On The Mechanics Of Conspiratorial Belief

To begin, I must address the fact that the title of this thread is simply a humorous homage to the countless papers and articles which begin with “On the Mechanics of...”.

The choice of the term “conspiratorial” was that of a conscious effort to induce the moving of lips and the second guessing of the legitimacy of the word itself.

This thread exists for one purpose, and that is to investigate the incompatibilities between conventional logic and conspiratorial thinking. Before getting to the subject at hand, I'll quickly take a moment to define what I mean by “conventional logic” and “conspiratorial belief”.

By conventional logic, I mean that we can (somewhat) accurately recall the past, while it is not possible to recall the future. We can check up on facts by consulting a dictionary or an atlas. We can be sure that 3+2=5 and that 2+3=5 based on the commutative law associated with addition/multiplication. Simply put, we can always go back and look at something and see if it checks out with the general consensus of what is deemed “correct” or “incorrect”.

This method, while convenient, is not infallible. It could be stated that the sum of all angles in a triangle will always equal 180 degrees, however, this is only the case if you're working with Euclidian geometry on a 2-D surface. Say you were taught that the sum of all angles of a triangle was ALWAYS 180 degrees. If you were to go through life not having this “fact” questioned, you would be forever be mistaken in thinking that it's correct that this statement is true for every triangle that has ever been imagined. It is clear that on a 3-D surface, such as the Earth, that one could easily draw 3 right angles and end up back in the same place... 270 degrees. No magic, no faith. Just a simple high-school mathematics exercise.

By contrast, the conspiracy theorist fails to offer an alternate solution, rather, they act as an aggregate on the behalf of another voice. When questioned, the conspiracy theorist will resort to rhetoric that is analogous to that of religious condescension “Oh, you haven't indulged yourself in the same literature as I”. Further, the conspiracy theorist tends to work almost solely on events that have taken place in the not-so-distant past. Why such a strict time line? Ask yourself, have you ever came upon a conspiracy theory regarding “chem-trails” puffing their way out of the smoke stack of a train in the 1800's? Chances are slim that the previous example outnumbers that of stories regarding “chem-trails” involving modern day aircraft.

Can the conspiracy theorist predict the future? The term conspiracy “theorist” has been used up until this point as a generalization for the sake of familiarity, however, the word will now be stripped of all that is comforting to the ear in order to produce a more sufficient title. A theory (in the scientific sense) is simply an attempt at explaining some sort of naturally occurring phenomenon with testable evidence that is both testable and repeatable (and of course, observable).

Using Newton's Universal theory of Gravitation one can predict the motions of the planets and other heavenly bodies (this is an example of predicting the future in a way not yet demonstrated by the conspiracy theorist). Galileo took it upon himself to break the conventional wisdom that heavier objects fall at a faster rate than lighter objects (it is clear that in a vacuum, mass is irrelevant...). From these two examples (albeit the Newton example would involve calculus and the help of someone named Kepler), that 1) the planets are in fixed elliptical orbits. And 2) everything falls at the same rate when the gravitational acceleration due to gravity is ignored. Both of these facts, to me at least, would have been absolutely devastating to the picture I would have had constructed in my mind had I been alive prior to the modern scientific revolution. These are “theories” which can be tested by anyone at any time. It is almost too easy to draw the similarities between the conspiracy theorist and the religious person. Each choose to mask personal doubt with an ever receding line of ignorance toward in the presence of new (and usually) conflicting information. A quick point I'd like to raise is that of the absence of conspiracy theorists before events take place. There seems to be so much background information in the hands of the conspiracy theorists that one could wonder, why not make predictions? Why not try to stop these events from happening in the first place?

The number of conspiracy theories that are circulated around the web are much too numerous to name. Even if I were to list specific examples, it would only lead to others latching on to those few words. Rather, the the method of thinking which borrows what it wants from logic and leaves behind what doesn't fit is what's being questioned. Why is one set of words “true” and another set “false”? I submit that words provide nowhere near enough information to properly reflect the actual happenings of any events.

- - -

This post is nowhere near as long as I had intended it to be and covered less than half of my intended agenda. I was hoping for 2,000 words minimum, but I've smoked my last cherry colt cigar and have lost all motivation. Now, at 3:00AM I can return to studying as it's the last week of class... Ramble on...

 

One tends to either laugh at 'Conspiracy theorists' or full fall into the trap of manipulation.

Ancient Cultures; to which some were undoubtedly primitive; seem to share similar qualities and traits to other Cultures in other regions of the world. For example: similar writings and beliefs between the Dogon tribe in Mali and the Egyptians.

The Dogon tribe inherited a great knowledge of the Sirius star system; to the point that they have mapped the orbit of Sirius A,B,C: how could that be?

That question is leading me to the point. How can Ancient Cultures have a firm belief in the power of the Universe as a whole? To the point where they can navigate star systems without modern usable equipment; to build these astronomical monoliths to pinpoint geometric accuracy; to Laylines and other positions of the Earths surface that correspond to other Cultural monoliths that they never new of.

