What do CTs remind you of?

[Harryprice]

The members of the conspiracy theory movement do not agree on much. They have different sets of conspirators, different version of conspiracies (often mutusally exclusive) and different sources bringing them their information. As a novice CTer, which conspiracy do you believe in? Is it the one you first hear about, the last or the one with the best videos on YouTube? The only thing CTers seem to all agree on is that the world is not run as it appears and definitely not for the benefit of ordinary folk.

All of this reminds me of religion. Just about all religions agree that there is a spiritual aspect to the universe and, in most cases, one or more deities in charge. But after that, the religions disagree about almost everything. Again, if you become religious, which one do you choose?

[Croydon Bob]

There's certainly lots of faith without any evidence and other similarities with the mainstream religions.

But the overlap with new age religious nonsense is almost 100%: Jumping on the latest new fad; Ignoring mutually contradictory beliefs.

[Harryprice]

I agree, there are lots of other similarities between religion and CTs. It's also been said that the ETH in ufology is like a religion. What I find fascinating is, where do the ideas come from and why do they become accepted by groups of people?

[PaulW99]

I'm sure a lot of these ideas start out as jokes. If I'd thought of it first I may have been tempted (in a parallel universe) to start spreading a rumor that there were no planes on 911 and see if it can become an accepted idea. Or maybe it's a sociology experiment gone horribly wrong.

[bryan]

I'm sure a lot of these ideas start out as jokes. If I'd thought of it first I may have been tempted (in a parallel universe) to start spreading a rumor that there were no planes on 911 and see if it can become an accepted idea. Or maybe it's a sociology experiment gone horribly wrong.

This is an interesting theory, but you may have got it in reverse. You probably won't remember, because it was over 8 years ago, but when you were watching live coverage of the 9/11 attacks on the BBC, the anchor began the report saying that one of the twin towers was on fire and there were RUMOURS that a plane had flown into the building. Later, Steve Evans, reporting live from the scene, said there were "more explosions" that the many eyewitnesses assumed were bombs going off, but then they heard RUMOURS that a second plane had hit.

Don't worry, you'll get there in the end.

[PaulW99]

This is an interesting theory, but you may have got it in reverse. You probably won't remember, because it was over 8 years ago, but when you were watching live coverage of the 9/11 attacks on the BBC, the anchor began the report saying that one of the twin towers was on fire and there were RUMOURS that a plane had flown into the building. Later, Steve Evans, reporting live from the scene, said there were "more explosions" that the many eyewitnesses assumed were bombs going off, but then they heard RUMOURS that a second plane had hit.

Don't worry, you'll get there in the end.

No, it's so ludicrous, I think the no-plane idea was a joke, or two people having a bet to see how gullible some people can be. The joke is on you.

[Harryprice]

That's something else that fascinates me. Everyone expects a major disaster to produce conspiracy theories but how do we end with conflicting versions?

[smudge]

I agree, there are lots of other similarities between religion and CTs. It's also been said that the ETH in ufology is like a religion. What I find fascinating is, where do the ideas come from and why do they become accepted by groups of people?

I'm sure a lot of these ideas start out as jokes. If I'd thought of it first I may have been tempted (in a parallel universe) to start spreading a rumor that there were no planes on 911 and see if it can become an accepted idea. Or maybe it's a sociology experiment gone horribly wrong.

I've always felt there is a healthy element of 'challenging the establishment' at the root of many CT's. It becomes unhealthy when it mutates into a Religious belief position. Once this happens all rational argument is dismissed as being "establishment propaganda".
The urge to question and challenge what we are fed by those in powerful positions is (in my view!), a GOOD thing. BUT; it needs to be balanced with a healthy dose of evidence and good reasoning. Some people just don't have the ability to think that way and are instead fueled by paranoia and in-group biased.

[bryan]

No, it's so ludicrous, I think the no-plane idea was a joke, or two people having a bet to see how gullible some people can be. The joke is on you.

I've provided documentary evidence showing that both 'planes' started off as rumours and I've linked to scientific research proving that people can be made to think they saw things that never happened just by showing them fake videos. In response, you say "it's ludicrous".

Excuse me while I answer the door and have a more meaningful conversation with some Jehovah's Witnesses.

[smudge]

I've provided documentary evidence showing that both 'planes' started off as rumours and I've linked to scientific research proving that people can be made to think they saw things that never happened just by showing them fake videos. In response, you say "it's ludicrous".

Excuse me while I answer the door and have a more meaningful conversation with some Jehovah's Witnesses.

Lots of things start as "rumours".
Then evidence is weighed up and the truth (or the likeliest explanation) is established.

