Critical thinking skills and belief in conspiracy theory

[jack action]

There are always experts you can turn to for qualified information.

No there are not. Go on the streets and ask the average person if they know an expert where they can get qualified information: They don't know anyone. Most of them wouldn't even be able to appreciate the quality of the information. In such a case, where do you turn to?

They aren't all in on some grand conspiracy.

Are we sure of this? There was a discussion about this here on PF, 4 years ago. The article cited from the OP has some scary revelations, here are the highlights:

Heart disease, which had been a relative rarity in the 1920s, was now felling middle-aged men at a frightening rate, and Americans were casting around for cause and cure. Ancel Keys provided an answer: the “diet-heart hypothesis” (for simplicity’s sake, I am calling it the “fat hypothesis”). This is the idea, now familiar, that an excess of saturated fats in the diet, from red meat, cheese, butter, and eggs, raises cholesterol, which congeals on the inside of coronary arteries, causing them to harden and narrow, until the flow of blood is staunched and the heart seizes up.

Ancel Keys was brilliant, charismatic, and combative. A friendly colleague at the University of Minnesota described him as, “direct to the point of bluntness, critical to the point of skewering”; others were less charitable. He exuded conviction at a time when confidence was most welcome. The president, the physician and the scientist formed a reassuring chain of male authority, and the notion that fatty foods were unhealthy started to take hold with doctors, and the public. (Eisenhower himself cut saturated fats and cholesterol from his diet altogether, right up until his death, in 1969, from heart disease.)

Many scientists, especially British ones, remained sceptical. The most prominent doubter was John Yudkin, then the UK’s leading nutritionist. When Yudkin looked at the data on heart disease, he was struck by its correlation with the consumption of sugar, not fat. He carried out a series of laboratory experiments on animals and humans, and observed, as others had before him, that sugar is processed in the liver, where it turns to fat, before entering the bloodstream.

Ancel Keys was intensely aware that Yudkin’s sugar hypothesis posed an alternative to his own. If Yudkin published a paper, Keys would excoriate it, and him. He called Yudkin’s theory “a mountain of nonsense”, and accused him of issuing “propaganda” for the meat and dairy industries. “Yudkin and his commercial backers are not deterred by the facts,” he said. “They continue to sing the same discredited tune.” Yudkin never responded in kind. He was a mild-mannered man, unskilled in the art of political combat.

That made him vulnerable to attack, and not just from Keys. The British Sugar Bureau dismissed Yudkin’s claims about sugar as “emotional assertions”; the World Sugar Research Organisation called his book “science fiction”. In his prose, Yudkin is fastidiously precise and undemonstrative, as he was in person. Only occasionally does he hint at how it must have felt to have his life’s work besmirched, as when he asks the reader, “Can you wonder that one sometimes becomes quite despondent about whether it is worthwhile trying to do scientific research in matters of health?”

Throughout the 1960s, Keys accumulated institutional power. He secured places for himself and his allies on the boards of the most influential bodies in American healthcare, including the American Heart Association and the National Institutes of Health. From these strongholds, they directed funds to like-minded researchers, and issued authoritative advice to the nation. “People should know the facts,” Keys told Time magazine. “Then if they want to eat themselves to death, let them.”

This apparent certainty was unwarranted: even some supporters of the fat hypothesis admitted that the evidence for it was still inconclusive. But Keys held a trump card. From 1958 to 1964, he and his fellow researchers gathered data on the diets, lifestyles and health of 12,770 middle-aged men, in Italy, Greece, Yugoslavia, Finland, Netherlands, Japan and the United States. The Seven Countries Study was finally published as a 211-page monograph in 1970. It showed a correlation between intake of saturated fats and deaths from heart disease, just as Keys had predicted. The scientific debate swung decisively behind the fat hypothesis.

John Yudkin’s scientific reputation had been all but sunk. He found himself uninvited from international conferences on nutrition. Research journals refused his papers. He was talked about by fellow scientists as an eccentric, a lone obsessive. Eventually, he became a scare story. Sheldon Reiser, one of the few researchers to continue working on the effects of refined carbohydrates and sugar through the 1970s, told Gary Taubes in 2011: “Yudkin was so discredited. He was ridiculed in a way. And anybody else who said something bad about sucrose [sugar], they’d say, ‘He’s just like Yudkin.’”

Professor John Yudkin retired from his post at Queen Elizabeth College in 1971, to write Pure, White and Deadly. The college reneged on a promise to allow him to continue to use its research facilities. It had hired a fully committed supporter of the fat hypothesis to replace him, and it was no longer deemed politic to have a prominent opponent of it on the premises. The man who had built the college’s nutrition department from scratch was forced to ask a solicitor to intervene. Eventually, a small room in a separate building was found for Yudkin.

