Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Fri Dec 11, 2015 5:27 pm  

bren2k wrote:

You're dissembling.

The theory of monological belief system can of course apply to anything; in this instance, it was applied to the conspiracy theory sub-culture and specifically, those people who see a conspiracy as the logical explanation for any event that has any element of doubt attached. There is a body of research to suggest that people who believe in one conspiracy theory are pre-disposed to believe in another; not because there is any evidence linking them, but because of higher order beliefs supporting conspiracy theories in general. There is some interesting work out there showing that some respondents were so entrenched in their belief of conspiracies or cover-ups, that they actually believed contradictory conspiracy theories - that, for example, Princess Diana was both murdered, and faked her own death.

It's interesting stuff.

Well, that's the thing about opinions ....

What concerns me is the way so-called "conspiracy theorists" are routinely targeted for holding beliefs on issues which - at the very least - deserve further investigation, are not without recorded precedent and may even be true. It's an inversion of rationality.

The very label I consider deliberately weaponised language. After all, there must be hundreds of thousands of people in this country (probably more) who at some point or another suspect big business, finance, government etc. is fleecing them. But you don't hear people jumping into conversations and accusing them of being "crazy conspiracy theorists". Why not?

Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Fri Dec 11, 2015 5:35 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

Well, that's the thing about opinions ....

What concerns me is the way so-called "conspiracy theorists" are routinely targeted for holding beliefs on issues which - at the very least - deserve further investigation, are not without recorded precedent and may even be true. It's an inversion of rationality.

The very label I consider deliberately weaponised language. After all, there must be hundreds of thousands of people in this country (probably more) who at some point or another suspect big business, finance, government etc. is fleecing them. But you don't hear people jumping into conversations and accusing them of being "crazy conspiracy theorists". Why not?

Because that behaviour is both normal and rational, up to a point.
We are aware of the some of the shenanigans that go on and are prepared to believe a lot more.
But when we see a plane hit a tower and not unreasonably it brings it down as a consequence, further make believe gets short shrift!
Although we can debate who brought it about.

It's the excessive and continual desire to see subterfuge in almost everything calamitous and political (although the latter is almost a given) that produces scorn.

Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Fri Dec 11, 2015 6:32 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

The very label I consider deliberately weaponised language. After all, there must be hundreds of thousands of people in this country (probably more) who at some point or another suspect big business, finance, government etc. is fleecing them. But you don't hear people jumping into conversations and accusing them of being "crazy conspiracy theorists". Why not?

Because understanding that not all is as it seems, and believing that everything is the result of the orchestrated actions of a cabal of governments, intelligence agencies and the media, are two very different worldviews. Derision is even more likely when the theorist in question believes every and all conspiracy theories - as I described in my previous post, there is evidence to suggest that some people are so entrenched in that mode of thought that they'll believe conspiracy theories that contradict each other, before they'll believe the official explanation.

In short - some crazy conspiracy theorists give all conspiracy theorists a bad name.

Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Fri Dec 11, 2015 6:50 pm  

A conspiracy is simply what happens when people conspire against other people.

When the tabacco industry covered up the fact smoking causes cancer. That was a conspiracy.

When the Tories plotted to oust thatcher, that was a conspiracy

Volkswagon's using technology to fiddle emititions, that was a conspiracy.

Everytime a muslim plans an arranged marriage that his daughter doesn't really want. It's a conspiracy.

When your colleges gossip behind your back it's a conspiracy

Julius caesars murder was a conspiracy too....

Conspiracies happen all the time, there are thousands of people in prison in the UK for conspiracy to do something or the other illegal. Most conspiracies are quite mundane but obviously when Governments, MSM and large companies are involved the effects on other people are amplified. The idea that there are no conspiracies and Governments and the MSM tell the truth all the time is quite absurd, more absurd than even the most outlandish conspiracy theory.

Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Fri Dec 11, 2015 7:43 pm  

bren2k wrote:

Because understanding that not all is as it seems, and believing that everything is the result of the orchestrated actions of a cabal of governments, intelligence agencies and the media, are two very different worldviews.

