Merged: Your defintion of 'conspiracy theory'

[Soily]

The language of the 'conspiracy theory' has become so debased and warped its become hard to know what people actually mean when they use the term. That's why so many debates about the subject quickly become an intractable argument between sides speaking different languages.

My definition is - 'a possible explanation of an event that includes some conspiratorial element'.

There's no pejorative element here. And that's my definition because if you include a value judgment in your definition then you are not considering each 'theory' on a case by case by basis evaluating it's merits or otherwise, and instead arguing from a position of inherent ignorance and prejudice.

What's your definition of 'conspiracy theory' and why is that your definition?

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Soily

My definition is - 'a possible explanation of an event that includes some conspiratorial element'.

There's no pejorative element here. And that's my definition because if you include a value judgment in your definition then you are not considering each 'theory' on a case by case by basis evaluating it's merits or otherwise, and instead arguing from a position of inherent ignorance and prejudice.

Unfortunately, that definition is functionally useless. In effect, it's functionally useless to employ the term at all except as a value judgement. Therefore, it's not valid to dismiss a view of events as a conspiracy theory without examining the evidence; rather, it's useful to examine the evidence, dismiss on that basis a particular view of events, and point out that it shares significant characteristics with views of other events that can also be dismissed based on a study of the evidence, and characterise that set of views as "conspiracy theories".

This is, in fact, what most skeptics do, and what most conspiracy theorists accuse us of failing to do. Reasoning from evidence comes first, and the value judgement follows.

Originally Posted by Soily

What's your definition of 'conspiracy theory' and why is that your definition?

The Wikipedia article is a reasonable approximation. However, the shades of meaning attached to the term are sufficiently subtle that it's not reducible to a single, succinct sentence.

Dave

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Soily

The language of the 'conspiracy theory' has become so debased and warped its become hard to know what people actually mean when they use the term. That's why so many debates about the subject quickly become an intractable argument between sides speaking different languages.

My definition is - 'a possible explanation of an event that includes some conspiratorial element'.

There's no pejorative element here. And that's my definition because if you include a value judgment in your definition then you are not considering each 'theory' on a case by case by basis evaluating it's merits or otherwise, and instead arguing from a position of inherent ignorance and prejudice.

What's your definition of 'conspiracy theory' and why is that your definition?

And what is a "conspiratorial element"?

It is a conspiracy when two or more people agree on a course of action ahead of time to carry out an illegal act, or an act that otherwise would be disapproved of by society.

It is hence a conspiracy every time a crime is committed with a plan by other than a single perpetrator.

A conspiracy theory, in the literal meaning of the word, would then be

"a possible explanation of a event that includes advance planning of a crime by two or more perpetrators"


However, in the more narrow sense that this subforum is based on, the perpetrators would have to include persons who are either part of the government, important government agencies, or of groups with considerable power over government, who abuse their position such that the government's constitutional purpose of guarding society and preventing crime becomes compromised.

So my definition is:

"A Conspiracy Theory is a proposed explanation of an event that includes advance planning of a crime by two or more perpetrators who abuse their position within and/or power over government agencies to prevent the government from fulfilling its duties to protect society and prevent that crime"

[Gawdzilla]

The reason the words have become so confused is that the CTers want to diffuse them so they're less descriptive of the phenomena. If they can deflect the meaning into the reverse of the actual meaning, they've won a point. Same with "debunking", which is a swear word over at ATS. If you let them have control of the conversation the tinfoil hat brigade will be very happy.

Think of it as the lunatic version of Politically Correct Speech.

[Soily]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

The reason the words have become so confused is that the CTers want to diffuse them so they're less descriptive of the phenomena. If they can deflect the meaning into the reverse of the actual meaning, they've won a point. Same with "debunking", which is a swear word over at ATS. If you let them have control of the conversation the tinfoil hat brigade will be very happy.

Think of it as the lunatic version of Politically Correct Speech.

I genuinely don't understand what you're saying. Can you not just explain what you think the term means, rather than telling us all what other people think?

