Why don't CTers lose credibility?

[blutoski]

Another of the same-

Why are some memes so effective at parasitising human minds?

I think conspiracy theories have more going on than just memetics. In a previous thread, other members came up with suggestions for conspiracy theories' resiliancy, and I composed this:

http://www.bcskeptics.info/resources/skeptopaedia/index.cgi?key=conspiracy theories.html

 

[CFLarsen]

If I believed everything I was taught in high school, I'd believe the following:

1.) German was 1 vote away from being the official American language.

I haven't heard that one before, but...

2.) Reagan was actually killed by Hinckley and was replaced by a double to keep up appearances.

3.) Americans used bigger ammo than the Axis did in WW2 so they could load captured ammo into their small arms.

You were taught that in high school? Seriously?

4.) The Civil War was fought to end slavery.

Ehhhh...what's wrong with that? While it wasn't the only reason, slavery was definitely an important one.

5.) The Lusitania was why America got into WW1.

It certainly helped the decision. Kinda like Pearl Harbour.

6.) That the T-34 was the best tank not only of WW2 (actually true) but could still hold its own today (by "today" I mean 1994).

...depends on what it goes up against, I suppose...

 

[maurysis]

CTer credibility to selves and others

As maurysis, my name is Maury, a new member, first post, and 78 today. Re: CTers and continued credibility with each other, would like to offer a partial possible account for this behavior. One cannot 'prove' a negative (cannot prove the absence of a plot); they seem predisposed to favor pessimism in events and in people; and they are not able to cope with notion that behavior and especially that events can be random. CTer's seem determined that always there must be an explanation or a reason. These three factors seem, to me, to prevail and govern CT behavior.

Anyway, thanks for your ear to a newbie. I've admired James Randi and enjoyed his efforts for many years. I'm enamored by new discoveries and knowlege; very disappointed by misuses of science in making political policies. More another time. Sincerely, Maury&Dog

 

[CFLarsen]

"Why don't CTers lose credibility?"

A better question may ask why they don't lose their credulity!

...maybe they should start with losing their virginity...

 

[brodski]

...maybe they should start with losing their virginity...

In which case they're into the wrong kind of woo, they would probably do better getting into horoscopes, tarot and aromatherapy. They're more likely to meet (and possibly impress) women that way.

 

[Anacoluthon64]

Apart from many of the excellent suggestions regarding the reasons for, and motivations behind, CTists' rabid defence of the untenable, I think that there's also some of the same substance at play that underpins religious beliefs in supernatural entities. Even though it may seem as if we are in control of our lives, there are mysterious and/or incomprehensible forces at work that actually rule us. Many of us seem to require the perverse "comfort" of "knowing" that there are aspects of our lives that we cannot "reasonably" be held accountable for. Children, especially younger ones, often exhibit the same basic behaviour pattern when trying to evade blame for wrongdoings through various means, usually by inventing a perpetrator.

For CTists, it is the (sometimes unnamed, sometimes favourite opponent) "they" who are the point of focus in this regard. "They" are surreptitiously superhuman and exert a great deal of influence over everyone's life, apart from being able to manipulate minds, perceptions and facts clandestinely. It's always a whole lot easier to find a fuzzy and convenient scapegoat outside ourselves than to face up to the fact that we're hardly perfect and that our good intentions on their own are rarely sufficient, and we all need to pass through the filter of our own approval. More than that, it's perhaps a distant outgrowth from the obvious survival advantage of seeing a tiger in the bush who isn't there over not seeing one who is.

'Luthon64

 

[Mojo]

See! National Geographic is the head of the media conspiracy!

This is one of the important points about conpiracy theroies: if people start from the assumption that there is a conspiracy, then however much evidence is presented showing that they are wrong, they can just dismiss it as being part of the conspiracy, or even claim that it is evidence for the conspiracy ("what are the chances that someone would be in precisely the right place to take that piece of film?" - they currently seem to be doing this with the Naudet brothers).

 

[Anacoluthon64]

In which case they're into the wrong kind of woo,
...snip...

which might be called an "immaculate misconception," perhaps? If so, losing their virginity would then turn it into "tainted twaddle"...

'Luthon64

 

[chipmunk stew]

As maurysis, my name is Maury, a new member, first post, and 78 today. Re: CTers and continued credibility with each other, would like to offer a partial possible account for this behavior. One cannot 'prove' a negative (cannot prove the absence of a plot); they seem predisposed to favor pessimism in events and in people; and they are not able to cope with notion that behavior and especially that events can be random. CTer's seem determined that always there must be an explanation or a reason. These three factors seem, to me, to prevail and govern CT behavior.

Anyway, thanks for your ear to a newbie. I've admired James Randi and enjoyed his efforts for many years. I'm enamored by new discoveries and knowlege; very disappointed by misuses of science in making political policies. More another time. Sincerely, Maury&Dog

Welcome, Maury (& Dog), and happy birthday. I think you've nailed it.

 

[CFLarsen]

In which case they're into the wrong kind of woo, they would probably do better getting into horoscopes, tarot and aromatherapy. They're more likely to meet (and possibly impress) women that way.

Perhaps....perhaps...

 

[Polaris]

I haven't heard that one before, but...

Look it up on snopes.

You were taught that in high school? Seriously?

Yeah. By a history teacher, in the 10th grade.

Ehhhh...what's wrong with that? While it wasn't the only reason, slavery was definitely an important one.

Slavery was central to it all. It wasn't fought to end slavery, but it certainly was fought over slavery.

It certainly helped the decision. Kinda like Pearl Harbour.

Not at all. The ship was sunk in 1915. In 1916 Woodrow Wilson won on the platform, "He Kept Us Out of War". The decision to enter the War came from the Zimmerman Telegram promising Mexico the regain of the territory is lost in war with America, and the unrestricted submarine warfare policy of Hinderburn and Ludendorff - a campaign in which the Lusitania was not sunk.

...depends on what it goes up against, I suppose...

Yeah - against a technical!