Name for a certain conspiracy fallacy

[Jerrymander]

One thing I noticed about conspiracy theorist like Alex Jones is that they take any article in the news as proof of their conspiracy. I good example is when Jones cited this article http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6057734.stm as proof that the NWO intends to create too different species of human (one superior, the other inferior). Of course he ignores the part about it occutring naturally after the year 3000, but regardless; how is the opinion of one evolutionary biologist proof of a conspiracy?

Is their a name for this type of fallacy?

 

[arthwollipot]

One thing I noticed about conspiracy theorist like Alex Jones is that they take any article in the news as proof of their conspiracy. I good example is when Jones cited this article http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6057734.stm as proof that the NWO intends to create too different species of human (one superior, the other inferior). Of course he ignores the part about it occutring naturally after the year 3000, but regardless; how is the opinion of one evolutionary biologist proof of a conspiracy?

Is their a name for this type of fallacy?

It's called the Novella Fallacy, named after Dr. Steven Novella, who first described it. Also known as the Fallacy of Pulling **** Out Of Your Ass.

 

[FrederickEason]

Appeal to authority or appeal to popularity, either one works.

 

[jimfish]

Bed Goldacre described that exact story as a "boffins said today" article; bad science that newspapers sensationally print without question, relying upon the sole fact that an "expert" said it. So appeal to authority, I'd say.

The guy in question, Oliver Curry, got such a bashing over the article that he recanted, explaining it was just a sci-fi article to interest the viewers of Bravo.

"In the summer of 2006 I was commissioned by Bravo Television to write an essay on the future of human evolution. The essay was intended as a 'science fiction' way of illustrating some aspects of evolutionary theory. Bravo then sent out a press release on the essay, but did not release the essay itself. As a result, a wildly distorted version of what I had written ended up being reported as ‘science fact’ in the media. I do not endorse the content of these media reports."

 

[Horatius]

Bed Goldacre described that exact story as a "boffins said today" article; bad science that newspapers sensationally print without question, relying upon the sole fact that an "expert" said it. So appeal to authority, I'd say.

With the CTers though, it goes one step beyond that. They take this kind of "Boffins said today" story, and then add in the additional conspiratorial bit that, "This is what they're planning on doing!"


Essentially, any article that describes an ongoing situation, or attempts to predict how a situation may develop in the future, is re-interpreted as actually advocating for the described situation or predicted future. Thus, "Humans may evolve into two distinct branches" morphs into, "We're going to make humans evolve into two distinct branches".

I don't think there's a formal name for this Fallacy. Perhaps we could call it the Falsely Attributed Intention* fallacy?





*We need to find a word that starts with "L" to use here, because "The FAIL Fallacy" is just too good to waste!

 

[Horatius]

For a good example of what I describe above, take a look at this thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100722

In particular, the bits about "using food as a weapon" exemplify this sort of thinking perfectly.

 

[TheRedWorm]

With the CTers though, it goes one step beyond that. They take this kind of "Boffins said today" story, and then add in the additional conspiratorial bit that, "This is what they're planning on doing!"


Essentially, any article that describes an ongoing situation, or attempts to predict how a situation may develop in the future, is re-interpreted as actually advocating for the described situation or predicted future. Thus, "Humans may evolve into two distinct branches" morphs into, "We're going to make humans evolve into two distinct branches".

I don't think there's a formal name for this Fallacy. Perhaps we could call it the Falsely Attributed Intention* fallacy?





*We need to find a word that starts with "L" to use here, because "The FAIL Fallacy" is just too good to waste!

Falsely Assumed Implied Logic?

 

[Horatius]

Falsely Assumed Implied Logic?

I think we need the concept of "intention" or "advocacy" in there, as that's the heart of the matter.


"False Advocacy Implication Logic"?

 

[Erock]

Conspiracy nut logic:

If a scientist/expert/boffin/highly educated person said something to contradict the dumb conspiracy, he is a paid shill, a sheeple or an indoctrinated fool because of the "educashun conspiracy".

Conspiracy contradiction logic:

If a scientist/expert/boffin/highly educated person said something that even remotely reinforces the dumb conspiracy, he is most certainly correct.


