Talk:Conspiracy theory/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Conspiracy theorists often argue that such allegations are difficult to prove or to disseminate because the conspiracy control the media or other sources of information, and has suppressed most or all evidence of the plan or their involvement in it. Sometimes they allege that the conspiracy extends to silencing or killing anyone who "knows too much", as with the Men in Black.

"often argue" interests me - in light of the comment by Hieronymous above that this is a rare allegation. Do we have any sources, or statements from conspiracy theory groups, or research conducted into conspiracy theories? Could we have? Martin 14:06 17 May 2003 (UTC)

Often, what are commonly called "conspiracy theories" are employed by people who would like to believe some conclusion but have little if any evidence for it. They therefore refer to a supposed conspiracy to justify both their conclusion and the fact that they cannot support it with evidence—which, naturally, the conspirators are actively concealing. Such theories cannot be falsified; a conspiracy theorist takes lack of evidence for their theory, or even evidence that directly contradicts their theory, to mean that an extremely powerful conspiracy has either suppressed or fabricated the evidence in question. Some would argue that lack of falsifiability is a difference between a conspiracy theory and a scientific theory;

I'm impressed at the way Wikipedia knows what's going on inside other people's heads. This needs attribution to a named advocate. Like Hieronymous above, I'm skeptical that people would argue that absence of evidence is evidence of presence, without sources. Martin 14:06 17 May 2003 (UTC)

Of course, not all allegations of conspiracy are false; conspiracies have historically occurred and are likely to happen again. However, many conspiracy theories allege vast shadow influences, and are often mutually exclusive, or un-falsifiable. Believers in such all-encompassing theories would probably agree that competing theories are false -- it is theirs that is correct. A similar logic is used by fundamentalist religious groups and cults.

This para makes the point about falsifiability a third time, just in case we didn't get it the first two. I'm also suspicious of "would probably agree", which smacks of speculation rather than knowledge. Martin 14:06 17 May 2003 (UTC)

To whomever made the edits in response to my previous comments, thank you, I think the page is much more balanced now. I did add a little bit to the new falsifiability argument, which I think presents the situation fairly. BTW, I did not intend to post anonymously before. Since I was logged in, I thought my identity would automatically be noted. I'm still learning the ropes of this system. Hieronymous.

PS. I want to make a point about this statement.

Believers in such all-encompassing theories would probably agree that competing theories are false

This is true of believers in any theory regarding contradictory theories. For example, believers in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory hold the many-worlds interpretation to be false. You are attacking the conspiracy theorists for showing basic logic here. -Hieronymous

Btw, Heironymous - you were in fact not logged in, and still aren't, it seems. You may wish to check Wikipedia:How to log in and wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. If you're having problems, just say here, and I'll try and guide you through the process :) Or just edit like you're doing now - that works too :) Martin

Thanks for the offer. I think I'm catching on now, but I'll call on you if need be. Someone changed part of my discussion of falsifiability and conspiracy. I left what they had, but put what I had back in. As the other writer had it, the paragraph no longer mentioned conspiracy, so I feared a perception of topic drift. Also, I don't think Popper ever said that only scientific theories could be valid, so I believe my point stands. Hieronymous

Conspiracy theory are generally not dealing with scientific subject. The problem is not to know if conspiracy theory are valid on scientific basis the problem is to know if they could believed. IMO this is more related to judiciary theories. A judge doesn't require scientific validity. Ericd 11:55 21 May 2003 (UTC)

That's true. But Popperian falsifiability is a frequent (specious) argument brought up against conspiracy theory (for example, by Michael Albert of Z magazine). Most people blithely assume it is valid simply because they've never heard a rebuttal. In fact, whoever wrote what I responded to cited a specific example.

