Merged How does the Skeptic Community (tm) define what is a Conspiracy Theory?

[JJM 777]

Inspired by this comment elsewhere:

CT is thataway =======>

I understand that "conspiracy theories" is a vaguely recognizable genre in written communication. One that would be nice to label with warning signs and put where it rightfully belongs -- the trashbin, that is.

However, I don't feel comfortable with the culture of semi-automatically labelling stuff as "conspiracy theories (tm)" just because they doubt information published by the government of a Trusted Country (tm).

(We all have a list of Trusted Countries (tm). I hope these lists coincide.)

Doubting something is at the core of skepticism.

 

[Jango]

Perhaps a consensus definition will shed light on why so many skeptics loathe anyone who dares ask what really happened in any given crime let alone have ideas or opinions of their own to share. It may also explain why skeptics don't hate the police, who mind you, make a career out of the WhoDunIt? Just-Asking-Questions variety.

Hopefully, a thoughtful and concise definition can be forged, I just hope that nuance be attributed where necessary e.g. the obvious separation between theorizing with facts and educated speculation in contrast to a severely mentally ill person who swears that there are big bright red spiders crawling all over the place that no one else can see but him while also being in contrast to propaganda, whether domestic or foreign e.g. the Soviet Union originated lies that the C.I.A. had killed President Kennedy and that they had also created AIDS/HIV to kill the black and gay communities.

 

[MikeG]

..... why so many skeptics loathe anyone who dares ask what really happened in any given crime........

This is a fact, is it?

 

[Jango]

This is a fact, is it?

Yes, many of them in the conspiracies and conspiracy theories section are as I described. Their skepticism in these sections are directed almost exclusively on conspiracy theorists and not on what the CT's routinely mention e.g. the government, powerful businesses and industries, the interests of the elites I.e. people, institutions and ideologies worthy of skepticism whenever they bark out claims - call it 'fact checking'. That is rarely ever done on the so-called skeptic side of things in these sections.

 

[Aepervius]

For me it is simple.

CT = belief in an illegal act done by a group of folk, where there is no public evidence of such, or even contrary to evidence of that. Usually CT is about government types doing shadowy stuff, but where there is no evidence (or so flimsy as to be risible). I only use CT as a derogatory term.

As such, 9/11==government termite and explosive is a CT, timelord and lizard men is a CT. Chemtrail is a CT. UFO in alien in area 51 is a CT. Fluoride in water is mind control or whatnot is a CT. Etc...

On the other hand that the US government intentionally left black people contaminated with syphilis while there was a cure just to check how the illness evolved is not a CT, as there is evidence for it. Swedish government sterilizing mentally disabled people is not a CT as there are evidence for it. Holocaust systematic killing of jews, disabled, handicapped, roma, homosexuals, and resistant is not a CT we have plenty of evidence for it. 9/11 people making a plan to fly planes into a building is a conspiracy of people but not a conspiracy theory.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Perhaps a consensus definition will shed light on why so many skeptics loathe anyone who dares ask what really happened in any given crime let alone have ideas or opinions of their own to share. It may also explain why skeptics don't hate the police, who mind you, make a career out of the WhoDunIt? Just-Asking-Questions variety.

Yes, many of them in the conspiracies and conspiracy theories section are as I described. Their skepticism in these sections are directed almost exclusively on conspiracy theorists and not on what the CT's routinely mention e.g. the government, powerful businesses and industries, the interests of the elites I.e. people, institutions and ideologies worthy of skepticism whenever they bark out claims - call it 'fact checking'. That is rarely ever done on the so-called skeptic side of things in these sections.

To show how this is not a strawman, perhaps you could quote members' posts demonstrating

• Skeptics displaying loathing of anyone asking what really happened.
• Skeptics expressing uncritical love of the police (of any country).
• Skeptics who don't have their own ideas but instead mindlessly parrot what they have read elsewhere.
• Uncritical admiration of governments and other elites.

This would go a long way to making these claims credible.

 

[Nick Terry]

For me it is simple.

CT = belief in an illegal act done by a group of folk, where there is no public evidence of such, or even contrary to evidence of that. Usually CT is about government types doing shadowy stuff, but where there is no evidence (or so flimsy as to be risible). I only use CT as a derogatory term.