If what everyone in the discussion thinks is just in your head, we're never going to get anywhere.

[Soily]

Originally Posted by Oystein

And what is a "conspiratorial element"?

It is a conspiracy when two or more people agree on a course of action ahead of time to carry out an illegal act, or an act that otherwise would be disapproved of by society.

It is hence a conspiracy every time a crime is committed with a plan by other than a single perpetrator.

A conspiracy theory, in the literal meaning of the word, would then be

"a possible explanation of a event that includes advance planning of a crime by two or more perpetrators"


However, in the more narrow sense that this subforum is based on, the perpetrators would have to include persons who are either part of the government, important government agencies, or of groups with considerable power over government, who abuse their position such that the government's constitutional purpose of guarding society and preventing crime becomes compromised.

So my definition is:

"A Conspiracy Theory is a proposed explanation of an event that includes advance planning of a crime by two or more perpetrators who abuse their position within and/or power over government agencies to prevent the government from fulfilling its duties to protect society and prevent that crime"

I actually think that's pretty good.

So would you then agree that it would be reasonable to judge explanations that fit into the definition on a case by case basis, because it would be arguing from a position of ignorance and prejudice to do otherwise?

[Gawdzilla]

Originally Posted by Soily

I genuinely don't understand what you're saying. Can you not just explain what you think the term means, rather than telling us all what other people think?

If what everyone in the discussion thinks is just in your head, we're never going to get anywhere.

Soily, you're the very definition of "conspiracy theory."

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by Oystein

"A Conspiracy Theory is a proposed explanation of an event that includes advance planning of a crime by two or more perpetrators who abuse their position within and/or power over government agencies to prevent the government from fulfilling its duties to protect society and prevent that crime"

Yes. And just to satisfy some CT proponents: we are talking malfeasance rather than misfeasance - it has to be an active planing of the event or detailed knowledge of the event rather than simply incompetence.



ETA: I would also change this part "...includes advance planning of a crime (or the active, willful, and criminal interference with the investigation) by two or more..."

[Soily]

Originally Posted by Ladewig

Yes. And just to satisfy some CT proponents: we are talking malfeasance rather than misfeasance - it has to be an active planing of the event or detailed knowledge of the event rather than simply incompetence.



ETA: I would also change this part "...includes advance planning of a crime (or the active, willful, and criminal interference with the investigation) by two or more..."

I wouldn't include the investigation as part of the core definition. We know full well there are degrees of cover-up for all sorts of things and for all sorts of reasons not connected with criminal conspiracies. For instance, I wouldn't for a second argue that there was a conspiracy of sex abuse in the catholic church, but we know the catholic church has covered such things up before.

Large organizations tend not to air their dirty linen in public.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Soily

So would you then agree that it would be reasonable to judge explanations that fit into the definition on a case by case basis, because it would be arguing from a position of ignorance and prejudice to do otherwise?

Not at all.

"When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras."

When a particular explanation schema has a long-standing track record of being horribly, horribly wrong, then it's quite reasonable to take that track record into account in evaluating new explanations that come from that schema.

For example, is it more reasonable a priori that my car refuses to start because the battery is dead, or because a unicorn cast an evil spell on it?

Or for a more realistic example, consider the medical maxim presented above; one of the thing medical students need to learn to do is to evaluate hypotheses (potential diagnoses) based not only on the symptoms presented, but on the likelihood of that hypothesis being true. At least here in the (northern) United States, it's much more likely that flu-like symptoms are caused by the flu than they are to be caused by Dengue fever, and this is particularly true if the patient hasn't travelled recently.

[talkie toaster]

2+2 = 5.456547

[Soily]

Originally Posted by drkitten

Not at all.

"When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras."

When a particular explanation schema has a long-standing track record of being horribly, horribly wrong, then it's quite reasonable to take that track record into account in evaluating new explanations that come from that schema.

For example, is it more reasonable a priori that my car refuses to start because the battery is dead, or because a unicorn cast an evil spell on it?

