By
Joshua
Michail
28
September, 2014
I am going to tell you that the beliefs you hold can affect
your honor. I know this may seem odd, but I will explain my position.
However, I want to also delve into some other issues regarding beliefs,
most specifically on conspiracy “theories”. Recently, a friend of mine
shared a link to a video lecture by Rob Brotherton, an Irish
psychologist. The title of the lecture is "Psychology of
Conspiracy
Theories", which happens to also be his doctoral
thesis. I found the
lecture to be quite interesting, and it got me to thinking on the
issue, and beyond. It raised a few issues for me that I want to deal
with here. One being the problem I take with calling conspiracy stories
“theories”, and I believe you can start already to see where I'm going
on that point. Another point is about beliefs based on emotional
thinking versus beliefs based on evidence.
There is no such thing as a “conspiracy theory”. I know this
is a bold statement, but soon you'll see my point. There certainly are
people who believe that there are secret plots, by a few allegedly
extraordinarily-powerful interests, to take control of the world. And,
it's true that sometimes conspiracies occur. Though, you'll never find
the truth on sites like Info Wars, or Conspiracy Watch, and from people
like Alex Jones and David Icke. In fact, there are some red flags
sources like those raise, and alarm bells they sound. For instance, as
a general rule, one should be quite suspicious of anyone who insists,
without being questioned first, that they are telling you the truth, or
that they have a secret that no other has. One should be, rightly,
ready to dismiss those who make such ridiculous claims as the
conspiracists do. For instance, if it's a secret that some extremely
powerful cabal of conspirators would kill to keep silent, then why is
the person revealing the secret on media outlets, such as You Tube, or
Facebook, spreading these “secrets” for so long with no interference?
Why would such secret cabals do what they are being accused of doing,
what do they really gain? Why can't they use more reasonable
approaches? Why is it taking them so long to accomplish their goals? If
they're so powerful and secretive, why is this secret even being talked
about by anyone? You get the idea, the list of questions about the
story tellers goes on for a long time.
The point, however, about the term “theory” that raises my
ire, is that it's not acceptable to use that term for such nonsense.
The term “theory” is specifically scientific, and so should be limited
to that use. The definition of which is this, Theory (n.): A stated set
of ideas that: 1.
coherently, 2.
explain observed phenomenon, 3.
and
which is derived from a hypothesis that has been tested repeatedly by
different groups who all found the same results. I make this point
because there are two main ways people with questionable agendas tend
to misuse the word. First, the conspiracy story tellers, who want
people to believe there is more veracity to their claims than really
exists. After-all, “theory” sounds much more important and intellectual
than “story” or “opinion”. The second way that it is misused for a
particular agenda is among creationists, who actually use the term in
another way. They like to say “theory” as if it means the same thing as
“opinion” or “just a guess”. They use the word for such actual
scientific theories as Evolution by Natural Selection in the context of
their discussion in the hopes that they can discredit the veracity of
such science. The common acceptance of people using the term in both
ways actually harms the public understanding of science. I suggest,
strongly, that everyone starts to call people out on this problem. We
owe it to humanity to demand intellectual honesty. We must correct our
friends on the misuse of the word “theory”, and this is why I say there
is no such thing as a “conspiracy theory”.
To help facilitate this effort, I suggest a few terms that
can be used to replace “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorist”.
So, one who proposes, endorses, or spreads conspiracy stories is a
“conspiracist”. This term should not be confused with “conspirator”,
which is one who conspires to commit whatever the story alleges. For
instance, in Jenny McCarthy's endorsement of the false story that
vaccines cause autism she, by extension, endorses also the claim that
governments and doctors are conspirators attempting to keep their
“conspiracy” a secret. In this sense Jenny McCarthy is a conspiracist,
because she is spreading the conspiracy story that vaccines allegedly
cause autism. It should be noted, by the way, that the original article
making the claim was scientifically discredited and the publisher
retracted the article, though the doctor who initially made the claim
sticks to it, even after his medical license was revoked. Further,
“conspiracism” is the term I use to describe the attitude or belief
that conspiracy stories have some legitimate footing for consideration
and deserve to be taken seriously. More specifically, I'd say
conspiracism is an undue and excessive willingness to believe, or
accept as plausible, such conspiracy stories.
