Conspiracy Theories - What's the Harm?

[Paavo]

(I posted this in "Philosophy & Religion" as I want to talk about this in a Philosophical way more than a political and precise one.)

I've seen that the issue of conspiracies has three kinds of viewpoints on it.

1. The one of people who ask the questions and dig deep
2. The one of people who check the questions against facts from various sources, doing critical thinking, and come to a conclusion - often dismissing the theory as false, but often see a reason to dig deeper
3. The one of people who dismiss the theories as "cooky" without any serious thought or fact checking

As the title of the thread says, I'm asking the question:
What's the harm of asking these questions?

Do conspiracy theories harm anyone? If it turns out to be nothing but bullshit, it's never going to affect the people it accuses of conspiracy. If it holds water, it'll damage the wrongdoers - rightly so. I guess I'm directing the question to people of type 3, the ones that seem to dismiss everything but the "official version" on the issue. I know people of type 3 will not actually admit that they dismiss the theories by default, but I think many of them know they often do.

To put it in a nutshell:
Conspiracy theories often go over the top, seem paranoid, and are often debunked easily. But what's the harm? Aren't conspiracy theorists - paranoid as they may be - actually creating a layer of control over people in charge? Aren't they keeping a level of healthy paranoia that deters possible corruption?


What do you think?

EDIT:

Thought I'd add the ever-so-scary quote "The bigger the lie, the more it will be believed". And those are not a conspiracy theorist's words, they're Adolf Hitler's - he was very real.

[PatrickHenry]

Interesting thought, Paavo. I think the harm is in the minds of those who feel that "serious debate" is damaged by entertaining the unusual. For instance(a little off topic) why did "Rasputin's dong" get butterfaced instead of remaining in general discussion? heh, heh

My point is that the "Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis" dialectic is threatened by the chaos of the wild theories. For the straitlaced, doubting the government's line is tantamount to treason or at least a question re: the person's sanity because the safety of the world is based on the integrity of the gov. heh, heh

That's why one of my themes here is undermining gov credibility on every issue possible: to show what a bunch of greedy, power hungry liars theyALL are. If they are untrustworthy on issue "A", why would I trust their prounouncements on "B, C, and D". Then it becomes a game to find Waldo/Wally. Fun for me, because the official stories are often tissue thin, with whistleblowers lowering the boom, heh, heh.

[Comrade]

Sure conspiracy theories can do harm, if they are presented to people who don't have the critical thinking skills to decide if they are a clever misrepresentations of facts or legit.

People who believe in things that aren't true are going to make errors in their judgement.

I also think its a bit premature to deride anyone who doesn't believe every conspiracy theory they come across as indoctinated sheep following the government's dictates.

[orgaelin]

I think the problem with conspiracy theories is that they have now become the tool of those whom the theories were meant to accuse.

Look at whacko's like David Icke... clearly this guy is utterly nuts, and almost everyone can see this. Yet he's tremendously popular and his books are all over the place at extortionate prices. Why? How?

What's going on is this: imagine you are a government agent charged with keeping secret the fact that we had made contact with an alien race (all this is hypothetical; I don't believe we have made contact). The very best way for you to hide something is to place it right under peoples' noses - to thrust it in their faces.

So that's what they do. They tell us the bare facts, all the things they don't want us to know... but they wrap it all in a crazy package called a conspiracy theorist. That way people hear the stories and straight away associate them with craziness and unlikeliness.

What do you think?

[Paavo]

Sure conspiracy theories can do harm, if they are presented to people who don't have the critical thinking skills to decide if they are a clever misrepresentations of facts or legit.

You didn't exactly say how they would indeed harm anyone, but I understand that if a case would go to court, and the jury would believe something that's false - it would be harmful, but that's true in any case, not only conspiracies.

People who believe in things that aren't true are going to make errors in their judgement.

Well, that's obvious... again, nothing to do with conspiracies per se.

What's going on is this: imagine you are a government agent charged with keeping secret the fact that we had made contact with an alien race (all this is hypothetical; I don't believe we have made contact). The very best way for you to hide something is to place it right under peoples' noses - to thrust it in their faces. So that's what they do. They tell us the bare facts, all the things they don't want us to know... but they wrap it all in a crazy package called a conspiracy theorist. That way people hear the stories and straight away associate them with craziness and unlikeliness. What do you think?

That's a thing I've thought about for a long time. It reminds me of GWB's words after 9/11; "it's important not to start making some crazy conspiracy theories" (from my memory, not the exact words). It's an interesting and a very valid point IMO. It does indeed seem like the ultimate way to downplay something.

[orgaelin]

Your head is starting to freak me out, but I love how you tend to agree with me so much!

[Technosoul]

I have noted that most folks can only think of a conspiracy that centers around something political, which you wanted to avoid.

Needless to say a falsehood that can be backed up with some data that seems to support the falsehood can be harmful in the political arena. Example: Bush advocated a conspiracy that Saddam was months way from establishing nuclear WMDs and bio-chemical bombs. He had some data to use to support his conspiracy. That resulted in a war and Saddam is now sitting in jail. We now know the conspiracy was false. So a conspiracy of that nature could put a lot of people in harm's way.

Also, we have two kinds of reports, one person might be reporting about a conspiracy based on what we call investigative reporting, subject to peer review and confirmation to reach the truth about the supportive data.