We can review our past to predict the future but there needs to be some form of 'outside the box' thinking involved to better understand were we are at in this moment of time and how we got here. To me that is the problem; most look to evolution or creationism, nothing more. That leaves a very tight window to explain any of the questions we need or want answers to.

Some conspiracy theories are too much but some are feasible. In saying that they are just that, theories. Einstein had theories as did most brilliant minds of the past. Without them we do not have a place to start.

Just a tidbit on the Dogon. There is very little to find on them but I am endeavoring to research there Ancient society and beliefs.

http://www.unmuseum.org/siriusb.htm

 

There are no such things as conspiracies, and what you hear on TV is the truth. These corporate entities want us to be informed and know what's going on. Personally, I don't believe anything unless it comes from the mouths of such trusted names as Brian Williams or Barack Obama. If conspiracies were real, the news would tell us, or we would have learned about it in school. I think conspiracy theorists are anti-American, and I think these morons should be happy they can drink beer, watch football, and let other people we call experts do all their thinking for them. When are these idiots going to wake up and realize the government is good and only wants to protect them from radical Muslim extremists? I would gladly exchange freedom for the safety that only our loving, benevolent government can provide. I personally think conspiracy theorists are dangerous and should be locked up. There is no room for questioning the government when ISIS wants to kill us all and instate Sharia Law in America.

HILLARY 2016!!!!!!!!!!

 

Pressed Rat has been assimilated....

 

Conspiracy is anything outside standard acceptance.

Our current media outlets, radio, TV, Internet, Newspaper, etc. 90% is owned by 6 people. So if these 6 people have anything they want to hide, that's a pretty easy board meeting.


If it weren't for conspiracy theorists we'd still think we lived on a flat earth with suns revolving around us

 

Well... Have you bothered to look at the greater picture by taking the slightest glimpse at the said literature? Or do you accept everything the media and history books say at face value?

Also, it sounds to me like you haven't spoken to many conspiracy realists as there are plenty of conspiracies and cover ups in distant history. Like planting bombs aboard the SS Lucitania and sailing a boatload of American civilians into German U-boat waters to assure zero survivors in order to get the USA involved in WWI 100 years ago. How about the creation of the Federal Reserve and top secret meetings that took place to give the rich a monopoly of the global money supply. That was 102 years ago. How about the JFK assassination? The thing is, people in general just talk more about current events more often than historic events.

 

Conspiracy theorists do sometimes make predictions. One recent one I recall is that there is going to be some catalyzing event soon that causes Obama to declare martial law. Another one is that we're going to take over seven governments. According to General Wesley Clark:

“We’re going to take out seven countries in 5 years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran”

So "conspiracy theorists" are predicting we're going to take out Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somolia, the Sudan, and Iran.

I'm sure there are other instances of conspiracy theorists predicting the future.

 

Yes, major media hubs are in bed with each other. The agriculture, automobile, and energy sectors would also have been an acceptable comparison, but then again, this is common knowledge. I'd dare say it would be going against the grain to say each corporation exists in a state of complete ignorance as to who their (supposed) competitors are.

Yes, and most of the work makes the virgin birth seem plausible.

As for the numerous US led invasions, once again, these were events that actually took place. The US fits the bill for the worlds leading terrorist organization, however, I specifically did not mention a single military speculation in this thread, as of course, any kind of attack would have a more probable chance of success if it were done without the opposite party being aware. (example: if you sucker punch someone, the other person would have had no idea where it came from... You may even be able to lie and say it was an accident... How would the one who had been punched ever truly know your intention?)

The US "taking over governments" is nothing new, hence, repeatable and observable. Any country that isn't willing to "accept liberation" or "participate in democracy" will surely be on the US's hit list. Christopher Hitchens made "predictions" about Islam being a violent hate-ridden religion and that it would soon blow up in Europe and the United States... Of course if you take the word of "someone in the business" (General Wesley Clark/Christopher Hitchens) you will surely receive an answer that will fall within the lines of reason, at least relatively.

Still not even going to take a shot at producing a shred of evidence?


---

Great responses so far... Sure as hell beats what passes for discussion with my roommates.

 

He're's an ongoing conspiracy people should be concerned about...

Government Suspected Of Wanting CIA Torture Report To Remain Secret
NPR‎ - 2 hours ago

 

Bill Cooper was very informed in his predictions.

Occams Razor isn't always true. Sometimes the outlandish is fact.

 

No, I'd rather listen to you pretend to sound intellectual.

 

How is it that conspiracy theorists are responsible for the view that the earth is round?

 

Ad hominem.

 

I don't follow conspiracy theorists all that closely but I think they make predictions quite frequently. For instance, nearly every episode of Alex Jones I've seen, has him ranting about something going on in the world as evidence for NWO or certain covert government happenings that will transpire.

I think Conspiracy Theory as an industry fills the void of a coping mechanism and provides "answers" for incidents that are difficult to make sense of. It seems to me, that on the surface many who are proponents of conspiracy theories appear almost devoid of human sympathy/empathy during tragedies, where this radical form of skepticism overrides tact and sensibility. However, often times governments also display a psychopathic type mindset as well, so it is interesting that these entities are who Conspiracy Theorists often align themselves against.

