Conspiracy Theories
Laura Maguire

17 April 2014

你第一次联想到本周节目的名字是什么?你认为阴谋论是那种偏执的疯子喜欢无休止地说出来的理论吗?

考虑到一些疯狂的理论，比如一个秘密的精英集团(可能是犹太人，也可能不是共济会成员，或者异形蜥蜴)控制和操纵全球经济，你会原谅那种联想。但在你一蹴而就地判断所有阴谋论之前，你应该考虑一下，有些阴谋论你可能相信。理由很充分。

Take Watergate, for example. While it might once have sounded far-fetched to propose that the President of the United States was involved in such clandestine and illegal activities as breaking in to and bugging the opposition’s headquarters, it turned out to be true, and Nixon ended up resigning when the conspiracy came to light.

More recently, of course, we’ve learned what many had long since suspected—the government has secretly been spying on its own citizens for years. Thanks to Edward Snowden and Glen Greenwald, that secret was also revealed.

If you accept these two examples as uncontroversial, then the fact is you believe in at leastsomeconspiracy theories. So, the question we’re considering in this week’s show is whether there is some principled difference between the kind of conspiracy theories that are plausible, and quite possibly true, and the kind of theories that have zero basis in reality. Do bad conspiracy theories have some hallmarks that allow us to dismiss them right away? Or must we investigate each theory individually before dismissing—or endorsing—it?

一个开始的地方是考虑该理论和该理论的传闻证据之间的关系。当我遇到一些更古怪的理论时，我经常被这些理论的支持者心目中的“证据”所震撼。他们用一组可观察到的事实，编造一些荒诞的故事，把这些事实拼凑在一起，然后推断这个理论一定是正确的。However, just because the facts mightfitthe theory, it doesn’t mean theysupportthe theory.

The problem is that any number of stories could be constructed to fit the facts. While it’s certainly a requirement for any good theory that the explanation fit the facts, fitting-the-facts is not, by itself, sufficient to prove a theory. This is one of the biggest and most common mistakes I see amongst conspiracy theorists—they apparently don’t understand that for facts to count as evidence, they must do more than simplyfitwith whatever story they’re telling.

So, what more is needed for evidence? That's a hard and tricky question, one that we tackle in this week’s show. Part of the difficulty is thatifthe conspiracy theory is actually true, then we should expect the evidence to be hidden or destroyed. That’s what good conspirators are supposed to do, right?

但尽管他们尽了最大努力，阴谋还是经常被发现。人们会变得自大或过度自信，他们可能会马虎大意，意外事件的发生，良知的唠叨，忠诚的改变，有时揭露曾经有利可图的事情会变得有利可图。所以，除非这个阴谋是由一群秘密的、紧密的、高效的人组成的，否则很有可能有人会泄密或搞砸，其他人会发现。这就是我之前举的两个例子，水门事件和国家安全局。这给我们提供了一个评估不同阴谋论的线索——如果所谓的阴谋是广泛的，涉及许多人多年，如果没有充分的证据来揭示它，很可能它不是真的。

But again, we come to the question of what counts as good evidence. Let’s take some of the most popular conspiracy theories out there, like the vaccine conspiracy, the 9/11 conspiracy, and JFK’s assassination. In each of these cases, each side believes it has evidence to support its own theory—whether it be an "official story" or a competing conspiracy theory—and they each have their own experts that they cite. How do we sort through and assess these claims? Who should we believe? And who really has the time to figure it all out anyway?

I’m no engineer but the videos showing the collapse of Building 7, which, if you recall, was not hit by a plane on 9/11, do look, to my inexpert eye, like a controlled demolition. But what do I know? Sure, you can find "experts" who will say it must have been a controlled demolition, and you’ll find "experts" who will say the opposite too. To assess the validity of the testimony we hear, we need to know how reliable or how well-qualified each "expert" is and if they are truly in a position to testify on the matters at hand. So, for the inexpert skeptic, it’s hard to know how to sort through all the “evidence” that is corralled by either side.

