Conspiracy Detection Kit, by Michael Shermer

Post Reply New Topic

Conspiracy Detection Kit
by Michael Shermer

"I have put together a 10-point list for a Conspiracy Detection Kit.  The more that a conspiracy theory manifests the following characteristics, the less likely it is to be a real conspiracy." -- Michael Shermer

•••

CONSPIRACY DETECTION KIT

1. PATTERNICITY: Proof of the conspiracy supposedly emerges from a pattern of "connecting the dots" between events that need not be causally connected.  When no evidence supports these connections except the allegation of the conspiracy, or when the evidence fits equally well to other patterns -- or to randomness -- the conspiracy theory is likely false.

2. AGENTICITY: The agents behind the pattern of the conspiracy would need nearly superhuman power to pull it off.  Most of the time in most circumstances, people, agencies, and corporations are not nearly so powerful as we think they are.  If the conspiracy theory involves super powerful agents it is likely false.

3. COMPLEXITY: The conspiracy theory is complex and its successful completion demands a large number of elements coming together at just the right moment and in the proper sequence.  The more elements involved and the more delicate the timing of the sequence in which they must come together, the less likely the conspiracy theory is to be true.

4. PEOPLE: The more people involved in the conspiracy theory the less likely it is to be true.  Conspiracies involving large numbers of people who would all need to keep silent about their secrets typically fail.  People are incompetent and emotional.  They screw up, chicken out, change their minds, have moral scruples.  Conspiracy theories treat people like programmed robots carrying out their commands.  That is unrealistic.

5. GRANDIOSITY: If the conspiracy theory encompasses some grandiose ambition for control over a nation, economy, or political system, and especially if it aims for world domination, it is almost certainly false.  The bigger the conspiracy the more likely it is to fail for the reasons of complexity and people that I’ve just given.

6. SCALE: When the conspiracy theory ratchets up from small events that might be true to much larger events that have much lower probabilities of being true, it is very likely false.  Most real conspiracies involve very specific events and targets, such as insider trading on Wall Street, price fixing in an industry, tax evasion by a corporation, and, yes, the assassination of a political leader, but always for a narrow goal of making money, grabbing power, or ending tyranny.

7. SIGNIFICANCE: If the conspiracy theory assigns portentous and sinister meanings and interpretations to apparently innocuous or insignificant events, it is most likely false.  Again, most conspiracies are narrowly focused and significant only to those who will benefit or be hurt.  Most real conspiracies do not change the world.

8. ACCURACY: If the conspiracy theory commingles facts and speculations without distinguishing between the two, it is likely to be false.  Conspiracists are notorious for sprinkling in a handful of verifiable facts amidst a vast array of conjectures and suppositions, which blur reality and confuse listeners into thinking there is more to the theory than there actually is.

9. PARANOIA: If a conspiracy theorist is extremely and indiscriminately suspicious of any and all government agencies or private corporations, this suggests a lack of nuance in understanding how the world works.  Yes, sometimes "they" really are out to get you, but usually not.

10. FALSIFIABILITY: Conspiracy theorists typically refuse to consider alternative explanations, rejecting all disconfirming evidence for the theory, and blatantly seeking only confirming evidence to support what has a priori been determined as the truth.  To return to Karl Popper, if a conspiracy theory cannot be falsified, it is probably false.

Ω

Agreed for the most part, although I think some conspiracy theory debunkers over-rely on these very general arguments.

Do you think that way because the Conspiracy Detection Kit may be used to debunk your favorite conspiracy theories?

There was a time, in 2007-2008, when I was worried about the possibility of 9/11 being an "inside job."

I no longer consider that idea to be even remotely likely. However, back in the days when I did half-believe that idea, the principles outlined in Shermer's article would not have been sufficient to convince me against it.

What I needed to do, back then, was to delve deeply into the arguments of both the more intelligent proponents and those debunkers who bothered to delve into the details.

I remember when I was first diagnosed with ASD in my late teens. I remember that one of my reactions was to tell myself, "well, I might have more social difficulties than most people, but at least I am more rational than a lot of them, not like all those dopes who are into pseudoscience and conspiracy theories!"

I remember how good it felt to be able to still be able to feel better than a load of other people through something as effortless as believing everything the authorities told me. I remember how much reading people like Michael Shermer helped me with this.

With all I have learnt since then, I feel a bit embarrassed when I think back on that now.

I can't imagine still thinking that way now, and I'm "only" 39.