What is wrong with the epistemology of people who are prone to believe every conspiracy theory about nearly every world event?
The people who think there were UFO autopsies, 9/11 was orchestrated by the government of the US, life on mars has been found and hidden from the public. Etc… I know some very intelligent people who are willing to believe the worst about nearly every major occurence of the 20th century.
Keith
What is wrong with the epistemology of people who are prone to believe every conspiracy theory about nearly every world event?
Usually, it starts with fear. Some people are chronically afraid and anxious due to their own self-made helplessnes in the face of reality. Rather than fix what’s wrong with themselves, they resort to the psychological defense of externalization. They seek a “cause” of their anxiety outside themselves.
Usually, it starts with fear. Some people are chronically afraid and anxious due to their own self-made helplessnes in the face of reality. Rather than fix what’s wrong with themselves, they resort to the psychological defense of externalization. They seek a “cause” of their anxiety outside themselves.
That is interesting. How does attributing the causes of these maladies to the “government” instead of their true culprits make them feel any better? Is it a persecution complex?
Keith
That is interesting. How does attributing the causes of these maladies to the “government” instead of their true culprits make them feel any better? Is it a persecution complex?
I’d say it’s simple evasion. If the forces are aligned against you, and are larger than you can control i.e outside your sphere of influence, then you have no responsibilty for it, and can revel in your helplessness and point the finger rather than realize that every change starts within yourself, and take the appropriate steps. It’s a convenient distraction from the reality of personal responsibility.
How does attributing the causes of these maladies to the “government” instead of their true culprits make them feel any better?
In the long run it doesn’t, but for many people blaming others instead of their own short-comings is easier in the short run. It is hard for them to face the fact that the true culprits are themselves and their inability to cope with life.
I’d say it’s simple evasion. If the forces are aligned against you, and are larger than you can control i.e outside your sphere of influence, then you have no responsibilty for it, and can revel in your helplessness and point the finger rather than realize that every change starts within yourself, and take the appropriate steps. It’s a convenient distraction from the reality of personal responsibility.
Have you been reading 7 Habits for Highly Effective People 
? That sounds just like Habit 1.
Anyway, I agree with you that it is simple evasion. Ignoring the facts of reality (or lack thereof) and drawing conclusions from faith is one of the most popular evasions in human history.
I was talking to an acquaintance of mine who is an atheist and he was telling me about some theory about life on other planets he heard discussed on that Coast to Coast AM radio show. He went into great detail about classification about civilizations on other planets (on a scale which Earth’s civilization isn’t even advanced enough to qualify) and how they would go about contacting us. I told him that any speculation about life on other planets is just as arbitrary as talking about what goes on in heaven and hell. There is absolutely no connection to reality, its all science fiction and fantasy. Sadly, I think he failed to make the connection.
Edit: fixed grammar
I have been reading 7 Habits for Highly Effective People
I read that a while back, and yes that’s where I pulled it from Not a bad book overall. I found it helpful especially in regard to the sphere of influence idea.
I read that a while back, and yes that’s where I pulled it from
I think its a fairly decent book as well. The author has some very good ideas. The book would be great if you just took a black marker and crossed out every place it says “God” or “service to others”.
What is wrong with the epistemology of people who are prone to believe every conspiracy theory about nearly every world event?
Probably, for one thing, kids aren’t taught how to think in school.
I will speak from the point of view of a person who has believed every conspiracy theory. In my teens, I gave credence to everything I heard. I didn’t have a rational psycho-epistemology to tell me when something was crazy and I shouldn’t believe it. Since I was never taught the difference between the true and the arbitrary, I was pulled along by every theory under the sun. It’s probably the same reason I was attracted to Christianity initially.
When I deconverted from Christianity, I found I had the opposite view: I believed nothing could be known for certain. The problem with most atheists is they do not have a rational philosophy of their own. As such, I drifted along until I discovered Atlas Shrugged.
Probably, for one thing, kids aren’t taught how to think in school.
