Category: General

Defining conspiracy theories – a spam definition

As my regular readers know, I am writing a PhD dissertation on the philosophy of conspiracy theories. In this work (out sometime about June) I go to great lengths to define what conspiracy theories, how they function as explanations, why claims of “Conspiracy!” need not be specific and, well, some other stuff in the 90,000 words that represents the last four years of my life.

It turns out I needn’t have worried; spambots are already promoting what is bound to be the thesis about conspiracy theories, which goes something like this:

A conspiracy theory is a that defies common historical or current understanding of events under the claim that those events are the result of manipulations by two or more individuals or various secretive powers or ..Colloquially a conspiracy theory is any unconventional theory about current or historical events with the connotation that that theory is unfounded outlandish or irrational or in some way unworthy of serious consideration. In this sense the term is sometimes used to refer to events with which no association to an actual conspiracy in the legal sense two or more persons plotting and one overt act related to the plot is claimed. In this sense conspiracy theory is often simply an allegation of action based on little or no solid evidence.

If you write on conspiracy theories, then expect to get comments exactly like that one (indeed, I’ve had five today on various posts from the last three months). Spambots are getting better and better at post comments which seem to fit the content of the post; at the moment some of them are written/generated to the standard we require of a Stage I paper in, say, Engineering. That is pretty impressive, really. I expect, by the end of this decade, that my thesis will be trumped by “barney@sexpills.com” whose contribution to the debate on the warrant of conspiracy theories will be definitive and whose definitional parameters and scope of operation I dare not contemplate lest I lose my cool.

Until then, though, my project must be finished so it can eight to nine years of reigning supreme.

03/19/2011

A Guide to Giving Airtime to Cranks – part 1 of many

I’m no media expert; I leave such matters in the hands of the producers and interviewers I have worked with. My only areas of expertise, formally, are in teaching critical thinking (and the philosophy of science) and the epistemology of conspiracy theories.

That being said, I’m not just an interested amateur when it comes to the presentation of ideas in the media; due to my speech hesitancy I have had over a decade of speech therapy and drama training, a large proportion of which was aimed at making me not only a rhetorically-successful public speaker but also a speech writer (my speech coach, Elspeth Hitchings, wanted me to write political speeches. I shudder to think for what purpose). I was also trained as a debater, and I was always made to argue against positions I supported; I was trained, from an early age, to be a Devil’s Advocate ((Which is a shame, as the Roman Catholic Church no longer uses them and thus I have no job opportunity there any longer)).

This is why, on Twitter last night, I was incredibly scathing of John Campbell’s interview with Ken Ring, an astrologer who claims he predicted the recent Christchurch earthquake/aftershock. Campbell harangued Ring and came off looking angry and arrogant in front of a calm and collected Ken Ring. Given that I think I have a justified belief that Ring is a crank, this displeased me.

So, here are some pointers for future interviewers of cranks. As I said, I’m not a qualified expert on this matter, so, like Ken Ring’s “predictions,” these are just my opinions ((Opinion which, admittedly, have been formed from years of debating and analysing conspiracy theorists and their like.)).

Point 1. You cannot debate a crank

Cranks have more data than you, the journalist. Cranks have, by the time they are worthy of making the news, engaged in debates with qualified experts. You, as a journalist, are probably not a qualified expert. You might have some incredibly talented researchers working for you and you might have the time and be able to bone up on some of the details in the few hours you have as preparation, but you will not have the array of data at your finger-tips that the crank has and is used to. Expect to find that every time you say “Authority X has said this” that the crank will be able to provide three counterexamples, one to show that the authority isn’t an authority, one to show that other authorities disagree with that authority and one to show that the authority has been inconsistent in what they have said.

Point 2: Cranks think anecdotes trump data-sets

What the crank asserts as counter-examples to your argument might not be true or plausible or even very logical. The crank might make stuff up, confuse issues, or mistake what some authority has said. It doesn’t matter; even if you can say “But, Mr. Crank, I have the data right here!” or “This is what the best minds of our day believe!” the crank will respond by moving on to another anecdote, upon which they will splurge more and more data (inaccurate or not).

Cranks are not interested in arguments based upon good inferences ((This, I admit, is a gross generalisation.)) and plausible data-sets; they like anecdotal data which looks to undermine some official theory and which they can use to claim that their own theory must be better.

Point 3: Cranks with theories will out talk you

As I noted before, cranks who make the news are more than likely to be used to debate with experts. If they have a theory, then they will have jargon to go with that theory. Cranks who have theories often use jargon in non-standard ways. If you challenge them on their theory they can either claim that you do not understand the theory or that you are not giving them enough time to explain it a way that a layperson will understand.

Point 4: You can hoist a crank by his petard

The most effective way to counter a crank is not to argue with her but ask her questions that will expose just how inconsistent her views are. This, with respect to the soundbite or the ten minute interview, is your only option. Look for the inconsistencies in their theory (or get your researcher(s) to do that) and ask questions to which you already know what their answer will be so you can ping them with “But if you think that X is the case, why do you also say not-X?” or “If that’s true, why doesn’t this example fit your theory?” If you can get the crank to twist herself in knots over her own theory and you can do it with the voice of calm reasonableness, you might make it out of the interview not just with your dignity but also with a small victory.

Right, back to thesis writing.

