I don't suppose he does, no; but if certainty is disallowed from any discourse about conspiracy theories, that would silence 99% of their exponents in one fell swoop.

Well, I suppose the test of his sincerity is whether or not he [ialso[/i admitted that some explanations of conspiratorial events might just be based on ... you know ... [uevidence[/u rather than mysterious psychological motivations.

If he did not then I really can't take him seriously. Or did you excise what should be the most obvious explanation?

I mean, you could just as easily apply such to all branches of human decision-making. Yet you don't hear people talking about "monological belief systems" in everyday conversation. Probably because people very often have good reasons for doing what they do.

As stated, if the theory behind "monological belief systems" has any value then surely it must apply first to the much larger group of people who attack conspiratorial thinking.

I often wonder why people are so quick to attack accusations of conspiracy.

Before anything I should point out that a "conspiracy" is, by definition, two or more people planning to do something unlawful or harmful. Even without including controversial topics - conspiracy is ubiquitous in human society. It is also defined in law and people are regularly sent to prison for conspiring to defraud the government, insurance companies, banks etc. etc. No one would think twice about doubting whether government or big business or organised crime "conspires" to achieve some aim or another.

Do people attack conspiracy theories because they are more informed than the critics? In my experience the answer is a resounding "No!". Whenever I offer my opinions on the Kennedy assassination, 9/11 etc. I'm invariably inundated with criticism. [iBut I've yet to meet a single critic who has bothered even to take the first logical step of reading the official explanation![/i Indeed, the only people I have met who meet this criterion ALL agree that conspiracy took place.

Now, I'm not suggesting that to be more informed on a subject automatically means one's opinion has more value. A person can make bad decisions based on good information. But don't you see where we are going here? In every other walk of life we usually attach greater significance to "informed opinion". You visit a specialist solely because he has invested years of his life studying medicine. You don't visit some backstreet quack with a medical certificate from some obscure Nigerian university because he probably has not.

Granted, there is no reliable means of judging whether someone is "qualified" to make reliable judgements on the question of conspiracy. But I think most rational people will agree that it's preferable to be informed than not.

So, tell me: who here is locked into a "monological belief system" and who is not?

You're dissembling.

The theory of monological belief system can of course apply to anything; in this instance, it was applied to the conspiracy theory sub-culture and specifically, those people who see a conspiracy as the logical explanation for any event that has any element of doubt attached. There is a body of research to suggest that people who believe in one conspiracy theory are pre-disposed to believe in another; not because there is any evidence linking them, but because of higher order beliefs supporting conspiracy theories in general. There is some interesting work out there showing that some respondents were so entrenched in their belief of conspiracies or cover-ups, that they actually believed contradictory conspiracy theories - that, for example, Princess Diana was both murdered, and faked her own death.

It's interesting stuff.

Our views are coloured by what our experiences have been ... therein lies possibly non-objectivity.
Both sides exhibit this.
Evidence or opinion, where does one start and the other begin?

Personally without wanting to suffer your wrath , and I did quite like the softer, more reasonable approach of this last post, I am not really sure why it matters so much to you.
I think, even on this side, we are all pretty much prepared to believe that you are right, that it is hard to believe the JFK findings.
But at the end of long delvings you can't tell me definitively who did it. That is no criticism, you have certainly tried.

But I can't for the life of me see how that maps to 9/11.
I am not alone. You are in a small minority that don't see two planes hitting two towers and two towers collapsing in a quite logical manner in keeping with the laws of physics and simple cause and effect.

So if you can also give us examples of how you have gone in on a conspiracy angle and then after consideration rejected that stance, then that would perhaps demonstrate a balanced view.

You don't need to write a novel every time in response.
You know plebs like me aren't worth it.

Well, that's the thing about opinions ....



What concerns me is the way so-called "conspiracy theorists" are routinely targeted for holding beliefs on issues which - at the very least - deserve further investigation, are not without recorded precedent and may even be true. It's an inversion of rationality.

The very label I consider deliberately weaponised language. After all, there must be hundreds of thousands of people in this country (probably more) who at some point or another suspect big business, finance, government etc. is fleecing them. But you don't hear people jumping into conversations and accusing them of being "crazy conspiracy theorists". Why not?

Because that behaviour is both normal and rational, up to a point.
We are aware of the some of the shenanigans that go on and are prepared to believe a lot more.
But when we see a plane hit a tower and not unreasonably it brings it down as a consequence, further make believe gets short shrift!
Although we can debate who brought it about.

It's the excessive and continual desire to see subterfuge in almost everything calamitous and political (although the latter is almost a given) that produces scorn.

Because understanding that not all is as it seems, and believing that everything is the result of the orchestrated actions of a cabal of governments, intelligence agencies and the media, are two very different worldviews. Derision is even more likely when the theorist in question believes every and all conspiracy theories - as I described in my previous post, there is evidence to suggest that some people are so entrenched in that mode of thought that they'll believe conspiracy theories that contradict each other, before they'll believe the official explanation.

In short - some crazy conspiracy theorists give all conspiracy theorists a bad name.

A conspiracy is simply what happens when people conspire against other people.

When the tabacco industry covered up the fact smoking causes cancer. That was a conspiracy.

When the Tories plotted to oust thatcher, that was a conspiracy

Volkswagon's using technology to fiddle emititions, that was a conspiracy.

Everytime a muslim plans an arranged marriage that his daughter doesn't really want. It's a conspiracy.

When your colleges gossip behind your back it's a conspiracy

Julius caesars murder was a conspiracy too....

Conspiracies happen all the time, there are thousands of people in prison in the UK for conspiracy to do something or the other illegal. Most conspiracies are quite mundane but obviously when Governments, MSM and large companies are involved the effects on other people are amplified. The idea that there are no conspiracies and Governments and the MSM tell the truth all the time is quite absurd, more absurd than even the most outlandish conspiracy theory.

You're moving from the incredibly vague to the specific. Even so - I don't see them as mutually exclusive.

If I said nation states were run by secret cabals at any point in recorded history stretching back from a hundred years previous I doubt anyone would raise so much as an eyebrow. Ancient Greek history as laid out by Herodotus and Thucydides is packed full of them. Roman leaders were always conspiring against one another. The Vatican has a positively serpentine history. As for the English, French & Spanish monarchies - I think it's safe to say they enjoyed more than the odd conspiracy (Simon Schama has made a bloody good living out of them!)

Are we supposed to believe everyone just gave up conspiring against one another from the outbreak of World War I?



How is it possible to know whether two theories contradict each other if you are completely ignorant of the matter and its complexities? Just because two arguments appear to contradict each other - it doesn't necessarily follow that it's a genuine contradiction.

And I have a much higher regard for so-called "crazy conspiracy theorists" than people who can't be bothered to study the matter in question at even the most superficial level. Even when they arrive at erroneous conclusions - at least they've actually [iattempted[/i to engage the old grey matter. The best the opposite side can muster is a ridiculous appeal to "incompetence theory", "somnambulist theory", "coincidence theory", "spontaneity theory" etc. etc. which neatly relieves them of any obligation to think.

Except that I don't think anyone engaged here is saying anything to the contrary.
I don't think there are many people, although it's not my first question at a social gathering, who believe that there are no conspiracies in this world.
We are talking about extreme views and I don' t think there are many at that end.

Care to elucidate on that point?