Steven Dutch, Natural and Applied Sciences, Universityof Wisconsin - Green Bay
First-time Visitors: Please visit Site Map and Disclaimer. Use"Back" to return here.
I will respond to questions and comments as time permits, but if you want to take issuewith any position expressed here, you first have to answer this question:
What evidence would it take to prove your beliefs wrong?
I simply will not reply to challenges that do not address this question. Refutabilityis one of the classic determinants of whether a theory can be called scientific. Moreover,I have found it to be a great general-purpose cut-through-the-crap question to determinewhether somebody is interested in serious intellectual inquiry or just playing mind games.Note, by the way, that I am assuming the burden of proof here - all youhave to do is commit to a criterion for testing.It's easy to criticize science for being "closed-minded". Are you open-mindedenough to consider whether your ideas might be wrong?
Conspiracy theories are one of the most popular pseudoscience themes, and even theories that do not directly involve conspiracies usually have their conspiratorial elements. The commonest such element is a claim that the scientific establishment will not give a fair hearing because of its desire to protect vested interests. So widespread is this paranoid strain that we can legitimately say conspiracy beliefs are the most nearly infalliblesign of the crank.
In conspiracy theories, there are several fallacies that appear with monotonous regularity. The first, of course, is the tendency to see spurious patterns. We have a strong tendency torecognize patterns. As one scientist put it, it is better to run from an occasional nonexistent tiger than to fail to recognize a real one. Psychological tests have shown repeatedly that people will discern patterns even in totally random data. In large cities, it is possible to buy lists of the winning lotterynumbers for both the legal and illegal games, and players assiduously scan the lists looking forpatterns. (The numbers are generated randomly, even in the illegal games. The odds against guessing a random three-digit number are 1000 to one, the payoff in the classic numbers racket only 500 or 600 to one; what point is there in fixing such a sure-fire money-maker? Besides, any attempt to fix the games might introduce real patterns that players could guess.)
There is a whole series of fallacies that revolve around failure to understand what constitutes proof. One of the commonest is thetendency to believe that evidence that is consistent with a theory proves it.The fact that evidence is consistent with an idea does not prove that the idea is true. For example,explorers like Thor Heyerdahl have shown that primitive boats were capablemaking almost any imaginable transoceanic voyage. The fact that primitive boats can cross oceans does not provethat they did, only that they might have. The fact that some literary works containconcealed messages does not prove that Shakespeare's plays do; only that the idea is not impossible.The fact that ALCOA was connected with some aspects of the fluoridation movement isconsistent with a conspiracy, but just as consistent with no conspiracy. In many cases, the claim thatsome bizarre theory is consistent with a wide array of evidence is a little like the story of the man who fell from the fiftieth floor of a building, and as he passed each floor was heard to say: "so far, so good"! If a theory is inconsistent with one major fact, it doesn't matter how much other evidence the theory is compatible with.
An additional fallacy in conspiracy theories is that they can never be disproven. Since this is a problem that will arise again in the case of scientific creationism, among other things, it deserves a bit of elaboration. A pseudoscience belief is often said to be untestable not because the individual idea is untestable, but because the idea can usually be reshaped to explain away any conflicting data. Any evidence that disproves the existence of a conspiracy, for example, can always be twisted about to make it look as though the conspiracy is covering its tracks. One of the most frequent claims by believers in Kennedy assassination conspiracies is that Oswald, a mediocre marksman in theMarines, could never have hit a moving target three times in a few seconds using the bolt action Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that was found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. Why, then, would people who went to the trouble to plot the assassination of a President pick an inept shot like Oswald and give him such a clumsy weapon? I)oes this flaw show that conspiracy theories are nonsense? No, by a curious perversion of logic, it shows how thorough they were!Oswald was set up as a patsy, thensilenced. The plotters want us to think that they think that we think.....layer upon layer of psych-out.
The inability to disprove the existence of a conspiracy in effect shuts the door forever on one essential question. Suppose when all is said and done, there is no conspiracy? Suppose Oswald reallydid act alone? Suppose the Government is actually telling the truth about Unidentified Flying Objects? Suppose the XYZ Corporation insists that its new food additive is safe because it really is safe? How could we ever demonstrate it? If any person who argues against the conspiracy theory is open to suspicion as either an agent or a dupe; if any study that contradicts theconspiracy theory can be labeled a "whitewash"; and if any missing evidence can be twisted to show that the conspirators are covering their tracks, then there is no way thateven the most imaginary conspiracy can ever be disproven. Conspiracy arguments are, at bottom, rigged arguments that cannot be overturned regardless of whether or not the conspiracy really exists.Nowhere is the note at the top of this page more relevant: what evidence would it take to prove your beliefs wrong?