Judicial theory is better, but presumptive innocence is somewhat problematic. Presumptive innocence is intended to counter-balance the court's ability to compel evidence and impose penalties; it is not a common standard for historians, nor should it be, IMO. Indeed, the inappropriate invocation of presumptive innocence is one of the favorite rhetorical strategies of Holocaust deniers like David Irving. Hieronymous

I think you'rec right, at second though we should question about the credibility of conspiracy theories in the perspective of epistemology applied to history. Popperian falsifiability doesn't seems to me the best reference in that context. Falsifiability applies mainly to experimental sciences and history isn't an experimental science. IMO Occam's Razor could also have something to do with conspiracies theories. Ericd 08:21 22 May 2003 (UTC)

---

From the article:

The Popes in the last 3 centuries are the main protaganists of these conspiracy theories. Freemasonry was condemned primarily because of its view that all religions are equal, diametrically opposed to the Catholic belief that it is the only true religion. Since most Catholics, mainline Protestants, and Evangelicals now agree with the Masonic princples condemned by the Church, new theories about the Masons have emerged such as that they are devil worshipers.

Evidence please? Otherwise this sounds like another conspiracy theory... The Anome 07:48 23 May 2003 (UTC)

It sounds pretty unusual to me! I would not be surprised if European anti-masonic conspiracy theories were Catholic in background, but that is not the case in the USA. Antimasonic conspiracy theorists here have tended to be Protestant and even fundamentalist -- from Jedediah Morse to the Anti-Mason Party to the Birchers. Today most anti-Masonic propaganda in the USA is put out by fundamentalist Protestants such as Jack Chick, not by the Catholics. --FOo 18:46 23 May 2003 (UTC)

Historically there is some adversity (to say the least) between the christian churches (catholic or not) and and the Free-Mason but the churches didn't have a monopoly the nazi for instance weren't especially good Christians. Ericd 20:24 23 May 2003 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand the point you are making. Religions have often promulgated falsehoods or exaggerations about their ideological opponents. I am not sure that every case of such constitutes "conspiracy theory", nor that anti-Masonic conspiracy theory is the same as religious opposition to Freemasonry on the basis of doctrine.

According to the definitions that have been in this article, an anti-Masonic conspiracy theory is more than just a religious disagreement with Masonry. It is an allegation that the Masons are controlling or manipulating society in nefarious and historically significant ways. One can dislike the ideas of Masonry (e.g. religious tolerance) without espousing such a conspiracy theory. --FOo 01:50 24 May 2003 (UTC)

---

I added the bit about the Iraqi war payoff, a conspiracy theory only a couple of months old and already confirmed!

I think the section on Conspiracy Theory and Urban Legends should be changed a little. I think the author is correct that the Satanism matter is not a conspiracy theory, at least not as stated, but wrong about the reason. I think a conspiracy implies at least one performed or attempted act. Being a Satanist is merely a belief that directly implies no particular action.

On the matter of epistomology, Occam's Razor, etc., I have a lot to say, but I'll try to keep it short. Essentially, I think conspiracy theory is itself an epistomology - it is a technique for trying to make assertions about the world.

As for Occam, I think it applies, but there are caveats:

1. Remember that Occam doesn't prove anything. It is just a rule of thumb that the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct.

2. While Occam's Razor is sometimes applied to conspiracy theories, there is a contrary unnamed standard that is also sometimes applied. William Gibson says that conspiracy theories are just "too simple". Richard Hofstader says that conspiracy theorists believe history is controlled to a greater degree than it can be controlled. These may be valid objections in some cases, but they are the opposite of Occam. In combination with Occam, this is a catch-22 argument.

Occam says to keep the number of postulates - sometimes stated as causal factors - as small as possible. Any treatment that minimizes causal factors will increase the importance of the causal factors that remain (assigning them "greater control" over the results). Attributing diverse historical events to conpiracy will in some cases fufill Occam quite well. More conventional explanations would have a separate set of postulates for each event or each anomaly within a single event - conspiracy can indeed be a simpler explanation. If we object that these results are "too simple", we have abandoned Occam. Scientists follow Occam closely and always seek the simplest explanation, attributing the most power to the fewest factors.

I do come down on the side of Occam, and for that reason feel that objections that a conspiracy theory is "simplistic" have to have a foundation beyond just objecting to the simplicity of the explanation.