但即使假设7号楼不可能像官方所说的那样倒塌这是无可争议的事实，那又能证明什么呢?当然，这是一个巨大的飞跃，从这一说法，美国政府大规模阴谋背后的9/11。是的，崩溃符合这个故事，但就其本身而言，它并不是证据。

Now, I know that by expressing any doubt whatsoever about the truth of this particular conspiracy theory, I’m opening myself up toad hominemattacks from the fanatics who will jump on anyone who dares to question their reasoning, likethis guy on Youtubewho called John and Ken “media whore propagandists” and, even more hilariously, “employees of the Koch brothers” who will do “whatever it takes to collect a pay check.” Right. Because中国伊朗亚洲杯比赛直播是约翰和肯编造出来的一个赚钱的大骗局，用来欺骗大众接受企业媒体告诉他们的一切，巧妙地伪装成“质疑一切……除了你的智商”的节目。别管事实!只要编出符合你世界观的故事，然后指责任何指出他们是企业媒体的“阿谀奉承者”的人。

It’s nutjobs like this that give all conspiracy theorists a bad name. They are unmoved by easily confirmable facts and they think that doggedly holding onto their theories, despite the fact that they are full of holes and massive leaps in logic, is a sign of being a “critical thinker.” What a joke!

然而，正如我们本周节目的嘉宾布莱恩·基利(Brian Keeley)指出的那样，我们不应该把阴谋论和阴谋论者混为一谈。当然，有很多人(我们都知道他们)对发生的每一个有新闻价值的事件都自动地用阴谋论来解释，而不是更直截了当的合理解释。他们中的许多人似乎难以接受有巧合和意外发生，更愿意想象有强大的力量在幕后工作，塑造每一个小细节。他们似乎非常不了解生活中的偶发事件。但这并不是简单地否定你遇到的每一个阴谋论的充分理由。我们应该考虑每一种方法的优点。

Now, I’m not saying you ought to investigate whether your local politician is really a shape-shifting lizard alien overlord, but you might want to take seriously suggestions that he conspired to, oh say, illegally close down a major bridge for political gain. That particular conspiracy theory, like several others before it, might actually turn out to be true.

Comments(13)

Devon's picture

Devon

Thursday, April 17, 2014 -- 5:00 PM

Just because you're paranoid

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you...

Fay's picture

Fay

Saturday, April 19, 2014 -- 5:00 PM

Documentarian Errol Morris

Documentarian Errol Morris did this short piece called 'The Umbrella Man', about the mysterious man with an open umbrella standing right where JFK was assassinated. That day it was very warm and sunny in Dallas, with folks wearing short sleeve shirts. Near the motorcade, a man is standing under an open black umbrella. Many conspiracy theories held the umbrella man was the assassin or helped the true assassin - it was just too weird to not be significant! Ultimately, the man explained the umbrella was a protest - not against JFK - but against JFK's father, referencing Neville Chamberlain's umbrella and appeasement of the Nazis. Errol Morris said, "If you have any fact which is sinister, you can never on your own think up all the non-sinister perfectly valid reasons..."http://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000001183275/the-umbrella-man.html