When I asked Lustig why he was the first researcher in years to focus on the dangers of sugar, he answered: “John Yudkin. They took him down so severely – so severely – that nobody wanted to attempt it on their own.”

In a 2015 paper titled Does Science Advance One Funeral at a Time?, a team of scholars at the National Bureau of Economic Research sought an empirical basis for a remark made by the physicist Max Planck: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

The researchers identified more than 12,000 “elite” scientists from different fields. The criteria for elite status included funding, number of publications, and whether they were members of the National Academies of Science or the Institute of Medicine. Searching obituaries, the team found 452 who had died before retirement. They then looked to see what happened to the fields from which these celebrated scientists had unexpectedly departed, by analysing publishing patterns.

What they found confirmed the truth of Planck’s maxim. Junior researchers who had worked closely with the elite scientists, authoring papers with them, published less. At the same time, there was a marked increase in papers by newcomers to the field, who were less likely to cite the work of the deceased eminence. The articles by these newcomers were substantive and influential, attracting a high number of citations. They moved the whole field along.

A scientist is part of what the Polish philosopher of science Ludwik Fleck called a “thought collective”: a group of people exchanging ideas in a mutually comprehensible idiom. The group, suggested Fleck, inevitably develops a mind of its own, as the individuals in it converge on a way of communicating, thinking and feeling.

This makes scientific inquiry prone to the eternal rules of human social life: deference to the charismatic, herding towards majority opinion, punishment for deviance, and intense discomfort with admitting to error. Of course, such tendencies are precisely what the scientific method was invented to correct for, and over the long run, it does a good job of it. In the long run, however, we’re all dead, quite possibly sooner than we would be if we hadn’t been following a diet based on poor advice.

The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation, in a 2008 analysis of all studies of the low-fat diet, found “no probable or convincing evidence” that a high level of dietary fat causes heart disease or cancer. Another landmark review, published in 2010, in the American Society for Nutrition, and authored by, among others, Ronald Krauss, a highly respected researcher and physician at the University of California, stated “there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD [coronary heart disease and cardiovascular disease]”.

Many nutritionists refused to accept these conclusions. The journal that published Krauss’s review, wary of outrage among its readers, prefaced it with a rebuttal by a former right-hand man of Ancel Keys, which implied that since Krauss’s findings contradicted every national and international dietary recommendation, they must be flawed. The circular logic is symptomatic of a field with an unusually high propensity for ignoring evidence that does not fit its conventional wisdom.

Imagine you know nothing about anything. You have been told to trust the scientists blindly. You now know this story: Do you still blindly trust scientists (from any field)? You would be crazy to do so. The fact is that scientists are also humans, having the same flaws.

And trust issues involving all experts is a personal problem, not a scientific problem.

It is not a scientific problem, but it is not a personal problem either. It is a social problem. It involves more than one party. You cannot blame someone for not trusting you; you have the responsibility to earn the trust of others. It is not easy to gain and gaining it from one person doesn't mean all other persons must trust you as well.

Does the fact that you trust in that person make them correct?

Nope. It just means you trust them.

And why don't you trust the scientist that has a proven track record of honesty and accuracy, and been published and peer reviewed?

See the example above. This is assuming you can name a scientist, know his/her credentials, and know his/her peers. Most people have no clue about who are "the scientists" and what they actually do.

How does your lack of trust make them wrong?

It doesn't. It just means you don't trust them.

As in what reason do you have for not trusting?

See the example above. It takes only one mistake to lose the trust of others. But worst, science is almost always invoked by non-scientists, which are not necessarily trustworthy. Once trust in a third party is gone, since we don't know what differentiates one scientist from another, they are all put in the same basket. From a post I made in another thread:

Furthermore, I don't recall hearing the scientists, per say. There are always, journalists, politicians and other people to simplify (or even alter) radically the message between their mouths and my ears because, apparently, "the common man don't understand". People who often don't even have the scientific know-how more than the common man. People who have agendas of their own. I'm baffled by the fact that I have to hear the message about the environment from a 16-year-old girl that can only say "Listen to the science." Everybody knows her name. But who are those scientists? What are they really saying? I never saw a panel of these scientists on the news. I cannot even think of one name of a scientist who actually work in the field (not just a popular scientific journalist who reads lot of papers).