I will speak from the point of view of a person who has believed every conspiracy theory. In my teens, I gave credence to everything I heard. I didn’t have a rational psycho-epistemology to tell me when something was crazy and I shouldn’t believe it. Since I was never taught the difference between the true and the arbitrary, I was pulled along by every theory under the sun. It’s probably the same reason I was attracted to Christianity initially.
When I deconverted from Christianity, I found I had the opposite view: I believed nothing could be known for certain. The problem with most atheists is they do not have a rational philosophy of their own. As such, I drifted along until I discovered Atlas Shrugged.
What about more mainstream conspiracy theories such as the assassination of JFK? Are there many Objectivists who believe it was a conspiracy?
Keith
What about more mainstream conspiracy theories such as the assassination of JFK? Are there many Objectivists who believe it was a conspiracy?
Keith
I think that really doesn’t pertain to philosophy, as long as you base your conclusions on facts and not faith. It would be permissible for someone to say “based on the evidence before me, which was collected from books and the history channel, I conclude that X had JFK killed.”
as opposed to “I think X had JFK assasinated. I don’t know why, I just feel it.”
I was going to start another thread about this, but seeing as how a thread on the abandonment of reason is already in place., I figure this would be a pretty good place to post this.
Has anyone else had problems with animal-philes who reject Objectivism in it’s entirety because of the political rights of animals? Not the vegans, the ones who think that without proper animal rights laws people would torture their animals all day. “How can you say that? under your Randian logic, it would be ok for a man to subject his dog to the most unspeakable torment, and it would be ok!”
of course, they don’t believe that social ostracism would be enough.
I find this very annoying. Philosophy is the study of man, yet people reject it because of that insignificant political aspect. Does anyone have anything to counter this outburst of emotion? It is rather annoying when socialists feel like they can claim the moral superiority of their belief and use their animal rights leg as a crutch.
I couldn’t personally care less about the issue. The animal is the man’s property, he can do with it as he pleases. But certain people anthropomorphize their animals too much.
I think it is interesting to look at why conspiracy theories are as popular as they are. I don’t have a complete answer, but as a first step I submit the following:
First, what are conspiracy theories? Look at specific examples and see what they have in common. Three off the top of my head: government coverup of UFO activities; the many versions of assassination plots against JFK (in which someone else is ultimately responsible for his death and got away with it); and the many, many claims of sabotage put out by the USSR.
Some key elements:
lack of evidence. If any particular case actually had evidence for such a theory, it could be dealt with rationally, and would not be associated with the others. (IOW, the theories are arbitrary.)
the omnipotent “Them”. The conspirators are able to do amazing things, and keep the details secret. “Somehow” is the common refrain, when believers are pressed to explain how some of these conspirators do what believers claim.
What is the appeal of these theories for those who really buy into them (as opposed to plain-old liars)? I suspect it could be several things.
It could be a by-product of a concrete-bound mentality’s inability to deal with principles. For example, when Soviet factories could not meet production quotas, sabotage was a common charge. Instead of checking their premise that communism could increase production, which would require questioning the ideology thrust on them at the point of a gun, this would be an out: “someone” “somehow” was disloyal. Grab a scapegoat, and the ideology is safe once again for the moment – until the next failure.
Moreover, for the concrete-bound mentality, the idea of challenging a principle is untenable. They just accept the platitudes given to them. When confronted with a contradiction between their accepted “principles” and concrete reality, their mind would be unable to challenge the accepted principle; it would be accepted as a metaphysical given, outside the scope of rational justification or exception. So there must be another concrete intermediary – something prevented the theory from working in reality, and if we just get that thing out of the way, then the theory would be free to succeed.
For those committed to an irrational principle, regardless of facts or reason, something must be made to explain the contradiction – and it damn well can’t be their sacred, unquestionable principle.