In the lecture that inspired me to write this essay, Rob
Brotherton discussed the psychology of conspiracy stories. I find
psychology to be an astoundingly interesting subject, but I'll try to
keep this discussion short since we all have busy lives. Among the
particular issues discussed in the lecture were the personality traits
of people who believe conspiracy stories. Some research has been done
which indicates the possibility that people who believe one conspiracy
story also tend to believe many other conspiracy stories. Additionally,
there tends to be a sense of powerlessness in the world on the part of
the person who believes such stories. The typical conspiracy story
narrative is a perception that some evil and extraordinarily-powerful
group is responsible for the bad things that in the world. Rob
Brotherton defines “conspiracy theories”
as: “(1) an unsubstantiated
allegation of conspiracy, (2) pertaining to events of profound
importance, (3)
competing
with a more plausible explanation, (4) which
assumes deception and misinformation [from
the alleged conspirators],
and
(5)
presumes
malicious intent and hyper-competence, and (6)
insulates
the idea against correction”.
Moreover, there are some distinctive personality traits that
are often quite evident. For one thing, most people who believe such
conspiracy stories tend to be extraordinarily open to unusual ideas and
are more willing to accept the stories that seem compelling to them.
Additionally, believers of conspiracy stories tend to be mildly, or
more, paranoid than most. They also tend to have quite a bit of bias.
There's Projection Bias, in which a person presumes that most others
think and behave like he/she does. Michael Shermer calls another bias
“Patternicity”, which is an ability that most people have to see
meaning in random stimuli. Though for the religious and many
conspiracists this trait is more noticeable and usually not considered
by the person who believes such things. A very common bias among
conspiracists is Proportionality, they often believe that major events
must have major players, such as the John F Kennedy assassination.
Conspiracists often insist that because Kennedy was an important man
the assassin must have been involved in a conspiracy that must have
been far bigger than a lone mentally disturbed gunman. But, perhaps the
most powerful and intractable bias is Confirmation Bias. People who
believe in conspiracy stories usually ignore and reject evidence that
does not support their existing beliefs but willingly and quickly
accept anything they can perceive as supporting their presumptions.
One more very interesting point that I want to discuss is the
difference between emotionally based beliefs and evidence based
beliefs. Mr. Brotherton also raised this issue in the video lecture.
And, as promised, here is where I'll begin discussing how one's beliefs
can affect one's honor. Now, for Mr. Brotherton's sake I will state
that he never mentioned honor. Rather, he talked about how in debating
with someone evidence-based arguments will not be effective if that
person formed his/her belief through emotions. You see, there are two
basic ways people form opinions, or beliefs. One is through being
presented evidence and logical arguments. The other is through appeals
to emotions. Obviously the problem with emotionally-based beliefs is
that they are not formed through critical examination of evidence. So
emotionally-based opinions or beliefs tend all too often to not reflect
anything resembling reality. Fundamentally there can be no honor in
holding beliefs that are wishful thinking, that are discordant with
reality.
But, worse still, some beliefs can be actually quite
dishonorable. In fact, when one holds a belief that can motivate one to
do harm, or to advocate others to do harm to themselves. And since
there is no honor in ignorance, one cannot expect that being ignorant
of the facts can excuse the dishonor one does to one's self by such
dangerous beliefs. Such examples, sadly, exist. When someone like Jenny
McCarthy tells parents to not vaccinate their children, she is actively
giving medical advice. The problem in this sense is that she is nothing
like a qualified doctor. This is a highly dishonorable thing to do. In
fact, I will tell you this is the fundamental reason I say Jenny
McCarthy is without honor. She has chosen to accept the already
discredited claims against vaccinations, and she lends her cheapened
celebrity status to support a most ridiculous conspiracy story. Her
activism against vaccinations is, in plain fact, actively encouraging
parents to harm their children. And, for this, there is no excuse. She
has thrown away whatever degree of honor she might have had by holding
fast to her beloved conspiracy fantasy.
Copyright © 2014 by Joshua
Michail
All
Rights Reserved.
|