___________

I revised slightly a recent change to the falsifiability section. Someone characterized the objection as one to Popper, which it is not. It is only an objection to the application of Popper to conspiracy theory.

---

A couple of thoughts here... Re: "Echoes of this are still widespread today, especially amongst progressive liberals who support Palestine and are against the World Bank." Does this sentence really belong here? Many people are opposed to the violent, repressive practices of the Israeli state and to 'Israeli nationalism' (among them Noam Chomsky), but (despite the rhetoric of some Jewish lobby groups) this does not constitute anti-semitism, nor is it based on conspiracy theories. Similarly, lots of people deplore the practices of the World Bank, but this does not make them anti-semites or conspiracy theorists. I feel this sentence is a bit biased and does not belong here.

This article does not state that criticism of the State of Israel is anti-Semitic. I agree that this article does often identify who holds which views. Some views are peculiar to Americans in general, others to leftists, others to black inner-city Americans, others to Arabs, others to Canadians, etc. This identification is not meant to stigamatize; it is part of an evolving and growing discussion on this topic. (In fact, discussions of why members of certain groups are more likely to agree with certain conspiracy theories is part of sociology.) RK 19:18 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I still feel this statement is biased. Perhaps it should specifically state which (as in who) "progressive liberals who support Palestine and are against the World Bank" the statement is directed towards. Otherwise, it's such a general statement as to be meaningless, and it can easily be interpreted as suggesting that "progressive liberals who support Palestine and are against the World Bank" are anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists. It's subtle, but it's there.

Re: "...claims that AIDS is not caused by HIV and that the HIV-AIDS connection is the propaganda of a conspiracy...". Again, does this really belong here? There are several prominent scientists and doctors who have disputed the theory that HIV causes AIDS, and that have been savagely attacked or blackballed in return by the HIV-treatment "industry". A few fairly respectable magazines, among them Spin and Penthouse, have published credible articles which criticized the HIV theory of AIDS and the HIV-treatment industry. This should be treated as a controversial area of science, not as a conspiracy theory.

Uh, Spin and Penthouse are not scientific journals. Further, no scienctists have been blackballed for this. Duesberg has gradually alienated himself from the mainstream scientific community by his pathological science. He keeps demanding a certain level of evidence to believe that HIV causes AIDS, and that level of evidence keeps getting met. In response, he never changes his mind, but just keep setting higher and higher standards of evidence that he does not demand for anything else. His actions and words have convicned the community that he is not interested in science or dialogue; in fact, his tactics are similar to those of fundamentalist creationists who deny the existence of biological evolution. This is no longer a controversial area of science; it is a well-established and proven fact that infection with the HIV virus causes AIDS. Molecular and cellular details of precisely how this occurs may fall under theory, but that is an entirely different area. RK 19:18 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

No, that is true, but I don't read scientific journals :) I mentioned these as a starting point to anyone interested in researching the topic further. And if researchers and doctors who criticize the HIV-AIDS theory are indeed being blackballed (as some insist they are), it would follow that their work might not appear in journals and that they may be missing out on research grants which would allow them to further their work. BTW, I truly am neutral on this topic; I'm not interested in debating the validity of 'alternative' AIDS theories, etc. I just don't feel that they qualify as 'conspiracy theories'. You yourself mention that his standards of evidence keep getting higher and higher; it therefore follows that the HIV-AIDS theory can still be questioned. BTW, lots of 'holes' have been pointed out in the theory of biological evolution by people other than creationists; there is such a thing as scientific dogmatism. No scientific theory should be treated as sacrosanct (just look at all the changes atomic theory has gone through in the past 100 years - and it's still going!). It's also hard to completely dissociate this subject from politics and economics. This article seems to suggest that anyone questioning the HIV-AIDS theory has a homophobic agenda; that seems unfair to me, and sounds more like a political argument than a scientific one.

