Reasoning and logic in the conspiracy theorism

[Estro Felino]

I somewhat grew up with conspiracy theories, as they seemed more widely accepted through my teens and college years, although after Oliver Stone's movie JFK was released, I began to notice more of a backlash against that and other conspiracy theories.

I think the JFK Assassination is something like the "Mother of all conspiracy theories," but a lot of people really did take it seriously. But then there was Vietnam, the Pentagon Papers, other revelations about the US government that showed a somewhat "darker side." Then the Watergate scandal broke. Some of the mischief of the CIA and FBI also came to light, which changed people's perceptions of our government.

At least in terms of what our government did during the Cold War, I think much of it may have been a reflection of what was already evident in society. There was a strong sense of U.S. patriotism along with anti-communism all across society, along with immense fears about potential threats to America and our way of life. This is what seems to underlie much of the nefarious activity engaged in by various government agencies, particularly the NSA, CIA, FBI, and the various organs within the military. They didn't really need to "conspire" with each other, as most of them had fervent belief in the cause they were fighting for.

Nowadays, communism is not considered the same threat as it once was, so anti-communism has gone to the back burner. But the idea of America being the "leader of the free world" and the apparent inescapable responsibility to be the world's police force and arsenal of democracy continues to be the prevailing stance of our political leadership and large segments of the US population. But over the past decades, there's been more cynicism and openly challenging of these kinds of ideas, yet they still seem to have a great deal of staying power over the masses.

One beef that I do have with most conspiracy theorists is that they often get bogged down in a lot of details and pieces of evidence, as if they're trying to build a legal case about something. Yet they seem to miss the point that this is ultimately a battle of ideas and competing philosophies. There are those who believe that America should continue to be militaristic, interventionist power, and there are those who believe that we might consider toning it down a bit.

As to where all these competing ideas come from and why some segments of the population believe one or the other, that's a fascinating topic in and of itself.

Another thing to consider, at least about some conspiracy theories, is that even if a given conspiracy theory is true, would it really change anything?

A famous conspiracy theory is the Moon Landing Hoax. Let's say someone really did come up with irrefutable proof that there really was a Moon Landing Hoax. Would it matter? Would anyone care? Oh, there might be a fuss about it, but it wouldn't be enough to trigger rioting in the streets or revolution.

I think I have received a very, very secular education.
My teachers and my professors have always taught me that logic and reasoning simplify our lives.
Cognitive bias, dogmas, preconceptions burden our lives.

So I think I have a rational mind, and I use reason and logic exclusively to judge things.
No cognitive bias, no dogmas, no preconceptions.

So, for examples as for the Kennedys, it is logic that tells me it is statistically impossible that two brothers are murdered with the same modalities, with the same weapons, by strangers who have never met them.
It is logic that tells me that the same criminal minds hired those who killed these two brothers because they probably meant to harm their own interests.
There is no other explanation.
It is a statistical calculus. Reasoning.

I am neither handicapped, nor gullible. So I will never believe that the two Kennedys were murdered by two random people.

 

[Estro Felino]

Conspiracies cause harm.
Sometimes to others, sometimes to themselves.
A friend endures great stress cuz of his belief that
the UN plans to kill most people on Earth when they
establish the 1 world government. And that's just
one belief that afflicts him. The Marxists & Muslims
vex him too.

They cause no harm.
Personally I have never believed in any moon hoax theory.
But these moon hoaxers do not affect my life.
I couldn't care less about those theories, so I will never try to debunk them. Or try to silence moon hoaxers.

 

[Revoltingest]

They cause no harm.

I just gave one example of harm to mental health.
It's the tip of the iceberg.
Another harm....
Around the globe, mass murderers are killing
because of White Replacement Theory.

 

[Estro Felino]

I just gave one example of harm to mental health.
It's the tip of the iceberg.
Another harm....
Around the globe, mass murderers are killing
because of White Replacement Theory.

That is just speculation.
In those mass shootings so many white people were killed.

By the way the conspiracy theory of Seigniorage (which is the real thing, not a theory) exclusively harms those incredibly powerful financial elites that are terrified that people can take that power, that privilege from them.

 

[Revoltingest]

That is just speculation.

By the way the conspiracy theory of Seigniorage (which is the real thing, not a theory) exclusively harms those incredibly powerful financial elites that are terrified that people can take that power, that privilege from them.

