Society/Culture The 12 Steps... To spotting conspiracy theories.

[Baltimore Jack]

Do you see it?

No

Are you suggesting, in relation to JFK, the only possibility is that the official version (The Warren Commission: Oswald did it) is correct

or that the other official version (The House Select Committee on Assignations: There were probably two Shooters) is correct

In that case you can apply the above 12 step process (the scientific portions of those steps) and you don't need to look at any of the hundreds of books or videos on the subject you can read the scientifically backed and verifiably researched, two Official Versions

 

[Snake_Baker]

Excellent post Chief.

3. A Scientific Theory always examines the totality of the body of evidence within the context of any given proposition, while a Conspiracy Theory will typically “cherry pick” through the evidence, finding what supports the already pre-believed and conceived proposition and disregard evidence that goes contrary to it.

I hope the climate alarmists will take particular notice of this point.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Climate Change is currently going through exactly the same denial process as that used in the JFK Murder by the then conspirators

Don't attempt to hijack this as some sort of validation for (your) woke politics.

It equally applies to that bullshit.

 

[Chief]

Don't attempt to hijack this as some sort of validation for (your) woke politics.

It equally applies to that bullshit.

How is a JFK conspiracy theory “woke”?

 

[Snake_Baker]

Amended.

 

[Chief]

Amended.

Someday, someone somewhere will agree with you

Keep trying.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Someday, someone somewhere will agree with you

Keep trying.

I am not in the "consensus" business. However, I get that it's crucial for you.

I want people to broaden their thinking, not blindly agree.

 

[Number37]

I am not in the "consensus" business. However, I get that it's crucial for you.

I want people to broaden their thinking, not blindly agree.

Broaden their thinking to blindly agree with you because sometimes you reference science and you don't engage in party politics, except when you criticize the ABC, the left, universities, academics...

 

[Present Not Past]

7. Conspiracy Theorists often omit situational factors and chance, believing everything has deliberate intention behind it, creating imaginary links to fill in the gaps in order to make the conspiracy idea “fit” and often entertaining ideas outside the realm of logical deduction in order to do so.

Flight 77 on 9/11 is a classic example of this (the one that crashed into the Pentagon).
As there is no video footage of the aircraft hitting the Pentagon that we can view - it can't have happened.
Don't concern yourself with the eyewitnesses, the plane's debris, the dead bodies, the missing persons or the grieving relatives.
It didn't happen.
And if Flight 77 doesn't exist, then all of the day's events can then be questioned.

 

[Seeds]

Think you missed some Steps.

conspiracy theorists all seem to be pro Russian despite constantly complaining about individual rights abuses.

conspiracy theorists are as anti war as you can get whilst often supporting violent crackdowns by dictators on their own people.

 

[Seeds]

I could only 7

1. Bill Clinton
2. Hilary Clinton
3. Malcolm Turnbull
4. Sarah Hanson Young
5. Unions
6. ABC
7. Millennials

How old are you?

 

[ABSOLUTE MADMAN]

TWELVE STEPS ON HOW TO DISTINGUISH AN ACADEMIC THEORY FROM A CONSPIRACY THEORY by James D. Rietveld and his daughter Kristina V. Rietveld

Originally my daughter and I posted this in August of 2016--this figures in her academic field as well (Communications), but with all the CONSPIRACY THEORIES going on as related to the CORONA VIRUS I've seen on Facebook and other places, this information is relevant again. Obviously, I am not doubting the legitimacy of the Virus itself or what it is doing, but I see many additional "spins" that are the product of conspiratorial thinking!

I am teaching a course on Conspiracy Theories as related to the Social Sciences in the Fall at Cal Poly Pomona.

So let's get started:

1. A Scientific Theory can be proven false, while a Conspiracy Theory can become more elaborate to accommodate new observations and so is difficult to disprove, morphing so as to circumvent possible challenges to the legitimacy of the theory.

2. A Scientific Theory is not necessarily based upon a distrust of authority, while a Conspiracy Theory often has the distrust of authority and expert opinion at its central root. “Expert opinion" here is defined as opinions as expressed by government studies, academic research, and privatized think-tanks. They avoid evidence that goes through any legitimate peer review process.

3. A Scientific Theory always examines the totality of the body of evidence within the context of any given proposition, while a Conspiracy Theory will typically “cherry pick” through the evidence, finding what supports the already pre-believed and conceived proposition and disregard evidence that goes contrary to it.

4. Conspiracy Theories often involve what is called a “monological belief system,” whereby any and all events can be explained by a web of interconnected conspiracies, often reflecting the individual’s personal sense of paranoia. They often operate like a web, where there is a central truth, but the Conspiracy Therapist focuses upon the interconnectedness of everything as opposed to going through a step-by-step process.