Or for a more realistic example, consider the medical maxim presented above; one of the thing medical students need to learn to do is to evaluate hypotheses (potential diagnoses) based not only on the symptoms presented, but on the likelihood of that hypothesis being true. At least here in the (northern) United States, it's much more likely that flu-like symptoms are caused by the flu than they are to be caused by Dengue fever, and this is particularly true if the patient hasn't travelled recently.

The boy who cried wolf attitude is fine, but it depends what kind of boys you hang around with. If you go into the 911 thread you'll probably find a lot of boys and very few wolves. If you go to the Lockerbie thread the ratios are reversed.

And if your car refuses to start, all things been equal the most simple explanation is that its a mechanical fault. But if your car is also covered in unicorn dung, the law of parsimony has become mere faith.

[Chaos]

Originally Posted by talkie toaster

2+2 = 5.456547

6.728913, actually. You shouldn´t believe everything you read on PrisonPlanet.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Soily

The boy who cried wolf attitude is fine, but it depends what kind of boys you hang around with.

... which is why I try to pay as little attention to the "boys" and as much attention as possible to the evidence the boys bring. If you show me wolf tracks, I'll believe you know what you're talking about. If you instead start telling me about invisible flying wolves that don't leave tracks (because they fly), I know how to value that, too.

Quote:

And if your car refuses to start, all things been equal the most simple explanation is that its a mechanical fault. But if your car is also covered in unicorn dung, the law of parsimony has become mere faith.

Actually, no. Even if my car is covered in unicorn dung, that still doesn't prove that unicorns can cast spells. It's not the law of parsimony, but the "law" of likelihood. But certainly I'd be more inclined to take the evil spell-casting unicorn more seriously if you can show me unicorn dung.

[talkie toaster]

Originally Posted by Chaos

6.728913, actually. You shouldn´t believe everything you read on PrisonPlanet.

I see where I went wrong, I forgot to add the Bilderberg Quotient...D'oh !!!!

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by Soily

The language of the 'conspiracy theory' has become so debased and warped its become hard to know what people actually mean when they use the term. That's why so many debates about the subject quickly become an intractable argument between sides speaking different languages.

My definition is - 'a possible explanation of an event that includes some conspiratorial element'.

There's no pejorative element here. And that's my definition because if you include a value judgment in your definition then you are not considering each 'theory' on a case by case by basis evaluating it's merits or otherwise, and instead arguing from a position of inherent ignorance and prejudice.

What's your definition of 'conspiracy theory' and why is that your definition?

you can have that definition if you like, but don't expect any body to honor it. You can't hijack the definition of a term that has a very definite, modern definition. Here is a definition much more accurate to the modern understood definition of the term.

Conspiracy theory - A theory or proposition for a (often) controversial event that is (A) in opposition to the widely believed (historical) theory on the event, and (B) involves a group (often secret, often involving people of extreme wealth or power) who conspired to carry out the event.

TAM

[Sceptic-PK]

Wiki’s definitions are as good as any.

Quote:

Wikipedia: conspiracy theory guide

1. Initiated on the basis of limited, partial or circumstantial evidence;
Conceived in reaction to media reports and images, as opposed to, for example, thorough knowledge of the relevant forensic evidence.

2. Addresses an event or process that has broad historical or emotional impact;
Seeks to interpret a phenomenon which has near-universal interest and emotional significance, a story that may thus be of some compelling interest to a wide audience.

3. Reduces morally complex social phenomena to simple, immoral actions;
Impersonal, institutional processes, especially errors and oversights, interpreted as malign, consciously intended and designed by immoral individuals.

4. Personifies complex social phenomena as powerful individual conspirators;
Related to (3) but distinct from it, deduces the existence of powerful individual conspirators from the 'impossibility' that a chain of events lacked direction by a person.

5. Allots superhuman talents or resources to conspirators;
May require conspirators to possess unique discipline, unrepentant resolve, advanced or unknown technology, uncommon psychological insight, historical foresight, unlimited resources, etc.

