I thought flat-earthers were some sort of internet joke, like I was a member of alt.barney.dinosaur.die.die.die for a while. But then I found a guy I went to school with had become a flat-earther and realised it was serious. So I thought ok, how can I personally test this hypothesis? Fortunately where I live there is an extinct volcano right on the beach, and some conveniently spaced off-shore islands. So I did some math and then climbed the volcanic cone taking photos of the horizon receding past the various islands, pretty much as expected. I let my friend know, and was actually quite shocked when it had no effect on him. That was when I started reading about cognitive biases and logical fallacies, and realised that we humans aren't as logical as I had assumed.
The Atlantis theory isn’t a conspiracy theory as described by Scott, merely a fringe idea. I think the reasons people believe in actual conspiracy theories are psychologically distinct.
I think the overall problem is that people tend to be lazy in their thinking unless they have a compelling reason not to be. This applies to conspiracy theorists and those who opposed them. The theorists tend to see something odd and immediately jump to a conclusion, factoring out all evidence against it through confirmation bias. Those opposing them tend to think that (correctly) labeling something a conspiracy theory is enough of a refutation. The problem with that is enough "conspiracy theories" turn into mainstream knowledge over time to expose outright dismissal for what it is: lazy thinking designed to avoid the issue altogether.
At the risk of Steelmanning to the point of fallacy, I intuit a weird truth in many classic C-theories. For example, the Earth isn't flat, but our Universe - our "World" by current consensus Cosmology - may be flat. Or if our world turns out to be Sim, then the world is flat as a screen of code, or bookpage, so to speak.
And the actual tinfoil-hatters of the 60s and 70s, paranoid that They are listening in our private life turned out to be correct, but just a few decades early.
Even the "fake" moon landing - it was fake insofar as it was a media event, designed to win the Space Race, in public perception. They actually went to the Moon, but its primary function was as spectacle, one might argue, and in that sense was "a Show". It helps us forget that the Russians went to Venus [okay, unmanned, and without a clean landing] before the U.S. went to the Moon.
It's interesting that people seem to see conspiracy theories so differently than the traditional beliefs of major world religions.
I mean, at most one of the traditionally interpreted of major world religions is correct. If Christ was the Mesiah we can't still be waiting for him. If Christ was the son of god he wasn't a mere profit per the Koran and so on.
And yet these religious traditions allege things that seem exceedingly unlikely to anyone of a different religion. Belief seems to be better predicted by who your parents and peers are than by epistemically relevant evidence and it's alleged that the reason their truth isn't completely obvious is a divine conspiracy not to eliminate the need for faith (no giant announcement or being born knowing theological truth).
--
My point here isn't to dump on religion but that what we regard as a conspiracy theory is as much a matter of how we regard the beliefs as their epistemic status.
Ultimately, we all being priors to the table and we call the ones we see as belonging to low status eccentrics conspiracy theories and those which get wide uptake from high status individuals philosophies, religions or ideologies. I mean belief in communism also involves plenty of unlikely factual claims but it too doesn't qualify.
I’ve always understood hardcore conspiracy theorizing to be a frame of mind; a posture more than a set of beliefs. It’s been my experience that most conspiracy theorists aren’t picky or selective about their conspiracies. They rarely attach to just one. If you think Bigfoot is out there, you probably think Tupac and Elvis are too..
Thank you for highlighting that the flaw of conspiracy theorists is a universal human flaw. The cure to a conspiracy theorist's condition is to start from a position of humility and self-skepticism, understanding that your own personal biases are most likely to lead away from the path of truth. Not an easy thing to do, and one that is likely to trip up many!
The professionalism of a scientist isn't measured by his ability to accrue data for his hypothesis or against another; it's measured by the degree to which he has purged himself of the bias that would lead one astray either way. At the forefront of research there are often 10's of valid competing hypothesis and the sign of real expertise is somehow being able to decipher among those. You cannot afford to let your own bias stand in the way, and those who have been diligent about actively purging those mechanisms that have lead them astray in the past, will undoubtedly gain an advantage.
Instead, conspiracy theorist exist outside of these established frameworks. Here, one can engage in acquiring scientific facts in the same way as any other collection of understanding, so it might seem to be a matter of mere choice of what one would prefer to believe. Indeed, many who believe in science never seriously questions the underlying correctness. This is an arduous task and they have their lives to live. Operating in this sort of environment, the conspiracy can somewhat survive, as the measure of their work is in the degree to which they sow seeds of doubt in existing understanding. They only validate their own truths by attempting to invalidate another. This isn't serious scientific practice. They are outsiders because a real scientist would never have been able to sustain a career this way. But, the flaw as you rightly point out is not necessarily ignorance, rather it is from a poverty of questioning one's own relation to truth. Truth is the greatest of privilege, and only obtained in degree to one's moral commitment to its pursuit.
