Denialism and conspiracies
At the always wonderful ScienceBlogs a new blog has been added: denialism blog. It appears to cover what is a growing interest for me, deniers and conspiracy theorists. one of their first posts is about general conspiracy mongering and the sheer ridiculousness of their propositions.
Almost every denialist argument will eventually devolve into a conspiracy. This is because denialist theories that oppose well-established science eventually need to assert deception on the part of their opponents to explain things like why every reputable scientist, journal, and opponent seems to be able to operate from the same page. In the crank mind, it isn’t because their opponents are operating from the same set of facts, it’s that all their opponents are liars (or fools) who are using the same false set of information.But how could it be possible, for instance, for every nearly every scientist in a field be working together to promote a falsehood? People who believe this is possible simply have no practical understanding of how science works as a discipline. For one, scientists don’t just publish articles that reaffirm a consensus opinion. Articles that just rehash what is already known or say “everything is the same” aren’t interesting and don’t get into good journals. Scientific journals are only interested in articles that extend knowledge, or challenge consensus (using data of course). Articles getting published in the big journals like Science or Nature are often revolutionary (and not infrequently wrong), challenge the expectations of scientists or represent some phenomenal experiment or hard work (like the human genome project). The idea that scientists would keep some kind of exceptional secret is absurd, or that, in the instance of evolution deniers, we only believe in evolution because we’ve been infiltrated by a cabal of “materialists” is even more absurd. This is not to say that real conspiracies never occur, but the assertion of a conspiracy in the absence of evidence (or by tying together weakly correlated and nonsensical data) is usually the sign of a crackpot. Belief in the Illuminati, Zionist conspiracies, 9/11 conspiracies, holocaust denial conspiracies, materialist atheist evolution conspiracies, global warming science conspiracies, UFO government conspiracies, pharmaceutical companies suppressing altie-med conspiracies, or what have you, it almost always rests upon some unnatural suspension of disbelief in the conspiracy theorist that is the sign of a truly weak mind. Hence, our graphic to denote the presence of these arguments - the tinfoil hat.
Well reasoned, realistic, I think I’ll like these guys.
I hope in the future they might extend their research into the psychology of conspiracy theorists. It’s fairly easy to point out where a conspiracy theory is flawed wrong, but it’s much harder to convince someone spouting a conspiracy theory that they’re wrong. Conspiracies are generally based upon the flimsiest of evidence and ignore stronger evidence that doesn’t support their claims. Therefore, presenting evidence to someone who didn’t base their ideas on evidence in the first place can prove to be a futile effort. In this way, conspiracy theorists are like religionists. They’re convinced of their own knowledge, even if it’s based more on faith than on evidence, and they proselytize it with great arrogance.
To me, arrogance is one of the great hallmarks of denialists and conspiracy theorists. They claim to be in possession of greater knowledge than those who are experts in their fields. Fields in which the conspiracy has little or no knowledge of. In the search for knowledge, humility and doubt is our greatest asset. It is impossible for any one person to have all knowledge about every subject, therefore we must appeal to appropriate experts in their fields in order to discover knowledge which is outside of our own expertise.
Denialists think they know more than everyone else, or that everyone else is part of this grand conspiracy trying to cover up the truth, which is why I admire the quote chosen to begin the above mentioned post. “Three can keep a secret if two are dead.”
-Benjamin Franklin
I imagine that people grab on to conspiracy theories because it makes people feel special. What if you did indeed have access to some special knowledge that the majority doesn’t know about? It can certainly promote a feeling of being part of a special club of which only a few are privy too. Unfortunately, when the evidence is not on your side, it’s a club of fantasy.
I hope that this blog might bring some insights into denialist thinking, and maybe new ways of persuading those who promote conspiracies.
What I find most interesting about this is the fact that people are too naive to cosider the possibility that the media might be biased in its presentation of facts about a murder case or 9/11. It doesnt mean they are, but why would the local paper be any more credible than a person who thinks outside the square and likes to point out inconsistencies in what he sees in his life around him. Noone knows the answer to anything that has happened, except for the people involved and that were there in the first place.
What people can do however is ask questions and analyse the answers they get with what they see and what they read. After all this, all they can then do is point out things that may make sense and things that dont. They cant however play fill in the gaps to suit themselves. This is wrong.
We have to admit however and not deny the fact that many things don’t always fit into our square way of thinking sometimes and we cant accept the conclusion that some journalist we dont even know may have concluded before his midnight deadline to fill in page 17 in the local paper. The media doesnt only present facts, it too, fills in the gaps by suggesting its own reasoning and shaping peoples minds by omitting other facts.
Anyone who thinks for themselves is labelled a conspiracist these days by a people with a collective conciousness shaped by people who cant think for themselves.
These are the same people who are lied to every day by the leaders of our world and then they vote them back in. This is the real denial to face the reality of whats happening to you and around you rather than you filling in the gaps to make your life seem better than it really is.
Jim
May 14th, 2007
10:42 pm
Doubt indeed is an essential part of the process to get to the truth, but doubting everything becomes unproductive. We have to base our decisions on the best information we have available, despite the possibility of it being flawed.
However, doubting the veracity of any story from the media, simply because it’s from the media is an unproductive approach. Yes, some reporters have biases, yes so do some media companies, but the the reports themselves have to be weighed on the accuracy of the individual stories. Dismissing an entire profession because of the corruption or incompetence of some is a form of bigotry. Thinking for yourself is something I find one of the highest virtues, but thinking for yourself doesn’t mean you get your own facts. When a line of thinking takes you beyond the appearance of anything connected to reality, that’s a sign that the world you’re living in a world of fantasy.
“Might’ves” “could haves” and “maybes” shouldn’t have a greater impact on your reasoning on the actual facts we have available. If the facts don’t agree with your conclusions. It’s more likely that your conclusions are wrong than are the facts.
Shinka
May 15th, 2007
2:26 pm
So if you question the status quo, you have a “weak mind”, you are “arrogant”, you’re a “religionist”, you’re a “conspiracist”. A clue to the reason for these Ad Hominem Abusives might be this: “we must depend upon the experts”. Thinking for oneself: not encouraged. Or perhaps, “The status quo must be protected, it cannot withstand the assault”.
One suspects that the principles logic and rational thought just might have escaped these scientism sycophants. Even the misuse of the word “facts” points to ignorance of the First Principles. People who claim rationalism should at least find out what it is…instead thinking they already know.
Clumping all of the entities together as common groups of conspiracies is a beginners error, guilt by association. Just the action of such a grouping flashes the “novice” warning. And the word “denier”, now a pejorative, is applied broad-brush to all outside the coterie of believers in the “facts”(sic). Good job.
Stan Stephens
November 16th, 2007
6:47 pm
No, questioning the status quo doesn’t mean you have a weak mind, are arrogant or a religionist. I didn’t write anything of the sort.
Shinka
November 16th, 2007
7:45 pm