[tolman]

I've always felt there is a healthy element of 'challenging the establishment' at the root of many CT's. It becomes unhealthy when it mutates into a Religious belief position. Once this happens all rational argument is dismissed as being "establishment propaganda".
The urge to question and challenge what we are fed by those in powerful positions is (in my view!), a GOOD thing. BUT; it needs to be balanced with a healthy dose of evidence and good reasoning. Some people just don't have the ability to think that way and are instead fueled by paranoia and in-group biased.

It all depends *why* people want to challenge the establishment.
It does seem that a lot of the CT believers, and certainly the ones we get here, aren't exactly the sharpest tools in the workshop, and often seem to have a chip on their shoulder about people smarter or more educated than they are.

For someone like that, I suppose it can be very attractive to think that they've found out something that most people haven't yet spotted, since it doubly proves (to them) that they really are some kind of misunderstood genius - firstly because they can see the things other people can't, and secondly because their obviously special anti-establishment thinking skills also explain why they didn't really fit with the education system - it's nothing to do with them being thick or illogical, it's just because they're such a rebel.

I wouldn't liken CT belief to mainstream religion, more to cult membership, where even the simple act of being deliberately different to the masses is comforting.

[Croydon Bob]

I've provided documentary evidence showing that both 'planes' started off as rumours and I've linked to scientific research proving that people can be made to think they saw things that never happened just by showing them fake videos. In response, you say "it's ludicrous".

Excuse me while I answer the door and have a more meaningful conversation with some Jehovah's Witnesses.

This thread is for the smart people to discuss loonies like you. Not for idiots to spout rubbish.

Stay on the nutter threads.

[tolman]

Lots of things start as "rumours".
Then evidence is weighed up and the truth (or the likeliest explanation) is established.

In live TV coverage, pretty much everything starts as "Some people are saying..." or "Reports are coming in that...".

Even things a reporter actually sees, unless those things are slow and obvious enough, often start off being described with uncertainty, especially if they're unusual or significant.

[smudge]

It all depends *why* people want to challenge the establishment.

I don't think motivation matters. Surely what matters is if an established position is robust enough to withstand critiscism and questioning, and where the evidence suggests truth is.

does seem that a lot of the CT believers, and certainly the ones we get here, aren't exactly the sharpest tools in the workshop, and often seem to have a chip on their shoulder about people smarter or more educated than they are.

For someone like that, I suppose it can be very attractive to think that they've found out something that most people haven't yet spotted, since it doubly proves (to them) that they really are some kind of misunderstood genius - firstly because they can see the things other people can't, and secondly because their obviously special anti-establishment thinking skills also explain why they didn't really fit with the education system - it's nothing to do with them being thick or illogical, it's just because they're such a rebel.

It may be true that many people have a "chip on their shoulder" and many may not be very bright. This is shown up pretty quickly in debate and is not a problem.

It is also true than many intelligent people fail to achieve within our education system.

It is also true than many very intelligent people fail to question the established view that they are brought up within.
Questioning is surely always a good thing?

[tolman]

I don't think motivation matters. Surely what matters is if an established position is robust enough to withstand critiscism and questioning, and where the evidence suggests truth is.

Motivation does matter in that if someone is driven out of an irrational desire simply to feel better than the establishment, they may well not be seeking any kind of truth.

It may be true that many people have a "chip on their shoulder" and many may not be very bright. This is shown up pretty quickly in debate and is not a problem.

It is a problem (or at least it's annoying) if they're incapable of realising or admitting how badly they're actually faring, since then they don't just shut up and go away even if they make a fool of themselves (like sensible people would do).

It is also true than many intelligent people fail to achieve within our education system.

Though I think rather more people fail through dimness, rather than brilliance.

It is also true than many very intelligent people fail to question the established view that they are brought up within.

How many of the conspiracies theories are about issues where less [formal or self-driven] education makes someone more likely to be right?

The 9/11 CTers seem perfectly happy to praise the education and experience of the odd engineer here or there who says things they want to hear.
People who believe there was no moon landing seem to find no problem calling someone supporting their position a 'physics genius' even if the person involved only seems to know a little more than they do.
Creationists seem really keen to point out how academically qualified one or other person is who writes the books they buy.

Yet all seem really keen to rubbish any number of people they disagree with as being wrong not necessarily despite their education, but because of it.

Questioning is surely always a good thing?

Assuming it's done in good faith by someone acting like an adult, who is prepared to listen to the answer, who is able to understand it, who hasn't already asked it and been given as much of an answer as they person they're asking could be reasonably expected to give, who hasn't already made up their mind to ignore the answer if they don't like it, and who isn't going to deliberately misunderstand, misquote or otherwise treat the answer in a dishonest way.