Another one might just have an overactive imagination that is motivated by his paranoid nature or just to create a state of confusion for others.

Now a conspiracy about Area 51 and the government covering up top secret knowledge about aliens crashing on earth, would seem somewhat harmless.

A religious conspiracy that a devil or anti-Christ is plotting to destroy faith or that we must have a doomsday war between the children of darkness and the children of light could be harmless if it only gave people hope that they are the ones who will experience the Rapture. But on the other hand it could be harmful if it led to torturing people to make them confess to witchcraft, or if it prevented them from giving real concideration to some theory of science, leading millions into a dark age of censorship. And Paul once advocated that philosophy was evil (after he lost some debates) and warned people not to "hang out" with intellectual thinkers.

But bottom line is this. A conspiracy is the act of more then one person (a group) to obtain an objective or to create a trueism.

If their collective effort has a good intent and has the end result of bringing to light that which was in darkness, then it is good. But if the conspiracy is to gain control by repeating a deception over and over as a truth, then the conspiracy is harmful or at least worthless and perhaps laughable. As well, one would have to factor in how people interpret a conspiracy and what actions they take with it - especially if the actions are taken before one seeks to explore deeper about the motivations behind the storytelling.

Technosoul.

[castille]

There is no harm in conspiracy theorists.

There is no harm in retarded people either.

Just treat them like little children and things will be fine.

[Ken Carman]

The amount of harm conspiracy theories do is in direct porportion to the type of accusation and how much the people we're suspicious of are pursued. If your Susan McDougal you might wind up unjustly in prison, dressed in the prison garb worn by those who murder their children; making you an easy target in the prison system. You can wind up constantly accused, as President, of allowing 9/11 to happen, or having it done for you. Maybe you believe one, or more, of these. If they did happen, they were horrible crimes commited by those who feed upon conspiracies or the complaicent nature of the public for profit and political gain.

I am NOT against conspiracy theories. I believe in a few. I believe the conspiracy of coincidences is just as suspect as conspiracies like "we really didn't land on the moon." I also believe those who over use the "tinfoil" analogy are often attempting to shut up those who bring up topics they don't want discussed. But I do believe skepticism is proper, with a certain amount of respect most, but not all, of the time.

[Comrade]

Originally posted by Paavo, You didn't exactly say how they would indeed harm anyone, but I understand that if a case would go to court, and the jury would believe something that's false - it would be harmful, but that's true in any case, not only conspiracies. Well, that's obvious... again, nothing to do with conspiracies per se.

Did you not make the connection?
I didn't post those things in a series for no reason at all.
Conspiracy theories lead people to believe things that aren't true, and thus they will make bad decisions, and thus are harmful. Not exactly a complex, nuanced proposition.

[mook]

Let's face it, dude.

I see a borderline with the conspiracy theorists. There is a line they can cross where it goes from fair skepticism to just plain ridiculous. Especially when the conspiracy theory is allowed to fester, perpetuated by a paranoid public that doesn't know a tenth of what it's talking about.

The biggest case-in-point that I've come across far too many times is that regarding the moon landing. The general consensus is that we landed on the moon, no? And I could understand having a bit of doubt about whether we made it there or not. That would take some pretty substantial technological capabilities and all.. maybe we didn't have it back then. Maybe those are black and white photos taken in a Nevada desert. Maybe... maybe.

Maybe.

That's the key here, isn't it? Maybe. It's okay to think these things. It's okay to ponder the possibilities. I'll admit I see a bit of credibility to even the argument that a plane did not actually hit the Pentagon. But there's this line here. This line they cross. Where they go from skepticism to just plain naiveity.

They don't think that "maybe" the moon landing was faked. No, they know it was faked--based entirely on some easily debunked photographic criticisms. Like the waving American flag; someone actually attempted to disprove the entire moon landing because the American flag was waving, when an explanation for that (ie a metal pole holding it in that position) is readily available.

It's alright to have fair criticism or skepticism in the face of those around them or above them. But it's not alright to get so adamantly caught up in these theories that they are accepted as concrete truths.

That is why they're called conspiracy theories, no? They're just supposed to be possible alternative explanations for the widely accepted reality. Not meant to be bought into entirely. But some do, and that's where the line has been breached. That's when some sense needs to be smacked into them.

[Ken Carman]

Perhaps we should be sure to divorce "conspiracy theory" from "conspiracy nut:" those willing to take anecdotal "evidence" (AT BEST) and turn them into some absolute. Sometimes we tend to use "one thing is sure" or even "proven" too easily in our rants and conversations, mostly because conversation requires a more absolutist approach because people's attention span are often worse than my collie's.

[orgaelin]

Conspiracy theories obviously have to tread a fine line. There are SO many complete idiots out there. Louis Theroux has proved that!

I think there is a need for big secrets to come out, like Bush's nasty tactics for getting elected, but these 'big secrets' are all too often discredited by being classified with real conspiracy theories.

I actually do believe that the serious nutter theories are harmful. When you look at someone like David Icke, his ideas genuinely incite hatred in his minions. People become obsessive, and start hatching ideas of how to assasinate Queen Elizabeth just because Icke says she's really an alien lizard thingy!

So there needs to be a line, and for intelligent folks like you and I the line is there by our own perceptions and sense of reason; we can see pretty clearly whose a whacko. But some people can't, and both they and their theories are dangerous.

~ Org.