6. Key steps in argument rely on inductive, not deductive reasoning;
Inductive steps are mistaken to bear as much confidence as deductive ones.

Appeals to 'common sense';
Common sense steps substitute for the more robust, academically respectable methodologies available for investigating sociological and scientific phenomena.

7. Exhibits well-established logical and methodological fallacies;
Formal and informal logical fallacies are readily identifiable among the key steps of the argument.

8. Is produced and circulated by 'outsiders', often anonymous, and generally lacking peer review;
Story originates with a person who lacks any insider contact or knowledge, and enjoys popularity among persons who lack critical (especially technical) knowledge.

9. Is upheld by persons with demonstrably false conceptions of relevant science;
At least some of the story's believers believe it on the basis of a mistaken grasp of elementary scientific facts.

10. Enjoys zero credibility in expert communities;
Academics and professionals tend to ignore the story, treating it as too frivolous to invest their time and risk their personal authority in disproving.

11. Rebuttals provided by experts are ignored or accommodated through elaborate new twists in the narrative;
When experts do respond to the story with critical new evidence, the conspiracy is elaborated (sometimes to a spectacular degree) to discount the new evidence, often incorporating the rebuttal as a part of the conspiracy.'

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by Soily

I wouldn't include the investigation as part of the core definition. We know full well there are degrees of cover-up for all sorts of things and for all sorts of reasons not connected with criminal conspiracies. For instance, I wouldn't for a second argue that there was a conspiracy of sex abuse in the catholic church, but we know the catholic church has covered such things up before.

Large organizations tend not to air their dirty linen in public.

Point conceded. I was focussing too much on the popular view of the Warren Commission.

Originally Posted by talkie toaster

I see where I went wrong, I forgot to add the Bilderberg Quotient.

Good name for a band.

[AaronMHatch]

You're going to have to define 'defintion' before I can use it.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Originally Posted by Soily

And if your car refuses to start, all things been equal the most simple explanation is that its a mechanical fault. But if your car is also covered in unicorn dung, the law of parsimony has become mere faith.

And if there's no proven method of determining that the material on the car is, in fact, unicorn dung, or no comparison to known samples of unicorn dung was ever made... then how can one say with any certainty that the material on the car is unicorn dung?

Your definition of "conspiracy theory" allows for assumptions not supported by any known observation.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Soily

The language of the 'conspiracy theory' has become so debased and warped its become hard to know what people actually mean when they use the term.

No it hasn't.

And simply put, a conspiracy theory is any allegation of conspiracy for which credible evidence has not been presented, but rather quite the opposite.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Originally Posted by Soily

And if your car refuses to start, all things been equal the most simple explanation is that its a mechanical fault. But if your car is also covered in unicorn dung, the law of parsimony has become mere faith.

Upon further thought, I've identified a much more significant flaw. drkitten's example was made in the context of a world where unicorns do not exist. However, in the above quote, you have changed that context. You are re-imagining the example in the context of a world where unicorns do exist.

Even in your attempt at a rational discussion, you're arguing from an entirely different world than the rest of us.

[C_Felix]

"A Conspiracy Theory is a proposed explanation of an event that includes advance planning of a crime by two or more perpetrators who abuse their position within and/or power over government agencies to prevent the government from fulfilling its duties to protect society and prevent that crime"

^^^^^^^
That's it pretty much it!
More than one person planning a crime.
That's what I understand it as...
I don't know about this abuse of power or anything like that.

Then there's the Foil Hat theory.
That's more along the lines of, "The gov't was behind Sept 11th."
"The reason we don't see any bigfoots is because they are currently hibernating on Mars."
"Silent army helicopters are the real things behind alien abductions."

[Soily]

Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd

Upon further thought, I've identified a much more significant flaw. drkitten's example was made in the context of a world where unicorns do not exist. However, in the above quote, you have changed that context. You are re-imagining the example in the context of a world where unicorns do exist.

