I was about to say something similar. On so many fronts I don't know what to believe. More often than not I end up with more questions than answers. I am becoming more and more comfortable with not knowing what is true and what isn't. It is not easy though.
Thank you. I haven't known how to broach this topic with people. To me it seems obvious sometimes that people who create conspiracy theories would know how to... do this thing... so we can't talk about things we think and see.
I shouldn't have to tell you this but: There are good conspiracy theories and bad ones. Using 'conspiracy theory' as a category to denigrate thought is a linguistic trick, a weapon actually, invented by the CIA in 1964 to try and stop people from questioning the authority of Warren Commission's conclusion that a lone gunman killed the president. Robert Anton Wilson once said "before 1964, another name for "conspiracy theorist" was "lawyer."" Because this is how you're supposed to solve crimes, which are almost always conspiracies. You come up with a theory based on your evidence and observations, test it scientifically, and evaluated by a jury of your peers, whether that be in a courtroom or a board of editors. Otherwise, what have we? Would you prefer to have believed the official story of the Vietnam War? Or the theory, now proven, that the Tonkin incident was a false flag conspiracy of empire builders and weapons dealers? Like a lot of wars. Like the drug war. Do you prefer to accept the official story that the government just wants to help everyone by forbidding drugs? Or do you look deeper and maybe, if you're smart, like Yale scholar Alfred McCoy, and construct a theory that heroin, when it is illegal, is a cash cow for black ops, and helps keep the blacks from organizing? Or marijuana- do you think the government just wants to keep us safe from this harmless weed, or perhaps entertain the conspiracy theory, now proven, that Nixon's thugs made it illegal so anti war activists could be busted for using it. And tell me why in all this war on conspiracy theories and the deranged people who fall for them, do you never include people who believe the conspiracy theory, never proven, that 19 Arabs outsmarted the trillion dollar defense system of the most heavily guarded air space in the world and took down three buildings with two planes. No, the anti-conspiracy mob tries to pathologise those who think, logically, the ones with means, motive, opportunity, and who benefitted , might have done it. How do YOU teach your students? You tell them to just accept what authorities say? Or 'do your own research?' The former get's us nowhere but stagnant conservatism. Progress in human society depends on the latter...
is it a conspiracy theory when you're the victim of disinformation campaigns? :/
I was about to say something similar. On so many fronts I don't know what to believe. More often than not I end up with more questions than answers. I am becoming more and more comfortable with not knowing what is true and what isn't. It is not easy though.
Jay, you probably know about Hans Vaihinger and his Philosophy of “As If.” Particularly relevant to the first part of your post.
I don't but will google -- and welcome any references. Hope you're well.
Thank you. I haven't known how to broach this topic with people. To me it seems obvious sometimes that people who create conspiracy theories would know how to... do this thing... so we can't talk about things we think and see.
I shouldn't have to tell you this but: There are good conspiracy theories and bad ones. Using 'conspiracy theory' as a category to denigrate thought is a linguistic trick, a weapon actually, invented by the CIA in 1964 to try and stop people from questioning the authority of Warren Commission's conclusion that a lone gunman killed the president. Robert Anton Wilson once said "before 1964, another name for "conspiracy theorist" was "lawyer."" Because this is how you're supposed to solve crimes, which are almost always conspiracies. You come up with a theory based on your evidence and observations, test it scientifically, and evaluated by a jury of your peers, whether that be in a courtroom or a board of editors. Otherwise, what have we? Would you prefer to have believed the official story of the Vietnam War? Or the theory, now proven, that the Tonkin incident was a false flag conspiracy of empire builders and weapons dealers? Like a lot of wars. Like the drug war. Do you prefer to accept the official story that the government just wants to help everyone by forbidding drugs? Or do you look deeper and maybe, if you're smart, like Yale scholar Alfred McCoy, and construct a theory that heroin, when it is illegal, is a cash cow for black ops, and helps keep the blacks from organizing? Or marijuana- do you think the government just wants to keep us safe from this harmless weed, or perhaps entertain the conspiracy theory, now proven, that Nixon's thugs made it illegal so anti war activists could be busted for using it. And tell me why in all this war on conspiracy theories and the deranged people who fall for them, do you never include people who believe the conspiracy theory, never proven, that 19 Arabs outsmarted the trillion dollar defense system of the most heavily guarded air space in the world and took down three buildings with two planes. No, the anti-conspiracy mob tries to pathologise those who think, logically, the ones with means, motive, opportunity, and who benefitted , might have done it. How do YOU teach your students? You tell them to just accept what authorities say? Or 'do your own research?' The former get's us nowhere but stagnant conservatism. Progress in human society depends on the latter...
Thanks I guess. I'm a social scientist so, yeah, we live for conspiracy theories you could say in these terms.