Conspiracy Theories and Rhetoric

[Totovader]

What makes conspiracy theories so popular?

I think this question has plagued all of us at one point or another- some of us may have an answer, others may not.

I posed this question to an author I have been following for a while who writes on rhetoric and persuasion- Jay Heinrichs, aka "Figaro".

Here's a shortened version of my question:

I am consistently confronted with irrational arguments, logical fallacies, and poor critical thinking- but on the same token, conspiracists seem to be quite adept at using rhetoric to convince people of their position. Being a rational, sane person myself, I find it difficult to challenge these positions- it seems as if logic is out the window... that the arguments are based purely on logical fallacies, etc- what I would consider to be the antithesis of reason.

I know you address when logos is appropriate in your book- but is it possible that in order to be persuasive, you have to abandon reason? What I think I'm trying to get at is that conspiracy theories are persuasive because they abandon reason- because they appeal to emotion, etc.

Part of his response:

From the rhetorical standpoint, a conspiracy theory is a paranoid cousin to religious faith. What makes someone faithful? Belief and values. A faithful person worships a god or set of gods, regardless of logic or evidence that they exists. In conspiracists' case, the theory is the god.

...

In arguing against a conspiracy theorist, don't get bogged down by the "facts." The conspiracist will have far, far more facts than you, however bizarre and strangely connected they may be. Instead, focus on the characters involved, and their motives or lack of them. And use character attacks to make your audience feel ashamed to belong to a set of dupes.

The full question and response is posted on his blog: Ask Figaro


I think he hit the nail right on the head. Although some of us may have trouble with the claim that conspiracists "will have far, far more facts"- I think it's true if you consider that they don't even bother addressing rebuttals- they just move on to the next "fact" in an endless stream of filth.

 

[bje]

Good question, good response. Thanks for that, Totovader.

 

[T.A.M.]

Toto:

I think if the object of the "Debate" is to in some way win, or be victorious, than the author's advice makes sense. However, I fail to see how debating with a truther, and using as a tactic shaming him/her, making them feel bad about what they are doing, etc, is going to make you, or your arguement, look like a better one in the eyes of the viewer. If anything, you may come off as a bully, if you resort to belittling or humiliating your opponent.

My 2c

TAM

Edit: on second reading his comments, I feel he needs some clarification. The character attacks he says you should use...are these attacks on the characters/players in the theory, or the CTists character??

TAM

 

[Totovader]

Toto:

I think if the object of the "Debate" is to in some way win, or be victorious, than the author's advice makes sense. However, I fail to see how debating with a truther, and using as a tactic shaming him/her, making them feel bad about what they are doing, etc, is going to make you, or your arguement, look like a better one in the eyes of the viewer. If anything, you may come off as a bully, if you resort to belittling or humiliating your opponent.

My 2c

TAM

Edit: on second reading his comments, I feel he needs some clarification. The character attacks he says you should use...are these attacks on the characters/players in the theory, or the CTists character??

TAM

He was talking about the character of those that would believe in conspiracy theories- so possibly attacking their character directly, but I think more along the lines of "anyone who believes this nonsense is an idiot".

We see this as ad hominem- and it certainly is- so from a logic standpoint, it's bad news... but from a persuasive/rhetoric standpoint... it's effective. It's also how the conspiracists are so effective.

I certainly have trouble with this- but he's absolutely right.

 

[T.A.M.]

I agree, he is correct, he is basically saying, that yes their tactics do work wrt persuasion, and hence if our goal is to persuade, in that fashion, it may be a valid tactic, however, i think the audience you will reach with such things is not a large or important one. I still think to convince that audience, we need to do as we are doing...

TAM