Even in your attempt at a rational discussion, you're arguing from an entirely different world than the rest of us.

No that makes the original example completely redundant, if the restriction on these hypothetical scenarios is that they must entirely be rooted in the real world of the possible.

Given these apparent conditions, a more relevant and indeed useful example would be not be a comparison between a mechanical failure and a unicorn casting a magic spell, but someone sabotaging it.

If your car won't start and in the absence of any contrary data, concluding that there is a mechanical failure is perfectly logical. But if there's signs that someone has tried to break into your car or tried to let the tyres down, the law of parsominy becomes null and void unless you choose for whatever reason to exclude the dissenting data.

[Chaos]

Originally Posted by Soily

No that makes the original example completely redundant, if the restriction on these hypothetical scenarios is that they must entirely be rooted in the real world of the possible.

Given these apparent conditions, a more relevant and indeed useful example would be not be a comparison between a mechanical failure and a unicorn casting a magic spell, but someone sabotaging it.

If your car won't start and in the absence of any contrary data, concluding that there is a mechanical failure is perfectly logical. But if there's signs that someone has tried to break into your car or tried to let the tyres down, the law of parsominy becomes null and void unless you choose for whatever reason to exclude the dissenting data.

Except - to stay within your analogy - that there are no signs of anyone breaking into your car, nor have you demonstrated that you know what "let the tyres down" actually entails, and your demonstrated knowledge of what "sabotage" is was also shown to be rather hazy; for these reasons, we find your allegation that the Mossad keeps sabotaging your car rather suspect.

You´re not the boy who cried wolf. You´re the boy who cries "zombie werewolf unicorn" whenever he sees a stray dog.

[AaronMHatch]

Originally Posted by Soily

If your car won't start and in the absence of any contrary data, concluding that there is a mechanical failure is perfectly logical. But if there's signs that someone has tried to break into your car or tried to let the tyres down, the law of parsominy becomes null and void unless you choose for whatever reason to exclude the dissenting data.

This is where I trip up on Occam's Razor. Would the simplest answer in the above situation be a mechanical failure, considering that we have "signs" of a break-in? Or would the simplest answer be a break-in due to considering all evidence?

Without any evidence of a break-in, we would assume mechanical failure due to Occam's Razor, right? In that case, it would it be incorrect it actually was broken into.

[kageki]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

you can have that definition if you like, but don't expect any body to honor it. You can't hijack the definition of a term that has a very definite, modern definition. Here is a definition much more accurate to the modern understood definition of the term.

Conspiracy theory - A theory or proposition for a (often) controversial event that is (A) in opposition to the widely believed (historical) theory on the event, and (B) involves a group (often secret, often involving people of extreme wealth or power) who conspired to carry out the event.

TAM

And simple logic and common sense shows how nonsensical this term is.

Assassination of Caesar - a group of 60 senators conspired to assassinate
Holocaust - members of the Thule society who conspired to exterminate a whole race.
Canaris conspiracy - failed attempt to assassinate Hitler

If Canaris succeeded, it would have been a conspiracy, but not when it involves JFK!

There's completely no logic or sense in the definition. It's not a dirty word. It is what it says, a theory involving a conspiracy, but it's no longer just "conspiracy theory". Merely the word "conspiracy" has become dirty. The definition is so convoluted it doesn't make any sense.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by kageki

There's completely no logic or sense in the definition. It's not a dirty word. It is what it says, a theory involving a conspiracy, but it's no longer just "conspiracy theory".

That's right. Some words and phrases have what linguists call "non-compositional semantics," which means that the meaning of the whole isn't created by simple combination of the parts. There's nothing electrical about a "lightning bug"; the inhabitants of a "cat house" generally aren't felines (unlike the "monkey house" at the zoo); and a there's nothing unusual about the blood of a "sanguine" or even "cold-blooded" person.

For that matter, men can be "hysterical." Look it up.

Quote:

Merely the word "conspiracy" has become dirty.

