Importance
The first big question one might ask when hearing about this course (or line of inquiry) is, "why is this important?" The question, familiar to anyone in an academic profession, usually comes from a student in a class not relevant to their major, i.e. literature students in a biology course or vice versa. The problem with this subject is that the general populace has a stereotype of who endorses conspiracy theories and who listens to them: The tin-foil hat wearing loner in a studio apartment covered in newspaper clippings is our paradigmatic case of the believer. While a firebrand, AM late night talk radio host, is our endorser.
In the 90s, this began to change and there were two reasons for that change: the movie "JFK" and the television show "The X-Files." Both artifacts of pop-culture were well made and very popular. This had the effect of bringing conspiracy theories to the general public in a new way. The respective protagonists were not socially awkward shut ins constantly ranting non-sense about aliens. They held jobs, diligently held to standards of evidence, and were both rather good looking. They made the theories seem reasonable, especially in the case of "JFK" which as a film is presented in a pseudo-documentary manner. It was not socially stigmatizing to believe in the theories that either presented. Aliens, sure, it's certainly possible; giant secret government agencies pushing sinister agendas? I bet there's something I'm not being told about.
Whether or not a person bought into the theories presented is irrelevant. The effect was the portrayal of conspiracy theorists as being reasonable individuals who are driven by a quest for the truth. It also didn't hurt that that they were right within their respective universes. The claim may be controversial but this little bit makes a huge difference. I could also point to shows like V or Twin peaks, in which the reality of situation was based on the extra-terrestrial or the supernatural, but it would be tougher to draw the straight line. To be absolutely clear, this is not a causal link but merely a stepping stone toward acceptance of the fringe.
However, our main question is "why is this important?" Well to quote the President of the United States: "beautiful child, went to have a vaccine, and came back, and a week later got a tremendous fever, got very, very sick, now is autistic." (September 2016)
February 2016: if he were elected, "you will find out who really knocked down the world trade center."
Repeatedly used the phrase "international bankers" which is a code referring to "international Zionists" and retweeted an image of Hillary Clinton with a star of David, that was traced back to a Neo-Nazi forum on 8Chan.
People vote on conspiracy theories. Trump is president, in part, because of his pandering to 9/11 truthers and anti-government zealots who think the Federal Reserve is the reason for most of the world's problems. The popularity of the Pauls (Rand and Ron) was driven by economic conspiracism that thought a return to a mercantile economy based on the gold standard. They inform our purchases: just go into any pharmacy and walk through the aisles of natural aids, natural medicine, homeopathic remedies and remind yourself that they wouldn't be there if they didn't sell.
These ideas are all over the place now. They feed our debates on history, politics, and science. Importantly it is not limited to one political party or group either. Left wing conspiracies are just as bad as right wing theories they are just different. While the average right wing conspiracies talk about climate change, evolution, homosexuality, and abortion; the left has its anti-GMO, anti-Vaccination, and anti-Nuclear energy theories to go along with it. That's just to cover the science denying conspiracies in both camps. Make no mistake they are both dangerously ignorant of the facts. Right wing science denying conspiracism denies the science of climate, which is not immediately dangerous but long term can be catastrophic. Forcing schools to teach alternatives to evolution does not cause direct harm, but if we have an entire generation which is ignorant of science the intellectual development of our nation is retarded and at some point we will have to play catch up. Left wing theories, of this type, are usually more immediate. The most prevalent example is that of vaccine deniers who put their kids and others who cannot get vaccinated for health reasons at risk. We need look no further back then the 2014-2015 Measles outbreak. Make no mistake, these are both conspiracy theories. The Ken Hams and Lee Strobels of the world believe that Darwin's theory is a plot to end both Christianity and America. While the anti-vaccination crowd believe that "big-Pharma" wants to give everyone autism so they can sell the treatments.
Right wing candidates will have a hard time running for office among their own people if they publicly avow the science of climate change or evolution. If you don't believe this just ask Jon Huntsman (and if you had to look up the name, that's precisely my point). The left doesn't have this problem, you can deny the dangers of GMOs and still get base support, but their general political problem isn't related to this (it's extreme cultural relativism since you're probably curious).
