Critical thinking skills and belief in conspiracy theory

[Evo]

You mean you prefer people going to conspiracy theories websites - which will accept them with open arms - rather than stay on PF and get introduced to the scientific method?

No, I was referring to this link which was in that article you keep referring to.

“You really have to tailor it to the individual, there’s no magic bullet that works for everybody,” Mick West told me. He’s the author of the book Escaping the Rabbit Hole and runs a few websites including Metabunk, referred to as “a polite forum of and about debunking.”

 

[Evo]

It is not about being right or wrong. It is about reaching out to people. Let us repeat the important messages until they sink in:

No, let's stop. The parts of the article you keep referring to are about how someone should handle a close friend, a family member, co-worker, etc... someone that you need to retain trust and interpersonal relationships with. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with conspiracy theorists showing up here at PF.

So "Warning" do not keep reposting about how to handle these close interpersonal relationships as they will be deleted and formally warned.

 

[Jarvis323]

What do you all think about a scenario where there is a conspiracy and someone uncovers it? Do you think this has never happened, or never will happen? Or is there a different language we need to talk about those cases? And should those people, who do uncover a conspiracy, be taken seriously by society at all (assuming that there is a way to delineate them from nut jobs)? In my opinion, this is the place we really are lacking critical thinking.

 

[PeroK]

What do you all think about a scenario where there is a conspiracy and someone uncovers it? Do you think this has never happened, or never will happen? Or is there a different language we need to talk about those cases? And should those people, who do uncover a conspiracy, be taken seriously by society at all (assuming that there is a way to delineate them from nut jobs)? In my opinion, this is the place we really are lacking critical thinking.

You mean something like this?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56237818

 

[Jarvis323]

You mean something like this?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56237818

Sure that would fit I guess. The assumption of the paper in the OP and in the discussion seems to be that all of the conspiracy theorists are wrong. This is obviously not true in any literal interpretation. If we are going to tackle the subject of critical thinking and conspiracy belief, we should do it using critical thinking and be precise.

What is necessary is a definition of conspiracy theorist and a method to delineate conspiracy theory from not conspiracy theory. And that doesn't sound trivial to me.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Sure that would fit I guess. The assumption of the paper in the OP and in the discussion seems to be that all of the conspiracy theorists are wrong. This is obviously not true in any literal interpretation. If we are going to tackle the subject of critical thinking and conspiracy belief, we should do it using critical thinking and be precise.

What is necessary is a definition of conspiracy theorist and a method to delineate conspiracy theory from not conspiracy theory. And that doesn't sound trivial to me.

A great starting point would be the size of the conspiracy. I doubt you could find one example of a truly vast conspiracy on the scale these people believe.

Conspiracies almost always involve a very small number of people. Otherwise the secrets could never be kept.

 

[Averagesupernova]

Sure that would fit I guess. The assumption of the paper in the OP and in the discussion seems to be that all of the conspiracy theorists are wrong. This is obviously not true in any literal interpretation. If we are going to tackle the subject of critical thinking and conspiracy belief, we should do it using critical thinking and be precise.

What is necessary is a definition of conspiracy theorist and a method to delineate conspiracy theory from not conspiracy theory. And that doesn't sound trivial to me.

So do you consider any hypothesis a conspiracy theory? It's an 'educated guess'. As in thought up by an expert or group of experts. I thought we could agree that conspiracy goes against experts.

 

[Jarvis323]

So do you consider any hypothesis a conspiracy theory? It's an 'educated guess'. As in thought up by an expert or group of experts. I thought we could agree that conspiracy goes against experts.

I'm not aware of a precise definition.

It should be noted that going with the expert unconditionally is an example of uncritical thinking.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It should be noted that going with the expert unconditionally is an example of uncritical thinking.

That's why we have peer review and publications. Peer review does't include Joe Sixpack's opinion. You don't have to justify all of science to debate one subject.

 

[jack action]

someone that you need to retain trust and interpersonal relationships with. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with conspiracy theorists showing up here at PF.

These advices still hold for people on PF: Don't call people stupid or paranoid, be respectful (even if they are not), discussing casually instead of debating when appropriate and, most importantly, don't get into a confrontation.

People discussing on PF are in some sort of relationship, even if it is not a close friendship or family. It is called socializing. I think that it is important to keep a relationship of trust between the public and the scientific community. And PF plays a role in this, either by getting proactive or by ignoring that they have a role in this.