Not at all. But the people who have taken the term "conspiracy theory" to heart -- ooh, there's another good one; what does a blood pump have to do with accepting and believing a concept? -- have given the term such a negative connotation that rational people who want to postulate a theory involving a conspiracy prefer to avoid using the term. (In the same way that a biographer or literary critic of the work of Karl Marx avoids the term "Marxist.")

There's nothing wrong to with talking about the "theory" that that a "conspiracy" was formed to kill Caesar; in fact, most historians consider this to be established fact. But precisely because only wingnuts and losers believe in "conspiracy theories," the historians who believe this don't call this particular interpretation of history a "conspiracy theory."

In the same way that zookeepers tend not to call the area where they keep the cats the "cat house" unless they're being ironic.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd

Upon further thought, I've identified a much more significant flaw. drkitten's example was made in the context of a world where unicorns do not exist. However, in the above quote, you have changed that context. You are re-imagining the example in the context of a world where unicorns do exist.

Even in your attempt at a rational discussion, you're arguing from an entirely different world than the rest of us.

But even that's unnecessary. First, you can't [i]prove[/] that unicorns don't exist. Sure, we don't have any evidence of them, but we didn't have any evidence of the modern coelecanth until the 20th century. A person capable of imagining "six impossible things before breakfast" can easily imagine unicorns and can even imagine that the fallen leaves from the maple tree are in fact unicorn dung, cunningly enchanted to look like maple leaves.

But I can just as easily reject the theory that my car won't start because a spell-casting polar bear hexed it. Although we know that both polar bears exist, and that spell-casters exist (drop by your local crystal-hugging shop and talk to the long-haired chick who smells like patchouli if you want to meet one), there's still several issues that torpedo this theory:

* No polar bear has ever been observed within ten miles of where the car is.
* No polar bear has ever been observed casting spells
* No spell-caster of any sort has ever been observed successfully disabling a car by hexing it.

On the other hand, we know that batteries die often enough that emergency agencies carry special equipment to recharge them.

Heck, we can even talk about Mossad agents removing the distributor cap. That's definitely within the realm of the possible,.... and also completely and totally bonkers. It fails the basic credibility test, because there's no rational reason why Mossad would be interested in disabling my car.

All of these theories are "zebras" in that they could be true, if the world were, in fact, grossly different than we rationally understand it to be, but we also rationally understand them to be unlikely to the point where we reject them in favor of commonplace explanations that do just as good a job of explaining the observations.

[kageki]

Originally Posted by drkitten

That's right. Some words and phrases have what linguists call "non-compositional semantics," which means that the meaning of the whole isn't created by simple combination of the parts. There's nothing electrical about a "lightning bug"; the inhabitants of a "cat house" generally aren't felines (unlike the "monkey house" at the zoo); and a there's nothing unusual about the blood of a "sanguine" or even "cold-blooded" person.

For that matter, men can be "hysterical." Look it up.



Not at all. But the people who have taken the term "conspiracy theory" to heart -- ooh, there's another good one; what does a blood pump have to do with accepting and believing a concept? -- have given the term such a negative connotation that rational people who want to postulate a theory involving a conspiracy prefer to avoid using the term. (In the same way that a biographer or literary critic of the work of Karl Marx avoids the term "Marxist.")

There's nothing wrong to with talking about the "theory" that that a "conspiracy" was formed to kill Caesar; in fact, most historians consider this to be established fact. But precisely because only wingnuts and losers believe in "conspiracy theories," the historians who believe this don't call this particular interpretation of history a "conspiracy theory."

In the same way that zookeepers tend not to call the area where they keep the cats the "cat house" unless they're being ironic.

It was still a conspiracy to assassinate Caesar, but even suggesting there was a conspiracy with JFK and people have problems with it. Sure there is a problem even suggesting something was a conspiracy.

9/11 is a "conspiracy theory", but yet it's a conspiracy theory either way if it was done by Al-Qaeda or the government.

No there is absolutely no sense whatever in this convoluted definition you come up with. It's merely a theory involving a conspiracy and nothing more.