A funny thing about conspiracy theories is that the conspirators are often alleged tohave nearly cosmic powers far beyond their visible resources. Evolution is supposed to be part of a dark secular humanist plot to destroy Christianity, though how a few hours' exposure to evolution can erase deeply ingrained religious sentiments when years of schooling cannot persuade many students of the value of English or mathematics is a mystery.Many supporters of abortion have charged that the anti-abortion movement is largely the work of the Catholic Church. How the Catholic Church, which cannot get its laymen to stop using birth control or its women to stop agitating for the right to be priests suddenly acquired such power over people's minds to orchestrate such a mass movement is a bit of a mystery. Adding to the mystery is the participation of Protestant fundamentalists, who otherwise are not noted for their allegiance to the Pope. The aluminum industry is supposed to have been a major backer of the fluoridation campaign, though nobody can really explain how they persuaded the U.S. Public Health Service and the American Dental Association to go along. Needless to say, evolutionists, Catholics, and the aluminum industry would be absolutely delighted to have one tenth the power the plot-mongers accuse them of having.
Having acquired these cosmic powers, the conspirators go to fantastic lengths to accomplish things that are only marginally useful to their cause while bypassing things that would be far more useful and well within their abilities.
When can we reasonably claim a conspiracy exists? Firstof all, a conspiracy has to be secret. Movements like Planned Parenthood, secularhumanism or the New Age Movement whoseliterature is available to any interested party are no more conspiracies than CIA operations which make the front pageof the newspaper are "covert"! I once saw an astrological pamphlet that asked why scientists had kept the coming ofComet Kohoutek in the early 1970's secret for so long. I was amused because Ihad known, through widely-read publications, about the cometfor at least six months. Often the allegation of conspiracyis only a cover-up for unawareness.
Second, there has to beactive cooperation to achieve a goal that none of the conspirators could or would work for on their own. Merely havingsomething to gain from an action does not constitute proofof a conspiracy. Having common interests does not constituteconspiracy. Even cooperation does not constitute conspiracy unless the cooperation is directed toward the alleged goalof the conspiracy. The fact that two companies exchange information does not prove they are guilty of price-fixing.
Most important, the available evidence must support theclaim of a conspiracy. Any time the conspiracy claim beginsto support the evidence, is used to explain away gaps in theevidence, or is used to deny contrary evidence we can bepretty sure we're dealing with fiction.
Finally, and alsoof great importance, the conspiracy must be harmful. Iffluoridation really does prevent tooth decay, and has noserious site effects, then whether or not the backers offluoridation worked together covertly is irrelevant. Another way to look at this issue is to consider whatit takes to convict a criminal on circumstantial evidence(which is usually the only kind conspiracy theorists haveavailable). First of all, there has to be a crime (someactual harm). No crime, no issue.
To convict, there are three requirements:the prosecution must demonstrate a motive, a method, andan opportunity. Similarly, to prove the existence of a conspiracy, we need a plausible motive in proportion to themagnitude of the conspiracy. Getting rid of a little wastefluoride or building a few containers is hardly sufficientmotive to cause the aluminurn and rubber industries to enterinto a nationwide fluoridation conspiracy. There is no conceivable motive for someone to havetaken the time and effort of writing Shakespeare'splays and not taking credit for them.
We need a reasonable method. We have already seen that most conspiracy theoriesinvolve roundabout methods to achieve minor goals when thereare better methods available. Disposing of excess fluoride byputting it in drinking water is hardly an effective method.Any time a conspiracy is accused of going through a complicated, Rube Goldberg approach to doing something a rationalperson could do more simply, it's a good bet the conspiracyis imaginary.
Finally there must be an opportunity. Theconspirators must have the resources to carry out theirplan. When some group is accused of having vast hidden powersto perpetrate some plot, chances are the plot exists only insomeone's imagination.
Conspiracy theories are legion. In 1981, D. F.Lifton proposed that President Kennedy's body had been surgically altered en route to Walter Reed Hospital inWashington to disguise the wounds produced by more than oneassassin. How or why the conspirators chose this weirdapproach is not clear. That same year, Michael Eddowes proposed that the man buried as Lee Harvey Oswald was really aKGB agent who had assumed Oswald's identity. The body wasexhumed. Dental records showed the body to be Oswald's. In1982 plans were announced to reopen the Marylin Monroe inquest. Supposedly, she didn't really commit suicide in 1962 but waskilled by the CIA to keep her from exposing a plot to killFidel Castro. How Monroe got the information, why she wouldreveal it at a time most Americans cordially detested Castroand who would have believed her in any event are not clear.There is a whole subculture that subsists on economic conspiracy theories involving the Trilateral Commission, theWorld Bank or the Federal Reserve System. Many fundamentalistshave linked these theories with the Biblical prophecy of theAntichrist and see other movements like evolution or secularhumanism as additional aspects of the plot.
Conspiracy theories flourished in the wake of the Soviet attack on a Koreanairliner in September, 1983. Liberals charged that President Reagan used the episode to whip up militarism and build support for his defense policies; some Reagan opponents seemed more upset with the Russians for providing Reagan with political ammunition than for killing 269 innocent passengers. A suit filed by relatives of some survivors charged that Korean Air Lineshabitually cut corners over Soviet air space to save fuel, a charge that is fairly plausible, though it certainly does not justify shooting down a civilian airliner Others speculated thatthe Soviets deliberately jammed the direction-finding equipmentaboard the plane, causing the plane to go off course One of thepassengers on the flight was U.S. Congressman Larry MacDonald ofGeorgia, a member of the John Birch Society. Some conservativesargued that MacDonald had been the target and the plane was shotdown to keep MacDonald from exposing Soviet complicity interrorist movements. With all respect to the memory of theCongressman, he was simply not important enough to be worth sucha drastic measure It is very unlikely that MacDonald knew muchabout Soviet links to terrorism that was not already commonknowledge, and why would the Russians have passed up so many moreinfluential American politicians who have flown the same route inthe past?