 

[Evo]

Jack (he may correct me if I'm misinterpreting) seems to be concerned about effective communication here. He tries to get into one's mind to pinpoint what does and doesn't work when trying to arrive at a view of reality everyone can agree with. He does not advocate the position of a crank. Rather, he wants you all to try and engage with the human holding it, instead of professing that it doesn't warrant your time. One can do the latter when there is little risk of damage to the society, i.e. when the crackpots are scarce in a population, but not when there is a looming risk.
Like, we probably shouldn't ignore pro-epidemics or the 'global warming is a hoax' crowd, but we can mostly ignore the moon landing hoaxers or the flat earthers (even that is debatable, considering the propensity for cross-fertilization among the conspiracy theories).
This issue has been affecting tangible political outcomes for a long time, long before Covid. So let's try and understand why other people might think what they think, without dismissing them as stupid. It's the only way to actually changing their minds.

The main point here is that once a person loses trust in an institution (for whatever reason, good or bad, including being manipulated), it makes little sense to try and convince them to change their mind by using the authority of the same group they no longer see as authoritative. This, I think, is what is being challenged, not whether the view of an expert is correct or not.

This is something that, as in the article posted above from McGill (which is hilarious!), explains the futility of trying to change the mind of someone that is misinformed, but is sure that misinformation is the truth.

We are not here to spend endless days, weeks, months, trying to sweetly encourage the people that have rejected the truth or refuse to even look at the truth. These are mostly circular arguments. There are sites that do that, I believe a link was provided in that same article.

What we at PF do is teach the sciences, as is currently accepted and used in order to help students and non-students wishing to find accurate material. We do not offer counseling to those that refuse to accept the science or what is known to be true in the world as we can at best qualify, we state that up front, if refuting this is your intention, you are on the wrong site. We just ask you to please take your discussions to the correct sites.

 

[Bandersnatch]

What we at PF do is teach the sciences, as is currently accepted and used in order to help students and non-students wishing to find accurate material. We do not offer counseling to those that refuse to accept the science or what is known to be true in the world as we can at best qualify, we state that up front, if refuting this is your intention, you are on the wrong site. We just ask you to please take your discussions to the correct sites.

I've been on this forum long enough to know that a discussion on how to be an effective science communicator is not in breach of the rules and guidelines of the site.

 

[Averagesupernova]

I may be biased due to a close relationship to someone who was schizophrenic. The possibility to convince a person with that untreated or undertreated illness that a belief they hold is untrue no matter how much evidence you provide them is an exercise in futility.
-
I am generally a distrustful person. But I don't believe it is because I am nuts or whatever. I am just mindful that most people do not have my best interest in mind. However that does not mean that I believe those same people are out to get me, they are just apathetic towards me. This is generally the case in the world we live in. I suspect most people who easily buy into conspiracy theories also likely have delusions about themselves.

 

[jack action]

the article posted above from McGill (which is hilarious!), explains the futility of trying to change the mind of someone that is misinformed, but is sure that misinformation is the truth.

We haven't read the same article:

When the rest of us are confronted with these conspiratorial speculations, it’s very easy to resort to mockery, and when it happens to someone we know, the impulse to angrily shake them out of this nonsense can be hard to resist.

Ridiculing a close friend’s belief or calling them stupid and paranoid is unlikely to have the desired effect. So what works?

“You really have to tailor it [the conversation] to the individual, there’s no magic bullet that works for everybody,”

A helpful first step to move beyond this face-off may be to imagine both you and the conspiracist in your life as sitting side by side. This is not a debate; it’s a conversation where two people are looking at what’s in front of them, trying to make sense of it. The second step is in learning the virtue of shutting up first. “Listen to them,” Mick West told me, a crucial tip I have heard from multiple people over the years and that I recommend myself. “They will listen to you if you listen to them, if you give them some kind of respect for the fact that they have ideas.” No one enjoys being perceived as foolish or less than human. You may disagree with someone’s perception of the world but invalidating who they are as people because they believe in a grand conspiracy theory will probably not bear fruit.

The most common advice I have seen for this situation from therapists, anti-cult resource centres, and long-time debunkers like Mick West is to prioritize the relationship. “You can tell the person, hey, I don’t share your beliefs but I really value our friendship,” West explained to me, “and I would like to try to maintain our relationship, and we have other things in common that we can talk about, and other shared things we used to do.” If they keep bringing up this grand theory, it may be best not to take the bait and simply state that the two of you should hold off on discussing this for a few weeks.

Using empathy, avoiding confrontations, and keeping the dialogue going can help

We are not here to spend endless days, weeks, months, trying to sweetly encourage the people that have rejected the truth or refuse to even look at the truth.