[Soily]

Originally Posted by kageki

And simple logic and common sense shows how nonsensical this term is.

Assassination of Caesar - a group of 60 senators conspired to assassinate
Holocaust - members of the Thule society who conspired to exterminate a whole race.
Canaris conspiracy - failed attempt to assassinate Hitler

If Canaris succeeded, it would have been a conspiracy, but not when it involves JFK!

There's completely no logic or sense in the definition. It's not a dirty word. It is what it says, a theory involving a conspiracy, but it's no longer just "conspiracy theory". Merely the word "conspiracy" has become dirty. The definition is so convoluted it doesn't make any sense.

Precisely nobody with a genuinely open mind would entertain such a defintion. I'd go further and say the propagation of this usage is a fundamentally dishonest attempt to essential 'rig' the debate.

This author is doing some really interesting work at the moment on this trend, and I think very succinctly puts his finger on the dishonest use here:

Quote:

The deceptive nature of the term as it is used lies in a peculiar feature: the term can be applied to any theory about a conspiracy (though this is done selectively), but once the label is applied, it is treated as indicating that the theory has certain defects, notably and most crudely, being untrue. Yet the basis for inferring such defects is shifty: sometimes it is treated as deriving directly from the definition of 'conspiracy theory' (but this would mean it can only be applied after a theory is shown to be defective), sometimes from a general empirical truth about all conspiracy theories (but there is clearly no such general fact, if the term applies to any theory of conspiracy). By shifting between these different positions sufficiently skilfully, polemicists can perform the conjuring trick of inferring the defects without having to justify the application of the discrediting term.

http://surelysomemistake.blogspot.co...odthirsty.html

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by kageki

It was still a conspiracy to assassinate Caesar, but even suggesting there was a conspiracy with JFK and people have problems with it.

Absolutely.

The reason people have problems with the second suggestion is that only an idiot would make such a suggestion.

Quote:

Sure there is a problem even suggesting something was a conspiracy.

Nope. There's a problem even suggesting something was a conspiracy when you have no evidence that can't be seen through by a retarded six-year-old.

If you want us to take your Bigfoot drivel seriously, get some actual evidence.
If you want us to take your the-earth-is-burrito-shaped cosmological drivel seriously, get some actual evidence.
If you want us to take your underwear-gnomes-are-eating-my-socks drivel seriously, get some actual evidence.

... and if you want us to take your JFK drivel seriously,... well, you should be ahead of me at this point.

Quote:

9/11 is a "conspiracy theory", but yet it's a conspiracy theory either way if it was done by Al-Qaeda or the government.

No, it's a "conspiracy theory" that holds it was done by the government. It's a "theory" involving a "conspiracy" that holds it was done by AQ. Non-compositional semantics.

Quote:

No there is absolutely no sense whatever in this convoluted definition you come up with. It's merely a theory involving a conspiracy and nothing more.

Yeah, yeah. "Pull the other one, it's got bells on." Another example. You won't find any actual bells -- and in fact, you probably aren't physically pulling any legs at all.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Soily

Precisely nobody with a genuinely open mind would entertain such a defintion

Ah, yes, this old canard. The eternal plea by the eternally-disproven to "please ignore the track record I have of always being wrong."

Having an open mind does not mean ignoring relevant evidence. And the multi-decade evidence of failed JFK theories is certainly relevant.

[Soily]

Originally Posted by drkitten

Ah, yes, this old canard. The eternal plea by the eternally-disproven to "please ignore the track record I have of always being wrong."

Having an open mind does not mean ignoring relevant evidence. And the multi-decade evidence of failed JFK theories is certainly relevant.

That's just an ad hominem with ribbons on. Having an open mind doesn't mean using a sneaky faux category, a rhetorical trick in order to delineate the terms of the debate in your favour and apply a one sided filter to the data before it can even be assessed.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Soily

That's just an ad hominem with ribbons on.

No. An ad-hominem is when I point out that you're wrong for some reason unrelated to the discussion of the matter at hand. Pointing out a track record is definitely relevant.