Here's a few websites dedicated to 'alternative' AIDS theories or to criticizing the HIV-AIDS theory: Peter Duesberg, Rethinking AIDS, VirusMyth. Obviously, the claims these people are making are controversial, but they're certainly worth investigating and don't qualify as 'conspiracy theories' in my book. Some of the sociological and philosophical aspects of the HIV-AIDS theory are touched on in this Noam Chomsky interview.

They are not worth investigating. Duesberg is a quack who has alienated all of his former supporters, except for radical conspiracy theorists, and other quacks. You need to recognize that his work on HIV and AIDS now has zero standing in the scientific community. He has slowly but surely gone over the deep end. RK 23:23, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You'll have to do better than name-calling to substantiate your views, you pompous neo-conservative technophile twit.

I can't remember the specific sources, but I recall seeing a documentary on television once about HIV-positive people who had far exceeded the 'incubation' period and had not contracted AIDS; also a news report on a village in (I think) Norway (?) where the people turned out to be 'immune' to HIV/AIDS. To the best of my knowledge, these anomalies have yet to be explained by the HIV-AIDS theory.

What anomalies? Standard viral theory predicts that in any viral disease, some people will be more resistant, or even totally resistant, to any one given virus. There is nothing unusual about this at all. RK 23:23, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

If that's the case, then the diagnosis of HIV-positive is absolutely meaningless, and for the medical establishment to pressure people so diagnosed into taking toxic and/or experimental AIDS "cures" borders on...nah - crosses into - the criminal.

---

Fubar, I think we need to change some of your recent contributions. It is extremely imporant that this article disciss conspiracies to take over the world! These are very important and on-topic. There have been many real historical conspiracies to do so (none, fortunately, have succeeded.) I am uncertain of why you deleted all these examples. Also, one of the major characteristics of conspiracy theory is the obsession with false attempts to take over the world. We need to discuss these issues explicitly. RK 23:23, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. However, groups such as the Axis Powers were not a conspiracy in the usual sense of a secretive plot. They were rather overt coalitions or alliances to, as you put it, take over the world. They are, as you touch on, the subject of mainstream history -- not of conspiracy theory. Nor is conspiracy theory confined to issues of "taking over the world". :)

I totally agree with you; I was just thinking of the term "conspire" in the third and most mundane definition of the word, in the sense of meeting and forming plans to advance one's interests: Politics and military plans are based on coalitions, propaganda, alliances of convenience, lobbying, etc. Anything n this category usually starts out as secret for weeks or months (sometimes years) but eventually is brought out openly for the public to see. RK 15:40, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Specifically -- I deleted Napoleon and Mussolini because they are not conspirators but rather conquerors, imperialists, or what-have-you. They simply do not fit the trope of conspiracy which is what is being described. --FOo 23:40, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

About the new introduction. I am trying to distinguish between legitimate historical speculation, and faith in non-existent conspiracies. In general English useage, the term "conspiracy theory" does not refer to speculations about what historians may consider conspiracies. Rather, that term is used solely to discuss a belief in non-existent conspiracies. This distinction is critical. RK 23:23, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It isn't Wikipedia's place to state that certain unsubstantiated claims (such as "Such-and-such a power was behind the Kennedy assassination") are baseless beliefs, or false and untrue, or irrational -- no more than it is Wikipedia's place to call someone's belief in Jesus unhistorical. We can state where the preponderance of evidence and historical scholarship are, and we can state where the differences of opinion are. We aren't arbiters of the One True Tale of History.