Anyway, these are opinions, not facts.

 

[jack action]

What is necessary is a definition of conspiracy theorist and a method to delineate conspircy theory from not conspiracy theory.

A conspiracy theory in the sense used here is one that is not based in facts, isn't it?

 

[Averagesupernova]

I'm not aware of a precise definition.

It should be noted that going with the expert unconditionally is an example of uncritical thinking.

That's arguable. While I don't run to my doctor every time I sneeze I'd say it should be unconditional if I have stroke symptoms. I am not qualified to deal with that and I would be stupid to think if I just take an aspirin to dissolve the clot in my brain I'll be fine.

 

[Jarvis323]

Conspiracies almost always involve a very small number of people. Otherwise the secrets could never be kept.

If you can formulate this as a valid argument under the lense of critical thinking, then it will be a good start ;)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It occurs to me that the US Constitution was the product of a conspiracy. Ironic huh!

If you can formulate this as a valid argument under the lense of critical thinking, then it will be a good start ;)

There has never been a vast conspiracy involving thousands of people that lasted more than a few weeks. Show me a counter example. ;)

 

[Jarvis323]

It occurs to me that the US Constitution was the product of a conspiracy. Ironic huh!
There has never been a vast conspiracy involving thousands of people that lasted more than a few weeks. Show me a counter example. ;)

There was Operation Snow White, in which the Church of Scientology had infiltrated the US government with "up to 5,000" covert agents.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White

 

[hutchphd]

There was Operation Snow White, in which the Church of Scientology had infiltrated the US government with "up to 5,000" covert agents.

What are you quoting? Reference please

 

[Jarvis323]

What are you quoting? Reference please

...One Scientology document so identifies 136 governmental agencies at home and abroad. At its height, the espionage system, called "Operation Snow White" by Hubbard, included up to 5,000 covert agents who were placed in government offices, foreign embassies and consulates, as well as in private organizations critical of Scientology. Hubbard even assembled a dossier on President Richard Nixon and individuals ranging from U.S. Senators to members of the Rockefeller family.

http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,951938,00.html

 

[hutchphd]

I doubt the number but there certainly are conspiracies. And L Ron certainly loved them from both sides. He wanted his agents to destroy government documents about scientology. In the end 11 people were convicted so thousands may be overestimate.
In the words of Joseph Heller (in Catch 22) "Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you"
But The issue for me is how we, as a society of individuals, adjudicate truth. If we don't draw a bright line, then any yahoo with bear spray is justified to break into the Capital so long as she is earnest.. Or you can legally shoot some kid if you are really honestly scared.
Not good enough. Not nearly. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

 

[Evo]

What do you all think about a scenario where there is a conspiracy and someone uncovers it? Do you think this has never happened, or never will happen? Or is there a different language we need to talk about those cases? And should those people, who do uncover a conspiracy, be taken seriously by society at all (assuming that there is a way to delineate them from nut jobs)? In my opinion, this is the place we really are lacking critical thinking.

These are the cases where we have 'whistleblowers'. Yes, there can always be small pockets of corruption, I wouldn't classify them as conspiracies though. I came across numerous cases of corruption, collusion, fraud, you name it, at the large company I worked for. One person was fired, another quit before he was fired, but I found out the company had a lawsuit against them for 6 figure monetary fraud. I discovered a very large amount of monetary fraud, going up 3 chains of management and I was threatened if I revealed it, I quit. I really regret not turning them in. But, do we call these "conspiracies"? Usually "conspiracies" have quite a bit of outlandish nonsense that makes them easy to spot.

Edit, well, since they were criminal, they would be defined as conspiracies, but they aren't the kind we think of when we hear "conspiracy theory", the kinds posted on the internet that quickly gain large numbers of followers.

 

[Evo]

I doubt the number but there certainly are conspiracies. And L Ron certainly loved them from both sides. He wanted his agents to destroy government documents about scientology. In the end 11 people were convicted so thousands may be overestimate.
In the words of Joseph Heller (in Catch 22) "Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you"
But The issue for me is how we, as a society of individuals, adjudicate truth. If we don't draw a bright line, then any yahoo with bear spray is justified to break into the Capital so long as she is earnest.. Or you can legally shoot some kid if you are really honestly scared.
Not good enough. Not nearly. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

OK, you found one that I have to agree is probably real on a lot of whacky levels, Scientology is off of the scales. Now we also have QAnon believers/members in our Government!