Quote:

Having an open mind doesn't mean using a sneaky faux category, a rhetorical trick in order to delineate the terms of the debate in your favour and apply a one sided filter to the data before it can even be assessed.

That's true, but for some reason you're trying to do all of those. You're redefining "conspiracy theory" and trying to apply a one-sided filter in the name of "open-mindedness" to hide the fact that your ideas have already been weighed in the balance and found not merely wanting, but actively demanding....

[TraneWreck]

There are two uses of the phrase:

1) The technical meaning--a theory involving a plot carried out by two or more people acting in concert.

2) The colloquial definition--an insane, hair-brained explanation of events.

The second came about as a result of the most famous "conspiracy theory" of the twentieth century: that JFK was killed by some group of actors.

Because the "conspiracy theory" stood against the lone nut theory, and those advancing conspiracy theories were gloriously wrong, developing insane ideas at a rapid rate. Thus, because of the nature of the sides, "conspiracy theory" became a synonym for "insane theory."

That's why we call 9-11 truthers "conspiracy theorists" even though the crime was actually commited by a conspiracy of radical muslims.

[Bell]

Originally Posted by Soily

What's your definition of 'conspiracy theory' and why is that your definition?

Nuts!



Self-explanatory

[Soily]

Originally Posted by drkitten

No. An ad-hominem is when I point out that you're wrong for some reason unrelated to the discussion of the matter at hand. Pointing out a track record is definitely relevant.

No, those 2 are the same thing. It's nothing to do with a track record. Theories aren't about faith, they're about your and nobody else's ability to evaluate data. If you're incapable of separating information from people who are attached to it then that does not make you a skeptic it makes you either gullible or a bigot. That you think an individual or group are either untrustworthy or unreliable doesn't alter that data in any sense other that perhaps emotionally. Which is fair enough, there are only so many hours in the the day and if you find someone or something personally tedious it's reasonable that you would apply a selective heuristic filter. I personally can't stand 911 troofers and avoid them and their theories like a plague. But I have the intellectual honesty to know that this does not make me right and i'm employing a form of bigotry against a group of people and their ideas which I simply do not have a big enough sample to have fully assessed.

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by kageki

And simple logic and common sense shows how nonsensical this term is.

Assassination of Caesar - a group of 60 senators conspired to assassinate
Holocaust - members of the Thule society who conspired to exterminate a whole race.
Canaris conspiracy - failed attempt to assassinate Hitler

If Canaris succeeded, it would have been a conspiracy, but not when it involves JFK!

There's completely no logic or sense in the definition. It's not a dirty word. It is what it says, a theory involving a conspiracy, but it's no longer just "conspiracy theory". Merely the word "conspiracy" has become dirty. The definition is so convoluted it doesn't make any sense.

your examples are of the word "Conspiracy". Like I said, if you take the words implement a definition based STRICTLY on what the individual words mean, then you get something completely different from what the modern, accepted definition of it is. You may not like that...some CTists purposely try to dilute the definition to make themselves and their theories more palatable, but I am not accepting that.

The modern definition is the one I use, and will continue to use...

Personally, I do not find the use of the word Conspiracy to be dirty.

A Conspiracy Theory can become accepted as factual history, if it has hard evidence to back it up...haven't seen that happen often.

TAM

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Soily

I actually think that's pretty good.

So would you then agree that it would be reasonable to judge explanations that fit into the definition on a case by case basis, because it would be arguing from a position of ignorance and prejudice to do otherwise?

Oh yes, definitely! That would be the high road.
But!
Sometimes it is easier to know details about the origin of the CT than to know forensic details of the crime.
Many of the CTs that we get flooded with clearly formed before sufficient forensice evidence was in. In which case I look at both the government agencies supposedly involved, and the CTist making the CT claims, and form a-priori-judgments.

A strong indication that a CT has little to no merit is when it fails to name the government actors and their affiliations, or reverts to "the usual suspects".