Excellent post. Do you think conspiracy theories can be summed up as any theory that doesn't adhere to Occam's Razor? It seems the main epistemological fault of conspiracy theorists is to add additional steps to their theories when none are required. A related error would be a lack of faith in experts, which I think is driven by an over-reliance on a critical/Cartesian mode of thinking that questions all assumptions relentlessly, rather than relying on some level of pragmatic group consensus.
I think everyone needs to put actual mental illness in their prior, so to speak.
When someone shows unusual patterns of thought and strange behavior, it should be considered as an explanation.
Here is a pattern many people describe in the early parts of psychosis: seeing a bunch of strange patterns and coincidences, with such a strong feeling of meaning that they can’t be ignored. They cry out for explanation and the result is often some kind of conspiracy organizing everything that’s happening.
People are reasonably hesitant to reach for mental illness as an explanation, because there is a sensible taboo against diagnosing strangers. But I think it should still always be a consideration even if we hesitate to say it confidently.
Flat Earth is an easy target, I think the interesting part about the epistemology of 'conspiracy theories' is that they will turn on things like political views which are highly arational and largely socially determined. For example most Republican voters think the 2020 U.S. elections were manipulated and most Democratic voters would say the same about the recent Russian elections, it all turns on who you think the 'bad guys' are.
All things being equal, a robust theory explains a maximum of fact with a minimum of theory; a weak theory explains a minimum of fact with a maximum of theory. We can explain why that is, perhaps by invoking Bayes, but it's also aesthetic, like looking at kludge versus clean code or a wordy versus succinct mathematical proof.
A conspiracy theory takes a single fact, such as something like the 911 attacks, and tries to explain it using a galaxy of theories and a convoluted maze of auxiliary hypotheses. Clutter epistemologically makes things worse, not better.
Do you know the Mountain of Shit Theory? It says pretty much the same things you wrote, but from another point of view. I you are interested, here's some link:
I thought flat-earthers were some sort of internet joke, like I was a member of alt.barney.dinosaur.die.die.die for a while. But then I found a guy I went to school with had become a flat-earther and realised it was serious. So I thought ok, how can I personally test this hypothesis? Fortunately where I live there is an extinct volcano right on the beach, and some conveniently spaced off-shore islands. So I did some math and then climbed the volcanic cone taking photos of the horizon receding past the various islands, pretty much as expected. I let my friend know, and was actually quite shocked when it had no effect on him. That was when I started reading about cognitive biases and logical fallacies, and realised that we humans aren't as logical as I had assumed.
The Atlantis theory isn’t a conspiracy theory as described by Scott, merely a fringe idea. I think the reasons people believe in actual conspiracy theories are psychologically distinct.
I think the overall problem is that people tend to be lazy in their thinking unless they have a compelling reason not to be. This applies to conspiracy theorists and those who opposed them. The theorists tend to see something odd and immediately jump to a conclusion, factoring out all evidence against it through confirmation bias. Those opposing them tend to think that (correctly) labeling something a conspiracy theory is enough of a refutation. The problem with that is enough "conspiracy theories" turn into mainstream knowledge over time to expose outright dismissal for what it is: lazy thinking designed to avoid the issue altogether.
At the risk of Steelmanning to the point of fallacy, I intuit a weird truth in many classic C-theories. For example, the Earth isn't flat, but our Universe - our "World" by current consensus Cosmology - may be flat. Or if our world turns out to be Sim, then the world is flat as a screen of code, or bookpage, so to speak.
And the actual tinfoil-hatters of the 60s and 70s, paranoid that They are listening in our private life turned out to be correct, but just a few decades early.
Even the "fake" moon landing - it was fake insofar as it was a media event, designed to win the Space Race, in public perception. They actually went to the Moon, but its primary function was as spectacle, one might argue, and in that sense was "a Show". It helps us forget that the Russians went to Venus [okay, unmanned, and without a clean landing] before the U.S. went to the Moon.
It's interesting that people seem to see conspiracy theories so differently than the traditional beliefs of major world religions.
I mean, at most one of the traditionally interpreted of major world religions is correct. If Christ was the Mesiah we can't still be waiting for him. If Christ was the son of god he wasn't a mere profit per the Koran and so on.
And yet these religious traditions allege things that seem exceedingly unlikely to anyone of a different religion. Belief seems to be better predicted by who your parents and peers are than by epistemically relevant evidence and it's alleged that the reason their truth isn't completely obvious is a divine conspiracy not to eliminate the need for faith (no giant announcement or being born knowing theological truth).
--
My point here isn't to dump on religion but that what we regard as a conspiracy theory is as much a matter of how we regard the beliefs as their epistemic status.