You've gotta love that delusion.

 

[TheRedWorm]

I think we need the concept of "intention" or "advocacy" in there, as that's the heart of the matter.


"False Advocacy Implication Logic"?

I like it.

 

[JayUtah]

It's called the Novella Fallacy, named after Dr. Steven Novella, who first described it.

Could you be more specific? I don't doubt you, but in that Novella writes extensively on the taxonomy of fallacies, it's difficult to separate his discussion of fallacies identified by others and fallacies he has described originally.

Also known as the Fallacy of Pulling **** Out Of Your Ass.

Indeed Jones does that routinely.

In establishing a taxonomy of bad reasoning we often find that some fallacies are just flavors of others. We keep the distinction because in formulating the very suble distinction we give hints on how to recognize them. Circular reasoning, begging the question, and tautology are all subtle variations on the same general mistake, but each presents us with a different symptom to look for.

My point is that it's not necessary to identify which precise fallacy is at work in some particular argument. Fitting an argument into a taxonomy is not a requirement for identifying why it fails. And indeed many arguments embody several fallacies.

Here I can see an affirmed consequent. Both Jones and the quoted article say the effect will be two subspecies of human, but Jones and the article each identifies a different cause. The article says this will occur naturally as we adapt to our tools, which Jones asserts it will occur as the result of intentional NWO manipulation. Since Jones is apparently trying to substantiate the antecedent, his inversion of the inference falls into that fallacy.

I can also see a confirmation bias. One aspect of confirmation bias is the interpretation of evidence according to one's predetermined conclusion. In conspiracism this often takes the form of cherry-picking the conclusion from one's sources, but substitute for it a more sinister motive or cause. So while Jones may recognize that the article argues a natural cause for further sub-speciation among humans, he may be arguing that this is just a cover for a more sinister operation. That is, he interprets the scientist's observation as mainstream confirmation of what has secretly been going on behind closed doors.

 

[JayUtah]

[ deleted ]

 

[jaydeehess]

I think we need the concept of "intention" or "advocacy" in there, as that's the heart of the matter.


"False Advocacy Implication Logic"?

Another example that fits this description imho, is the CT attribution that PNAC paper wished for/advocated another Pearl Harbor scale attack on the USA when in fact the passage simply refers to the possibility of such an attack and its implications on future US foreign/ military policy.

 

[LSSBB]

Another example that fits this description imho, is the CT attribution that PNAC paper wished for/advocated another Pearl Harbor scale attack on the USA when in fact the passage simply refers to the possibility of such an attack and its implications on future US foreign/ military policy.

That's more the "James Bond Villain Fallacy", that the Bad Guys will spill the beans on their plans so The Hero can do him in.

 

[Courier]

I call it "Jones'ing".

 

[Triskelion]

I find it funny how Alex Jones is always telling people not to trust the mainstream media, but when he finds an article from a mainstream source, BBC, Reuters etc which could be interpreted as supporting one of his theories he seizes on it as proof of what he's been saying.

 

[arthwollipot]

Could you be more specific? I don't doubt you, but in that Novella writes extensively on the taxonomy of fallacies, it's difficult to separate his discussion of fallacies identified by others and fallacies he has described originally.

Haha. I was making a joke. As, indeed, was Novella. It was a comment he made during an SGU episode and I've been trying to juice the piglet ever since.

 

[JayUtah]

Haha. I was making a joke. As, indeed, was Novella. It was a comment he made during an SGU episode and I've been trying to juice the piglet ever since.

Wow, I need to watch more television.

 

[matt.tansy]

Wow, I need to watch more television.

Not that SGU; the other one.

 

[jaydeehess]

That's more the "James Bond Villain Fallacy", that the Bad Guys will spill the beans on their plans so The Hero can do him in.

Well, I'd say its possibly both. PNAC never does state that they wish for or advocate such an attack but the CTists claim that the fact that they even mention it is proof that they intended to cause it.

Had they actually stated that they or someone should cause such an attack in order to promote a more militaristic USA, or worse, that they planned to do so, then it would indeed be the Bond fallacy.