There are also too many cases where real history or current events are treated like conspiracy theory, or where claims which are dismissed as conspiracy theory end up being shown true (as with the Iraqi safqua). --FOo 23:36, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I agree, and I do not mean to imply that this article, or any Wikipedia article, should state that certain unsubstantiated claims must be seen as baseless beliefs, or false and untrue, etc. What I mean is that this article should describe the phrase "conspiracy theory" to refer to those theories which are seen by mainstream historians, newspaper writers, scientists, etc. as baseless, false, untrue, etc. (In fact, I think this article already does that, but I was trying to pull the definition together a bit tighter.) We can do this within NPOV by saying who holds such beliefs are false. RK 15:40, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

What you recently added is technically correct and I agree with you, but we need to change the terminology. This isn't a matter of NPOV; it is only a matter of standard terminology. What you wrote about is simply called "history", or is just speculating about possible real conspiracies. Scientists and historians do not refer to legitimate speculation about potentially real subjects as "conspiracy theory"; that is not standard English useage. Historians, scientists, and social scientists usually restrict the use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" for a belief in non-existent conspiracies. (In fact, this is pretty much its definition.) If a conspiracy is real, then it is never called a "conspiracy theory", but rather something like "the history of a real conspiracy". This distinction in terminology is important, and the article needs to make this distinction. RK 23:23, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

However, it is only much after the fact that it is discovered which cases are "legitimate speculation" and which are "belief in non-existent conspiracies". Your claim that "If a conspiracy is real, then it is never called a 'conspiracy theory'" is false on its face -- see the safqua case. --FOo 23:36, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Of course. I only meant before the fact, not after the fact. When a conspiracy theory is proven to be real, then at that point people stop calling it a conspiracy theory, and refer to it as a conspiracy (i.e. a real conspiracy.) RK 15:40, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I agree with you on many points, RK. However, I'm not sure whether the article should be about "those sorts of things that people call conspiracy theories", or "those sorts of things which are conspiracy theories, according to a given definition of same." From my sociological background, these would be different things: the first is a study of the use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" as a label to deviantize particular views or ways of thinking; the second is a study of the ideas and ways of thinking which happen to match a given definition. In less technical terms, the first asks "How do people use the expression conspiracy theory?" and the second asks "If a conspiracy theory is anything that has attributes X, Y, and Z, then what things are conspiracy theories?"

It is often mentioned as a problem in Wikipedia that articles describe their subjects as "a term used to refer to" something. That seems to suggest that people want articles that describe things rather than labels -- thus, that this article should talk about things that are conspiracy theories (after stating a definition of same) rather than inquiring into what things people label conspiracy theories. However, I am not sure.

On a related point: I think there is more to conspiracy theory, though, than simply the belief in false or unproven conspiracies. Conspiracy theory seems to be a way of thinking about events -- specifically, interpreting events under the expectation or assumption that they are being driven by secret powers and agreements rather than by overt mechanisms such as the market or the law. It is the expectation that the social world is controlled by actions hidden rather than public; that events are intentional and designed rather than accidental or emergent. --FOo

Oh my, that is exactly where I wanted to take this article as well! I was just doing some reading on conspiracy theory by Daniel Pipes. Most books about conspiracy theories are mere catalogs, while his book (Conspiracy: How the paranoid style flourishes and where it comes from, The Free Press, 1997) engages in a 250 year study of conspiracy theory, looking at it from a sociological, psychological and historical perspective. One of his points is the same as yours: it turns out to be a way of thinking about events. RK 23:05, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

In a sense, conspiracy theory is to history what creationism is to evolution: it holds that it is invisible processes of design, rather than natural outcomes of interaction, which create the (social, rather than biological) world we experience. --FOo 17:55, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Exactly! RK 23:05, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'm troubled with the relationship between conspiracies theories and fascism or similar ideologies. There is some coherence in this if hmmm.... let's call it "the state of things" is not a natural state but the product of some secret power then another (strong) power can make things differents. Ericd 23:25, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I've cut " Echoes of this may still exist today, perhaps amongst a small subgroup of opponents of international finacial organizations such as the World Bank." Why targeting this group whith charge of anti-semintism. Who can seriously believe that José Bové is more anti-semite than Jean-Marie Le Pen ? and what has the World Bank to do here ? I've read these allegations several times this is stupid, most of the anti-globalization activists are strongly anti-racist and anti-fascist. If you want to charge some group whith anti-seminitism charge the real anti-semites, I've spend enought time on wikipedia reverting some of their junk. Ericd 19:06, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---