03/01/2011

A piece of excised thesis: Scope

The scope of what counts as a conspiracy theory interests me. One sense of scope is found in the political/non-political demarcation between some explanations being treated as conspiracy theories and others not. Surprise parties are non-political and so explanations thereof might not be considered to be conspiracy theories; I think this is a mistake because ruling out a conspiratorial explanation as a conspiracy theory just because it is not political raises the question of what do we mean by “political” here? The Moscow Show Trials are clearly political, given that they involved political figures who acted conspiratorially to achieve political ends, but is LaRouche’s conspiracy theory [about the competing philosophical ideologies of Europe and the USA] similarly political? It alleges political activity but does not show it. The explanation is political, in that if it were true, then it would impact upon what we claim to know about politics, but is not political in the sense that is an explanation of the activities of the political realm.

Another sense of scope, I think, is to be found in whether these things we call conspiracy theories refer to actual explanations (where “explanation” is being used a success term)? Conspiracy theory theorists like Aaronvitch reserve the term conspiracy theory for unwarranted conspiratorial explanations. Cases like the Moscow Show Trials are treated merely as examples of explanations that cite conspiratorial activity, whilst examples like LaRouche’s posited explanation are treated as conspiracy theories. This is yet another version of the pejorative usage of conspiracy theory.

All of these notions are, I think, unhelpful. I wish to define conspiracy theory as any explanation of an event that cites the existence of a conspiracy as a salient feature or cause. I do not want to draw distinctions between political and non-political cases, between large, small or medium-sized cabals, between warranted and unwarranted cases. These distinctions do not, I think, help. What is interesting about conspiracy theories, of any “kind” you might like to think of, is whether the conspiratorial behaviour cited in the explanation of the event is a warranted inference. The scope of my analysis of conspiracy theories is, then, any explanation that cites conspiratorial behaviour as a salient cause of the event.

[This is not strictly excised material; I’ve rewritten a lot of this and moved it elsewhere. I don’t really touch (at this stage of the rewrite) the notion of success terms because I’m arguing that claims of “Conspiracy!” are assertions and conspiracy theories are put forward as the rather than an explanation (in most cases).]

02/26/2011

Advertisement: Critical Thinking at the University of Auckland

What ho, blog visitors. I’m teaching (as is now usual) an adult education course on Critical Thinking starting April the 27th. Details can be found here.

02/23/2011

The Christchurch Quake Conspiracy (plural) – Part Nine – Ken Ring’s Successful Opinion?

As many of you will now know, there was a major earthquake in Christchurch, Te Wai Pounamu (the South Island of what is commonly known as “New Zealand”) today and supporters of Ken Ring are claiming their belief in his lunar system has been vindicated because of this:

It means ths area of the sun that corresponds to NZ is again seeing some activation. The window of 15-25 February should be potent for all types of tidal action, not only kingtides but cyclone development and ground movement. The 18th may be especially prone. The possible earthquake risk areas are N/S faults until after 16 February, then E/W faults until 23rd. The moon will be full on the 18th and in perigee on the 19th. This perigee will be the fifth closest for the year. The 15th will be nodal for the moon. On the 20th the moon crosses the equator heading south. Strong winds and swells may arrive around 22nd to NZ shorelines.

Now, I’m already find that people are asking me what I think of this, and you’ll find some of that discussion going on here in the comments of an earlier post.

I will, if I get the time (I am busy finishing my thesis, you see) write something more substantive on this, but I do want to note one thing. Ring writes:

For an earthquake to occur many factors have to come together, but sun activity, full moon and perigee are arguably the most potent, and they are all starting to chime now. Over the next 10 days a 7+ earthquake somewhere is very likely.

Note that he is talking about a 7+ earthquake. I don’t want to dismiss just how bad today’s quake has been, but it’s just a 6.3. I say “just” here because the Richter Scale is a curious thing; it is logarithmic. The difference between a 6.3 quake and something in 7s is huge; a 7-point quake is ten times as powerful as a 6-point quake. Not only that but the frequency of a 7-point quake is about 12 a year compared to the 180 6-point quakes we normally expect.

Ring predicted a much more unique and dangerous event than the one that occurred, which is yet another good reason to treat this prediction as not being much chop. It’s no minor difference or a point that we can quibble about; what Ring predicted is not what occurred today in Christchurch

But, of course, Ring doesn’t claim these are predictions; they are, according to him:

These are opinions and not predictions…

Buyer beware.

02/22/2011

A piece of excised thesis: Charlie Sheen

People like LaRoche, who are prominent and considered to be well-read advocates of conspiracy theories, may not be the appropriate authorities when it comes to the evaluation of whether such theories are warranted. To conspiracy theorists of their ilk, however, the fact these people support particular conspiracy theories is taken to be an important factor as to why you and I should come to believe in such a theory. To use a quote from the “Los Angeles Times” as an illustrative example:

“But when someone with the gravitas of a Charlie Sheen issues a statement, anyone is forced to listen.”

Now, if Charlie Sheen were speaking on matters theatrical, then maybe his gravitas might be a reason to listen to him, but given that Charlie Sheen’s gravitas is being used as a reason for demanding the President of the United States of America, Barack Obama, have a meeting to discuss the conspiracy theory that claims 9/11 was an inside job and not an act of terrorism by Al-Qaeda, you might be forgiven for wondering why an actor, unqualified in such matters, would be considered to be an appropriate authority on 9/11. Yet, for some proponents of conspiracy theories, someone like Sheen is such an authority.

[It’s possible Charlie will make it into chapter four, but in chapter one he’s just a dead weight. Like his acting, really.]

02/21/2011