to disprove it by setting up several different patches of cows in different magnetic fields around the world, while ensuring all other variables like "Water quality, stress of the cows, food quality, etc" are all kept the same. As you think of more things that could disprove your hypothesis, you add more experiments.

A conspiracy does not seek to disprove its own theory, but only looks at things that give evidence to or prove its theory. They take a compass, see that the magnetic field is different from "normal", and conclude that must be why the cows are drinking less. They don't check any other evidence that might disprove the theory, such as water quality, food quality, etc. They have a conclusion they WANT to reach, and only seek evidence that confirms that conclusion while throwing away, or not looking for any evidence that might disprove what they want to believe.

Verdi

A conspiracy does not seek to disprove its own theory, but only looks at things that give evidence to or prove its theory. They take a compass, see that the magnetic field is different from "normal", and conclude that must be why the cows are drinking less. They don't check any other evidence that might disprove the theory, such as water quality, food quality, etc. They have a conclusion they WANT to reach, and only seek evidence that confirms that conclusion while throwing away, or not looking for any evidence that might disprove what they want to believe. — Philosophim

Very true! That's indeed how many conspiracy theories are tried to be upheld, it seems to me. They ignore conflicting evidence or explain it away in sometimes quite contorted ways. One thing though. In the case of magnetism and cows drinking, it is also a conspiracy to just state that cows are not affected in their drinking behavior by magnetic fields. I offered an article which showed that cows are affected by such a field, which was denied from the start, and everything suggesting it could be the case was thrown of the table. How scientific! A conspiracy even...

Philosophim

↪Verdi

In the case of magnetism and cows drinking, it is also a conspiracy to just state that cows are not affected in their drinking behavior by magnetic fields. I offered an article which showed that cows are affected by such a field, which was denied from the start, and everything suggesting it could be the case was thrown of the table. — Verdi

Just to be clear on specifics, you mentioned there was an article that suggested cows were affected by magnetic fields. Was it a scientific article? Did it conclude that it would affect how they drank water? Did you link that article to the person so they could read it themself?

If you answered "No" to any of those, then the other person was in their rights for saying, "That doesn't apply to my situation." Scientific discovery requires a massive amount of time to conclude, and the average lay person should not be expected to consider all plausibilities. If I claimed unicorns caused the cows to drink less water, but did not provide a legitimate scientific paper, any person would be within their rights to dismiss it. A conspiracy goes out of its way to prove an extremely unlikely scenario. A dismissal of an extremely unlikely scenario prior to examining all other much more likely scenarios first is simply an efficient use of time while betting on more favorable odds.

180 Proof

A conspiracy does not seek to disprove its own theory, but only looks at things that give evidence to or prove its theory. — Philosophim

:up: Yeah, in other words, dogma composed of confirmation bias (i.e. paranoiac suspicions).

James Riley

Yeah, in other words, dogma composed of confirmation bias (i.e. paranoiac suspicions). — 180 Proof

:100:

cff9a886d8ad2979b4a39f506e8ca871138a427a8b3e1795994beb4eb1e2a313_1.jpg

Wheatley

I don't see anything wrong with conspiracy theories per se, as long they're aren't aimed at innocent people. Politicians are fair game. Heck, some might even be true.

180 Proof

As far as I can tell, Gnosticism is the template, or Ur-conspiracy theory, in "the West" (vide H. Bloom) – a witches' brew of Platonic two-worldism and religious esoterica.

bert1

This is just a matter of meanings. A conspiracy theory is when someone speculates, with or without good evidence, that the correct explanation for some social/political/physical phenomenon or event is the intended result of a group of people who arranged it in secret.

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

Verdi

I don't see anything wrong with conspiracy theories per se, as long they're aren't aimed at innocent people. Politicians are fair game. Heck, some might even be true. — Wheatley

Haha! Yes, indeed. I think flat-Earthers are inspiring even, instead of conspiring. In the Eartly domain they are pretty close to the truth. The universe is said to be flat too. But that too is only locally. Who looked from afar? No one, yet. So maybe cosmologists are conspiring too. What I can't understand about flat-Earthers is why flat Earthers care so much about a global Earth being immersed "in the system", so to speak. I mean, WTF? Do they feel oppressed? By global power?

James Riley

Somehow, there is a connection here with conspiracy thinking. Was I considered the conspiricist here? Or were they? Or were they just narrow-minded? Sticking to the dogma, and me attacking it, while not even having the slightest intention to do so. Just had some farmer advice. — Verdi

If you were not married to your hypothesis, then it is not a conspiracy theory. Genuine intellectual curiosity is what distinguishes the two. Once you "know" then you are FOS. That applies to so-called mainstream physics, logic, or anything else. Whether Sewcraits ever said it or not, we are still attracted to the idea of "knowing nothing" for a reason.