As such, 9/11==government termite and explosive is a CT, timelord and lizard men is a CT. Chemtrail is a CT. UFO in alien in area 51 is a CT. Fluoride in water is mind control or whatnot is a CT. Etc...

On the other hand that the US government intentionally left black people contaminated with syphilis while there was a cure just to check how the illness evolved is not a CT, as there is evidence for it. Swedish government sterilizing mentally disabled people is not a CT as there are evidence for it. Holocaust systematic killing of jews, disabled, handicapped, roma, homosexuals, and resistant is not a CT we have plenty of evidence for it. 9/11 people making a plan to fly planes into a building is a conspiracy of people but not a conspiracy theory.

One could quibble with the precise wording, but this post captures the most crucial distinction between a conspiracy and a conspiracy theory: the latter form of claim lacks sufficient direct evidence to be considered proven. That is why the word 'theory' is attached to it, used in the colloquial sense of 'unproven claim' rather than in the scientific sense.

 

[abaddon]

Inspired by this comment elsewhere:


I understand that "conspiracy theories" is a vaguely recognizable genre in written communication. One that would be nice to label with warning signs and put where it rightfully belongs -- the trashbin, that is.

However, I don't feel comfortable with the culture of semi-automatically labelling stuff as "conspiracy theories (tm)" just because they doubt information published by the government of a Trusted Country (tm).

(We all have a list of Trusted Countries (tm). I hope these lists coincide.)

Doubting something is at the core of skepticism.

As simply as the point can be met, the suggested "skeptic community" is not a body corporate, has no cohesive global strategy and simply responds to crank theories that are wheeled out by cranks.

By and large, skeptics are not going out and seeking controversy. It is entirely the remit of woomeisters to do that. When confronted with the woo claim that somebody experienced the presence of the masters on the fifth dimension should one not be skeptical? And before the inevitable claim that nobody makes such crackpot claims, please. Pretty much all the cranks do.

Do you want evidence? Sure. Not a problem. I will present it right after you paint yourself into a corner.

 

[JayUtah]

Perhaps a consensus definition will shed light on why so many skeptics loathe anyone who dares ask what really happened in any given crime...

Without exception a conspiracy theory follows a two-stage process. The first stage applies one standard of proof (generally an arbitrary one) to the conventional narrative in order to dismiss it as categorically, irretrievably non-credible. The second stage applies a much lower standard of proof, and generally an indirect methodology, toward any of several alternate narratives with the goal of showing them merely to be plausible -- not that they actually happened. This one-sided method practically ensures presupposing that what "really happened" cannot possibly be what the prevailing explanation states. It is that preconception that separates conspiracy theorists from investigators.

It may also explain why skeptics don't hate the police, who mind you, make a career out of the WhoDunIt? Just-Asking-Questions variety.

No, I don't agree that police and conspiracy theorists do the same thing.

 

[JayUtah]

Yes, many of them in the conspiracies and conspiracy theories section are as I described. Their skepticism in these sections are directed almost exclusively on conspiracy theorists...

Because that's what this section is about. You have no idea what members of this forum do outside the confines of what is written here.

...what the CT's routinely mention e.g. the government, powerful businesses and industries, the interests of the elites...

Conspiracy theorists routinely mention these and similar topics. However, the mere existence of them doesn't connect them via evidence to the various plots and transgressions laid at their feet by people generally unable to support them with evidence. Complain all you want about fact-checking. If no facts show that Evil Group X had anything to do with Horrible Event 23 or Hypothetical Secret Plan Omicron, then continuing to suppose so is irrational.

 

[Loss Leader]

For me it is simple.

CT = belief in an illegal act done by a group of folk, where there is no public evidence of such, or even contrary to evidence of that. Usually CT is about government types doing shadowy stuff, but where there is no evidence (or so flimsy as to be risible).

I would add that a CT persists even in the face of contradictory evidence.

It really doesn't matter what evidence is put forth, because the conspiracist will always find a way to dismiss it.

 

[Beerina]

I would add that a CT persists even in the face of contradictory evidence.

It really doesn't matter what evidence is put forth, because the conspiracist will always find a way to dismiss it.

This is pretty much it. It is a fuzzy line to be sure, but CTs tend to try to explain away things, often in clumsy ways, to maintain the possibility of it being true.

One primary example is in the 9/11 CTs where the twin tower planes were portrayed as fake passenger jets but as actually something else painted to look like them.

