On the Conspiracy

Almost a strange foil to the fictional content of the movie “Moon” are the strange individuals who insist that the whole real world moon landings were nothing but fictions.  The New York Times offers us a small look at some of these people and their claims.  According to the article these people make up about 6% of the population.

I’ve always been fascinated with conspiracy theorists, not because I feel like one myself (personally it seems like a lot of work for something that isn’t going to amount to a whole lot besides being called “crazy”), but more so because I think the illogical insistence on the “conspiracy” is absolutely silly and hysterical.  Really, it seems to me, all that these conspiracies are are examples of poor logical arguments (if they can even be called that) and a strange obsessive stubbornness.

I suppose there have always been people, throughout history, who have questioned the truth of situations, but I imagine that it wasn’t really until the 20th century, when global communications became truly reliable and fast, that the prevalence of conspiracy really took off.  At it’s heart all conspirists seem to be looking for that “real truth” in a quest that ridiculously complicates the probable by upholding an assumption about the inherent untrustworthiness of . . . whatever.  This seems to reject the basics of Ockram’s Razor to avoid over complicating the argument as well as committing a number of other logical fallacies namely “just because you cannot fully understand something doesn’t mean that that something isn’t true.”

I suppose it is all logic games in the end.  I have said to people before that I think that logic is one of the most important pieces of education that we can take because it allows us to better frame our own arguments as well as to discern where fallacies are being committed in others’ arguments.  Of course there is always a campaign against logic itself, and perhaps a healthy skepticism can rationalize out “can logic logically prove that it is the best system for determining the truth in statements and arguments?”  But healthy skepticism is an entirely different thing than straight up conspiracy.  Healthy skepticism is what the scientist should maintain, in that he/she can say that the evidence points most decidedly to “this” but ultimately that does not mean that “that” does not possess at least some probability of truth.

So, speaking of conspiracy, I’ve been watching “X-Files” on DVD lately, which I love precisely for that ridiculousness (also because it was just good television).  Really you can’t help but love Mulder, even considering how goofy his conclusions often are.  Furthermore, you have to wonder how Sculley hasn’t become a full on alcoholic by the end of season one, because I’ll tell you, hanging out with somebody like Mulder all day long would sure make me want to hit the sauce.

As always, it is all absurd . . . everything, that has become my final concluding point on most things I encounter these days.  Not the best logic, but then it wouldn’t be would it?

Advertisements

~ by Nathaniel on July 14, 2009.

One Response to “On the Conspiracy”

  1. […] back in 2009 I wrote a post called “On the Conspiracy” wherein I was rather disparaging and dismissive of conspiracy thinking.  I found it […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: