Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Manner of Speaking]

Conspiracy theories of one form or another have been around for a long time, at least as far back as the Kennedy assassination in the USA. But they have become particularly cachet lately because of three interrelated developments.

1. The X-Files TV Show

The X-Files was a popular science fiction (my emphasis) TV program that starred two rather nerdy FBI agents assigned to investigate 'unexplained' or 'paranormal' incidents that had come to the attention of the FBI. The early years of the program were quite entertaining, reminiscent of Rod Sterling's The Twilight Zone in the 1960's, in that the program provided entertaining stories and didn't take itself too seriously. In later years, the program evolved into rather baroque, multi-episode plots, involving supposedly hidden, powerful characters and organizations like "the smoking man". The program's producers discovered that there was a certain market audience that didn't want simple science and logical explanations, a.k.a. CSI. For this other audience, the more mysterious, convoluted and bizarre the story, the better.

2. Photoshop

Photoshop, and computer programs like it, allow almost any person to undertake fast and easy editing and artwork on almost any scanned image. It's very easy to alter serious images to make them humorous, as well as insert artifacts into an image, and so edit them as to make the inserted artifact appear indistinguishable from the features captured in the original negative. One can insert a used condom into an image of Neil Armstrong on the moon, for example, and make it appear as though Armstrong is actually standing on a sound stage in costume.

3. The Internet

For the professional conspiracist, the Internet offers two great opportunities: a) the ability to disseminate nonsense to a large number of people very quickly, and b) the ability to do so without being (academically) accountable for your actions. You don't have to use your real name to set up an email account, you can 'spam' millions of people with conspiracist nonsense, and the chance that you will be called to account by a reporter or other fact-checker, to prove your hypotheses, is virtually nil.


Most conspiracy theories are simply harmless superstitions, like astrology or reading tea leaves. However, when conspiracy theories attempt to represent reality in the realms of politics, public policy, and government administration, they present a real danger to democracy. And this is not a right or left issue. Regardless of one's ideological bent, do a disservice to the average voter by misrepresenting historical events and the process of government and politics.

It is true that we live in a world of large, powerful organizations who attempt to promote their interests, and often attempt to promote their interests at the expense of the average voter. There are marketing firms, professional lobbyists, government 'information' agencies, public relations agencies, political parties, and even branches of the military. There are patron-client relations everywhere.

But however large and powerful these organizations are, they still live in the same physical world that we do. They are powerful, but their power is not infinite. They are influential, but they can be influenced by the average voter in concert, or even just the average citizen. Martin Luther King, for example, was just one man, but by the force of well-fashioned argument and moral suasion, he was able to bring about large-scale changes in the interrelationships of power in American society...even though there were concerted efforts by a number of large-scale organizations to negate his influence.

But whether you are a Martin Luther King or just an ordinary person, in order to have an influence on public policy, you need to have two things: a) a realistic understanding of the power relationships within your society (realistic in that your model is couched in reality), and b) a belief that you, as an individual or in concert with others, can bring about change. Even if this belief merely extends to believing that your vote counts.

In light of this, it is apparent how conspiracy theories have a pernicious effect on democracy and citizen participation in the political process. If conspiracy theorists successfully persuade large numbers of people that 911 was an inside job, or that the moon landings never occured, or that it was impossible for a lone gunman to get lucky and assassinate a US president, or that ancient aliens have built pyramids on the moon...then the average citizen's paradigm of the world becomes replaced with something(s) that is(are) patently inconsistent with physical laws.

Yes, governments, politicians, and large corporations lie to us. That's why we have journalists. Yes, some journalists also lie to us. But the methods that journalists use to dissect the lies and discover the truth, can be turned on the journalists themselves. That's why we have investigative journalists.

The other reason why conspiracy theories are pernicious to democracy is patently obvious. If the average citizen of a democratic country comes to believe he/she lives in a world where everything, every major event, every "accident", is the result of the manipulations of large, hidden, unaccountable government agencies and organizations, all powerful...then that same citizen becomes convinced that their own voice, their own vote, their own efforts to lobby government, are meaningless.

If you really think aliens run the government from Area 51, then what is the point of voting, let alone participating in a political party or attending a policy debate? If you really believe this is how the world works, then (logically) your voice is meaningless.

And this is exactly the belief system, and pattern of action, that conspiracy theories are intended to bring about in the average voter. To induce a state of cynical, self-satisfied 'learned helplessness' in the average citizen.

Whether you are American, Canadian, British, Australian, or a citizen of some other country...this is not the kind of democracy our grandparents and great-grandparents fought in two world wars to bring about.

[ernie]

so are you saying that conspiracy theories are conspiring against democracy? or is it all just a coincidence?

[Manner of Speaking]

[ernie]

so are YOU are conspiracy theorist, then?

[Manner of Speaking]

Nope. Just an opinionated a**hole.

[ernie]

so how do you distinguish between a conspiracy theory and skepticism? would you grant that questioning "official" doctrine is the very essence of democracy?

[Manner of Speaking]

skepticism can refer to anything. I can be skeptical about Environment Canada weather forecasts being right. And I frequently am.

Conspiracy theorists pursue questioning the "official doctrine" as an end in itself, rather than a means to an end. The purpose of any "questioning" is to arrive at the truth. If, for example, some people allege the moon landings never really occurred, and the preponderance of physical evidence demonstrates that yes, they did occur, then you have arrived at the truth.

Skepticism, by its very nature, means placing equal weight of skepticism on the "official version" as well as the alleged "the truth is out there version", and weighing the balance of evidence to see which explanation is true. To place greater weight on one or the other, simply because the other is the "alternative", is just stupid and naive. But for some, it's a lifestyle choice. A supremely stupid one.

Because it's just as stupid, naive and dangerous to believe everything that a conspiracy theorist tells as it is to believe everything that a government says.

[some waygug-in]

But are you and others not placing all your eggs on the side of conventional wisdom, rather than giving some consideration to "the truth that's out there"?

[bacasper]

I agree with mostly everything you have said about conspiracy theories. That is why I stick to facts.

Let me give you some examples:

It is a fact that an expert sharpshooter tested the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that Lee Harvey Oswald was supposed to have used to kill JFK. He was unable to get off three shots within 5.6 seconds, the time frame in which Oswald supposedly did so, not to mention with pinpoint accuracy.

It is a fact that no fire has brought down a steel building before or since the WTC attacks, convoluted pseudoexplanations to the contrary notwithstanding.

It is a fact that Bush Sr. and bin Laden Sr. were partners in the Carlyle Group, a private investment firm that profits from war.

It is a fact that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 allows detention of US citizens indefinitely without recourse to judicial review. Do you maintain that NOT questioning that strengthens democracy?

So just what do you suggest one do when facts do not jibe with the official fictions or versions of events, or suggest otherwise?

Thomas Jefferson said, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." Was he a conspiracy theorist?

[loose_ends]

[Manner of Speaking]

There is nothing wrong with questioning or exploring the "official" version of anything. There are, however, hazards associated with doing - and deliberately choosing - to do it badly.

There are, among others, two ways of doing it badly. One, is by confusing fact and opinion. Take the Apollo lunar landings, for example. It is a fact that they took place. There is a repository in Houston with over 300 pounds of lunar rock, core samples, and dust, the samples of which have been examined by over 150 scientists from around the world. Some of the samples contain minerals found nowhere on Earth, and show markings that these samples could only have been gathered by hand, not by automated machinery. It is a fact that it was impossible in the 1960s for the US to send - or not send - spacecraft to the moon, undetected by the Soviet Union's spacecraft and missile tracking systems.

The lunar landings are a fact, not an opinion. To say that, "well, in my opinion, they didn't really happen", is like saying, "well, most people say it's illegal to drink and drive, but in my opinion, the government never really passed a law like that." If you hold that opinion, and try to convince the gullible of your opinion, you could get yourself or others in trouble very quickly.

A second way of doing it badly is assuming the "alternative" or "truth is out there" explanation is more likely to be true, simply because it is not the "official" opinion. Why give more weight to one than to the other? Why is a conspiracy theorists's explanation more likely to be true simply because he/she doesn't work for government? That's simply a value/lifestyle judgement, not a judgement based on the preponderance of the evidence.

And, it ignores the fact that both the 'official' explanation and the 'conspiricist' explanation for a given event may be wrong, based on the evidence. Why limit yourself to one or the other? You're entitled, in a democracy, to think for yourself.

[cbclark4]

This is not a current event.

I think it belong in the generally disgusting forum or the awful topics forum.

It is ongoing and not current.

[ernie]

it is a mistake to lump all "conspiracy theorists" together and dismiss both the plausible and ridiculous in one fell swoop... there is certainly a difference between those who question the "single shooter theory" and those who claim that the moon landings never happened... you cannot address different claims with the same argument...

[Manner of Speaking]

[loose_ends]