 

[Evo]

A conspiracy theory in the sense used here is one that is not based in facts, isn't it?

Basically, I would say that would be good.

 

[PeroK]

There has never been a vast conspiracy involving thousands of people that lasted more than a few weeks. Show me a counter example. ;)

The UK government has the "Official Secrets Act", which allows government documents to remain secret for 30 years and has allowed numerous government conspiracies from coming to light until too late. For example:

During the nuclear bomb tests in the 1950s UK soldiers were used as guinea pigs to test the effect of exposure to radiation. Everything was successfully covered up for more than 30 years.

The Catholic Church successfully conspired to suppress widespread sexual and physical abuse of children for decades.

Why are those plausible and that COVID is a hoax not plausible? That may be the essence of critical thinking. There are those, it seems, who can't distinguise these cases.

It's not that there are no conspiracies, but how to analyse their plausibility.

 

[Bystander]

but how to analyse their plausibility.

Indiscriminate and excessive use of the word "they" has been my trigger/alarm word. Lack of specificity in identification of groups, e.g., use of "they" rather than "lawyers/ contractors/ building inspectors/military industrial complex" in construction/s of arguments equals conspiracy theory adherent/paranoid, usually followed with the "Heller Argument."

 

[Drakkith]

Funny side note: Isn't it strange, that even in a case where we had only a few experts, three or four at the time, who could understand Wiles' proof of FLT, nobody ever came up with a conspiracy theory?

You probably just haven't been to the right corners of the internet.

None of this makes any sense. Just because you don't "trust" someone does NOT make them wrong, and just because you DO "trust" someone does NOT make them right.

You may trust some insane person spreading rumors that half of the government is actually child eating, Satan worshipping, sex trafficking pedophiles. Does the fact that you trust in that person make them correct? And why don't you trust the scientist that has a proven track record of honesty and accuracy, and been published and peer reviewed? How does your lack of trust make them wrong?

The problem is that this is an emotional response, and thus your brain makes it seem rational unless you can somehow decouple the conspiracy theory from your emotions, which is a very difficult thing to do. In other words, if you believe in X, your brain will do just about anything it can to keep you believing in X, and you will really think that it is logical and makes sense.

So, yes, to people with strong beliefs in a conspiracy theory, the fact that they trust person A does indeed mean that A is correct and anyone who disagrees with A is wrong. It doesn't matter what credentials or experience some scientist or doctor has, it doesn't matter how many of them band together, the fact that they disagree with A means that they are wrong, are lying, are in league with big-whatever, etc.

People have literally gone to their death screaming at nurses that they aren't dying from COVID. Well, as much screaming as possible when your lungs are filling with fluid and your oxygen saturation is falling even with an oxygen mask on or a breathing tube down your throat.

 

[hutchphd]

I had the good fortune to have had Dr Carl Sagan as a professor. I think his best work is The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. It speaks exactly to these questions with a chilling prescience. A should-read for everyone.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0345409469/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[Rive]

A conspiracy theory in the sense used here is one that is not based in facts, isn't it?

A good conspiracy theory is always based on facts.

Occam does not work exclusively for science. With the sense of 'simplest hypothesis' or 'fewer postulates' slightly warped it can support many interesting ideas.

In some sense to prove that some things just simply happened might require far more postulates than having a singular 'they' behind them.

To see what's really simple you need a thorough experience both about the difficulties of any 'they' and about the simple/trivial nature of many complex things.

So - never underestimate conspiracy theories. In a sense they are some part result of critical thinking.

 

[jack action]

A good conspiracy theory is always based on facts.

A good conspiracy theory is only based on facts.
A bad conspiracy theory always includes at least one assumption that links the presented facts.

For example:

• a billionaire made his fortune in electronics (fact);
• he promotes vaccination (fact);
• therefore he wants to inject microchips in everyone (assumption).

 

[pinball1970]

A good conspiracy theory is always based on facts.

Occam does not work exclusively for science. With the sense of 'simplest hypothesis' or 'fewer postulates' slightly warped it can support many interesting ideas.

In some sense to prove that some things just simply happened might require far more postulates than having a singular 'they' behind them.

