Posts by HORansome
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
One of the things I find fascinating in re Conspiracy Theories is the difference between the standard of evidence offered by the Conspiracy Theorist for their theory and demanded of the Conspiracy Skeptic by the Conspiracy Theorist; Conspiracy Theorists often only have to vaguely hint at discrepancies to 'show' that their Conspiracy Theory must be true but usually demand that their opponents conclusively prove their case. Now, the why and wherefore of this really is in the domain of the Pyschologist (rather than in the domain of the Philosopher, who will offer trite folk psychology and try to get away with it), but I think this often explains why some people think Conspiracies are everywhere; if you just need the suggestion of malevolent plotting going on in secret to then make the move to assert that whatever is happening, it's due to a Conspiracy, then the world will look quite different to those who might cite Hanlon's Razor instead.
-
Well, 3410, that's what I'm (kinda) writing my thesis on (I say 'kinda' because it's a thesis in Epistemology rather than Psychology, so some of the interesting material is outside the scope of my discipline). I think we do have a prima facie case to be suspicious of claims of Conspiracies, but working out why that is the case, and how we cope with verified cases of Conspiracies is something a lot of Conspiracy Skeptics don't seem to spend much time on.
-
Although if someone presents an argument in a wacky accent claiming they come from the Moon, surely that's fair game?
-
There is a great deal of similarity between the wacky fringe sciences and Conspiracy Theories; most fringe sciences invoke Conspiracy Theories to explain why the fringe science isn't mainstream. Usually this invocation shows that the fringe scientist does not understand peer review.
-
Kracklite:
I'd admit that there are real conspiracies, but the fact that conspiracy A exists is not in any way proof that Conspiracy B exists. A causal link has to be demonstrated, otherwise it remains only a non sequitur.
Welcome to the world of my PhD thesis. That's actually one of the central issues I'm looking into; how could you phrase and argue for such a link and what, in the end, does that actually mean for the seemingly prima facie warranted suspicion we have of Conspiracy Theories.
-
I wasn't too impressed by Voodoo Histories; I think Mark Fenster's book, Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture is a much better text because it actually offers and defends a central thesis. Aaronvitch tells a good story (I like his stuff on the Show Trials and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion) but he doesn't add anything new to the debate about Conspiracy Theories.
-
Also, I meant to endorse Giovanni's point about Occam's Razor; whoever killed Alexander Litvinenko was not thinking about the Principle of Parsimony.
-
Yes, I concur with Giovanni; to posit an explanation of an event cited a Conspiracy as its salient cause, to whit to engage in conspiracy theorising, is not, by definition, a species of fallacious reasoning, and there are lots of examples of extraordinary cases of such explanations which are warranted; the best example, I think, is what Stalin and his cronies did to manufacture the testimony of the Moscow Show Trials of the 1930s. Extraordinary story but historically verified.
Glossing over Mr. Walkers concern about 9/11, I do think its interesting just how much goalpost shifting goes on in mere Conspiracy Theorising (the kind of conspiracy theorising which makes bad inferences to the existence of Conspiracies); you posit a grand Conspiracy, your grand Conspiracy gets shown to be unlikely or even impossible, so you focus on some related matter, hoping to claw back the debate. You see this in the Intelligent Design debate; Intelligent Design advocates used to cite the eye as something too complex to evolve through the process of Natural Selection, then they used the flagellum, and so forth.
-
WTC7? Structural damage caused by the debris of the collapsed tower, exacerbated by the internal fires in WTC7 (whose sprinkler system was inactive due to the water mains being knocked out by the aforementioned collapse). Once you see the damaged side of WTC7 prior to its complete collapse the official account is very plausible indeed.
-
I'm blowing my own trumpet here, but last year Loudon and Bernard Moran wrote an article arguing that the 1984 Labour Party was run by the KGB. Here's a link to the article and my critique.