I wasn't aware there was a time limit for discussions on PF. But I know that if one is not interested in a discussion (or can't handle it), one doesn't have to participate.

We just ask you to please take your discussions to the correct sites.

You mean you prefer people going to conspiracy theories websites - which will accept them with open arms - rather than stay on PF and get introduced to the scientific method? Being rejected by PF can only increase the distrust of these people towards the scientific community.

I may be biased due to a close relationship to someone who was schizophrenic.

This is an extreme case. Most people who believe in conspiracy theories are not mentally ill. Those are the people you can - and want - to reach.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This is an extreme case. Most people who believe in conspiracy theories are not mentally ill. Those are the people you can - and want - to reach.

What makes you think they want to know the truth? I have seen no evidence supporting that. That is why they reject a world of information and opt to believe something easily debunked 99% of the time. You can present the best information from the most reputable sources and it will be rejected out of hand without a second thought if it suggests anything they don't want to believe.

 

[jack action]

What makes you think they want to know the truth? I have seen no evidence supporting that. That is why they reject a world of information and opt to believe something easily debunked 99% of the time. You can present the best information from the most reputable sources and it will be rejected out of hand without a second thought if it suggests anything they don't want to believe.

It is not about being right or wrong. It is about reaching out to people. Let us repeat the important messages until they sink in:

Being told your favourite conspiracy theory is dumb, dangerous and nonsensical is unlikely to bring you to your senses. Them’s fighting words.

When the rest of us are confronted with these conspiratorial speculations, it’s very easy to resort to mockery, and when it happens to someone we know, the impulse to angrily shake them out of this nonsense can be hard to resist.

Ridiculing a close friend’s belief or calling them stupid and paranoid is unlikely to have the desired effect.

“They will listen to you if you listen to them, if you give them some kind of respect for the fact that they have ideas.” No one enjoys being perceived as foolish or less than human.

And my favorite quote from the article:

This is not a debate; it’s a conversation where two people are looking at what’s in front of them, trying to make sense of it.

Are you listening to what I'm saying? It is no about changing other people, it is about changing your attitude towards other people.

I'm not debating with you, therefore you never going to win anything. It's a conversation.

Do you really think Joe Smith really believes the Earth is flat? He doesn't care. Joe Smith can believe the Earth is in the shape of a giraffe, it won't change anything in Joe Smith's day-to-day life. What he's telling us is that he doesn't want someone telling him how to think. Especially being told that it must be that way because he cannot think right; he's somehow less than a human being.

And if Joe Smith reaches out to you (say on PF), that means he's ready to have a conversation with you. Sure, he will test you, but if you fail the test and you reject him, he may be insulted and he may go somewhere else. Somewhere where you are not. You say you are a scientist, he may hang out with people who say they are not; because now, he doesn't trust scientists.

That is a toxic relationship that leads us nowhere. Smart people break that cycle. They reach out to the other side. They always keep the dialog open.

It has nothing to do with the "Truth".

 

[Averagesupernova]

@jack action
A flat earther for instance in this day and age is in my opinion suffering from a learning disability or has a mental illness. Not liking to be told how to think is one thing, but preferring that over being correct is a sickness.

 

[pinball1970]

What makes you think they want to know the truth? I have seen no evidence supporting that. That is why they reject a world of information and opt to believe something easily debunked 99% of the time. You can present the best information from the most reputable sources and it will be rejected out of hand without a second thought if it suggests anything they don't want to believe.

The poster who now has a ban went from 911 to MRNA quite quickly.
Like flat earthers, those conspiracy theorists believe there is conspiracy FIRST, then they find the evidence that agrees with that stance and look to counter the evidence that does not agree.

If they have critical thinking skills they chose not to use them.

 

[hutchphd]

Joe Smith can believe the Earth is in the shape of a giraffe, it won't change anything in Joe Smith's day-to-day life.

But if Joe believes The COVID vaccine is bogus it will directly affect himself and indirectly affect everyone else. As a society we have evolved methods to identify truth. The strength of the USA has historically been that our truths are basically scientific. The founding fathers were well populated with scientists.
Joe Smith's magical thinking should not be considered OK.

 

[pinball1970]

@jack action
A flat earther for instance in this day and age is in my opinion suffering from a learning disability or has a mental illness. Not liking to be told how to think is one thing, but preferring that over being correct is a sickness.

Or they want the conspiracy to be true. Why they would want a conspiracy to be true comes down to other things mentioned, like distrust of authority, establishment and the Scientific community and government Science advisors are part of that

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The poster who now has a ban went from 911 to MRNA quite quickly.

