Conspiracy Theories: Why Believe?

[Estro Felino]

I think it should be noted, at least in terms of the evidence which may be used to support or refute a given position, is that (in most of these situations) few people are actually qualified to evaluate the evidence, and even fewer people actually have physical access to it to be able to examine it firsthand.

Take, for example, the fake moon landing conspiracy. Personally, I had nothing to do with the moon landings. I wasn't there, so I have no personal knowledge of it either way. Like most everyone else at the time, I saw them on TV and believed what I was seeing. I had no reason to believe that it was faked.

About a decade later, I heard about the conspiracy theory that the Moon landings were faked. I didn't really believe that it was faked, but I thought "well, maybe it's possible" and left in the realm of minor mystery. There wasn't anything I could personally do about it, and it didn't seem to affect my life one way or the other.

I didn't really have any personal stake in going out of my way to disprove any conspiracy theory, nor did I take offense at it, nor did I raise alarm bells about the fact that someone believes something that might not be true.

That's the other side of conspiracy theories that seems even more outlandish, when people act like the sky is falling because someone believes NASA faked the moon landings. It's not the end of the world, yet I've encountered a number of people who take great umbrage at the very idea. That's what I could never understand. Why make such a big deal over it?

I can relate.
I give you an example.
Many (in Europe and in the US) believe that aliens exist, that they have been visiting our planet, and that the US does anything to cover all this up.

Personally, I have never believed in aliens' existence.
And I couldn't care less if some people do. Or worse, they believe in a cover-up.
Because my life does not depend on this matter.

Other people do care. They want to stop you from believing in certain theories. But actually some of them are facts. Not theories.

 

[Estro Felino]

I don't recall when I first actually encountered the term "conspiracy theorist," although probably it was late 1980s or early 90s. However, I've seen allegations of conspiracies be brought forth from both sides of the political spectrum.

Surely.
We have spoken about the Kennedy case, and there are surely many leftists who believe both Kennedys were victims of the same plot.

I am a rational person
I cannot believe in absurd stories. And I find absurd to believe that JFK was killed by one person only, since my eyes can see (my sight is 10/10) and in that footage I see JFK hit from two opposite directions.

 

[Revoltingest]

We use just one word that sums up the expression conspiracy theorist.
And this word comes from plot which is a synonym of conspiracy.

But yes...it is used by leftists 24/7, to diss rightists.

Everyone finds their own conspiracy theories cromulent.
Only the other side's are loopy.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think it should be noted, at least in terms of the evidence which may be used to support or refute a given position, is that (in most of these situations) few people are actually qualified to evaluate the evidence, and even fewer people actually have physical access to it to be able to examine it firsthand.

Take, for example, the fake moon landing conspiracy. Personally, I had nothing to do with the moon landings. I wasn't there, so I have no personal knowledge of it either way. Like most everyone else at the time, I saw them on TV and believed what I was seeing. I had no reason to believe that it was faked.

About a decade later, I heard about the conspiracy theory that the Moon landings were faked. I didn't really believe that it was faked, but I thought "well, maybe it's possible" and left in the realm of minor mystery. There wasn't anything I could personally do about it, and it didn't seem to affect my life one way or the other.

I didn't really have any personal stake in going out of my way to disprove any conspiracy theory, nor did I take offense at it, nor did I raise alarm bells about the fact that someone believes something that might not be true.

That's the other side of conspiracy theories that seems even more outlandish, when people act like the sky is falling because someone believes NASA faked the moon landings. It's not the end of the world, yet I've encountered a number of people who take great umbrage at the very idea. That's what I could never understand. Why make such a big deal over it?

When bogus info is rampant, science education is inadequate,
critical reasoning is uncommon, & experience in relevant
industries is lacking, anything can be believed.

I'm glad I worked in aerospace & transportation.
Such fields can ground one in reality.

 

[Stevicus]

I can relate.
I give you an example.
Many (in Europe and in the US) believe that aliens exist, that they have been visiting our planet, and that the US does anything to cover all this up.

Personally, I have never believed in aliens' existence.
And I couldn't care less if some people do. Or worse, they believe in a cover-up.
Because my life does not depend on this matter.

Other people do care. They want to stop you from believing in certain theories. But actually some of them are facts. Not theories.

Surely.
We have spoken about the Kennedy case, and there are surely many leftists who believe both Kennedys were victims of the same plot.

