the Truth about conspiracy theories: intro
what is a conspiracy theory
Classifying what exactly it is when we refer to “conspiracy theories” is harder than one might imagine. Why is it that belief in Watergate, which was undoubtedly a secret immoral plot involving many people, isn’t generally referred to as a conspiracy theory but something more nefarious but far less complicated like believing Princess Diana was assassinated and didn’t just die in a car crash considered a conspiracy theory? The answer is that in the public lexicon “conspiracy theory” has become a pejorative and those ideas which are commonly referred to as conspiracies are better be specified by David Aaronovitch’s definition of “the unnecessary assumption of conspiracy where other explanations are more probable.”
Accordingly ‘alternative histories’ may be more applicable to what we usually refer to as conspiracies. This is both because there are a great deal of conspiracies, going by the vague use of the term, that are accepted as fact and because it’s partially their fringe status that gets a claim the label ‘conspiracy theory.’ Whatever you call them these beliefs are generally said to emerge and persist due to distrust of a particular group, seeing patterns where there are none, searching for anomalies, feelings of powerlessness, poor fact checking and of course just outright fabricating some claims all of which are supported by various cognitive biases. The problem is many, if not all, of these traits exist essentially throughout the population and whether we realize it or not they support our view of the world and are especially prevalent in the areas outside our expertise where we frequently rely on mental shortcuts. One could make the argument that it’s just the right combination of these problems that make conspiracy theories different from other poorly supported beliefs but what I believe, and what I’m going to try to defend, is that none of these traits are important, what’s important is the style of arguments which renders conspiracy theories unfalsifiable.
These alternative histories, unlike their mainstream counterparts even if they are poorly supported beliefs, are invulnerable to evidence. They are what the philosopher Stephen Law likes to call “intellectual black holes” which is a rather apt analogy as once you reach a certain point of acceptance about their truth and accept the use of some of the arguments, nothing can escape. This is not to say “once a believer, always a believer” but that once someone accepts the intellectual defenses employed in conspiracism all evidence only further demonstrates the truth of the conspiracy. While it may be difficult for someone fully committed to any opinion to change their mind about the cause for events generally speaking there is some amount of evidence that could change their mind and this just isn’t the case with conspiracism.
go big or go home (or at least get off the internet)
It is this inherit unfalsifiability built into conspiracy theories of all scales which has made me come to believe debating specific details is generally futile. If you’ve ever had the misfortune of attempting to debate a thoroughly convinced believer you may realize that many think every point they make is the winning remark and that any and all evidence only further proves they are right. If someone told you they believed that the Men In Black really exist you would realize that arguing over whether or not the specific claims about seeing mysterious agents presented are factually accurate or even pointing out that those could have just been men in black suits would be fruitless. Sure a host of cognitive biases would likely be playing a role in the specific construction of such a belief system but the underlying issue, and what would prevent you from even attempting to argue the details, would be that the claim is inherently unfalsifiable (neuralyzer anyone?) and open to endless ad hoc explanations. This is why though I’ve spent time debating details in the past I now think the best way to approach such claims is by focusing on these larger structural problems.
Next Thursday I’m going to start to look at some of those arguments used by conspiracists that make conspiracy theories invulnerable to evidence and very difficult to mentally escape from with the help of some examples.