Ah yes, the whatabouts. If you present indisputable facts debunking one nonsense claim, they will quickly change the subject to "whatabout X" where X is some other crackpot claim. They never acknowledge being proven wrong and will turn around and make the same argument tomorrow.

 

[BWV]

It’s also,frankly, an issue of character and morality. It’s not an innocent mistake to believe the Holocaust did not occur - there is an agenda behind the belief

 

[stevendaryl]

It’s also,frankly, an issue of character and morality. It’s not an innocent mistake to believe the Holocaust did not occur - there is an agenda behind the belief

Exactly. That's why I don't completely endorse "Hanlon's razor"

...never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity

There certainly are plenty of people whose brains just are incapable of certain kinds of reasoning, such as following a mathematical proof. But the sort of people who believe in conspiracy theories are not simply those who have inadequate reasoning skills. There is almost always an agenda behind the choice to believe or not believe something.

 

[hutchphd]

But the sort of people who believe in conspiracy theories are not simply those who have inadequate reasoning skills. There is almost always an agenda behind the choice to believe or not believe something.

But that choice to believe is, in my humble opinion, often driven by
(1) a need for definiteness and
(2) an inability to recognize and deal with the true complexity of reality
These are advanced reasoning skills.

F. Scott Fitzgerald said it best (in Gatsby)
"The truest sign of intelligence is the ability to entertain two contradictory ideas simultaneously."

"You can't fix stoopid" remains my fallback position

 

[Fred Wright]

@jack action
A flat earther for instance in this day and age is in my opinion suffering from a learning disability or has a mental illness. Not liking to be told how to think is one thing, but preferring that over being correct is a sickness.

Shaquille O'Neal, the famous basketball player, was traveling by bus with his team through Kansas. On board the bus was a news paper reporter and there was some discussion of conspiracy theories. The reporter asked Shaq, "Do you believe the Earth is flat?" Shaq, in his wisdom, quietly looked out the window for a few seconds then said, "That s**t be flat."

 

[jack action]

Joe Smith's magical thinking should not be considered OK.

I never even proposed that idea. I just said that Joe Smith should not be isolated nor excluded. If someone thinks that by simply ignoring Joe Smith, he will disappear ... well, that is also magical thinking.

 

[PeroK]

All I know is this: however bad our western, democratic governments may be; and, however much the science we have may be flawed; that is nothing compared to the misery, oppression and injustice that would result if the conspiracy theorists were ever in charge.

For example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctors'_plot

 

[Averagesupernova]

I think what we 'do' with these people depends on the conspiracy. I have an acquaintance/friend who seems to buy into a lot of the conspiracies that are going around today. He buys into the 'dirty electricity' thing which involves smart meters. He also says he wishes he knew half of what his dad taught him about electricity which he has forgotten and calls on me for help with various electrical issues ranging from automotive to residential wiring. Had to ask me how to wire two six volt batteries in order to get 12 volts. This guy thinks he has a right to form an opinion on these smart meters. I will take time to try to educate him about smart meters, likely a pointless effort. But when it comes to vaccinations, masks, conspiracies floating around about Covid, he was on his own. Same thing, likely pointless to try to inform him. So why should I risk my health spending the time to inform someone who doesn't want to be informed especially considering the information available publicly. If he croaks from it, so be it. He has not been vaccinated last I knew.

 

[Evo]

I've been on this forum long enough to know that a discussion on how to be an effective science communicator is not in breach of the rules and guidelines of the site.

Oh, I was not directing my comment to "you". You were quoting things jack had said and I was speaking to why we don't have these open ended discussions!

I feel terrible that you thought I was speaking to you!

 

[Evo]

You mean you prefer people going to conspiracy theories websites - which will accept them with open arms - rather than stay on PF and get introduced to the scientific method?

No, I was referring to this link which was in that article you keep referring to.

“You really have to tailor it to the individual, there’s no magic bullet that works for everybody,” Mick West told me. He’s the author of the book Escaping the Rabbit Hole and runs a few websites including Metabunk, referred to as “a polite forum of and about debunking.”

 

[Evo]

It is not about being right or wrong. It is about reaching out to people. Let us repeat the important messages until they sink in:

No, let's stop. The parts of the article you keep referring to are about how someone should handle a close friend, a family member, co-worker, etc... someone that you need to retain trust and interpersonal relationships with. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with conspiracy theorists showing up here at PF.

So "Warning" do not keep reposting about how to handle these close interpersonal relationships as they will be deleted and formally warned.