I am a rational person
I cannot believe in absurd stories. And I find absurd to believe that JFK was killed by one person only, since my eyes can see (my sight is 10/10) and in that footage I see JFK hit from two opposite directions.

I remember when I was posting on a JFK board, which basically had two factions - the conspiracy theorists (CTers) and the lone nut theorists (LNers). My impression was that the LNers were far more intolerant of dissent than the CTers. I remember saying something to the effect that "it's a mystery which may not ever be solved," and a couple of LNers jumped all over that. Anyone who didn't believe with absolute, 100% certainty that Oswald acted alone was treated like some kind of enemy, lambasted as some paranoid loon who wears tinfoil hats.

I had to wonder: Why be that way? Even if people disagree over something, there's no reason to bring personalities into it or get all worked up over it.

 

[Estro Felino]

I had to wonder: Why be that way? Even if people disagree over something, there's no reason to bring personalities into it or get all worked up over it.

Because the mere idea that someone out there can jeopardize their certainties, makes them suffer.
If their balance depends on the certainty that a certain entity, they are totally devoted to, would never do something bad.

I explained it in Conspiracy deniers

 

[Stevicus]

When bogus info is rampant, science education is inadequate,
critical reasoning is uncommon, & experience in relevant
industries is lacking, anything can be believed.

I'm glad I worked in aerospace & transportation.
Such fields can ground one in reality.

Yes, but in the end, people are mostly left with second-hand information and other people's interpretations of evidence which they can't examine for themselves. Unless someone was actually there in Dallas on November 22, 1963, they're relying on other people's accounts - regardless of their personal training or job experience. Unless someone can say they personally examined the President's body, they're relying on someone else's reports.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, but in the end, people are mostly left with second-hand information and other people's interpretations of evidence which they can't examine for themselves. Unless someone was actually there in Dallas on November 22, 1963, they're relying on other people's accounts - regardless of their personal training or job experience. Unless someone can say they personally examined the President's body, they're relying on someone else's reports.

The problem of less than total information, & possibly
inaccurate information only means that certainty levels
will vary. One can still evaluate the info one has to
discern what is most likely.
Conspiracy theories are amenable to analysis of the
relevant factors....
- Number of people who must be in on it.
(More people means less likely kept secret.)
- Time duration of the conspiracy theory.
(More time means less likely kept secret.)
- Plausibility of the conspiracy theory regarding
physics & technology.
(Violating limits imposed by those makes it
less likely.)

Example...
Chemtrails are easily debunked using readily
available info from Wikipedia & other sources.
Calculating fuel capacity, flight performance, &
chemical weight shows impracticality.
Examining airplane design shows impracticality
of carrying the chemicals.
The number of people involved in the conspiracy
over great time shows impossibility of keeping
it secret.

 

[Nakosis]

On the other hand, if someone committed a crime, they can be so powerful to pay people to spread misinformation.
Suitable to holify the perpetrator.
And to label the ones who accuse him as "conspiracy theorists".
It depends on the evidence. And not on the personal opinions.

What evidence?
What evidence would you find trustworthy?

 

[Estro Felino]

What evidence?
What evidence would you find trustworthy?

In my country there are circumstantial trials.
That is...you dont need evidence when a person is not credible nor reliable.

Example. A person is missing.
She is found dead in the place X.
A recording of 2 months before shows a man did know where the body was. In the place X.
But this man says : I am innocent.

How can this man be credible or reliable?

 

[Stevicus]

Because the mere idea that someone out there can jeopardize their certainties, makes them suffer.
If their balance depends on the certainty that a certain entity, they are totally devoted to, would never do something bad.

I explained it in Conspiracy deniers

I guess when I started to learn about these things in my younger days, there was a bit more openness since the ideas of the old order were mixing and mingling with newer, more progressive ideas challenging the old order. Few people my age really cared if the government or establishment was being castigated or accused, since it was done against the backdrop of Americans wanting to become a more enlightened and progressive nation. People wanted to rein in the government and make it behave more responsibly, which is why many felt compelled to report on any alleged misbehavior by government. A vigilant citizenry is no threat to a free society.

An honest government would welcome such allegations with openness, transparency, and humility. If they're innocent and have nothing to hide, what do they have to worry about?

 

[Stevicus]

The problem of less than total information, & possibly
inaccurate information only means that certainty levels
will vary. One can still evaluate the info one has to
discern what is most likely.
Conspiracy theories are amenable to analysis of the
relevant factors....
- Number of people who must be in on it.
(More people means less likely kept secret.)
- Time duration of the conspiracy theory.
(More time means less likely kept secret.)
- Plausibility of the conspiracy theory regarding
physics & technology.
(Violating limits imposed by those makes it
less likely.)