mirugai's picture

mirugai

Saturday, April 19, 2014 -- 5:00 PM

CONSPIRACY

CONSPIRACY
I loved hearing that the guest philosopher was a refugee from his study of ?the philosophy of neuroscience.? There is no such thing as the philosophy of neuroscience, philosophy and neuroscience are not contiguous, there is no commonality between the two. Nothing learned in one field can be used in the other.
But the philosophy of conspiracy is a very worthy subject for the guest to explore. The question is: why are we attracted to conspiracy theories (whoever ?we? might be, but that is another issue best avoided here)?
“哲学谈话”历史上最伟大的时刻之一是杰出的詹纳·伊斯梅尔中国伊朗亚洲杯比赛直播(科学哲学家)问约翰或肯:为什么你认为每件事都需要一个解释?那对我的教育是一个开创性的时刻，因为很明显，寻找解释是科学的领域，而且受制于科学证明的好坏规则，主要是看演示或证明的戏剧性程度。可以了。但做哲学并不是要做这样的解释:它是要理性地思考思想，理性地思考和推测意识，不希望(或渴望)解释。我们的目标是探索、谈论、思考，但从来没有真正得出最后的结论。这是肯和约翰在每一档节目中所做的:他们通过(无休止的)推测来研究哲学。一位影评人曾轻蔑地说:“没有科学，哲学只是没完没了的猜测。”她是完全正确的(也许用了这个词?just?受损)。
But our culture?s overpowering and misguided blind obedience to, and worship of, science places ?explanation? on a pedestal; a pedestal so lofty that we prefer absurd explanations to simple ones for events that seem not easily explained. And ?the quest for confirmation of what one believes is good and right,? which I say is a human instinct, impels one to find in conspiracy theories, the explanation that most confirms one?s beliefs (that for instance the CIA or God or Republicans or SpacePeople are behind every bush, pulling the strings of the human puppets).
阴谋论之所以诱人，是因为1。他们使人认为事情已经被解释清楚了(实际上可能并没有)。他们证实了什么理论?S倡议者相信因果关系(在很大程度上不考虑合理性);它们提供了一个具有诱惑性的戏剧性(通常是错误的)证据。

Laura Maguire's picture

Laura Maguire

Sunday, April 20, 2014 -- 5:00 PM

Fay, thank you for that

Fay, thank you for that little gem! I had never heard of The Umbrella Man before, but it's a wonderful illustration of what we've been talking about.

Laura Maguire's picture

Laura Maguire

Sunday, April 20, 2014 -- 5:00 PM

Mirugai, not sure how to

Mirugai, not sure how to interpret your bizarre claim that there "is no such thing as the philosophy of neuroscience," which is the field that Brian Keeley works in. You can learn more about this exciting area of philosophy on The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neuroscience/

Dabrain88's picture

Dabrain88

Sunday, April 20, 2014 -- 5:00 PM

I think its relevant to makes

I think its relevant to makes theories about conspiracies and i do believe some of them can be true. The only main problem i see is that people have nothing better to do with their daily lives , so they spend long periods of time over thinking about what is a conspiracy and what's really not a conspiracy. They over do it. Like the yin and yang theory preaches : Everything in moderation.
I have a post that i liked on facebook called "Conspiracy Watch" where a person makes all these assumptions about certain conspiracies. I think the truth is almost half of the material are not conspiracies, but ideas or normal things that go on in humanity. If this person would find a hobby to bring them outside for a few hours so they could really experience the world and learn some life lessons rather then be stuck on the computer all day ( then again i might be assuming too much). If you spend all the time thinking up these theories , not only will you miss out in life , but you'll also become really paranoid.

mirugai's picture

mirugai

Monday, April 21, 2014 -- 5:00 PM

Grue and Laura: Jorge has put

Grue and Laura: Jorge has put it so succinctly, and I thank him for it: "Science can only establish facts or give support to theories about facts. It has nothing to say about values or motivation." Perfect. "Values and motivation" are what philosophy is all about, and science has nothing to say about it. Neuroscience is the darling of TED talks because it is full of colors and flashing synapses and all kind of nonsensical, fruitless attempts to connect biology and chemistry and physics, to philosophical stuff like happiness, desire, perception, morality, etc. The confusion arises because neuroscience is about the brain (and brain-associated structures), and it is commonly believed that what we call "thought" is somehow resident in the brain. But philosophy has no concern or interest in where thought might be "located," it is only concerned with the content of thought...philosophy is rational thinking about thought. Brain science and philosophy are not connected, they are in mutually exclusive, non-intersecting spheres of Matter (the realm of science) and Consciousness (the realm of philosophy (rationality), poetry (metaphor) and comedy (irony): everything is in one or the other sphere.