But these theories were positively models of sober analysiscompared to the remarks of Larry Flynt, publisher of Hustler.Flynt argued:
A man like MacDonald is so nuts that his martyrdom cannot be ruled out as a motive. With the help of the pilot, or other CIA operatives who were as weird as MacDonald and who could have replaced the pilot, he could have caused the flight to take its fateful course causing the Russians to shoot down the plane. Knowing that the accusatory finger would be pointed at the Soviets, he could be assured of escaping any suspicion and the U S could maintain an appearance of innocence
The appeal of conspiracies is not hard to understand. Like catastrophes, conspiracy theories lend some excitement to life the feeling of having blown the conspirators' cover, of being in on some secret, in fact, of being in on a counter conspiracy. There is a tingle of danger, coupled with a certainty, in the best doublethink tradition, that the conspirators really aren't dangerous. Someone who really believed that a conspiracy killed John F. Kennedy and was determined to eliminate anyone who knew about it would go into hiding, not publish a book about it.
In some cases, we also find the sense of enlistment in a cause: stopping fluoridation or the Trilateral Commission, or forcing science to eat crow and recognize Velikovsky as a genius. Conspiracy beliefs also provide a sense of order and purpose in a random world. It's far more comforting to lump evolution, pornography, and homosexuality together into a single vast humanist plot, or to write off the opposition to abortion as the work of the Catholic Church and the Moral Majority than to admit that these attitudes represent thefree choice of individuals each evaluating the evidence in his or her own way. One can fight a conspiracy, but how can anyone fight vast numbers of individuals? Worse yet, if people come to these beliefs voluntarily, could there possibly be more than one way of looking at things? Could they even (shudder) be right?
Conspiracies, as we have already noted in the case of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, also serve to explain the otherwise random tragedies of the world. There are real conspiracies in the world: terrorism, organized crime, and political corruption. Many people would rather play with toy conspiracies that face the real ones, The bogus conspiracies are dangerous not only because they sow the seeds of distrust and suspicion but also because they t make the idea of conspiracy so commonplace that real conspiracies become almost trivial.
Conspiracy theories serve a darker need by fueling fantasies and providing a focus for hostility. The conspiratorial thinker believes he could be a great scientist if only the Establishment weren't against him. All our social ills would vanish if the fat cats or the welfare bums or the Jews or the secular humanists could be done away with. The world would sit up and notice him if he attacks someone famous. In this sense critics of the Warren Commission are right--conspiracies did kill John F. Kennedy.
But by far the most dangerous effect of the conspiratorial mentality is that it has provided a convenient rationale for denying any inconvenient evidence in any field. When a Government study showed that U.S. troops in Hiroshima andNagasaki after World War II did not sufferunusually high incidences of cancer, some veterans' groupsblasted the study as a 'whitewash'. In any emotionally-polarizedsubject it is so common to hear contrary evidence dismissedas 'propaganda' that hardly anyone notices any more. The merefact of having an interest in the outcome of a debate is considered disproof. Few stop to think that being right is thebest possible reason for having a vested interest.
The mere fact that someone alleges a conspiracy is not in itself proof he'swrong. As the saying goes, "just because you're paranoid doesn't meanthey're not out to get you." Nevertheless, I argue that the answer to thisquestion is yes.
First of all, conspiracy theorists can't even use the word correctly. Ifthere's no secrecy there is no conspiracy. A common effort or goal does notconstitute a conspiracy. Criticism is not persecution and does not imply there'sa conspiracy to silence someone. The fact that conspiracy theorists can't evenuse the word correctly suggests that the rest of their logic is equally flawed.
More important, existence of a conspiracy is irrelevant to the issues. Somesecret enterprises (preparation for D-Day, for example) may have morallyacceptable goals. Sometimes secrecy is necessary. Immoral conspiracies liketerrorism or organized crime are immoral because of their goals and methods, nottheir secrecy.
Conspiracy theories are intellectually dishonest. They are impossible todisprove, can be used to rationalize away any anomaly. They appeal to emotionsinstead of facts; they prey upon fear, anger, or envy. Finally, they poison theclimate of debate; it's impossible to discuss an issue rationally as long as oneside or the other is accused of being involved in a conspiracy or cover-up.
So how do we discuss these things? Simple. We tell the conspiracy theorist"go home, clean up your act, come back and present your views withoutinjecting conspiracy beliefs into them. Then we'll debate your ideas on theirmerits."
Return to Pseudoscience Index
Return to Professor Dutch's Home Page
Created 5 February 1998, Last Update 5 February 1998
Not an official UW Green Bay site