5. Scientific Theorists apply critical thinking skills and are often skeptics, while Conspiracy Theorists are NOT Skeptics but “selective doubters”, already favoring a worldview, which they uncritically defend (and so have already made up their mind of what the “truth” is, with no plans to change that part of their proposition).

6. Those who have trust issues with other people in general are more likely to believe others are colluding against them, and so are often more susceptible to Conspiracy Theories than others.

7. Conspiracy Theorists often omit situational factors and chance, believing everything has deliberate intention behind it, creating imaginary links to fill in the gaps in order to make the conspiracy idea “fit” and often entertaining ideas outside the realm of logical deduction in order to do so.

8. Those who entertain Conspiracy Theories often enjoy mystery and intrigue in general, seeking something sensational and thrilling to relieve mundane daily affairs. The fact that they know something others do not makes them feel special and important. A Conspiracy Theorist's goal is typically not the advancement of knowledge, but to shock or impress you with information that will demonstrate how intelligent they are, seeing factors that the so-called experts failed to note. At the center of those who design such theories is ego, as opposed to benefiting others.

9. The simplification of complex events to human agency and evil in Conspiracy Theories overrides not only their cumulative implausibility (which, perversely, becomes cumulative plausibility as you buy into the premise) but also, in many cases, their incompatibility. Morality is applied to Conspiracy Theories, where there is a right or a wrong.

10. Timothy Melley (Empire of Conspiracy [2000]) asserts that Conspiracy Thinking arises from a combination of two factors, when someone: a) holds strong individualist values and b) lacks a sense of control. The first attribute refers to people who care deeply about an individual's right to make their own choices and direct their own lives without interference or obligations to a larger system (like the government). But combine this with a sense of powerlessness in one's own life, and you get what Melley calls agency panic, “intense anxiety about an apparent loss of autonomy” to outside forces or regulators. Conspiracy Theorists at no point will accept fault, but will displace responsibility to factors outside of themselves.

11. Conspiracy Theorists often gravitate to “echo chambers” in which they often expect to have their own opinion parroted back at them rather than have it challenged as it would be in the academic community.

12. Conspiracy Theorists attempt to create an alternative reality, whereby they legitimize themselves and their theories by creating supportive networks that seek to displace mainstream consensus. In the age of the Internet, they will create a webpage that provides them with more credibility than they already have—but this credibility is “implied” having not undergone a peer-review process.

For a poster that has seemed pro feminist in some threads you just roasted the theory of Patriarchy.

 

[Gough]

 

[Chief]

For a poster that has seemed pro feminist in some threads you just roasted the theory of Patriarchy.

What are you talking about?

 

[Baltimore Jack]

 

[Mofra]

You-tube videos with spooky music "exposing the truth" are a fair indication that a particular theory isn't going to stand up to proper scrutiny.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

There's probably a term for it already but few conspiracy theorists seem to grasp the inverse relationship between a successful outcome (objective achieved, secrecy maintained) and the amount of people required to create that outcome. 9/11 theories in particular seem to involve hundreds of ATCs, firefighters, building maintenance staff, military personnel etc. all working together and staying quiet whereas in the real world I can't even get a team of ten people to get things done on time.

It's the problem you get when you support your theory on the perceived shortcomings of other theories; you don't actually analyse what you're suggesting happened.

 

[Frank Bunn]

There's probably a term for it already but few conspiracy theorists seem to grasp the inverse relationship between a successful outcome (objective achieved, secrecy maintained) and the amount of people required to create that outcome. 9/11 theories in particular seem to involve hundreds of ATCs, firefighters, building maintenance staff, military personnel etc. all working together and staying quiet whereas in the real world I can't even get a team of ten people to get things done on time.

It's the problem you get when you support your theory on the perceived shortcomings of other theories; you don't actually analyse what you're suggesting happened.

And sometimes there are genuine global power play conspiracies. There were a lot of people involved in perpetuating the lie that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

 

[owen87]

I particularly enjoy how CT's assume everyone but them is an idiot, that people are blind sheeple unable to see anything or understand anything.

Yet somehow 'the elites' are operating these wildly complex conspiracies, involving thousands of different people, without a single shred of factual evidence coming out.

What makes it better is that of the hundreds of CTs floating around, any single one of them being proven right e.g. Epstein automatically validates everything.

It also assumes everything is premeditated; accidentals aren't due to mistakes or stupidity, they're deliberate. People taking advantage of a situation, means they orchestrated that situation. People are geniuses playing 4D chess, but they're also sheeple.

 

[Mofra]

There's probably a term for it already but few conspiracy theorists seem to grasp the inverse relationship between a successful outcome (objective achieved, secrecy maintained) and the amount of people required to create that outcome. 9/11 theories in particular seem to involve hundreds of ATCs, firefighters, building maintenance staff, military personnel etc. all working together and staying quiet whereas in the real world I can't even get a team of ten people to get things done on time.

