Disinfo Blotter: The Guardian podcast "Why are conspiracy theories so attractive?"

[Guest Joe Bundy]

.

Edited January 4, 2016 by Joe Bundy

[Paul Brancato]

Thank you

[Stephen Roy]

Of course not. That'd be as naïve as thinking that corporate state-controlled peer review is the answer to validation.

When you qualify it as "corporate state-controlled," one might regard it as naive, but I disagree with your world view that it is a deliberate state-controlled thing. It is a much less nefarious tool which publishers used to use for reasons most rational people would understand.

You're beginning to embody the circular reference error in Microsoft Excel. There's no "qualifying" what has been proven.

I see more clearly now: You state your world view in uncompromising terms, and I just think you're wrong. Things are not as black and white as you think they are.

[Jon G. Tidd]

John Dolva @ Post #26:

It's been clear to me since the early 1960s that war is good for U.S. businesses. In WWII, Grumman, Kaiser, Boeing, and other big corporations made lots of money. In the 1960s, Colt (M-16) made a lot of money. So did Pacific Architect and Engineers (PA&E) in Vietnam. Lady Bird owned stock in PA&E.

War is good for U.S. business.

U.S. business is good for U.S. politicians.

[Thomas Graves]

John Dolva @ Post #26:

It's been clear to me since the early 1960s that war is good for U.S. businesses. In WWII, Grumman, Kaiser, Boeing, and other big corporations made lots of money. In the 1960s, Colt (M-16) made a lot of money. So did Pacific Architect and Engineers (PA&E) in Vietnam. Lady Bird owned stock in PA&E.

War is good for U.S. business.

U.S. business is good for U.S. politicians.

War leads to inflation. Dollars chasing dollars, spurred by government spending. Nothing of real and permanent value produced for consumers to buy. War leads to inflation..

--Tommy .

[Guest Joe Bundy]

.

Edited January 4, 2016 by Joe Bundy

[Guest Joe Bundy]

.

Edited January 4, 2016 by Joe Bundy

[Paul Brancato]

'War leads to inflation'. True that. Perhaps the lack of War with a capital w explains the deflation we seem to be experiencing globally.

[Guest Joe Bundy]

.

Edited January 4, 2016 by Joe Bundy

[Evan Burton]

I don't think there is a deliberate effort at censorship by peer-review, government or otherwise. Just my opinion.

To bow to any corrupt system is to legitimize it and stunt your own thinking ability, especially when corruption in peer review is recurrent and proof of that is publicly available. When is this elitist charade going to be called out?

I won't be lead to ignore the human biases embedded in the peer review system that is deliberately used as a tool by dividers and conquerors of society from an intentionally academic vantage point to uphold authoritarianism and crush dissension with a pen. Not only has the internet made it easier for anyone to publish a non-peer-reviewed book, it has also made it easier for "the establishment's" peer review participants to exert their bias with no immediate repercussions for doing so (I only link proven examples, but there are thousands more proven examples if you seek them out).

Your constructs are very hard to follow. Do you really believe that all writings are of equal validity?

Excellent point.

[Guest]

Rob Brotherton (the subject of the podcast) makes his living as a practitioner of the pseudo/voodoo science of Psychology and is an assistant editor of The Skeptic. He is also a young guy trying to achieve celebrity status within his competitive field and sell as many books as he can by appealing to the widest possible audience. Need more be said? If he were to say anything that isn't endorsed by mainstream Psychology, his career would be over in an instant (see David Ray Griffin, who went from respected philosopher/theologian to 9-1-1 conspiracy loon).

I find that virtually all events of life, from family relationships to workplace relationships to global political relationships, can be explained by the simple axiom “Money Is God” (a secondary axiom being that a substantial portion of seemingly sane and intelligent people are nevertheless “Seriously Disturbed” in one or more corners of their minds and that identifying this fact, in ourselves and others, can be a considerable challenge). Sometimes Power, Fame or Sex can be inserted in the principal axiom, but the principle (i.e., human nature) remains the same.

A more interesting question than why people find conspiracy theories attractive is why people almost inevitably adopt intractable positions. I have been heavily involved in many fields where conspiracy theorists run rampant. (One of the most common conspiracy theories is that the guardians of the ruling paradigm in any field are engaged in a conspiracy to stifle the truth - which Thomas Kuhn showed that they largely are, and which can be explained to a large extent by my axiom that "Money/Power/Fame/Sex Is God"). What is true in all of these fields is that people stake out intractable positions and are really not even interested in evidence or arguments that might challenge these positions. They are all fundamentalists – whether non-conspiracy fundamentalists or conspiracy fundamentalists. The extreme non-conspiratorialist is simply the mirror image of the extreme conspiratorialist, even though he may view himself as an entirely different species.

I can see the appeal and comfort of a rigid non-conspiracy mindset. Everything around us is “normal,” operating just as those in the know tell us it is. Move along, play by the rules, nothing to see here. I can also see the appeal and “fun” of a conspiracy mindset. Nothing is as it seems, the world is unbelievably mysterious, only those of us who have eyes to see and are in on the secret know the truth. Across all the fields in which I am heavily involved (UFOs, parapsychology, JFK, Christianity, etc.) I find the principal challenge to be not becoming caught up in a fundamentalist mindset but instead maintaining a distance and independence that will allow me to view the evidence more-or-less dispassionately and follow it where it leads (not that I completely achieve this by any means - and, of course, even the most wild-eyed fundamentalists claim that they are merely open-minded followers of the evidence as well). Some ruling paradigms are flawed, some are not. Some conspiracy theories have merit, some do not. Money/Power/Fame/Sex Is God, some people are Seriously Disturbed.

[Paul Brancato]

Thomas - your messaging is not working.

[Paul Brancato]

Lance - great post

[Guest]

Lance - great post

Thanks, Paul - I'll respond to your PM at greater length.

One thing that occurred to me as I was taking my shower after posting earlier today was that, in a field such as the JFK assassination, I would be asking myself, "Is it vitally important to me for some larger reason that LHO acted alone? Is it vitally important to me for some larger reason that the assassination was a conspiracy, or even a particular type of conspiracy?" Could the lure of Money/Power/Fame/Sex explain this? Could some overarching belief system or worldview to which I am intractably committed explain this? In other words, is it essential to me for some reason other than "the truth about the assassination" that LHO acted alone or didn't act alone? If so, then I have become (or at least am in danger of becoming) someone who cannot view the evidence dispassionately or follow it where it leads. At this point, I am 75% persuaded by the evidence and plausible inferences that LHO didn't act alone (and perhaps didn't act at all), which thus puts me in the conspiracy camp and brings into question my sanity, legal skills and faithfulness to my wife in the minds of the Lone Nutters, but certainly there is evidence supporting the LN position and I at least remain open to it and prepared to be persuaded by it. It would be appealing in a way to dive headfirst into the CT camp, be embraced as a fellow True Believer and perhaps even achieve some small measure of Money/Power/Fame/Sex (well, probably not the latter unless there are CT groupies), but I just don't see this as the most intellectually honest position.

[Guest Joe Bundy]

.

Edited January 4, 2016 by Joe Bundy