 

[Jarvis323]

What do you all think about a scenario where there is a conspiracy and someone uncovers it? Do you think this has never happened, or never will happen? Or is there a different language we need to talk about those cases? And should those people, who do uncover a conspiracy, be taken seriously by society at all (assuming that there is a way to delineate them from nut jobs)? In my opinion, this is the place we really are lacking critical thinking.

 

[PeroK]

What do you all think about a scenario where there is a conspiracy and someone uncovers it? Do you think this has never happened, or never will happen? Or is there a different language we need to talk about those cases? And should those people, who do uncover a conspiracy, be taken seriously by society at all (assuming that there is a way to delineate them from nut jobs)? In my opinion, this is the place we really are lacking critical thinking.

You mean something like this?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56237818

 

[Jarvis323]

You mean something like this?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56237818

Sure that would fit I guess. The assumption of the paper in the OP and in the discussion seems to be that all of the conspiracy theorists are wrong. This is obviously not true in any literal interpretation. If we are going to tackle the subject of critical thinking and conspiracy belief, we should do it using critical thinking and be precise.

What is necessary is a definition of conspiracy theorist and a method to delineate conspiracy theory from not conspiracy theory. And that doesn't sound trivial to me.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Sure that would fit I guess. The assumption of the paper in the OP and in the discussion seems to be that all of the conspiracy theorists are wrong. This is obviously not true in any literal interpretation. If we are going to tackle the subject of critical thinking and conspiracy belief, we should do it using critical thinking and be precise.

What is necessary is a definition of conspiracy theorist and a method to delineate conspiracy theory from not conspiracy theory. And that doesn't sound trivial to me.

A great starting point would be the size of the conspiracy. I doubt you could find one example of a truly vast conspiracy on the scale these people believe.

Conspiracies almost always involve a very small number of people. Otherwise the secrets could never be kept.

 

[Averagesupernova]

Sure that would fit I guess. The assumption of the paper in the OP and in the discussion seems to be that all of the conspiracy theorists are wrong. This is obviously not true in any literal interpretation. If we are going to tackle the subject of critical thinking and conspiracy belief, we should do it using critical thinking and be precise.

What is necessary is a definition of conspiracy theorist and a method to delineate conspiracy theory from not conspiracy theory. And that doesn't sound trivial to me.

So do you consider any hypothesis a conspiracy theory? It's an 'educated guess'. As in thought up by an expert or group of experts. I thought we could agree that conspiracy goes against experts.

 

[Jarvis323]

So do you consider any hypothesis a conspiracy theory? It's an 'educated guess'. As in thought up by an expert or group of experts. I thought we could agree that conspiracy goes against experts.

I'm not aware of a precise definition.

It should be noted that going with the expert unconditionally is an example of uncritical thinking.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It should be noted that going with the expert unconditionally is an example of uncritical thinking.

That's why we have peer review and publications. Peer review does't include Joe Sixpack's opinion. You don't have to justify all of science to debate one subject.

 

[jack action]

someone that you need to retain trust and interpersonal relationships with. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with conspiracy theorists showing up here at PF.

These advices still hold for people on PF: Don't call people stupid or paranoid, be respectful (even if they are not), discussing casually instead of debating when appropriate and, most importantly, don't get into a confrontation.

People discussing on PF are in some sort of relationship, even if it is not a close friendship or family. It is called socializing. I think that it is important to keep a relationship of trust between the public and the scientific community. And PF plays a role in this, either by getting proactive or by ignoring that they have a role in this.

Anyway, these are opinions, not facts.

 

[jack action]

What is necessary is a definition of conspiracy theorist and a method to delineate conspircy theory from not conspiracy theory.

A conspiracy theory in the sense used here is one that is not based in facts, isn't it?

 

[Averagesupernova]

I'm not aware of a precise definition.

It should be noted that going with the expert unconditionally is an example of uncritical thinking.

That's arguable. While I don't run to my doctor every time I sneeze I'd say it should be unconditional if I have stroke symptoms. I am not qualified to deal with that and I would be stupid to think if I just take an aspirin to dissolve the clot in my brain I'll be fine.

 

[Jarvis323]

Conspiracies almost always involve a very small number of people. Otherwise the secrets could never be kept.

If you can formulate this as a valid argument under the lense of critical thinking, then it will be a good start ;)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It occurs to me that the US Constitution was the product of a conspiracy. Ironic huh!

If you can formulate this as a valid argument under the lense of critical thinking, then it will be a good start ;)

There has never been a vast conspiracy involving thousands of people that lasted more than a few weeks. Show me a counter example. ;)

 

[Jarvis323]

It occurs to me that the US Constitution was the product of a conspiracy. Ironic huh!
There has never been a vast conspiracy involving thousands of people that lasted more than a few weeks. Show me a counter example. ;)

There was Operation Snow White, in which the Church of Scientology had infiltrated the US government with "up to 5,000" covert agents.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White

 

[hutchphd]

There was Operation Snow White, in which the Church of Scientology had infiltrated the US government with "up to 5,000" covert agents.

