If you do have a conspiratorial mindset that has fostered a belief in one or more unproven alternative theories, I recommend a new approach to look at the issues more rationally. Go back to the sources that convinced you, or more likely that supported your preconceived notions, and look at them again with a more skeptical eye. Ask more questions, be more critical, and you might find that you’ve been misled. As is always the case when searching for what’s true, the next step is to seek more objective sources, avoiding unknown blogs and consistently unreliable alternative/fake news agencies. There are millions of websites and so-called news outlets that provide false or misleading information, but a few of the most commonly cited yet unreliable sources of information include: Natural News, Collective Evolution, World Truth TV, Secrets of the Fed, InfoWars, Examiner, Underground Health, Real Farmacy, World Truth, The Blaze, Why Don’t You Try This, PrisonPlanet, Mercola, Daily Mail, ConservaPedia, Holy Books, Zeitgeist, Above Top Secret, Before It’s News, Answers in Genesis, Discovery Institute, World Net Daily, Daily Caller, The Rush Limbaugh Show, The Alex Jones Show, and more. Other outlets, such as FOX News, MSNBC, Daily Kos, Addicting Info, Huffington Post, etc., provide more reliable information but with the guidance of a specific political agenda.
Whether you’re consulting the above-mentioned unreliable or biased organizations or any other sources for information, it’s always best to seek out the underlying scientific studies or references and gather your data from there. While some news outlets provide consistently more credible information than others, I don’t trust any sources as absolute fact. Instead, I review a wide variety of sites and look at the citations and details.
WHY DO PEOPLE BELIEVE?
If the world is filled with poorly researched claims and false information, then why do people believe in these far-fetched hypotheses at all? It’s partly because they want to believe them. These elaborate modern myths are similar to other unfounded beliefs in that they rely heavily on confirmation bias, which allows the believer to selectively filter facts to suit his or her established beliefs, and inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning), which fosters broad generalizations being made from specific observations. These two factors allow the believer to make false conclusions based on general premises and reinforce those beliefs by only viewing material that already supports them, such as information from conspiracy-based websites. In one scientific study looking into conspiracy theory belief itself, researchers found that conspiracists primarily interacted with conspiracy-based pages and links and had a “lower trust in other information sources.” The study, which sampled 1.2 million people online, also found that the theories “find on the internet a natural medium for their diffusion.”
“[U]nsubstantiated claims reverberate for a timespan comparable to the one of more verified information and … usual consumers of conspiracy theories are more prone to interact with them,” the authors of the study wrote in its conclusion.10 “Narratives grounded on conspiracy theories tend to reduce the complexity of reality and are able to contain the uncertainty they generate.”
If the urge to believe in one particular narrative is driving someone, and not a desire to uncover the truth, that person’s standard for evidence is lowered when it comes to that topic. They might take the words of every self-proclaimed “whistleblower” at face value without any further information, and then disregard personal testimonies from government officials who deny the accusations. The believer may at times need only a rumor to form a belief, or they may base their claims on nothing more than the fact that “Classified” files exist. If it’s secret, they reason, it must be an incriminating government conspiracy. But confidential doesn’t mean “cover-up,” and there are a number of seemingly benign reasons for documents to be categorized as “Classified.”
Quassim Cassam, a professor of philosophy at the University of Warwick in Coventry, England, says people often think conspiratorially not because of the information they’ve absorbed, but because of their intellectual character traits. Cassam, who acknowledges his position is controversial, uses a fictional theorist named Oliver to show how gullibility, closed-mindedness, and other intellectual vices play a role in conspiracy theory belief.
“Those who know him well say that he is easily duped, and you have independent evidence that he is careless in his thinking, with little understanding of the difference between genuine evidence and unsubstantiated speculation,” Cassam wrote.11 “Suddenly it all begins to make sense, but only because the focus has shifted from Oliver’s reasons to his character. You can now see his views about 9/11 in the context of his intellectual conduct generally, and this opens up the possibility of a different and deeper explanation of his belief than the one he gives: he thinks that 9/11 was an inside job because he is gullible in a certain way. He has what social psychologists call a ‘conspiracy mentality.’”