RichardCurtisPhD's picture

RichardCurtisPhD

Saturday, April 26, 2014 -- 5:00 PM

I think what became clear

我认为，从这部剧中我们可以清楚地看到，“阴谋论”是一些人用来逃避思考的借口。约翰驳斥了刺杀肯尼迪的阴谋论，似乎这是疯狂的，没有证据，但这是美国政府的官方观点。当约翰想用正式调查作为证据来源时，他说这是非理性的，这有点奇怪。众议院暗杀特别委员会发现这是一个阴谋，这是政府最后一次正式调查，所以这代表了最后的结论。根据美国政府的说法，这是一个阴谋，为什么约翰认为他们是错的?他只是多疑吗?不，他只是停止思考，得出了荒谬的结论。就像911事件一样，肯告诉他这是某种阴谋不管怎样，这并不重要，一旦这个词被使用，思考就停止了。约翰在WTC-7上做的最具戏剧性。那是一栋47层的大楼，在911事件中莫名其妙地倒塌了。 It is often missed as it was smaller and later in the day, but it was a 47 story building. To just ignore that is ridiculous. You can't just ignore huge skyscrapers falling down for no good reason. Again, thinking just stopped. That is the real issue here: Why does thinking stop when people start to use that word?

Tim Smith's picture

Tim Smith

Saturday, April 26, 2014 -- 5:00 PM

This show seemed to dance

This show seemed to dance around testimony and childhood. I don't find it hard to fathom conspiracy when I'm still kind of shocked about this whole St. Nick thing. What a crock. My apologies to the true believers. Seriously though, aren't we conditioned to conspiracy by our upbringing? Isn't most... and I do mean a vast majority of our knowledge based on testimony? Do you really understand the workings of the crapper before taking your liberties? People take their lives on faith. Conspiracy is somewhat a product of this testimonial foundation rooted in childhood. The modern dilemma of sustainability is our disconnect from nature and a reliance on the scientific and technical testimony that we are actually making progress while destroying our earth. That sounds kinda-sorta conspiratorial. Oh, but Mama, that's where the fun is? as a caller pointed out.

I would say that I found Ken's dismissal of conspiracy disheartening - from a mind that I admire for the most part. When a caller mentions John Lennon's murder and he says something like "... I don't have an opinion of any of this sort of thing..." I think RichardCurtisPhD has a point in saying conspiracy is being used to avoid thought. It's ok to refuse the activation energy to engage a conspiracy theory, but if your show is on conspiracy theory then I think the caller needs a prod before dismissal.

我反对Mirugai关于神经科学从本质上与哲学分离的论断。我很难将哲学与大多数事物区分开来，因为它跨越了认知和思想的鸿沟。当然，价值观、动机和规范性是哲学的一部分。这些部分并不能完全定义哲学。从历史上看，哲学是科学……早在科学很酷之前。现在，我认为哲学比Mirugai认为的更能影响科学，但是…这只是我的意见吗，先生?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c.

Harold G. Neuman's picture

Harold G. Neuman

Thursday, May 1, 2014 -- 5:00 PM

There are all sorts of

有各种各样的阴谋论。还有各种各样的阴谋。这就是阴谋论的意义所在。几年前，在我离开美国七年之后，当我回到美国时，政府高层都知道我回来了。这其实并不重要，但我受到了骚扰——因为，就我的处境而言，政府的蠢人和走狗可以骚扰我，而不用担心遭到报复。最终，保安警察厌倦了对我生活和活动的监视。我找到了一份工作;结婚，过点生活，然后退休——就好像我从一开始就没有被人唾弃过一样。我以前的许多乡亲，包括我们家族的最后一个祖先，再也没有回到这些美国。我现在在任何地方都很高兴。 Anything is better than nothing. Pretty much. As they say sometimes: there it is...

Gerald Fnord's picture

Gerald Fnord

Monday, May 12, 2014 -- 5:00 PM

...but people's being out to

...but people's being out to get you doesn't mean you're not paranoid.

Gerald Fnord's picture

Gerald Fnord

Monday, May 12, 2014 -- 5:00 PM

My major beef is with people

我的主要不满是那些强烈怀疑(至少他们称之为)官方路线，但极度轻信任何替代假设的人。这与人们从一种宗教/政治狂热转向另一种的现象是一样的。他们从来没有遇到过不喜欢的折中方案……排除——古老的锯子“紧咬蚊蚋，吞噬骆驼”，以及关于眼睛、尘埃、原木(或横梁)的那句。

Tags