Example...
Chemtrails are easily debunked using readily
available info from Wikipedia & other sources.
Calculating fuel capacity, flight performance, &
chemical weight shows impracticality.
Examining airplane design shows impracticality
of carrying the chemicals.
The number of people involved in the conspiracy
over great time shows impossibility of keeping
it secret.

Some conspiracy theories seem easier to debunk than others. And to be honest, I don't see that many people up in a tizzy over the fact that there are conspiracy theories about chemtrails. Q-Anon is another matter; there are some people who are really worried about that one - almost as if they're conspiracy theorists of conspiracy theorists.

Perhaps there's a conspiracy to put out all these wacky tales and wild accusations to deliberately confuse the public into becoming useful idiots for some nefarious cause. There must be some Master Conspirator somewhere who is accusing everyone else of conspiracy.

 

[Estro Felino]

I guess when I started to learn about these things in my younger days, there was a bit more openness since the ideas of the old order were mixing and mingling with newer, more progressive ideas challenging the old order. Few people my age really cared if the government or establishment was being castigated or accused, since it was done against the backdrop of Americans wanting to become a more enlightened and progressive nation. People wanted to rein in the government and make it behave more responsibly, which is why many felt compelled to report on any alleged misbehavior by government. A vigilant citizenry is no threat to a free society.

An honest government would welcome such allegations with openness, transparency, and humility. If they're innocent and have nothing to hide, what do they have to worry about?

L'État, c'est nous.
We are the state.
The goverment is "public servants".

 

[Revoltingest]

Some conspiracy theories seem easier to debunk than others. And to be honest, I don't see that many people up in a tizzy over the fact that there are conspiracy theories about chemtrails. Q-Anon is another matter; there are some people who are really worried about that one - almost as if they're conspiracy theorists of conspiracy theorists.

Perhaps there's a conspiracy to put out all these wacky tales and wild accusations to deliberately confuse the public into becoming useful idiots for some nefarious cause. There must be some Master Conspirator somewhere who is accusing everyone else of conspiracy.

Some conspiracy theories are merely harmless symptoms
of less than mature minds, eg, fake Moon landings.
But others have deleterious effects, eg, the Military Industrial
Complex in control of government & wars.....this one causes
people to accept useless wars as inevitable, & they don't
consider war mongery in candidates when voting...if they
vote at all.

 

[Revoltingest]

L'État, c'est nous.
We are the state.
The goverment is "public servants".

The state also has its own separate agendas,
which aren't always about serving the people,
eg, political parties staying in power by any
means necessary.

 

[Estro Felino]

The state also has its own separate agendas,
which aren't always about serving the people,
eg, political parties staying in power by any
means necessary.

But if we say it, we are called "conspiracy theorists".

 

[Stevicus]

Some conspiracy theories are merely harmless symptoms
of less than mature minds, eg, fake Moon landings.
But others have deleterious effects, eg, the Military Industrial
Complex in control of government & wars.....this one causes
people to accept useless wars as inevitable, & they don't
consider war mongery in candidates when voting...if they
vote at all.

People who point to the Military Industrial Complex do so to call attention to government misbehavior and corruption which starts wars. It seems their obvious intention is to oppose and stop war, not start wars.

 

[Revoltingest]

But if we say it, we are called "conspiracy theorists".

There are always people who say things.
What matters is cromulent insight & accuracy.

Conspiracy theories lack explanatory power.
I see things as emergent properties of stochastic
processes....which is a fancy way of saying that
big happenings stem from uncoordinated individual
actions.

 

[Revoltingest]

People who point to the Military Industrial Complex do so to call attention to government misbehavior and corruption which starts wars. It seems their obvious intention is to oppose and stop war, not start wars.

But they invent a boogeyman, instead of addressing
a real solution, ie, vote against candidates who are
war mongers. So there's the problem of the MIC
conspiracy theory.

 

[Estro Felino]

There are always people who say things.
What matters is cromulent insight & accuracy.

Conspiracy theories lack explanatory power.
I see things as emergent properties of stochastic
processes....which is a fancy way of saying that
big happenings stem from uncoordinated individual
actions.

I do agree with that.
When clues are serious, precise and concordant, these clues become evidence. It is the penal procedure code which stated it. I didn't .