It's the problem you get when you support your theory on the perceived shortcomings of other theories; you don't actually analyse what you're suggesting happened.

No conspiracy theorist has ever been a project manager

 

[Chief]

 

[Chief]

Last one for lulz.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

Last one for lulz.

View attachment 874073

 

[Evolved1]

TWELVE STEPS ON HOW TO DISTINGUISH AN ACADEMIC THEORY FROM A CONSPIRACY THEORY by James D. Rietveld and his daughter Kristina V. Rietveld

Originally my daughter and I posted this in August of 2016--this figures in her academic field as well (Communications), but with all the CONSPIRACY THEORIES going on as related to the CORONA VIRUS I've seen on Facebook and other places, this information is relevant again. Obviously, I am not doubting the legitimacy of the Virus itself or what it is doing, but I see many additional "spins" that are the product of conspiratorial thinking!

I am teaching a course on Conspiracy Theories as related to the Social Sciences in the Fall at Cal Poly Pomona.

So let's get started:

1. A Scientific Theory can be proven false, while a Conspiracy Theory can become more elaborate to accommodate new observations and so is difficult to disprove, morphing so as to circumvent possible challenges to the legitimacy of the theory.

2. A Scientific Theory is not necessarily based upon a distrust of authority, while a Conspiracy Theory often has the distrust of authority and expert opinion at its central root. “Expert opinion" here is defined as opinions as expressed by government studies, academic research, and privatized think-tanks. They avoid evidence that goes through any legitimate peer review process.

3. A Scientific Theory always examines the totality of the body of evidence within the context of any given proposition, while a Conspiracy Theory will typically “cherry pick” through the evidence, finding what supports the already pre-believed and conceived proposition and disregard evidence that goes contrary to it.

4. Conspiracy Theories often involve what is called a “monological belief system,” whereby any and all events can be explained by a web of interconnected conspiracies, often reflecting the individual’s personal sense of paranoia. They often operate like a web, where there is a central truth, but the Conspiracy Therapist focuses upon the interconnectedness of everything as opposed to going through a step-by-step process.

5. Scientific Theorists apply critical thinking skills and are often skeptics, while Conspiracy Theorists are NOT Skeptics but “selective doubters”, already favoring a worldview, which they uncritically defend (and so have already made up their mind of what the “truth” is, with no plans to change that part of their proposition).

6. Those who have trust issues with other people in general are more likely to believe others are colluding against them, and so are often more susceptible to Conspiracy Theories than others.

7. Conspiracy Theorists often omit situational factors and chance, believing everything has deliberate intention behind it, creating imaginary links to fill in the gaps in order to make the conspiracy idea “fit” and often entertaining ideas outside the realm of logical deduction in order to do so.

8. Those who entertain Conspiracy Theories often enjoy mystery and intrigue in general, seeking something sensational and thrilling to relieve mundane daily affairs. The fact that they know something others do not makes them feel special and important. A Conspiracy Theorist's goal is typically not the advancement of knowledge, but to shock or impress you with information that will demonstrate how intelligent they are, seeing factors that the so-called experts failed to note. At the center of those who design such theories is ego, as opposed to benefiting others.

9. The simplification of complex events to human agency and evil in Conspiracy Theories overrides not only their cumulative implausibility (which, perversely, becomes cumulative plausibility as you buy into the premise) but also, in many cases, their incompatibility. Morality is applied to Conspiracy Theories, where there is a right or a wrong.

10. Timothy Melley (Empire of Conspiracy [2000]) asserts that Conspiracy Thinking arises from a combination of two factors, when someone: a) holds strong individualist values and b) lacks a sense of control. The first attribute refers to people who care deeply about an individual's right to make their own choices and direct their own lives without interference or obligations to a larger system (like the government). But combine this with a sense of powerlessness in one's own life, and you get what Melley calls agency panic, “intense anxiety about an apparent loss of autonomy” to outside forces or regulators. Conspiracy Theorists at no point will accept fault, but will displace responsibility to factors outside of themselves.

11. Conspiracy Theorists often gravitate to “echo chambers” in which they often expect to have their own opinion parroted back at them rather than have it challenged as it would be in the academic community.

12. Conspiracy Theorists attempt to create an alternative reality, whereby they legitimize themselves and their theories by creating supportive networks that seek to displace mainstream consensus. In the age of the Internet, they will create a webpage that provides them with more credibility than they already have—but this credibility is “implied” having not undergone a peer-review process.

If you replace conspiracy theory with religion, the points are even more accurate. With the regular conspiracy theories, we at least know that some of them have proven to be true. With religion, none of their gods have ever been proven true.

Do I believe that 5G towers cause COVID-19? Of course not...but is that any less probable than a magic man who lives in the sky and watches while we s**t?

Is religion the ultimate wackjob conspiracy theory? I say yes.

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

View attachment 874116

I couldn't even speak at 3.