Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Dangerousrhymes t1_ivwt518 wrote

Reply to comment by kekkres in The Warped Epistemology of Conspiracy Theories by CartesianClosedCat

I believe the downvotes are because people are interpreting this as a message they should engage people making bad faith arguments as though they were equally willing to engage in honest objective discourse. His point can be true while that particular subtext can rub people who interpret it that way the wrong way.

15

iiioiia t1_iw01uuf wrote

What caused so many people to have essentially identical forms of interpretation though? Is it purely organic, or might journalism have played some role in this outcome?

1

Dangerousrhymes t1_iw135ay wrote

Interpretations of what? Are you asking why people believe in conspiracy theories or why we label them that way? Or are you asking why large amounts of people believe in the same conspiracies?

1

iiioiia t1_iw3hvor wrote

I'm kind of referring to how it comes about that the majority can come to believe that something is necessarily and only a conspiracy, when epistemically the true state of affairs is not only known.

I believe it is due to this:

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

....combined with the power of mass media, and the possibility that the mass media is not completely independent (it is not difficult to identify instances of coordinated distribution of not-necessarily-factual claims of conspiracy theories across multiple supposedly independent channels).

2

Dangerousrhymes t1_iw3pchj wrote

I don’t know that there are that many things that the majority of people consider a conspiracy in terms that absolute. Unless you mean why the majority of people discredit some ideas as only being “conspiracy theories” when it’s impossible to know with absolute certainty that there is no actual conspiracy.

I would say that the majority of people wouldn’t agree that these ideas are necessarily and only conspiracy theories with zero statistical possibility of truth, only that it is extremely unlikely that most of these theories are true and that doggedly pursuing every statistically possible conspiracy is a waste of time. I would also suggest that since the overwhelming majority of popular conspiracy theories never actually reveal a conspiracy we just label any unlikely claim of conspiracy as such.

1

iiioiia t1_iw3raoi wrote

>I don’t know that there are that many things that the majority of people consider a conspiracy in terms that absolute.

Consider the lab origin theory of covid... the simultaneous claims across supposedly independent media (that it "is" [only] a conspiracy theory) and then the reaction to that by people on social media. I believe that a cause and effect relationship seems obvious.

>Unless you mean why the majority of people discredit some ideas as only being “conspiracy theories” when it’s impossible to know with absolute certainty that there is no actual conspiracy.

I am interested in why journalists are incapable of exercising basic epistemology. It is regularly claimed that they are some of the most competent people on the planet in this regard, and that we should trust their judgment because of it. This is clearly false.

>I would say that the majority of people wouldn’t agree that these ideas are necessarily and only conspiracy theories with zero statistical possibility of truth...

Engaged in highly accurate discussion like this and you will be accused of engaging in pedantry, or various other popular memes.

>I would also suggest that since the overwhelming majority of popular conspiracy theories never actually reveal a conspiracy...

What data source are you using, in fact?

> ...we just label any unlikely claim of conspiracy as such.

But what is the actual(!) reason(s) that people do this the same way? Is mass belief among humans purely organic, without exception?

2