You're moving from the incredibly vague to the specific. Even so - I don't see them as mutually exclusive.

If I said nation states were run by secret cabals at any point in recorded history stretching back from a hundred years previous I doubt anyone would raise so much as an eyebrow. Ancient Greek history as laid out by Herodotus and Thucydides is packed full of them. Roman leaders were always conspiring against one another. The Vatican has a positively serpentine history. As for the English, French & Spanish monarchies - I think it's safe to say they enjoyed more than the odd conspiracy (Simon Schama has made a bloody good living out of them!)

Are we supposed to believe everyone just gave up conspiring against one another from the outbreak of World War I?

Derision is even more likely when the theorist in question believes every and all conspiracy theories - as I described in my previous post, there is evidence to suggest that some people are so entrenched in that mode of thought that they'll believe conspiracy theories that contradict each other, before they'll believe the official explanation. In short - some crazy conspiracy theorists give all conspiracy theorists a bad name.

How is it possible to know whether two theories contradict each other if you are completely ignorant of the matter and its complexities? Just because two arguments appear to contradict each other - it doesn't necessarily follow that it's a genuine contradiction.

And I have a much higher regard for so-called "crazy conspiracy theorists" than people who can't be bothered to study the matter in question at even the most superficial level. Even when they arrive at erroneous conclusions - at least they've actually attempted to engage the old grey matter. The best the opposite side can muster is a ridiculous appeal to "incompetence theory", "somnambulist theory", "coincidence theory", "spontaneity theory" etc. etc. which neatly relieves them of any obligation to think.

Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Fri Dec 11, 2015 8:15 pm  

FLAT STANLEY wrote:

A conspiracy is simply what happens when people conspire against other people.

When the tabacco industry covered up the fact smoking causes cancer. That was a conspiracy.

When the Tories plotted to oust thatcher, that was a conspiracy

Volkswagon's using technology to fiddle emititions, that was a conspiracy.

Everytime a muslim plans an arranged marriage that his daughter doesn't really want. It's a conspiracy.

When your colleges gossip behind your back it's a conspiracy

Julius caesars murder was a conspiracy too....

Conspiracies happen all the time, there are thousands of people in prison in the UK for conspiracy to do something or the other illegal. Most conspiracies are quite mundane but obviously when Governments, MSM and large companies are involved the effects on other people are amplified. The idea that there are no conspiracies and Governments and the MSM tell the truth all the time is quite absurd, more absurd than even the most outlandish conspiracy theory.

Except that I don't think anyone engaged here is saying anything to the contrary.
I don't think there are many people, although it's not my first question at a social gathering, who believe that there are no conspiracies in this world.
We are talking about extreme views and I don' t think there are many at that end.

Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Fri Dec 11, 2015 8:33 pm  

FLAT STANLEY wrote:

Everytime a muslim plans an arranged marriage that his daughter doesn't really want. It's a conspiracy

Care to elucidate on that point?

Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Sat Dec 12, 2015 2:34 am  

Sandro II Terrorista wrote:

Care to elucidate on that point?

It seems clear to me, although I'm pretty sure both parties have to agree to marry under Islamic law.

Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Sat Dec 12, 2015 12:44 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

How is it possible to know whether two theories contradict each other if you are completely ignorant of the matter and its complexities? Just because two arguments appear to contradict each other - it doesn't necessarily follow that it's a genuine contradiction.

I just gave you an example - that Princess Diana both faked her own death, and was murdered.

It's interesting that you are prepared to rubbish psychologists who have clearly applied their knowledge, carried out research and actually thought about their theories of why some people are more likely to see a conspiracy in everything; but you place very high value on people who've applied some knowledge, carried out research and actually thought about their theory that an event is the result of a conspiracy. I conclude that you value that level of diligence, but only when it applies to things you are predisposed to believe - it's that pesky monological thing again.

Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Sun Dec 13, 2015 10:28 am  

Sandro II Terrorista wrote:

Care to elucidate on that point?

Hmm, with such a simple question you appear to have rendered the lunatic lost for words. Well done you