Conspiracy Theories in general

I will be drawing from the following websites:
(1) Conspiracies – Britlink
(2) Conspiracy theory - Wikipedia
(3) Conspiracy theory - RationalWiki


Conspiracies do actually happen sometimes. There are some famous real conspiracies in history. For example, some of the Nazi Party's top men, guilt ridden, plotted to assassinate the Fuhrer; this was code named Operation Valkyrie, and failed. Another one was in 1604 when Guy Fawkes, Natalie Portman and Hugo Weaving decided to blow up Parliament, killing the aristocracy and the King. They were discovered before they could carry it out.

These kind of historical stories make great talk at the dinner table. They tantalize us with the idea that everything could seem so normal, yet behind the scenes all this sneaky stuff was going on, fooling everyone. But most people believe they are exceptions to the rule.

Going to the opposite end of the spectrum there are people who believe that these sort of events are the norm. They are willing to embrace three principles:

1. nothing happens by accident
2. nothing is as it seems
3. everything is connected

Here is the example of a New Ager I once knew:
"Nothing is random; Fate guides everything. Things can take a turn at any moment and you just never know, because things can look one way and really be another. All life is interconnected--we are all part of one great soul. What happens to you effects me."

Here is a friend of mine from High School:
"Nothing happens unless God wills it. We think its ourselves that are doing things, but its really powers and principalities, things we can't see. Every book of the Bible, every verse, gives meaning to every other verse--and it's all relevant to everything in life."

Me:
"Accidents happen -- God allows for randomness (I think he enjoys it). Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. And no matter what Michael Brown says, my hat is not connected to an ant in the Amazon jungle."

If someone believes in one conspiracy theory, the odds are sky high that they will believe in several. This has led psychologists to wonder if it isn't filling some kind of need. What need could that be except to explain evil forces. "

1. First, conspiracy theories claim to explain what institutional analysis cannot. They appear to make sense out of a world that is otherwise confusing.
2. Second, they do so in an appealingly simple way, by dividing the world sharply between the forces of light, and the forces of darkness. They trace all evil back to a single source, the conspirators and their agents.
3. Third, conspiracy theories are often presented as special, secret knowledge unknown or unappreciated by others. For conspiracy theorists, the masses are a brainwashed herd, while the conspiracy theorists in the know can congratulate themselves on penetrating the plotters' deceptions." (2)

TYPES OF CONSPIRACY THEORIES
Walker's 5 types:

1. The Enemy Without: those outside the community scheming against it
2. The Enemy Within: evil types inside the community scheming its downfall
3. The Enemy Above: people in high places manipulating the system for personal gain
4. The Enemy Below: people in the lower classes trying to overthrow the social order
5. The Benevolent Conspiracies: Angelic forces that work behind the scenes for our good

Barkun's three types:
Event conspiracy: i.e. 9/11, Kennedy Assassination
Systemic Conspiracy: Jews control the Banking system, Illuminati control the Vatican
Superconspiracies: When more than one conspiracy gets intertwined, such as when the 9/11 conspiracy got nested in the New World Order conspiracy.

ARE THERE TRAITS OF THOSE WHO BELIEVE?

All ages, sexes, socio-economic classes, political groups, ethnic groups, etc., are likely to believe or not believe in conspiracy theories.

"In a 2013 article in Scientific American Mind, psychologist Sander van der Linden argues there is converging scientific evidence that (1) people who believe in one conspiracy are likely to espouse others (even when contradictory); ...(3) conspiracist worldviews tend to breed mistrust of well-established scientific principles, such as the association between smoking and cancer or global warming and CO2 emissions; and (4) conspiracy ideation often leads people to see patterns where none exist. (2)

Dealing with Conspiracy Theorists:
In general, Conspiracy Thoeries tend to incorporate the proofs against them, making them unfalsifiable. Nevertheless, Rationawiki provides a good list of questions which any thoughtful Conspiracy Theory should be able to answer if it wants to be taken seriously:
Logistics

1. How large is the supposed conspiracy?
2. How many people are part of this conspiracy?
3. Are there enough of them to carry out the plan?
4. What infrastructure and resources does it need?
5. How much time and money did it take and where did this money come from?
6. If there are many thousands of conspirators, how are they organized?
7. Where are the secret conferences held?
8. How do they keep track of membership?
9. If they are organised through known channels or entities, how do they keep non-members who work there from uncovering the conspiracy?

Benefits

1. Who gains what from the conspiracy and for what price?
2. Is this the easiest way of gaining it? If not, why was it chosen over the easiest way?
3. If it is an old conspiracy—who gains what from maintaining it?

Exposure

1. How likely is it to remain covered up if it has gone on for a long time?
2. If there are thousands of conspirators, and the conspiracy has gone on for decades, why have none of them defected?
3. Why have none of them leaked the story?
4. If many conspirators are dead, why have none of them told the truth on their deathbeds, or in their wills?
5. There are many intelligence agencies associated with rival nations, with the ability to expose secrets. If, say, the United States government is running a global conspiracy, why have the French, Russian, or Chinese intelligence agencies never revealed it, to cause a major scandal in the United States (if all intelligence agencies are involved, see #2)? If they have, when and where did they do so?

Plausibility

1. Does belief in this theory require accepting inherently contradictive premises that the conspiring entities are incredibly competent, bone stupid, organized, clever, and hopelessly incompetent—all at the same time?

MODS: I don't know how my thread got split into two threads, but could we please combine this with the other thread? Thanks.