254432107_1265893873915650_1396315195092959042_n.jpg?_nc_cat=106&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=jrsjW3WZCZEAX_E-8Tl&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=a09010ad321e3e8b826502fa3b06082c&oe=618C6FC4

254432107_1265893873915650_1396315195092959042_n.jpg?_nc_cat=106&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=jrsjW3WZCZEAX_E-8Tl&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=a09010ad321e3e8b826502fa3b06082c&oe=618C6FC4

Verdi

Just to be clear on specifics, you mentioned there was an article that suggested cows were affected by magnetic fields. Was it a scientific article? Did it conclude that it would affect how they drank water? Did you link that article to the person so they could read it themself? — Philosophim

The article was a synopsis of a long-term satellite experiment on the direction in which cows lay together. No, there were no connections with drink water. This was also asked when I sent it. But why should there be? To dismiss it a priori shows narrow,-mindedness and certainly no scientific attitude. There could be a true link between magnetism and drinking behavior.

180 Proof

↪James Riley

:100: :clap: :rofl:

Verdi

If you were not married to your hypothesis, then it is not a conspiracy theory. Genuine intellectual curiosity is what distinguishes the two. Once you "know" then you are FOS. That applies to so-called mainstream physics, logic, or anything else. Whether Sewcraits ever said it or not, we are still attracted to the idea of "knowing nothing" for a reason. — James Riley

:100:

Especially what Sewcraits supposed to have said! (dunno him, but he seems to be damn right!)

James Riley

The article was a synopsis of a long-term satellite experiment on the direction in which cows lay together. No, there were no connections with drink water. This was also asked when I sent it. But why should there be? To dismiss it a priori shows narrow,-mindedness and certainly no scientific attitude. There could be a true link between magnetism and drinking behavior. — Verdi

It would be cool to study bison, or even take the satellites over Africa to look at Cape Buffalo or Wildebeest: animals living in a "relatively" unmolested situation.

Philosophim

↪Verdi

The article was a synopsis of a long-term satellite experiment on the direction in which cows lay together. No, there were no connections with drink water. This was also asked when I sent it. But why should there be? To dismiss it a priori shows narrow,-mindedness and certainly no scientific attitude. There could be a true link between magnetism and drinking behavior. — Verdi

Try to think about it from their point of view. You're trying to find people who have experience with cows who have had the same problem as yourself. You're looking for answers from people with results. As a practical rancher, you aren't looking for untested hypotheticals, you are looking for tested solutions that you can implement so that you minimize the time and cost of experimenting yourself.

Dismissing untested hypotheticals when you are looking for tested solutions is not narrow minded. Trying the most likely solutions then working your way to the unlikely is efficient. I'll use disease diagnosis as an example. A new Dr. sees a patient who has a high temperature and chills. It could be several possibilities. The new Dr. asks a Sr. Dr., "New diseases pop up in Africa all the time, and he was in Africa for a day. Maybe its a new disease?" The Dr. is going to say, "Why don't we first see if it matches a disease we know about first before seeing if its something new?"

Its plausible the patient has a new disease. But we don't know if its possible, as there may very well not be any new disease. So first you start with the most likely, then work your way down. Now if the rancher had tried every reasonable possibility they could think of, like water, food quality, and cow stress, then maybe they could take the substantial cost of moving their cows to a new location. The rancher was not being closed minded or unscientific, they were being practical.

And as a question for yourself, are you trying to find evidence that fits your theory, or are you trying to find evidence that contradicts your theory? Before casting aspersions on the rancher, apply the scientific mentality to your own questions at this time, and see what you come up with. Try to prove yourself wrong, and see if it is impossible.

James Riley

Especially what Sewcraits supposed to have said! (dunno him, but he seems to be damn right!) — Verdi

It may be somewhat disrespectful for me to make fun of such an icon, but whenever I say his name I hear Steve Martin in the back of my head. Same with Plohto.

Verdi

↪James Riley

Great picture, by the way. Though I don't think astrologists are conspiracists. Never understood, by the way, why astronomers aren't called astrologists, like biologists, or physiologists.

180 Proof

I have a saying: the scandal isn't what's illegal, the scandal is what's legal. — Michael Kinsley

"Conspiracy theories", in fact, distract an impotent, frustrated, public's ADHD from the circus of unjust (or nefarious) systems, policies & practices hidden in plain sight within which they are rodeo clown'd daily.

Some conspiracy theories will turn out to be true ... — bert1

An example of a "true conspiracy theory" please. :mask:

Verdi

↪Philosophim

Yes, you are absolutely right. But the water hadn't changed, the food stayed the same, etc. The farmer could easily check by putting a few apart, away from the electric surrounding the stable. It could throw away the magnetic hypothesis. Or confirm it. Cows maybe can get upset by a changed magnetic field. The article linked to showed that they can sense it, as was already denied a priori.

Verdi

An example of a "true conspiracy theory" please. :mask: — 180 Proof

The pizza one? Claiming leading democrats are part of a pedophile "team"? I'm not American, but read about it. America is the greatest country in the world, as it's constitution testifies to and the statue of liberty tells you: " give me your poor...". A true democracy indeed! But reality screws up this image, beautiful it is in principle.

When is a theory regarded as a conspiracy?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions