Deconstructing "conspiracy"

[ICON]

Quote by: Isherwood http://www.fldfs.com/consumers/unlic...sselling.html is a dead link.

Try this: Unlicensed Entities - News Article
And, in the future, if a link expires, just google the quote; that will usually produce an active form of the expired link.

Quote by: Isherwood That's conspiracy used in a different context. Two or more people conspiring to commit a crime isn't the type of conspiracy I was talking about.

Seems to me that collaborative abuse of power, high crimes and misdemeanors, and violating one's oath of office and the public trust would qualify under the traditional definition of conspiracy, but if you have a special, secret, personal definition that you prefer, I'm eager to learn it.

Quote by: Isherwood The reason for that skepticism of government is the topic here.

Well, since the Father of Our Country and the Father of Our Constitution both shared that skepticism, the reason could simply be patriotism:

"Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." -- George Washington

"The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted." -- James Madison

[ICON]

"The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States." -- The Declaration of Independence [authored by Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States of America]

I'm certain that the American Colonies' majority Tory population considered the above claim an "outlandish conspiracy theory."

[Technosoul]

First you have a conspiracy where 3 or more people plot to do something. I guess that is always possible and is in fact done at times.

Sometimes an investigative reporter finds out, like when a group of people bugged the office of a Democratic canidate and Nixon was linked to that unlawful act.

Or when Ron Paul was running a consitution ring. Ha.

We have had our share of them, who shot Kennedy. That debate went on for years.

The cover up of UFOs by the government. Big conspiracy.

When doubt or misstrust is present, then we hear the conspiracy report.

[Chaossaber314]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but is the issue at hand not regarding the mindset of believing in "Conspiracies in general" but "Unfounded conspiracy theories people continue to cling to"?

[ICON]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but is the issue at hand not regarding the mindset of believing in "Conspiracies in general" but "Unfounded conspiracy theories people continue to cling to"?

That would certainly be a better debate, but there's no denying that there are those who still hold to the untenable position that cabals do not exist -- which is really the crux of this debate (let's be real). Would that this were merely an argument over standards of evidence....but then it would just be the OJ debate all over again.;^)

[Chaossaber314]

I don't think I know anyone that denies that such cabals exist, merely that they are not responsible or culpable for every given bad event.

[ICON]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 I don't think I know anyone that denies that such cabals exist, merely that they are not responsible or culpable for every given bad event.

Perhaps you don't know any of them, but I believe it's safe to speculate that there are many more people who deny the existence of cabals than who believe that cabals are omnipotent puppet-masters. Besides, if "no one" denies their existence, and very few (if any) believe them responsible for "everything," what's the point of this debate?

[Chaossaber314]

Because, as the Op points out, many of us do find them placing responsibility for a great many things with which all evidence points to the contrary.

[ICON]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Because, as the Op points out, many of us do find them placing responsibility for a great many things with which all evidence points to the contrary.

Then, that is a standards of evidence argument...nothing more.

BTW, although I'm not one who is convinced that "Bush did it," I am very sympathetic with those who doubt the official story, for the following reasons: 1) 3 buildings imploded on 9-11, one of which wasn't even hit -- a fact that many structural engineers classify as "unlikely," at best; 2) A vital piece of evidence (the steel from the towers) was shipped out of the country, without first being made available for examination; 3) Warnings about the plot were ignored by officials, and the officials engaged in this obstructionism were rewarded with promotions, instead of fired; 4) Fresh on the heels of the attack, a bill was passed comprising the single greatest blow to civil liberties in US history, a bill with a shameless name, a bill that was pushed by the administration, and that no member of congress was permitted to read -- an apparent act of political opportunism, an act that seemed to answer the question, "cui bono?"; 5) A known cabalist was the administration's first choice to head the investigation, a move that smacked of cover-up.

No, not "all evidence points to the contrary." There is plenty of room for skepticism. The administration has brought much of it on itself. One needn't agree with the conclusions of every skeptic in order to understand the reasons for skepticism.

[another day]

Quote by: Isherwood This is not a thread about any conspiracy theory in particular. Rather, I'm interested in knowing what people think about conspiracies in general. Why are they so popular? What is it about the human psyche that makes people come up with conspiracy theories? What makes us ignore a simple explanation in favor of a more complicated and convoluted one? Why do you think people will persist in believing conspiracy theories in the face of sometimes overwhelming counter-evidence? I would hope we could avoid useless toss-off answers like, "people are dumb". I'm really interested in the human fascination with conspiracies.

