 |
| (Car destroyed as the Twin Towers fell - picture in NYC at the site.) |
Whenever I hear "conspiracy theory" I doubt it.
In logic classes (like the one I taught for seventeen years) students are taught to reject conspiracy theorizing. It exemplifies irrational thinking.
For example, NBA basketball star Steph Curry once denied that the US landed on the moon. It was all a conspiracy! That loony claim got him lots of push-back. Then, he denied that he meant anything about it - it was a joke.
Yes, there are true conspiracies. But, in general, pay no attention to conspiracy theorists. Here's why.
Several years ago, after the tragedy of 9-1-1, a handful of Monroe-area skeptics stood on a street corner holding signs that said, "Impeach Bush." Why? Because, they "reasoned," what happened on 9-1-1 was a conspiracy.
They were quoted in our local newspaper: “It was probably a cruise missile that went off [launched by the U.S.!], and they didn’t want anyone to see that. They did it so they could justify attacking Iraq. Probably, that happened?”
It didn't.
Here’s the “thinking”:
1.A cruise missile sent by the U.S. hit the Pentagon.
2.The U.S. government didn’t want people to see that.
3.So, they suppressed the videos, which actually showed a cruise missile hitting the Pentagon. (That’s why we have not seen any more videos of the incident.)
4.The motive: The U.S. did this deliberately to justify attacking Iraq!
Right. (Conspiracy theories are wastelands of innuendo and suspicion.)
What's wrong with conspiracy theories like this? Let's look to logic (actual reasoning) for an answer.
In my Intro to Logic class I used Lewis Vaughn's The Power of Critical Thinking. Chapter 9 is called "Inference to the Best Explanation" (also called abductive reasoning; or the likelihood principle). This is about theories, and how to evaluate them.
In theory-evaluation there are "criteria of adequacy." Vaughn writes:
"Applying the criteria of adequacy to a set of theories constitutes the ultimate test of a theory's value, for the best theory is the eligible theory that meets the criteria of adequacy better than any of its competitors." (356-357)
For Vaughn these are:
..."try to explain events by positing the secret participation of numerous conspirators.... Some conspiracy theories, of course, have been found to be true. But most of them are implausible... They would have us raise numerous assumptions that raise more questions than they answer: How do the conspirators manage to keep their activities secret? How do they control all the players? Where is the evidence that all the parts of the conspiracy have come together just so?" (365)
Vaughn calls the United States "Conspiracy Central." In America, conspiracy theories abound. Here are some of the things we are told are the center of a massive conspiracy:
1) How did Pres. Bush and his numerous supposed cohorts keep their activities secret?;
2) How did Bush and his partners control all the players involved?; and
3) Where is the evidence that this massive, complicated plan came together just so?
The answer: it didn't happen that way.
I'm challenging you to think clearly, and critically.
One more thought. When these conspiracy theories prove to be false, those who have spread them and injected fear into people rarely, if ever, go public and apologize.
In logic classes (like the one I taught for seventeen years) students are taught to reject conspiracy theorizing. It exemplifies irrational thinking.
For example, NBA basketball star Steph Curry once denied that the US landed on the moon. It was all a conspiracy! That loony claim got him lots of push-back. Then, he denied that he meant anything about it - it was a joke.
Yes, there are true conspiracies. But, in general, pay no attention to conspiracy theorists. Here's why.
Several years ago, after the tragedy of 9-1-1, a handful of Monroe-area skeptics stood on a street corner holding signs that said, "Impeach Bush." Why? Because, they "reasoned," what happened on 9-1-1 was a conspiracy.
They were quoted in our local newspaper: “It was probably a cruise missile that went off [launched by the U.S.!], and they didn’t want anyone to see that. They did it so they could justify attacking Iraq. Probably, that happened?”
It didn't.
Here’s the “thinking”:
1.A cruise missile sent by the U.S. hit the Pentagon.
2.The U.S. government didn’t want people to see that.
3.So, they suppressed the videos, which actually showed a cruise missile hitting the Pentagon. (That’s why we have not seen any more videos of the incident.)
4.The motive: The U.S. did this deliberately to justify attacking Iraq!
Right. (Conspiracy theories are wastelands of innuendo and suspicion.)
What's wrong with conspiracy theories like this? Let's look to logic (actual reasoning) for an answer.
In my Intro to Logic class I used Lewis Vaughn's The Power of Critical Thinking. Chapter 9 is called "Inference to the Best Explanation" (also called abductive reasoning; or the likelihood principle). This is about theories, and how to evaluate them.
In theory-evaluation there are "criteria of adequacy." Vaughn writes:
"Applying the criteria of adequacy to a set of theories constitutes the ultimate test of a theory's value, for the best theory is the eligible theory that meets the criteria of adequacy better than any of its competitors." (356-357)
For Vaughn these are:
- Testability - there is some way to determine whether the theories are true or false.
- Fruitfulness - the yielding of new insights that can open up whole new areas of research and discovery.
- Scope - it explains more diverse phenomena.
- Simplicity - a theory that makes fewer assumptions is less likely to be false because there are fewer ways for it to be wrong.
- Conservatism - other things being equal, the best theory is the one that fits best with established beliefs.
..."try to explain events by positing the secret participation of numerous conspirators.... Some conspiracy theories, of course, have been found to be true. But most of them are implausible... They would have us raise numerous assumptions that raise more questions than they answer: How do the conspirators manage to keep their activities secret? How do they control all the players? Where is the evidence that all the parts of the conspiracy have come together just so?" (365)
Vaughn calls the United States "Conspiracy Central." In America, conspiracy theories abound. Here are some of the things we are told are the center of a massive conspiracy:
- Elvis's death
- Martin Luther King, Jr.'s, assassination
- The Oklahoma City bombing
- Princess Diana's death
- The earth is really flat
- Bill Gates is behind the coronavirus, wanting to use a vaccination program to implant digital microchips that will somehow track and control people (No Christian leader or thinker that I admire promoted this.)
- The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001
1) How did Pres. Bush and his numerous supposed cohorts keep their activities secret?;
2) How did Bush and his partners control all the players involved?; and
3) Where is the evidence that this massive, complicated plan came together just so?
The answer: it didn't happen that way.
I'm challenging you to think clearly, and critically.
One more thought. When these conspiracy theories prove to be false, those who have spread them and injected fear into people rarely, if ever, go public and apologize.