To quote someone...
"That is just speculation."

This isn't....
Buffalo shooting: how white replacement theory keeps inspiring mass murder | Jason Stanley

 

[Estro Felino]

To quote someone...
"That is just speculation."

Probably
But they cause no harm

 

[Revoltingest]

Probably
But they cause no harm

Buffalo shooting: how white replacement theory keeps inspiring mass murder | Jason Stanley

 

[Estro Felino]

Buffalo shooting: how white replacement theory keeps inspiring mass murder | Jason Stanley

I think we all agree these mass shooters are people with mental issues.
It is not the WRT who made them do it.
It was a pretext used to do it.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think we all agree these mass shooters are people with mental issues.
It is not the WRT who made them do it.
It was a pretext used to do it.

The shooter made it clear it was his motive.

 

[Estro Felino]

The shooter made it clear it was his motive.

I guess even procurators might be called conspiracy theorists. Because they investigate some things which are likely to be plots or crimes, committed by organizations or politicians.
I guess that if some procurator had had suspicions about Nine Eleven in the early 2001, he would have been called paranoid and conspiracy theorist.

I believe in the conspiracy theory that both Kennedys were murdered by order of the same criminal minds. And I am speaking of very few people.
Is this theory harmful?
I guess it might bother those who believe that the American intelligence services are all immaculate, sinless and pure and always have been.

 

[Revoltingest]

I guess even procurators might be called conspiracy theorists. Because they investigate some things which are likely to be plots or crimes, committed by organizations or politicians.
I guess that if some procurator had had suspicions about Nine Eleven in the early 2001, he would have been called paranoid and conspiracy theorist.

I believe in the conspiracy theory that both Kennedys were murdered by order of the same criminal minds. And I am speaking of very few people.
Is this theory harmful?
I guess it might bother those who believe that the American intelligence services are all immaculate, sinless and pure and always have been.

Not all conspiracy theories are harmful.
Trump's conspiracy theory of the stolen election
has so far been very costly & dangerous. Only
a few deaths so far, but there is potential for more.

 

[Estro Felino]

Not all conspiracy theories are harmful.
Trump's conspiracy theory of the stolen election
has so far been very costly & dangerous. Only
a few deaths so far, but there is potential for more.

When things are mishandled, tragedies take place.
That was atrocious and should have never happened.
But this does not mean that such things cannot happen.
Several people have been investigated, arrested and jailed for electoral fraud, here.
I guess the prosecutor was no conspiracy theorist, was he?

 

[Stevicus]

I think I have received a very, very secular education.
My teachers and my professors have always taught me that logic and reasoning simplify our lives.
Cognitive bias, dogmas, preconceptions burden our lives.

So I think I have a rational mind, and I use reason and logic exclusively to judge things.
No cognitive bias, no dogmas, no preconceptions.

So, for examples as for the Kennedys, it is logic that tells me it is statistically impossible that two brothers are murdered with the same modalities, with the same weapons, by strangers who have never met them.
It is logic that tells me that the same criminal minds hired those who killed these two brothers because they probably meant to harm their own interests.
There is no other explanation.
It is a statistical calculus. Reasoning.

I am neither handicapped, nor gullible. So I will never believe that the two Kennedys were murdered by two random people.

My grandfather always used to this about businesses: "They're in business to make money." This means that they're not necessarily as nice or friendly or generous as their public face might try to portray.

Salesmen and politicians might smile and put out the glad hand, but much of the time, it's not really sincere or genuine.

In situations like that, a conspiracy theorist might withhold their trust, being a bit wary and skeptical.

On the other hand, an anti-conspiracy theorist might claim "No! We must implicitly trust this person until we have absolute, irrefutable proof of wrongdoing! Innocent until proven guilty!"

So, who would have greater bias and preconceptions? The person who is wary and skeptical, or the one who believes in giving blind trust?

 

[Estro Felino]

My grandfather always used to this about businesses: "They're in business to make money." This means that they're not necessarily as nice or friendly or generous as their public face might try to portray.

Salesmen and politicians might smile and put out the glad hand, but much of the time, it's not really sincere or genuine.

In situations like that, a conspiracy theorist might withhold their trust, being a bit wary and skeptical.

On the other hand, an anti-conspiracy theorist might claim "No! We must implicitly trust this person until we have absolute, irrefutable proof of wrongdoing! Innocent until proven guilty!"