A 9/11 debunking website had an interesting section on this topic.

Basically it's alot of realistic information about how real conspiracies usually involve very few people and in most cases are exposed by one of the parties involved blowing the whistle.

I think some people are perversely satisfied by the notion that their are these shadowy, ultra organized groups constantly maneuvering behind the scenes to create all this trouble. It goes back to the idea that people find it comforting to believe that distinctly "evil" people or groups of "evil" people are alone responsible for all the hardship and suffering and that if we could simply remove these people then all would be well with the world.

[ICON]

Quote by: another day A 9/11 debunking website had an interesting section on this topic. Basically it's alot of realistic information about how real conspiracies usually involve very few people and in most cases are exposed by one of the parties involved blowing the whistle.

Isn't Al-Qaeda a cabal (i.e., conspiratorial organization)? Just checking.

Quote by: another day I think some people are perversely satisfied by the notion that their are these shadowy, ultra organized groups constantly maneuvering behind the scenes to create all this trouble. It goes back to the idea that people find it comforting to believe that distinctly "evil" people or groups of "evil" people are alone responsible for all the hardship and suffering and that if we could simply remove these people then all would be well with the world.

Sounds like Bush's obsession with Al-Qaeda.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: ICON Isn't Al-Qaeda a cabal (i.e., conspiratorial organization)? Just checking.

Yes. Your point? Still looking for those elusive figures that deny all conspiracies exist?

[ICON]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Yes. Your point?

I thought the point was rather obvious...

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Still looking for those elusive figures that deny all conspiracies exist?

They really aren't that elusive; I wish they were. The problem is that the same people who derisively snort, "Conspiracy Theorist!" -- accompanied by the obligatory eye roll -- defend their contempt for skeptics by regurgitating the same flaccid argument, "Conspiracies don't work because conspirators can't hold their tongues."

So, my point was that denying the viability of conspiracies, as a mechanism for discrediting "conspiracy theorists" is foolish and requires a supreme act of doublethink.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: ICON I thought the point was rather obvious... They really aren't that elusive; I wish they were. The problem is that the same people who derisively snort, "Conspiracy Theorist!" -- accompanied by the obligatory eye roll -- defend their contempt for skeptics by regurgitating the same flaccid argument, "Conspiracies don't work because conspirators can't hold their tongues." So, my point was that denying the viability of conspiracies, as a mechanism for discrediting "conspiracy theorists" is foolish and requires a supreme act of doublethink.

I have yet to have to hear that said here and even less so from Another Day.

In actuality, it's probably your misinterpretation of what a lot of these people are saying than a chronic problem.

Case in point, one of the primary reasons why 9/11 could not have been executed by the government is that in order to successfully do so, countless thousands would have to be in on the conspiracy. With a number this high, the likelihood that every person would maintain their "story" drops to infinitesimal depths. Still, even holding this position does not discount ALL conspiracies. You're grasping at nothing.

[ICON]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 I have yet to have to hear that said here and even less so from [the other poster].

The other poster made specific reference to an un-named site, whose position on conspiracy theories was (from what I could tell from his post) much as I characterized. I cannot verify that position, of course, because the other posted did not link to the site he mentioned.

Quote by: Chaossaber314 In actuality, it's probably your misinterpretation of what a lot of these people are saying than a chronic problem.

I've spoken to enough of these people that I'm, sadly, convinced that there is no misinterpretation on my part. Perhaps there is in this instance, but in general, their "argument" is as poorly conceived as I have represented it to be.

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Case in point, one of the primary reasons why 9/11 could not have been executed by the government is that in order to successfully do so, countless thousands would have to be in on the conspiracy. With a number this high, the likelihood that every person would maintain their "story" drops to infinitesimal depths.

The CIA, NSA, and Al-Qaeda (to name just a notable few) all seem to keep their secrets well enough -- well enough, in fact, that torture has been deemed necessary to "persuade" members of the latter cabal to "spill the beans." Though full disclosure is unavailable, all 3 organizations presumably involve "countless thousands" of members. According to your theory, their numbers negate their secrecy.

I don't subscribe to the theory that the US gov't did it, but I can certainly conceive of how it could be done without either involving "countless thousands" or spilling the beans.