STATISM AND NATIONALISM
It’s important to remember that there’s a difference between being skeptical of massive, unproven alternative theories and simply clinging to a mainstream account because you trust the government. In other words, discounting far-fetched and unsubstantiated conspiracy claims is not the same as embracing “the official story.” For many alternative theorists, however, these issues are black and white: you either believe every crazy notion they put forth or you’re a “government-worshiping statist.” It’s true that I am skeptical of the massive unproven conspiracy theories that I see peddled daily, but I am in no way a statist. Like blind faith, blind allegiance to a state has caused a substantial amount of harm, historically and in modern times, and extreme forms of nationalism, like jingoism and state (often American) exceptionalism, often hold believers hostage in the same way religions and other false beliefs do. I address this in my first published book, Disproving Christianity:
But religion, theism, and spirituality aren’t the only mind-altering constructions within humanity that have spawned dangerous ideas; nationalism, for example, has a similar effect on people. It is the ‘blind faith’ that these institutions often create in individuals and groups that has caused many of the world’s largest violent disputes.12
The state is a “sacred cow” for many people, but I personally think I lack whatever gives us a propensity to feel extreme unsupported patriotism, school spirit, and similar mindsets. Even as a young kid in school, I remember conscientiously objecting to rallies and noticing the attendees’ tendency toward groupthink. Much like the late, great George Carlin, I could never understand ethnic or national pride, either.13
“Because to me pride should be reserved for something you achieve or attain on your own, not something that happens by accident of birth. Being Irish isn’t a skill, it’s a fuckin’ genetic accident,” the stand-up comedian said. “You wouldn’t say, ‘I’m proud to be 5’11”. I’m proud to have a predisposition for colon cancer.’ So why the fuck would you be proud to be Irish, or proud to be Italian, or American or anything?”
I agree with Carlin, but this issue is not about ethnic pride or about whether or not government officials have their constituents’ best interests in mind—those are often just distractions thrown out by alternative theorists hoping to discount skeptics’ opinions or requests for evidence. What is this all about, then? It’s about following the evidence regardless of expectations and speculated motives. So, while I acknowledge that elected officials (like all people) do lie to their constituents and that no country is perfect, I also realize that doesn’t automatically make “the government” guilty of causing every major disaster through a series of nefarious plots. We still need evidence to prove those things to be true. Once all the data is put forth, a person applying critical thinking skills can generally separate substantiated corruption from outlandish ideas completely lacking evidentiary support.
MALICE OR STUPIDITY?
I dislike corrupt politicians and inefficient governments as much as the next rational guy, but being greedy and inept doesn’t necessarily make a politician, or an
yone, culpable for every far-reaching alternative scheme someone posts online. I’ve seen evidence that politicians can lie, but I haven’t seen data showing they can work together in the way most massive conspiracy theories would require. In fact, aside from the lack of empirical evidence to support them, the main reason I doubt most far-fetched conspiracy theories is not that I trust politicians, but that I don’t think they are competent enough to pull off the intricate worldwide plots of which they’re accused. Most of such allegations rely on hundreds of thousands of cooperating government officials working harmoniously with one another without any leaks or mistakes—a situation that’s highly unlikely to say the least.
A study from Oxford University seems to support my position that it would be difficult to keep large-scale conspiracies under wraps.14 Dr. David Robert Grimes, a physicist and cancer researcher at Oxford, used the number of people involved in a particular plot and other factors to create an equation that debunks the idea of massive, long-lasting conspiracies that pervade society for many years. He found that, even with parameter estimates favorable to conspiratorial leanings, the conspiracies “tend rapidly towards collapse.”
“Even if there was a concerted effort, the sheer number of people required for the sheer scale of hypothetical scientific deceptions would inextricably undermine these nascent conspiracies. For a conspiracy of even only a few thousand actors, intrinsic failure would arise within decades,” Grimes wrote in the peer-reviewed study, adding that, for hundreds of thousands, failure would be assured in less than five years.
“It’s also important to note that this analysis deals solely with intrinsic failure, or the odds of a conspiracy being exposed intentionally or accidentally by actors involved—extrinsic analysis by non-participants would also increase the odds of detection, rendering such Byzantine cover-ups far more likely to fail.”
When contemplating the possibility of far-reaching government conspiracies that cause disastrous effects, I like to employ Hanlon’s razor, a philosophical principle that helps us to rule out unlikely explanations for phenomena. The razor, possibly named for Robert J. Hanlon, states that one should “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”
GOVERNMENTS ARE PEOPLE
Those who perpetuate unfounded conspiracy theories have a tendency to morph “the government” into a singular, all-powerful entity that must either love or hate everyone, but this mentality ignores that all governments are made up of individuals with their own intentions, motives, flaws, and agendas. Governments are composed of people, and people are prone to deception, greed, and other bad things, but that doesn’t mean one can always assume the government is at fault and blame the lack of evidence on the unproven conspiracy itself.
A lot of believers go as far as to claim that governments are covering up lifesaving cures or even actively poisoning their people, but, assuming leaders are as greedy and capable as many alternative theorists believe, killing off the population means killing their profits. According to that worldview, who are “they” supposed to market to? Who would they brainwash and control? That’s not to mention that people who work for the government, and their families, are susceptible to the same problems as us. They can’t poison the food or water supply without endangering their family, or at least people who they love and hold dearly. Similarly, high-ranking officials and corporate executives likely aren’t hiding “the cure” for cancer,15 if for no other reason than doing so would risk their lives and the lives of those they care about.16 Furthermore, if American pharmaceutical companies are involved in a scheme to conceal cancer remedies, as some theorists have suggested, how would they halt research from the rest of the world’s scientists? Why couldn’t someone else just rediscover the cure? Steven P. Novella, a clinical neurologist and assistant professor at Yale University School of Medicine, says the idea that they would all be in on a massive conspiracy to hide the greatest cure known to mankind is “beyond absurd.”