The importance lies in the cleaving of the populace from evidence-based, factual assertions. If all we need in order to hold an assertion is a suspicion then the very notions of truth are destroyed. Two people both looking at a dog are not both correct if one of them calls it a "parrot." Of course, withholding assent until a satisfactory amount of evidence is presented is nothing wrong. Indeed, we should all have a skeptical mindset when it comes to claims, but it's also vitally important that we have an idea of when that threshold is reached.
In the 90s, this began to change and there were two reasons for that change: the movie "JFK" and the television show "The X-Files." Both artifacts of pop-culture were well made and very popular. This had the effect of bringing conspiracy theories to the general public in a new way. The respective protagonists were not socially awkward shut ins constantly ranting non-sense about aliens. They held jobs, diligently held to standards of evidence, and were both rather good looking. They made the theories seem reasonable, especially in the case of "JFK" which as a film is presented in a pseudo-documentary manner. It was not socially stigmatizing to believe in the theories that either presented. Aliens, sure, it's certainly possible; giant secret government agencies pushing sinister agendas? I bet there's something I'm not being told about.
Whether or not a person bought into the theories presented is irrelevant. The effect was the portrayal of conspiracy theorists as being reasonable individuals who are driven by a quest for the truth. It also didn't hurt that that they were right within their respective universes. The claim may be controversial but this little bit makes a huge difference. I could also point to shows like V or Twin peaks, in which the reality of situation was based on the extra-terrestrial or the supernatural, but it would be tougher to draw the straight line. To be absolutely clear, this is not a causal link but merely a stepping stone toward acceptance of the fringe.
However, our main question is "why is this important?" Well to quote the President of the United States: "beautiful child, went to have a vaccine, and came back, and a week later got a tremendous fever, got very, very sick, now is autistic." (September 2016)
February 2016: if he were elected, "you will find out who really knocked down the world trade center."
Repeatedly used the phrase "international bankers" which is a code referring to "international Zionists" and retweeted an image of Hillary Clinton with a star of David, that was traced back to a Neo-Nazi forum on 8Chan.
People vote on conspiracy theories. Trump is president, in part, because of his pandering to 9/11 truthers and anti-government zealots who think the Federal Reserve is the reason for most of the world's problems. The popularity of the Pauls (Rand and Ron) was driven by economic conspiracism that thought a return to a mercantile economy based on the gold standard. They inform our purchases: just go into any pharmacy and walk through the aisles of natural aids, natural medicine, homeopathic remedies and remind yourself that they wouldn't be there if they didn't sell.
These ideas are all over the place now. They feed our debates on history, politics, and science. Importantly it is not limited to one political party or group either. Left wing conspiracies are just as bad as right wing theories they are just different. While the average right wing conspiracies talk about climate change, evolution, homosexuality, and abortion; the left has its anti-GMO, anti-Vaccination, and anti-Nuclear energy theories to go along with it. That's just to cover the science denying conspiracies in both camps. Make no mistake they are both dangerously ignorant of the facts. Right wing science denying conspiracism denies the science of climate, which is not immediately dangerous but long term can be catastrophic. Forcing schools to teach alternatives to evolution does not cause direct harm, but if we have an entire generation which is ignorant of science the intellectual development of our nation is retarded and at some point we will have to play catch up. Left wing theories, of this type, are usually more immediate. The most prevalent example is that of vaccine deniers who put their kids and others who cannot get vaccinated for health reasons at risk. We need look no further back then the 2014-2015 Measles outbreak. Make no mistake, these are both conspiracy theories. The Ken Hams and Lee Strobels of the world believe that Darwin's theory is a plot to end both Christianity and America. While the anti-vaccination crowd believe that "big-Pharma" wants to give everyone autism so they can sell the treatments.
Right wing candidates will have a hard time running for office among their own people if they publicly avow the science of climate change or evolution. If you don't believe this just ask Jon Huntsman (and if you had to look up the name, that's precisely my point). The left doesn't have this problem, you can deny the dangers of GMOs and still get base support, but their general political problem isn't related to this (it's extreme cultural relativism since you're probably curious).
The importance lies in the cleaving of the populace from evidence-based, factual assertions. If all we need in order to hold an assertion is a suspicion then the very notions of truth are destroyed. Two people both looking at a dog are not both correct if one of them calls it a "parrot." Of course, withholding assent until a satisfactory amount of evidence is presented is nothing wrong. Indeed, we should all have a skeptical mindset when it comes to claims, but it's also vitally important that we have an idea of when that threshold is reached.
Comments
Post a Comment