So, who would have greater bias and preconceptions? The person who is wary and skeptical, or the one who believes in giving blind trust?

That is a very good point.
In fact societies in the Western World are based upon mutual trust. That is how economy works the best.
The client trust their own lawyer or their own physician and so on.

But this basic trust does not mean that we should not be a bit prudent and think with our mind.
In all situations.

For example, a scientist tells me : "I can assure you that horses can fly. And you have to believe me, because I studied zoology whereas you did not", I will tell him: "well...the fact that I studied law and not biology does not imply that I cannot use my own brain to judge things. And reasoning tells me I cannot believe such an absurdity".
Closing that parenthesis, believing that the two Kennedys were killed by two random people really seems equally absurd to me.

Believing that scientists, judges or PhDs are right a priori, is a cognitive bia...in my opinion.

 

[Stevicus]

That is a very good point.
In fact societies in the Western World are based upon mutual trust. That is how economy works the best.
The client trust their own lawyer or their own physician and so on.

But this basic trust does not mean that we should not be a bit prudent and think with our mind.
In all situations.

For example, a scientist tells me : "I can assure you that horses can fly. And you have to believe me, because I studied zoology whereas you did not", I will tell him: "well...the fact that I studied law and not biology does not imply that I cannot use my own brain to judge things. And reasoning tells me I cannot believe such an absurdity".

I agree. (However, one can be a wise guy and say that horses can fly...on an airplane.)

Closing that parenthesis, believing that the two Kennedys were killed by two random people really seems equally absurd to me.

I think what strikes me is how most conspiracy theorists can speak about these events objectively and in a matter of fact tone, whereas those who oppose them sound quite emotional and angry that anyone would dare advance such a proposition. That's where most of the abusive language, condescension, and belittlement come from.

I saw this as a recurring pattern on a JFK discussion board I used to frequent, where there were rival factions of conspiracy theorists (CTers) and those who subscribe to the lone nut theory (LNers). The CTers seemed reasonable, polite, and open-minded, whereas the LNers were outright fanatics and overzealous about their stance. Their practice was to attack anyone who wasn't as equally zealous as they were.

You couldn't even put forth a relatively neutral statement giving credit to and acknowledging both sides without the LNers going ballistic. ("No! You MUST believe that Oswald acted alone without any doubt whatsoever, or else you're a tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy freak!")

That, to me, is the big giveaway, when they attack anyone who is not a true believer as some kind of heretic. This tells me that it's no longer any kind of scientific or academic discussion, as much as it's a discussion of dogma and beliefs.

It's a variation on "The Emperor's New Clothes" gambit. Anyone who can't see that the naked man is wearing a beautiful set of clothes must be some kind of idiot or crazy person.

Believing that scientists, judges or PhDs are right a priori, is a cognitive bia...in my opinion.

I respect science and the scholarly, academic achievements of others. However, some of these arguments can turn into "my scientist is better than your scientist" or something of that nature. I've heard it said that "the truth is not a democracy," but this can get a bit dicey when looking at how ideas are propagated and disseminated.

Suppose we have two scientists who disagree on something. Someone might say "Scientist A is well-respected in his profession, has had many awards and accolades for his academic achievements, whereas Scientist B is an idiot or seen as not all that competent in his field." So, the assumption here is that most reasonable people would go along with Scientist A, but there's still a possibility that Scientist B might be correct.

 

[Estro Felino]

It's a variation on "The Emperor's New Clothes" gambit. Anyone who can't see that the naked man is wearing a beautiful set of clothes must be some kind of idiot or crazy person.
.

Exactly
But the psychological implications that push people to deny a priori any plot behind the scenes (in the Kennedys murders) is identical to the psychological implications of the people in the aforementioned fable.
That is, the dogma according to which US has always been ruled by immaculate people and that, for example, LBJ is a saint and would have never done such a thing, despite the countless motives...Not to mention the holiest CIA.
That is a dogma. If you destroy that dogma of theirs, you destroy these people's certainties.

 

[Estro Felino]

Suppose we have two scientists who disagree on something. Someone might say "Scientist A is well-respected in his profession, has had many awards and accolades for his academic achievements, whereas Scientist B is an idiot or seen as not all that competent in his field." So, the assumption here is that most reasonable people would go along with Scientist A, but there's still a possibility that Scientist B might be correct.