I find it no coincidence that Conspiracy Theory has become more popular on the internet, given the virtual environment and access to information, which can be tailored to one's interests.

 

Alex Jones makes tons of money by making talk of conspiracy look foolish. It's much better to study history and actually attempt to learn the truth about how we got to where we are, then draw your own conclusions regarding world events based on what you have learned from history, as well as critically examining the news instead of blindly swallowing what some overpaid anchor (professional liar) tells you at face value. I mean, it's not a conspiracy theory that Western corporations were aiding and abetting the Nazi war machine as the war was going on. It's not a conspiracy theory that the Gulf of Tonkin was a now-admitted forgery to get the US to commit ground troops in Vietnam. It's no longer a conspiracy that the lone gunman theory of the Kennedy assassination is a complete and utter fraud. The thing is, if you actually study history as opposed to what you're told to think in school, you find that history is far different than most people believe it to be, and conspiracies are a much greater occurrence than people write them off as being. Why are people adamantly so trusting of the government when the government has proven to constantly LIE to forward its agendas? Why are these the same people who get pissed off over people questioning the official story of anything?

 

Are you sure you are talking about the same people in both these questions?

Also, and I add a big sigh to it: are people getting pissed at other people questioning the official story? It seems the answer is NO. Not at all. Most conspiracy theorists choose to interprete it like that. But it isn't the questioning of the official story, it is the certainty with which they convey their alternative 'facts'. People are rarely getting pissed at others for simply questioning the official story!

It is more so how they do it, like pronounce their own (or that of their fav blogger) POV on it. It generally, and I take your explanations as an example again, gets only more questionable when people insist everything is done with a NWO in mind, or are certain (so not just giving an alternative opinion on what could have happened. NO, they insist their interpretation is the truth and if we criticize it we're the sheep) the people crying on the streets after a terrorist attack were hired by the government and the terrorist attack was a setup by the government as well. I can assure you if such an alternative theory would be shared rationally and without certainty (because it isn't) people would react differently to your theories

 

Exactly this.

I would define conspiracy theory as a belief that a group has acted in secret to carry out a malicious or harmful plan, supported by spurious, flimsy, or no evidence. The belief may also have a flimsy or implausible logical model. The existence of more plausible alternative explanations also helps to define a conspiracy theory.

While strictly speaking, any belief that a group has carried out a secret malicious plan could labeled a conspiracy theory, I would use the label only if it meets the definition above.

 

Yet sometimes when there is substantial evidence, or even concrete evidence of a real conspiracy, it still gets dismissed as crazy talk by those who insist on believing the reported narrative.

 

The funny thing is that people who condemn any thought outside of mainstream acceptance (regardless of the evidence to support it) are quick to believe everything CNN or FOX tells them, as if these outlets of (dis)information are to be trusted simply because they're on TV. Most people's realities are a creation of the media which tells them what to believe and what not to. What most people believe about world events is the product of corporations which would rather you not have the truth, but instead wallow in a state of perpetual fear. Of course there is some truth to be found even in the mainstream news, but it requires actively looking for it as opposed to passively swallowing whatever comes out of the television. Turn on any of the 24 hour news networks and it's mostly propaganda and fearmongering.

Funny how some people will spend inordinate amounts of time arguing with so-called conspiracy theorists online, but never get outraged over their rights and freedoms being endlessly trampled upon.

 

I believe that the Bush administration conspired to invade Iraq, and the news media either dropped the ball in reporting the story, or colluded with the administration. The reason that I believe it is that there is reported evidence and a logical model that makes it more credible to me than any alternative version of events. I've never been to Iraq, interviewed primary sources, or handled any physical evidence, so my conclusions are based on information available through various news sources and my evaluation of plausible explanations. I don't claim that my conclusions are unassailable, but rather I don't see sufficient evidence to overturn them.

I don't believe that the alleged San Bernardino shooting victims were really crisis actors. The reason that I don't believe that they were really crisis actors is because I see zero evidence supporting that claim. I see wide spread reports to the contrary, with very specific reports about who the victims were (including their names, ages, gender, areas where they lived, occupations, and photographs), how they were killed, why they were killed, where they were killed, and when they were killed. There are also very specific reports about the perpetrators.

It seems like it would be very difficult to fake such an event, and very easy to poke holes in the story if it were false. You could interview police, coroners, people living near the event, people who claim to have attended the event, and people who claim to be relatives of the victims.

If someone alleged to be one of the victims was actually seen walking around, and admitted that they were really paid to be a crisis actor, if there was some financial record suggesting that someone was paid to be a crisis actor, maybe I would see some credibility to the crisis actor claim.

However, I see zero evidence supporting a crisis actor claim, and a lot of very specific claims and evidence to the contrary. It also would have been hugely complex to have faked the San Bernardino shootings without anyone noticing.

I would label anyone calling the San Bernardino shooting victims "crisis actors" a conspiracy theorist because they support the theory of a conspiracy without evidence or support of a compelling plausible logical model in the face of a more credible contrary version of events.