Critical thinking skills and belief in conspiracy theory

[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!