What are you quoting? Reference please

 

[Jarvis323]

What are you quoting? Reference please

...One Scientology document so identifies 136 governmental agencies at home and abroad. At its height, the espionage system, called "Operation Snow White" by Hubbard, included up to 5,000 covert agents who were placed in government offices, foreign embassies and consulates, as well as in private organizations critical of Scientology. Hubbard even assembled a dossier on President Richard Nixon and individuals ranging from U.S. Senators to members of the Rockefeller family.

http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,951938,00.html

 

[hutchphd]

I doubt the number but there certainly are conspiracies. And L Ron certainly loved them from both sides. He wanted his agents to destroy government documents about scientology. In the end 11 people were convicted so thousands may be overestimate.
In the words of Joseph Heller (in Catch 22) "Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you"
But The issue for me is how we, as a society of individuals, adjudicate truth. If we don't draw a bright line, then any yahoo with bear spray is justified to break into the Capital so long as she is earnest.. Or you can legally shoot some kid if you are really honestly scared.
Not good enough. Not nearly. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

 

[Evo]

What do you all think about a scenario where there is a conspiracy and someone uncovers it? Do you think this has never happened, or never will happen? Or is there a different language we need to talk about those cases? And should those people, who do uncover a conspiracy, be taken seriously by society at all (assuming that there is a way to delineate them from nut jobs)? In my opinion, this is the place we really are lacking critical thinking.

These are the cases where we have 'whistleblowers'. Yes, there can always be small pockets of corruption, I wouldn't classify them as conspiracies though. I came across numerous cases of corruption, collusion, fraud, you name it, at the large company I worked for. One person was fired, another quit before he was fired, but I found out the company had a lawsuit against them for 6 figure monetary fraud. I discovered a very large amount of monetary fraud, going up 3 chains of management and I was threatened if I revealed it, I quit. I really regret not turning them in. But, do we call these "conspiracies"? Usually "conspiracies" have quite a bit of outlandish nonsense that makes them easy to spot.

Edit, well, since they were criminal, they would be defined as conspiracies, but they aren't the kind we think of when we hear "conspiracy theory", the kinds posted on the internet that quickly gain large numbers of followers.

 

[Evo]

I doubt the number but there certainly are conspiracies. And L Ron certainly loved them from both sides. He wanted his agents to destroy government documents about scientology. In the end 11 people were convicted so thousands may be overestimate.
In the words of Joseph Heller (in Catch 22) "Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you"
But The issue for me is how we, as a society of individuals, adjudicate truth. If we don't draw a bright line, then any yahoo with bear spray is justified to break into the Capital so long as she is earnest.. Or you can legally shoot some kid if you are really honestly scared.
Not good enough. Not nearly. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

OK, you found one that I have to agree is probably real on a lot of whacky levels, Scientology is off of the scales. Now we also have QAnon believers/members in our Government!

 

[Evo]

A conspiracy theory in the sense used here is one that is not based in facts, isn't it?

Basically, I would say that would be good.

 

[PeroK]

There has never been a vast conspiracy involving thousands of people that lasted more than a few weeks. Show me a counter example. ;)

The UK government has the "Official Secrets Act", which allows government documents to remain secret for 30 years and has allowed numerous government conspiracies from coming to light until too late. For example:

During the nuclear bomb tests in the 1950s UK soldiers were used as guinea pigs to test the effect of exposure to radiation. Everything was successfully covered up for more than 30 years.

The Catholic Church successfully conspired to suppress widespread sexual and physical abuse of children for decades.

Why are those plausible and that COVID is a hoax not plausible? That may be the essence of critical thinking. There are those, it seems, who can't distinguise these cases.

It's not that there are no conspiracies, but how to analyse their plausibility.

 

[Bystander]

but how to analyse their plausibility.

Indiscriminate and excessive use of the word "they" has been my trigger/alarm word. Lack of specificity in identification of groups, e.g., use of "they" rather than "lawyers/ contractors/ building inspectors/military industrial complex" in construction/s of arguments equals conspiracy theory adherent/paranoid, usually followed with the "Heller Argument."

 

[Drakkith]

Funny side note: Isn't it strange, that even in a case where we had only a few experts, three or four at the time, who could understand Wiles' proof of FLT, nobody ever came up with a conspiracy theory?