Ultimately, we all being priors to the table and we call the ones we see as belonging to low status eccentrics conspiracy theories and those which get wide uptake from high status individuals philosophies, religions or ideologies. I mean belief in communism also involves plenty of unlikely factual claims but it too doesn't qualify.
I wrote on this question here: https://open.substack.com/pub/wollenblog/p/how-to-treat-conspiracy-theories?r=2248ub&utm_medium=ios
XKCD made a similar point in a very funny way.
https://xkcd.com/2898/
I’ve always understood hardcore conspiracy theorizing to be a frame of mind; a posture more than a set of beliefs. It’s been my experience that most conspiracy theorists aren’t picky or selective about their conspiracies. They rarely attach to just one. If you think Bigfoot is out there, you probably think Tupac and Elvis are too..
Thank you for highlighting that the flaw of conspiracy theorists is a universal human flaw. The cure to a conspiracy theorist's condition is to start from a position of humility and self-skepticism, understanding that your own personal biases are most likely to lead away from the path of truth. Not an easy thing to do, and one that is likely to trip up many!
The professionalism of a scientist isn't measured by his ability to accrue data for his hypothesis or against another; it's measured by the degree to which he has purged himself of the bias that would lead one astray either way. At the forefront of research there are often 10's of valid competing hypothesis and the sign of real expertise is somehow being able to decipher among those. You cannot afford to let your own bias stand in the way, and those who have been diligent about actively purging those mechanisms that have lead them astray in the past, will undoubtedly gain an advantage.
Instead, conspiracy theorist exist outside of these established frameworks. Here, one can engage in acquiring scientific facts in the same way as any other collection of understanding, so it might seem to be a matter of mere choice of what one would prefer to believe. Indeed, many who believe in science never seriously questions the underlying correctness. This is an arduous task and they have their lives to live. Operating in this sort of environment, the conspiracy can somewhat survive, as the measure of their work is in the degree to which they sow seeds of doubt in existing understanding. They only validate their own truths by attempting to invalidate another. This isn't serious scientific practice. They are outsiders because a real scientist would never have been able to sustain a career this way. But, the flaw as you rightly point out is not necessarily ignorance, rather it is from a poverty of questioning one's own relation to truth. Truth is the greatest of privilege, and only obtained in degree to one's moral commitment to its pursuit.
Excellent post. Do you think conspiracy theories can be summed up as any theory that doesn't adhere to Occam's Razor? It seems the main epistemological fault of conspiracy theorists is to add additional steps to their theories when none are required. A related error would be a lack of faith in experts, which I think is driven by an over-reliance on a critical/Cartesian mode of thinking that questions all assumptions relentlessly, rather than relying on some level of pragmatic group consensus.
I think everyone needs to put actual mental illness in their prior, so to speak.
When someone shows unusual patterns of thought and strange behavior, it should be considered as an explanation.
Here is a pattern many people describe in the early parts of psychosis: seeing a bunch of strange patterns and coincidences, with such a strong feeling of meaning that they can’t be ignored. They cry out for explanation and the result is often some kind of conspiracy organizing everything that’s happening.
People are reasonably hesitant to reach for mental illness as an explanation, because there is a sensible taboo against diagnosing strangers. But I think it should still always be a consideration even if we hesitate to say it confidently.
You're right, they're not ignorant, just distrustful.
That kind of "meta-level evidence" is pure conformity and authority bias, not a real argument IMHO.
Flat Earth is an easy target, I think the interesting part about the epistemology of 'conspiracy theories' is that they will turn on things like political views which are highly arational and largely socially determined. For example most Republican voters think the 2020 U.S. elections were manipulated and most Democratic voters would say the same about the recent Russian elections, it all turns on who you think the 'bad guys' are.
All things being equal, a robust theory explains a maximum of fact with a minimum of theory; a weak theory explains a minimum of fact with a maximum of theory. We can explain why that is, perhaps by invoking Bayes, but it's also aesthetic, like looking at kludge versus clean code or a wordy versus succinct mathematical proof.
A conspiracy theory takes a single fact, such as something like the 911 attacks, and tries to explain it using a galaxy of theories and a convoluted maze of auxiliary hypotheses. Clutter epistemologically makes things worse, not better.
Do you know the Mountain of Shit Theory? It says pretty much the same things you wrote, but from another point of view. I you are interested, here's some link:
https://www.eugy.it/en/coffer/50-shit-mountain-theory.html
And there the most updated version: https://keinpfusch.net/shit-mountain-theory-towards-a-quantitative-approach/
For the reasons given in this article, I still find it pretty impressive that Wilfred Reilly did this:
https://youtu.be/KqoqN4kXk3s?si=M8jGvC2Brg6ddFLG