- Joined
- May 6, 2016
- Messages
- 1,908
- Reaction score
- 489
- Location
- Colorado
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
A conspiracy theory, simply put, is the idea that a powerful group of people are up to something, almost always for the worse. Said conspiracy is always operating behind the scenes. Hypothesized conspiracies can range from carrying out specific events (usually tragic ones) to planning world domination (or maybe they already rule the world).
The problem with conspiracy theories is that they are often implausible. You see, secrets are like chains, they break at the weakest link. This gives any conspiracy an inherent diseconomy of scale. The CIA employs 21,575 people, it only took 1 to leak it out to the public. The physicist David Robert Grimes listed a few popular conspiracy theories and the number of people it would take to keep it secret.
The moon landing hoax would have taken 411,000 people
A climate change fraud would have taken 405,000 people
A vaccination conspiracy would have taken 22,000 people
A conspiracy to suppress the cure for cancer would require 714,000 people
This is not to say that a secret kept by a large number of people cannot remain secret. It can do so under the right circumstances. An example would be the Manhattan Project which involved 130,000 people at its peak. It only had to remain secret for four years, contrasted with others which have supposedly been kept for decades. Furthermore, knowledge was highly compartmentalized with all sorts of different sites such as the testing site in New Mexico and the enrichment facility in Oakland Tennessee. However, Soviet intelligence figured out that something was going on due to a sudden drop in scientific papers from nuclear physicists. This actually poses a further problem for conspiracy theories supposedly being perpetrated by the US government because foreign intelligence agencies from rival countries should have caught on. Russian interference in the 2016 election made it clear that Russia is willing to use info (both real and fake) to influence public opinion. It would make sense for them to expose these conspiracies.
Conspiracy theories are often used when the particular side finds a consensus of experts strongly disagreeing with them. When there's evidence against your claim, the best bet is to discredit the evidence. This is precisely what conspiracy theories are set out to do. Another thing is that some theories have a grain of truth to them like when QAnon says that the world is run by a global child sex ring. Human trafficking is a real thing and as the MeToo movement demonstrated, there are powerful people out there who have gotten away with sexually abusing women and girls for far too long. However, QAnon takes it to the extreme, claiming that practically every powerful family is involved.
Here's a tip: whenever two sides disagree and one side uses a conspiracy theory, use a little principle known as Ockham's Razor. This principle states that if two narratives seem equally plausible to you, use the one with fewer assumptions. For example, one side may call a certain politician corrupt. After an investigation, evidence is found that the politician did something wrong. The same politician may respond by saying that this is all a conspiracy to undermine them.
There's also something called the burden of proof. The burden of proof rests on the party making a claim. Occham's Razor is important because both sides need to back up their claims. It will obviously be easier to back simple claims than convoluted ones. Whenever someone tells you that there's a conspiracy, make them back it up.
The problem with conspiracy theories is that they are often implausible. You see, secrets are like chains, they break at the weakest link. This gives any conspiracy an inherent diseconomy of scale. The CIA employs 21,575 people, it only took 1 to leak it out to the public. The physicist David Robert Grimes listed a few popular conspiracy theories and the number of people it would take to keep it secret.
The moon landing hoax would have taken 411,000 people
A climate change fraud would have taken 405,000 people
A vaccination conspiracy would have taken 22,000 people
A conspiracy to suppress the cure for cancer would require 714,000 people
This is not to say that a secret kept by a large number of people cannot remain secret. It can do so under the right circumstances. An example would be the Manhattan Project which involved 130,000 people at its peak. It only had to remain secret for four years, contrasted with others which have supposedly been kept for decades. Furthermore, knowledge was highly compartmentalized with all sorts of different sites such as the testing site in New Mexico and the enrichment facility in Oakland Tennessee. However, Soviet intelligence figured out that something was going on due to a sudden drop in scientific papers from nuclear physicists. This actually poses a further problem for conspiracy theories supposedly being perpetrated by the US government because foreign intelligence agencies from rival countries should have caught on. Russian interference in the 2016 election made it clear that Russia is willing to use info (both real and fake) to influence public opinion. It would make sense for them to expose these conspiracies.
Conspiracy theories are often used when the particular side finds a consensus of experts strongly disagreeing with them. When there's evidence against your claim, the best bet is to discredit the evidence. This is precisely what conspiracy theories are set out to do. Another thing is that some theories have a grain of truth to them like when QAnon says that the world is run by a global child sex ring. Human trafficking is a real thing and as the MeToo movement demonstrated, there are powerful people out there who have gotten away with sexually abusing women and girls for far too long. However, QAnon takes it to the extreme, claiming that practically every powerful family is involved.
Here's a tip: whenever two sides disagree and one side uses a conspiracy theory, use a little principle known as Ockham's Razor. This principle states that if two narratives seem equally plausible to you, use the one with fewer assumptions. For example, one side may call a certain politician corrupt. After an investigation, evidence is found that the politician did something wrong. The same politician may respond by saying that this is all a conspiracy to undermine them.
There's also something called the burden of proof. The burden of proof rests on the party making a claim. Occham's Razor is important because both sides need to back up their claims. It will obviously be easier to back simple claims than convoluted ones. Whenever someone tells you that there's a conspiracy, make them back it up.