Then there's the other side too. Using conspiracy nuts to discredit information that is actually true. It's really quite efficient. They spread bad information and discredit good information all at a one stop shop.
Gulf of Tonkin
Operation Northwoods
Clinton-Lewinsky Scandal
Project Paperclip
Jeffrey Epstein
The Federal Reserve/Creature from Jekyll Island
Various Military Coups/Operations around the world e.g.:The reason for the Iraq War
Tuskegee Experiment
I mean- in the most technical sense, if 3 US teens make plans to sneak out and bring beers from their parents fridge to a basement for
A night of video-games and drinking , that is a conspiracy- so conspiracies do happen every day. Now, sometimes with these “earth shaking” conspiracies it can be decades or more before the truth comes out- the Gulf Of Tonkin is an example of an incident which was doubted from the get go but truly concrete evidence wasn’t made public for over 30 years. Couple that with the fact that technically nothing is “impossible” given enough time- some things are just so improbable that it’s simpler to say impossible; and well, one could argue that we could never call a conspiracy theory “bogus,” just unproven. There’s some truth to that logic, but when one examines real world conspiracies one will notice some fundamental differences that seem to be a pattern in separating the truly bogus or far fetched ones.
People like simple. A “good” and “bad,” closure, etc. a conspiracy that distills the participants into a single grand entity or some huge cabal of like entities working together is not always, but probably bogus. A conspiracy of any magnitude that goes off flawlessly without tangible evidence is probably bogus. Real conspiracies tend to be a person or a small group of people with similar or complimentary self interest and it snowballs from there. To that point, real people mess up and there are no “men in black” with Neuralizers to erase it all- so theories that revolve around overly complex and intricate plots involving the secrecy of many parties and no internal betrayals or chance screw ups etc. are seldom true. Because it’s only a conspiracy to the ends of self interest. This person lied and to save face that person needs to help cover it up. This person and that person both wanted an official to get into office but now that happened and that person and this person have divergent
Interests so one sells the other out or double crosses them etc. in many cases, while technically accurate, it just doesn’t even make sense to call a thing a “conspiracy”- if your boss tells a lie, you don’t need to conspire to have a cover up. They lie and maybe you back that lie up because you feel not doing so might hurt your career. That lie gets your department the funding for raises for everyone. Most people realize it’s a lie but either they want the money or they don’t want to be the one who “snitches” on everyone else. At this point, a lot of people would potentially get in trouble or lose out if the lie was discovered, so it is the mutual benefit of all, acting alone, to cover up the truth. Of course if two or more people team up to coordinate their efforts it’s now technically a conspiracy- but that doesn’t mean everyone covering up the lie is part of the conspiracy either. You have various people acting on their own towards their goals, and for the most parts everyone’s
Actions will be similar as long as their goals and self interest are pretty similarly aligned. But- if most people lied to get the funds to the account for payroll and one person really wants those funds for better benefits- the initial lie to get the funds may have been supported by all parties, but now we have someone who wants the money to go somewhere different than the others, self interests no longer align. So I mean- it can be complicated and there certainly are real conspiracies and real plots etc. of grand scales. We only know the ones we know about- who knows how many have ever been carried out that we don’t know about…?
That said- actual critical thinking based on logical models, established practices of hard journalism and review, and tangible evidence as opposed to wild speculation are some keys in sifting through manure for truffles.
An actual conspiracy theory and a “conspiracy theory” can often be told apart another simple way- “is it a theory?”
Most junk conspiracy theories aren’t theories. They are not substantiated. They are not explanatory. They are not predictive and they are not testable- or they are easily testable or else easy tested and in whole ot major part easily disproven.
the fact that a guy waves a stick around and says it’s gonna rain tomorrow and it does rain tomorrow does not prove that the stick is magic.
If you and a bunch of pals pick what sport team you think will win the championship at the start of the season- eventually over years, one of you will be right at least once.
We can call that statistics or luck. Some things are just silly- Bill Clinton- either Bill and his gang were lying or Monica was- so even flipping a coin your odds of guessing the truth of that situation aren’t such a long shot. The simple bias that politicians lie and philander would put most people with any cyclical bikes in their body in the right to some degree at an educated guess. The Tuskegee experiments- given the climate of the day and the United States history of doing horrible things to black people- you’re standing on pretty solid ground almost any time you believe that the US did something horrible to black people. That’s like betting on wether an alcoholic
had a drink today. Of course those same biases can often blind us to the truth or make us assume guilt instead of innocence etc. That’s why- evidence. Testability. Substantiation. That’s my point. Most fake conspiracy theories are easily consumed. They have a clear bad guy with a clear and understandable motive, they tend to fit nicely into stereotypes and tend to be both completely full of holes and totally airtight- every little detail of the fake conspiracy tends to be part of an elaborate and well executed graft that some “eagle eyes critical thinker” who makes $7 an hour caught because the billionaire elite Illuminati or whatever somehow managed to silence every expert on earth except the chosen handful of dubious credentials who back said “theory,” but missed some detail that allowed Sherlock trailer-Ho(l)mes crack the case? Maybe except…
The “evidence” usually boils down to the fact there isn’t any. “That’s how you know the <CIA><NSA><whatever> are involved! It’s too clean!” Or some convoluted Rube Goldberg machine that would FAL apart under the basic force of gravity let alone the weight of a massive conspiracy is the “iron clad” logic behind the “theory.” These theories tend to be full of answers- except for when you ask for proof. They are seldom someone asking genuine and no leading questions and looking for answers as they go, following a trail towards the truth like a real investigation. Usually they are someone who already “knows” the truth and is picking at whatever details exist to bulwark that position while filling in the blanks as suits them.
