Why NOT Believing In Conspiracies Is A Sure Sign Of Mental Retardation
Posted by UncommonSense 10 years, 11 months ago to Culture
This article is loaded with provable examples of actual conspiracies. I love the following sentences in the article:
"The idea, then, that there is no such thing as a conspiracy is flatly ludicrous. And people who condemn others as being “conspiracy theorists” only make themselves look mentally impaired.
To live in our modern world which is full of collusion and conspiracy — and yet somehow DENY the existence of any conspiracies at all — is an admission of a damaged brain."
"The idea, then, that there is no such thing as a conspiracy is flatly ludicrous. And people who condemn others as being “conspiracy theorists” only make themselves look mentally impaired.
To live in our modern world which is full of collusion and conspiracy — and yet somehow DENY the existence of any conspiracies at all — is an admission of a damaged brain."
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
Uh, come to think of it, this joke I just made triggers a new thought. I wish the real sheeple would dress up like that so we could know who they all are. Not all will knock on your door and say, "Hi, Tea Party person. I'm Mr. Baa from the IRS."
After all, what is security all about? It is about whom do you trust, and with what, and how far.
Its not that I do not agree with your analysis (which basically amounts to Occam's Razor plus Science plus Math) its just that it _hurts_. Ow.
Jan
1) simple incompetence and laziness (common)
2) irrational analysis
3) political spin
4) nefarious intent
The problems with most "conspiracy theories" is due to the "conspiracy analyst" doing the following:
1) evaluate the range of plausible explanations
2) ignore and dismiss the most likely explanations
3) fixate on the least likely explanation(s)
4) usually assume nefarious intent as root cause, without any credible proof
5) use scientific explanations that frequently violate the laws of physics and offer no testable corroboration
6) frequently misuses statistics, probabilities, and data uncertainties
7) uses circular logic as an integral part of their argument
8) claims to have discovered truth and says that anyone who disagrees is either nuts or part of a grand nefarious conspiracy
It is healthy to be skeptical of everything -- both official stories and conspiracy theories. The search for truth is difficult and time-consuming, and nobody has all the answers. When evaluating data and events, ask questions like these:
1) What are the possible explanations (conspiracy theories often stop here)?
2) What are the most/least plausible and probable explanations?
3) Is this hypothesis or theory testable?
4) Are there math errors and laughable use of statistics?
5) Are there truly independent sources reaching the same conclusion? Source independence is strongest when the people/organizations have differing backgrounds/biases.
6) Does the source of the theory have a history of generating alarmist conspiracy theories with no credible corroboration? Like a dead clock that gives the right time twice a day, an unreliable source could accidentally be correct in a few cases. But in the majority of cases, this will not be true...
Be willing to listen to anyone's alternate explanation(s) and supporting data, or lack thereof. But be skeptical of everything...
The average citizen in today's world is unable to thinking critically and logically, parsing thoughts from the media and other sources. I would love to see a histogram of the age range of those reading at least one book a year now vs 10-20-30 years ago and I would bet a dime to a donut-hole that the histogram would be moving to the older ages. Being able to read is a crucial area of self-education; a tool which public education wants to eradicate. Those able to carry on a logically discussion, humbly and objectively, and aged under 30, are dearth to say the least.
1. On September 11, 2001, nineteen Arab terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center, severely damaged the Pentagon, and tried to destroy either the White House or the Capitol, except that passengers stormed the cockpit and they decided on immediate suicide.
2. This narrative proves my political enemy, George W. Bush, right, and enhances his prestige as he prepares to go to war against the perpetrators.
3. I therefore will promulgate a narrative to say the U.S. government did this thing themselves.
This is the thought process of the original "Truthers." Such was the twisted narrative that came out within a year of the event. Later, libertarians took over the narrative, on the theory that War is the Health of the State, so anything that makes a casus belli is automatically suspect.
The main difficulty with the debate on "who really destroyed the WTC" is that you have two competing bodies of men with nefarious intent. Whom, then, do you believe threatens you the more? Your own government? Or a dangerous sect among the Muslims bent on world conquest in the name of a madman's hallucinogen-enhanced vision, fourteen hundred years ago?
Then, too, Atlas Shrugged was the original conspiracy novel. On the one side, Mister Thompson and his cronies and "allies." On the other, the Triumvirs of Atlantis. Who, between them, are your natural allies?
Nathaniel Branden would, I believe, offer three words here: Check it out. We cannot reject every theory out of hand. We must evaluate all such theories according to motive, opportunity and means. Too often, those offering a theory offer motive only, and assume without warrant that opportunity and means also exist, without offering evidence for either.
In general, put me down a person with "metnal retardation" when it comes to conspiracy theories.