I’m sure there are additional explanations for the appeal of conspiracy theories, but this psycho-epistemological element is the most interesting aspect of the subject to me.
lack of evidence. If any particular case actually had evidence for such a theory, it could be dealt with rationally, and would not be associated with the others. (IOW, the theories are arbitrary.)
the omnipotent “Them”. The conspirators are able to do amazing things, and keep the details secret. …
Not to take away from the deeper discussion here, but this reminds me of a wonderfully witty formulation about conspiracy theories that a professor of mine used once. I don’t remember his words verbatim, but a near-verbatim retelling would go something like this:
“The thing about conspiracy theories is that the complete lack of any real evidence is presented as the main reason for believing them.”
–Alex
Perhaps because there are occasionally, conspiracies, which can be proven, and so non-thinkers take that premise and run with it, regardless of the fact that one conspiracy does not indicate the prevalence of conspiracies in general. It is intellectual laziness, imo, that’s all. Evasion, and an unwillingness to see that all their thinking is based on is a faulty premise, it’s a logical fallacy of some kind, which I will look up later.
Just a small note:
The “Conspiracy” theories of paranoids have ancient roots. A science-fiction writer (I believe it was Isaac Asimov) once noted that an amazing rash of paranoids claiming “the government” or someone else was making them sick/controlling their mind/doing experiments through “rays” pointed at their house occured after a reasonably popular story about mind control rays was published.
Prior to the advent of science fiction there were no incidences of alien abductions, but there were MANY visitations by “angels”.
I think the phenomenon is similar to the experiences of a hypochondriac: they read that certain symptoms are indicative of some horrible disease, note that they have similar symptoms (after all, who HASN’T felt tired/itchy/stuffed up at some point in their lives?), then take leave of their senses and become a horrible annoyance to their doctor.
What I’m trying to say (poorly) is that irrational fears are commonplace. When the victim of that fear receives a benefit for it, namely ATTENTION, they continue with it. A good policy for non-paranoids is to never give benefits to people simply because they are being a nuisance. Sadly, this is beyond difficult.
Has anyone else had problems with animal-philes who reject Objectivism in it’s entirety because of the political rights of animals? Not the vegans, the ones who think that without proper animal rights laws people would torture their animals all day. “How can you say that? under your Randian logic, it would be ok for a man to subject his dog to the most unspeakable torment, and it would be ok!”
It is off-topic, but I wish to reply to this. There are two invalid premises behind the statement you quoted.
The first premise is that there are hordes of potential animal torturers at large, restrained only by laws against animal cruelty. What reason is there to believe such a thing? If people wish to torture animals, they can easily do so in private, beyond the reach of the law. Furthermore, why would one assume that a philosophy of reason, if widely adopted, would lead to more of such insanity?
The second premise is that there is no distinction between the moral and the legal. Objectivism holds that there is such a distinction, and that the purpose of the law is to define and protect individual, human rights – the only kind of rights that exist.
Those who claim that animals have rights are evading the entire context to which rights apply: the interaction of volitional, rational beings whose method of survival requires that they be free of the initiation of force. The concept of rights is a means of defining and asserting this basic requirement vis-a’-vis other men.
Animals survive by devouring whatever game (including human) or plant life (including a farmer’s field) their perceptual tools can find. They act automatically to further their own existence regardless of the consequences to man. The argument for animal rights, then, consists of the demand that we grant to animals that which they cannot, will not and do not grant to man. A creature that can never be capable of grasping and respecting the rights of others cannot be said to have any of its own.
It is true, therefore, that Objectivism would not advocate laws protecting any sort of animal “rights”. However, that does not mean that Objectivism considers animal torture moral. To value suffering is, in fact, the very antithesis of the Objectivist ethics and would be condemned by any Objectivist.
Objectivism certainly does not think that “animal torture is okay”. But the function of government is not to punish all possible objectionable behaviors. Rather, its proper function is to protect the rights of man. Those concerned about the well-being of the non-human should remember that governments allowed to go beyond this function are responsible for the deaths of millions – millions of people.