They can often tell you WHY the thing was done- “they wanted to undermine <political thing><whatever>!” “They are trying to control society and make you docile!” “They’re pushing their agenda!” “For the money!” Etc etc. They usually can tell you WHO is behind it too, and often who is involved. They often tell you intricate details about how such a plan could be carried out. But when you ask for evidence that isn’t speculation or circumstantial- then it’s the shuffle. All the reasons and people behind why the evidence isn’t there. We can basically look at Holocaust denial and apply what that teaches. How do we know the Holocaust happened? People around my age had plenty of chances to speak to people who were actually there during or after. To kids of a certain age they have third party stories and enough time between then and now that things of that scale could be staged. So how do we know?
Well- it’s pretty damn substantiated. Records from the war and after corroborate it. There were millions of survivors and witnesses. Operation paper clip is something with lots of witnesses- many who have talked about it on or off the record before and after it was released to the public. The records are largely public now as well. When they did the Tuskegee experiments there were records, witnesses, third parties who could credibly corroborate.
So when we look at real secrets and made up secrets- there TEND to be certain patterns to help identify which is which.
End of the day, deductive reasoning doesn’t work on the principle that what COULD be true IS true. Deductive reasoning reaching the same conclusion as a guess don’t make the two equal- pretend you flew on a plane trip and everything went overall fine. Then you find out the pilot was some random person who never flew a plane or trained to- they got lucky. Would you say: “well- they landed the plane and that’s what matters”
And then happily fly with them as your pilot again? Probably not. And of course a skilled pilot can have a crash- but your odds at a long and happy life are a lot better if you aren’t relying on someone else being lucky to make things right in the end. Deductive reasoning is not the same as guessing. Investigating and researching isn’t the same as speculating- even if they come to the same conclusions.
Operation Northwoods
Clinton-Lewinsky Scandal
Project Paperclip
Jeffrey Epstein
The Federal Reserve/Creature from Jekyll Island
Various Military Coups/Operations around the world e.g.:The reason for the Iraq War
Tuskegee Experiment
Just to name a few
A night of video-games and drinking , that is a conspiracy- so conspiracies do happen every day. Now, sometimes with these “earth shaking” conspiracies it can be decades or more before the truth comes out- the Gulf Of Tonkin is an example of an incident which was doubted from the get go but truly concrete evidence wasn’t made public for over 30 years. Couple that with the fact that technically nothing is “impossible” given enough time- some things are just so improbable that it’s simpler to say impossible; and well, one could argue that we could never call a conspiracy theory “bogus,” just unproven. There’s some truth to that logic, but when one examines real world conspiracies one will notice some fundamental differences that seem to be a pattern in separating the truly bogus or far fetched ones.
An actual conspiracy theory and a “conspiracy theory” can often be told apart another simple way- “is it a theory?”
Most junk conspiracy theories aren’t theories. They are not substantiated. They are not explanatory. They are not predictive and they are not testable- or they are easily testable or else easy tested and in whole ot major part easily disproven.
If you and a bunch of pals pick what sport team you think will win the championship at the start of the season- eventually over years, one of you will be right at least once.
We can call that statistics or luck. Some things are just silly- Bill Clinton- either Bill and his gang were lying or Monica was- so even flipping a coin your odds of guessing the truth of that situation aren’t such a long shot. The simple bias that politicians lie and philander would put most people with any cyclical bikes in their body in the right to some degree at an educated guess. The Tuskegee experiments- given the climate of the day and the United States history of doing horrible things to black people- you’re standing on pretty solid ground almost any time you believe that the US did something horrible to black people. That’s like betting on wether an alcoholic
So when we look at real secrets and made up secrets- there TEND to be certain patterns to help identify which is which.
End of the day, deductive reasoning doesn’t work on the principle that what COULD be true IS true. Deductive reasoning reaching the same conclusion as a guess don’t make the two equal- pretend you flew on a plane trip and everything went overall fine. Then you find out the pilot was some random person who never flew a plane or trained to- they got lucky. Would you say: “well- they landed the plane and that’s what matters”