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Still, even holding this position does not discount ALL conspiracies. You're grasping at nothing.

If so, then those who oppose a particular theory should address the elements of that particular theory, instead of simply mocking the theory's adherent for subscribing to "Conspiracy Theories" [eye roll].

[another day]

Quote by: ICON If so, then those who oppose a particular theory should address the elements of that particular theory, instead of simply mocking the theory's adherent for subscribing to "Conspiracy Theories" [eye roll].

The trouble is, often times the innate nature of the conspiracy theory makes disproving it impossible. Any evidence of a lack of conspiracy is usually attributed to further manipulation and deception by the conspirators.

For this reason it can be prudent to attack the idea of the conspiracy theory in general, and the flawed mindset of the conspiracy theorists who advocate them.

I would compare it to disproving the existence of God. You cannot really disprove that idea using a posteriori arguments but you can use a priori arguments, by attacking the idea of god and the reasons that make humanity and individuals believe in god in the first place.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: another day The trouble is, often times the innate nature of the conspiracy theory makes disproving it impossible. Any evidence of a lack of conspiracy is usually attributed to further manipulation and deception by the conspirators. For this reason it can be prudent to attack the idea of the conspiracy theory in general, and the flawed mindset of the conspiracy theorists who advocate them. I would compare it to disproving the existence of God. You cannot really disprove that idea using a posteriori arguments but you can use a priori arguments, by attacking the idea of god and the reasons that make humanity and individuals believe in god in the first place.

And yet, the only "proof" the other side ever brought to the table about 9/11 was the official news reel, and some proof by animation.

YouTube - 9/11 Truth: MIT Engineer Jeff King Says WTC Demolished

[ICON]

Quote by: another day The trouble is, often times the innate nature of the conspiracy theory makes disproving it impossible. Any evidence of a lack of conspiracy is usually attributed to further manipulation and deception by the conspirators.

Like the absence of fingerprints from a suicide weapon?

Quote by: another day For this reason it can be prudent to attack the idea of the conspiracy theory in general, and the flawed mindset of the conspiracy theorists who advocate them.

It is only useful if your goal is to dispute the existence of conspiracies. Otherwise, your tactic is pointless.

Quote by: another day I would compare it to disproving the existence of God. You cannot really disprove that idea using a posteriori arguments but you can use a priori arguments, by attacking the idea of god and the reasons that make humanity and individuals believe in god in the first place.

That's an odd form of skepticism you're sporting there. So, according to your worldview, the only conspiracies are religion and "conspiracy theories"??? Do you have a headache?;^)

[another day]

Like the absence of fingerprints from a suicide weapon?

Explain?

It is only useful if your goal is to dispute the existence of conspiracies. Otherwise, your tactic is idiotic.

Dispute the existence of a certain type of conspiracy... namely the grandiose, all encompassing type that seems to require thousands of players to be involved.

That's an odd form of skepticism you're sporting there. So, according to your worldview, the only conspiracies are religion and "conspiracy theories"??? Do you have a headache?;^)

I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean. Religion is not a "conspiracy"... neither are conspiracy theories. They are simply examples of misguided foolishness. The religion thing was an example pertaining to the method of disproving a certain type of belief/argument. Namely that certain things have a way of being constructed so that they can avoid any criticism, by means of self affirming principles of the belief. Conspiracy theorists will say anything that disproves a conspiracy is simply evidence of more conspiracy. Theists will say any evidence that disproves god is, for example, meant to "test our faith".

[ICON]

Quote by: another day Explain?

I was playing off the angle that the absence of certain evidence could be evidence of something dastardly.

Quote by: another day Dispute the existence of a certain type of conspiracy... namely the grandiose, all encompassing type that seems to require thousands of players to be involved.

So, you don't dispute the existence of conspiracies, but you simply believe there is a scale at which the requisite secrecy becomes improbable? Two questions (not rhetorical): 1) Is Al-Qaeda not a conspiratorial organization? 2) Does it not, presumably include "thousands of players"?

Quote by: another day [C]ertain things have a way of being constructed so that they can avoid any criticism, by means of self affirming principles of the belief. Conspiracy theorists will say anything that disproves a conspiracy is simply evidence of more conspiracy.

Isn't the mocking label of "Conspiracy Theorist" constructed to avoid honest debate?