That is inevitable. But this is a very positive thing: the fact that two scientists disagree is extraordinarily positive, because it means that, if one doubt the thesis of the other, science is not based upon dogma.
But is based upon debate. And upon verification. Without verification, there is no science, since a theory must be verified empirically before being accepted.
Maybe, if these two scientists debated, they would find a compromise, a middle way. Something they can agree on.

 

[Stevicus]

Exactly
But the psychological implications that push people to deny a priori any plot behind the scenes (in the Kennedys murders) is identical to the psychological implications of the people in the aforementioned fable.
That is, the dogma according to which US has always been ruled by immaculate people and that, for example, LBJ is a saint and would have never done such a thing, despite the countless motives...Not to mention the holiest CIA.
That is a dogma. If you destroy that dogma of theirs, you destroy these people's certainties.

I think that when people believe in a cause so fervently, they might overlook or more easily forgive things that their leaders do. They might believe that their enemy is so diabolical, so evil, and/or so fiendish that anything that is done to defeat them is a good thing. Such an attitude also fosters the idea that anyone on our side who shows weakness or seen as "too soft" on the enemy might also be suspect, almost to the point of being associated with the enemy.

This is how many people saw JFK.

Another interesting aspect is that the 1960 presidential election was quite close, and there were some in the Nixon camp who thought the election might have been "stolen" (sounds familiar). There were those who believe that if Nixon had been elected, the Bay of Pigs would have succeeded, Castro would have been out, and there would have been no Cuban Missile Crisis. So, I can see where someone who so fervently believes in the cause of anti-communism would view Kennedy as a weak link and possibly even dangerous to the American way of life. But it clearly shows that there is most certainly a kind of dogma being adhered to.

LBJ was kind of the "middle ground." Even if Kennedy was unacceptable for being too soft on communism, Goldwater was equally unacceptable for going too far in the other direction. LBJ also signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and was at least appearing to give support for that cause.

But the cause of anti-communism and militaristic interventionism was starting to feel some pushback. The same generation of idealists who loved the Kennedys were starting to get fed up with all the BS associated with these greedy, warmongering right-wing blowhards.

 

[Estro Felino]

I think that when people believe in a cause so fervently, they might overlook or more easily forgive things that their leaders do. They might believe that their enemy is so diabolical, so evil, and/or so fiendish that anything that is done to defeat them is a good thing. Such an attitude also fosters the idea that anyone on our side who shows weakness or seen as "too soft" on the enemy might also be suspect, almost to the point of being associated with the enemy.

This is how many people saw JFK.

Another interesting aspect is that the 1960 presidential election was quite close, and there were some in the Nixon camp who thought the election might have been "stolen" (sounds familiar). There were those who believe that if Nixon had been elected, the Bay of Pigs would have succeeded, Castro would have been out, and there would have been no Cuban Missile Crisis. So, I can see where someone who so fervently believes in the cause of anti-communism would view Kennedy as a weak link and possibly even dangerous to the American way of life. But it clearly shows that there is most certainly a kind of dogma being adhered to.

LBJ was kind of the "middle ground." Even if Kennedy was unacceptable for being too soft on communism, Goldwater was equally unacceptable for going too far in the other direction. LBJ also signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and was at least appearing to give support for that cause.

But the cause of anti-communism and militaristic interventionism was starting to feel some pushback. The same generation of idealists who loved the Kennedys were starting to get fed up with all the BS associated with these greedy, warmongering right-wing blowhards.

I am one of those idealists who love the Kennedys.

In the sixties it was sufficient to mention the word Communism to demonize and destroy someone's reputation.
Even if, according to the mainstream narrative, it is a USSR sympathizer who shot at JFK.
Even if he has always said "I am just the patsy".

 

[Estro Felino]

I would like to give you another example, @Stevicus
It is about a cold case in Italy. A sixty-three year old woman disappeared in December 2021 and in January 2022, she was found, dead. Her body was found inside two big black bags (the garbage bags janitors and gardeners use). And her head was inside two nylon bags, so she probably died from asphyxia.

After several months of investigations, there has been around the rumor that the procurator wants to dismiss the case as suicide. I am shocked and horrified. I have been called conspiracy theorist.
Am I crazy ? Am I crazy because I think that even a child would think that it is impossible that she committed suicide?
Or maybe these geniuses believe that the woman, after committing suicide, she left her own body, took two big plastic bags and concealed the body in them.