You probably just haven't been to the right corners of the internet.

None of this makes any sense. Just because you don't "trust" someone does NOT make them wrong, and just because you DO "trust" someone does NOT make them right.

You may trust some insane person spreading rumors that half of the government is actually child eating, Satan worshipping, sex trafficking pedophiles. Does the fact that you trust in that person make them correct? And why don't you trust the scientist that has a proven track record of honesty and accuracy, and been published and peer reviewed? How does your lack of trust make them wrong?

The problem is that this is an emotional response, and thus your brain makes it seem rational unless you can somehow decouple the conspiracy theory from your emotions, which is a very difficult thing to do. In other words, if you believe in X, your brain will do just about anything it can to keep you believing in X, and you will really think that it is logical and makes sense.

So, yes, to people with strong beliefs in a conspiracy theory, the fact that they trust person A does indeed mean that A is correct and anyone who disagrees with A is wrong. It doesn't matter what credentials or experience some scientist or doctor has, it doesn't matter how many of them band together, the fact that they disagree with A means that they are wrong, are lying, are in league with big-whatever, etc.

People have literally gone to their death screaming at nurses that they aren't dying from COVID. Well, as much screaming as possible when your lungs are filling with fluid and your oxygen saturation is falling even with an oxygen mask on or a breathing tube down your throat.

 

[hutchphd]

I had the good fortune to have had Dr Carl Sagan as a professor. I think his best work is The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. It speaks exactly to these questions with a chilling prescience. A should-read for everyone.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0345409469/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[Rive]

A conspiracy theory in the sense used here is one that is not based in facts, isn't it?

A good conspiracy theory is always based on facts.

Occam does not work exclusively for science. With the sense of 'simplest hypothesis' or 'fewer postulates' slightly warped it can support many interesting ideas.

In some sense to prove that some things just simply happened might require far more postulates than having a singular 'they' behind them.

To see what's really simple you need a thorough experience both about the difficulties of any 'they' and about the simple/trivial nature of many complex things.

So - never underestimate conspiracy theories. In a sense they are some part result of critical thinking.

 

[jack action]

A good conspiracy theory is always based on facts.

A good conspiracy theory is only based on facts.
A bad conspiracy theory always includes at least one assumption that links the presented facts.

For example:

• a billionaire made his fortune in electronics (fact);
• he promotes vaccination (fact);
• therefore he wants to inject microchips in everyone (assumption).

 

[pinball1970]

A good conspiracy theory is always based on facts.

Occam does not work exclusively for science. With the sense of 'simplest hypothesis' or 'fewer postulates' slightly warped it can support many interesting ideas.

In some sense to prove that some things just simply happened might require far more postulates than having a singular 'they' behind them.

To see what's really simple you need a thorough experience both about the difficulties of any 'they' and about the simple/trivial nature of many complex things.

So - never underestimate conspiracy theories. In a sense they are some part result of critical thinking.

Thanks Rive

Can you flesh this out and give a few examples?
Especially the “facts” part.
If the facts are indeed facts then it cannot be a conspiracy can it?
For example.
A “fact” of the conspiracy COVID is the 99.97% recovery rate.
It is not that the number is wrong, it is that a number like that cannot be true since not everyone who has Covid has died yet.

It is not and could not be a fact.

Or I have totally missed your point

 

[Rive]

If the facts are indeed facts then it cannot be a conspiracy can it?

Facts (what you can check yourself) are solid basis. To get a good conspiracy, you cannot really fake facts: far too easy to check and if you get caught all your hard work get busted.

It is the explanations and assumptions what you are free (?) to twist to a certain extent.

For example:

• a billionaire made his fortune in electronics (fact);
• he promotes vaccination (fact);
• therefore he wants to inject microchips in everyone (assumption).

Exactly!

And, your explanations an assumptions should feel simpler than what 'reality' may be, so you get Occam do free labour for you.

Or I have totally missed your point

My point is, that the reason why it is so hard to fight conspiracy theories with critical thinking is because any good conspiracy theory will also utilizing a (warped) critical thinking.
So displaying them as strictly opposing is actually a mistake.

 

[hutchphd]

One needn't invent "facts" to create false reality. Equally powerful is the rejection of evidence (there are no certified facts after all). The Vatican has used this technique coercively for millenia . Thomas Jefferson understood this: he founded the first non-religious university (Academical Village ) because he knew the answer. He requested that be his epitaph.

So Mr. Jefferson knew the answer. Carl Sagan knew the answer (or at least identified the problem). You push back the darkness. Those who repeatedly choose to scurry back into the shadows simply do not desire the sunlight.