To see what's really simple you need a thorough experience both about the difficulties of any 'they' and about the simple/trivial nature of many complex things.

So - never underestimate conspiracy theories. In a sense they are some part result of critical thinking.

Thanks Rive

Can you flesh this out and give a few examples?
Especially the “facts” part.
If the facts are indeed facts then it cannot be a conspiracy can it?
For example.
A “fact” of the conspiracy COVID is the 99.97% recovery rate.
It is not that the number is wrong, it is that a number like that cannot be true since not everyone who has Covid has died yet.

It is not and could not be a fact.

Or I have totally missed your point

 

[Rive]

If the facts are indeed facts then it cannot be a conspiracy can it?

Facts (what you can check yourself) are solid basis. To get a good conspiracy, you cannot really fake facts: far too easy to check and if you get caught all your hard work get busted.

It is the explanations and assumptions what you are free (?) to twist to a certain extent.

For example:

• a billionaire made his fortune in electronics (fact);
• he promotes vaccination (fact);
• therefore he wants to inject microchips in everyone (assumption).

Exactly!

And, your explanations an assumptions should feel simpler than what 'reality' may be, so you get Occam do free labour for you.

Or I have totally missed your point

My point is, that the reason why it is so hard to fight conspiracy theories with critical thinking is because any good conspiracy theory will also utilizing a (warped) critical thinking.
So displaying them as strictly opposing is actually a mistake.

 

[hutchphd]

One needn't invent "facts" to create false reality. Equally powerful is the rejection of evidence (there are no certified facts after all). The Vatican has used this technique coercively for millenia . Thomas Jefferson understood this: he founded the first non-religious university (Academical Village ) because he knew the answer. He requested that be his epitaph.

So Mr. Jefferson knew the answer. Carl Sagan knew the answer (or at least identified the problem). You push back the darkness. Those who repeatedly choose to scurry back into the shadows simply do not desire the sunlight.

 

[Jarvis323]

How about Alina Chan, post-doc at MIT and coauthor with about a dozen leading virologists and epidemiologists calling for a transparent investigation into a possible lab origin of sars-cov-2.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.technologyreview.com/2021/06/25/1027140/lab-leak-alina-chan/amp/

She has been discredited as a conspiracy theorist, and the letter she coauthored has been discredited through her association with the letter.

Does she fit the definition of conspiracy theorist we've worked towards here (an element of "they") for hypothesising a lab origin? Is she in the same bin as the reptillion advocates and flat Earthers?

 

[hutchphd]

She has been discredited as a conspiracy theorist, and the letter she coauthored has been discredited through her association with the letter.

Please supply specific reference showing this.

 

[Jarvis323]

Please supply specific reference showing this.

Post in thread 'The Evolution of the SARS-COV-2 virus'
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/the-evolution-of-the-sars-cov-2-virus.995955/post-6515023

 

[jack action]

Does she fit the definition of conspiracy theorist we've worked towards here (an element of "they") for hypothesising a lab origin? Is she in the same bin as the reptillion advocates and flat Earthers?

I would say no based on these terms:

calling for a transparent investigation into a possible lab origin of sars-cov-2.

Because asking for an investigation for a possible lab accident [according to your link] is not the same as "It DOES come from a lab" or the worst "THEY released it on purpose." I don't see the elements of a conspiracy in the link you provided, just a theory.

 

[pinball1970]

Post in thread 'The Evolution of the SARS-COV-2 virus'
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/the-evolution-of-the-sars-cov-2-virus.995955/post-6515023

Controversy is not the same as conspiracy.

The Wuhan lab was investigating dangerous viruses and there is a possibility a mistake was made, accidents happen
Nobody to my knowledge has completely ruled that out.

Scientists have their reasons for saying it is unlikely and those have been discussed by @atyy @Ygggdrasil and others in detail on pf.

Would the CHINESE government want to completely rule out the possibility? Put out a narrative as such? Yes, that is not a surprise though is it?The COVID conspiracy (one of them) is that the virus was engineered and deliberately released by the Chinese government on its own door step.

Another is that an accident happened and is deliberately being covered up

Or Covid is fake and something to do with nanobots in a Bill gates vaccine.

That is not the same as, “it’s a possibility we cannot rule anything out but the available data regarding COVID19 suggests…..”