“For those who think the profit motive is sufficient explanation, not all of the people and institutions named are for profit,” Novella wrote for Science-Based Medicine.17 “And what about countries with socialized medicine who could dramatically reduce their health care costs if a cancer cure were found? Is Canada, the UK, all of the European Union, in fact, in on the conspiracy to protect American cancer treatment profits? It’s as if hidden cure conspiracy theorists forget that there are other countries in the world.”
The same logic that disposes of the hidden cure and mass-poisoning myths can be applied to the belief that the government is hiding the existence of poisonous “chem-trails,” supposedly caused by top-secret fuel additives and spraying mechanisms attached to passenger jets.18 These lines that often follow planes are commonly (and scientifically) known as contrails or condensation trails, but a large number of alternative theorists think they are part of a government conspiracy to kill citizens, make them sick, or control the weather, or that they are used for some other sinister yet undisclosed purpose. The most common piece of “evidence” presented by believers for chem-trails is the (often only perceived) fact that more and more contrails are being seen in the skies over time. They often recall the past, when the sky was “clear,” and then compare that (perhaps flawed) memory to what they see today. The best explanation for an increase in visible contrails, which have existed since planes could fly at a high altitude, could be heightened air traffic or newer engine designs, but it’s probably not a “government conspiracy to poison us all.” If the chemicals in a contrail five miles in the air are dangerous to you on the ground, they are a risk to people just about anywhere, so unless you see high-ranking officials wearing gas masks when outside or avoiding the open air entirely, you can conclude those same people probably aren’t endangering themselves and loved ones out of nothing more than loyalty to their respective governments.
The common alternative narrative is that contrails quickly dissipate in the sky, while chem-trails—with their potentially fatal (yet often vague) chemical additions—remain in the sky for hours on end. However, this position is based entirely on a misunderstanding of the science behind vapor trails, which can disappear quickly or be persistent and long lasting depending on the circumstances. For those who do believe in chem-trails, imagine that contrails are clouds, because that’s exactly what they are. They are composed of frozen water vapor, so the higher up they are, or the colder the air is in that particular part of the sky, the longer they stay. They’re just man-made clouds, so they behave the same way as clouds found in nature. Furthermore, if chem-trails existed, it would be relatively easy to test the vapor and report (scientifically, with peer review) the specific poisons that are present, yet this hasn’t happened. People have presented evidence of certain elements in rainwater or dust and proclaimed it proof that chem-trails exist, but they have never identified contrails as the source. In fact, one of the only serious studies on the topic, published by J. Marvin Herndon,19 was retracted after the journal’s editors and other scientists discovered a number of errors and “crucial concerns.” Dr. Paul B. Tchounwou from Jackson State University disclosed a mistake made in the reported value for average leachate concentration of aluminum that “invalidates the conclusions of the article.” He also uncovered flaws in data collection in general.
“The chemical compositions obtained for rainwater and HEPA air filter dust are only compared to chemical compositions obtained for coal-fly-ash leaching experiments. The author did not attempt to compare his results to chemical compositions of other potential sources,” Tchounwou wrote in the retraction article.20 “Thus, at this stage, the work is preliminary since it is not clear what the source of these chemicals is.”
Tchounwou further noted that he and Dr. Franck Vazquez, chief scientific officer of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, thought the language of the initial paper was “not sufficiently scientifically objective for a research article.”
Let me be clear: being skeptical of the c
hem-trail conspiracy theory is not the same as denying that some forms of weather control are possible. Geoengineering, while it remains on a small scale for now, is a real science that involves complicated and possibly dangerous procedures. However, there isn’t a single link between these efforts to control our environment and the long, thin contrails you see in the sky every day. There is no contrail/chem-trail distinction because there are no “chem-trails.” That’s not a system that has ever been shown to be used for chemical delivery in geoengineering attempts, nor would it be a very efficient one. In other words, yes, there are some efforts to control our climate. However, they are not linked to airplanes or contrails or visible white streaks in the sky.
To drive this point home, and reiterate that governments are composed of human beings like you and me, I wrote this brief summary:
THE GOVERNMENT DOESN’T LOVE YOU.
THE GOVERNMENT DOESN’T WANT TO KILL YOU.
IT DOESN’T WANT TO TAKE YOUR GUNS OR POISON YOUR FAMILY.
THE GOVERNMENT DOESN’T HAVE FEELINGS OR INTENTIONS.
GOVERNMENTS ARE JUST GROUPS OF PEOPLE, HIRED TO REPRESENT US.
IF YOU DON’T LIKE YOUR GOVERNMENT, WORK TO CHANGE IT.
CONSPIRACY THEORY CHALLENGE
No Sacred Cows Page 41