But at the Pentagon, it was a missile (because of no good film to show it was a plane, they can get away with it, while they cannot with the towers.) Yet those perpetrating the conspiracy had no reason to believe the Pentagon hit wouldn't be filmed by multiple civilians or other cameras, and so would have used another painted plane, not a missile, which would have instantly given away the game.

This kind of compounded silliness is a hallmark of CTs.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

As simply as the point can be met, the suggested "skeptic community" is not a body corporate,

Oh yes we are! If you were a bona fide member of the Skeptic Community^TM you would know that.

And why do we dismiss every conspiracy theory out of hand? Because we are in on it! 9/11, JFK, Moon landings, Australia. We don't need any theories because we know for a fact that they are all conspiracies!

 

[Bubba]

In some cases a so called skeptic (SCS) will quickly define something as a conspiracy theory (CT) by measuring it against what they are told by an authority figure (AF) from a belief system (BS) or information cult (IC) in which the SCS has faith at the time.

In other cases an actual skeptic (AS) may apply actual critical thinking (ACT) before concluding they may never know what happened because they see that a corrupted information delivery system (CIDS) can be used by a BS IC AF as a public deception system (PDS) to deliver mass perception control (MPC) ie mind control (MC) by those in power corrupted by power (TIPCBP).

When confronted with multiple major IC BS AF via numerous official sounding CIDS AFs, an AS may perceive how widespread MPC/MC is as delivered by TIPCBP via their several major PDS agencies.

 

[Tomtomkent]

If you were an Actual Sceptic, rather than an Actual Supposed Sceptic, would you not provide provable and testable evidence that "mind control" and "public deception" were both systematic and intended? Prove that the information was intentionally and knowingly false rather than just wrong?


Otherwise... Deciding that any evidence counter to a claim is false, pretty much proves the critics of CTs right...

 

[JayUtah]

(SCS) ... (CT) ... (AF) ... (BS) ... (IC) ... SCS

(AS) ... (ACT) ... (CIDS) ...BS IC AF ... (PDS) ... (MPC) ... (MC) ... (TIPCBP).

... IC BS AF ... CIDS AFs, an AS ... MPC/MC ... TIPCBP ... PDS .

Was all that abbreviation supposed to result in a cogent point? Or in some connection to reality?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

For me it is simple.

CT = belief in an illegal act done by a group of folk, where there is no public evidence of such, or even contrary to evidence of that. Usually CT is about government types doing shadowy stuff, but where there is no evidence (or so flimsy as to be risible). I only use CT as a derogatory term.

The mission of a CTer is to attack a person or group. They'll make up anything that advances that goal. This is why they are impervious to logic and willing to ignore any fatal flaw in their "theory". They just want to get the attacks out there in the hope that they will damage the target(s) in some fashion.

I distinguish between CTers and misinformed people who haven't heard any other version of the events in question. I don't give them much slack if they haven't tried to learn more than just the CTer's garbage.

 

[Aepervius]

The mission of a CTer is to attack a person or group. They'll make up anything that advances that goal. This is why they are impervious to logic and willing to ignore any fatal flaw in their "theory". They just want to get the attacks out there in the hope that they will damage the target(s) in some fashion.

I distinguish between CTers and misinformed people who haven't heard any other version of the events in question. I don't give them much slack if they haven't tried to learn more than just the CTer's garbage.

You are right, I forgot CT not involving government like the protocol of the elder of zion or whatever it was called as an example. Damaging a group by aspersion, and ignoring contrary evidence are fine addition to the definition.

 

[Jango]

Because that's what this section is about. You have no idea what members of this forum do outside the confines of what is written here.

You're right, I don't know what they do outside of this section of the forum, but that is irrelevant to their behavior in this section.

Conspiracy theorists routinely mention these and similar topics. However, the mere existence of them doesn't connect them via evidence to the various plots and transgressions laid at their feet by people generally unable to support them with evidence. Complain all you want about fact-checking. If no facts show that Evil Group X had anything to do with Horrible Event 23 or Hypothetical Secret Plan Omicron, then continuing to suppose so is irrational.

Yes, because every nefarious or illegal thing ever done by the enormously powerful have all been neatly documented for public scrutiny...

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Yes, because every nefarious or illegal thing ever done by the enormously powerful have all been neatly documented for public scrutiny...

And it is in the shadows of this admitted absence of evidence that conspiracy theories are born.