The Generalist Position
Generalism as it pertains to a position regarding the philosophical attitude toward conspiracy theories is the idea that any explanation which makes a reference to or could be pushed underneath an umbrella of the label "conspiracy theory" should be regarded with suspicion. This means that person X while trying to explain position Y, says that Y is a conspiracy theory we should mentally begin dismissing the listener's assertion. This is a tempting position to take, especially among people who consider themselves skeptics (like this author for instance). When someone seeks to explain a current/historical event and uses key words like "they," "secret group," or "I'm just asking the questions;" the tendency is to begin preparing a debunking argument.
This generalist position has some advantages to it. The first is that because "conspiracy theories" have certain qualities that can be identified, it helps to be able to save time by not having to deal with each and every person that knows the "real story" behind it all. Dismantling conspiracy takes time, much more time than is usually put into the theories themselves. In some cases the theories violate Popper's falsifiability standard thus are nearly impossible to refute. For example, how would one begin to attack the position taken by David Icke--that 4th dimensional shape shifting lizard creatures after our monoatomic gold have assumed control of world leaders (notably the Queen of England)? We could point out that the constellation Draco has no known habitable planets orbiting the stars in it, but Icke would merely respond with, 'not that Draco, the one that exists in the 4th dimension.' We could ask what is mono-atomic gold and then be prepared to endure a length history of the successes of alchemy that were apparent to the "ancients" but lost to us. We could apply Occam's Razor, yet that would give us solace it would do nothing to dull the theory itself.
The Generalist position allows our out of hand dismissal. Icke's position is fantastical, relies too much on fantastic goal post shifting and the outright violation of the Occam's principle as well. Similarly with theories surrounding the assassination of JFK, MLK, Yitzakh Rabin; the theories do not stand up to any kind of evidential standard, and anyone discussing the "real story" is retreading old stories. The ability to dismiss these theories without particular engagement is the most appealing.
There are several problems with this position that severely overcome the appeal of it. They are that it overly generalizes not only conspiracy theories but also conspiracy theorists, is intellectually lazy, and notably can result in the dismissal of legitimate theories of conspiracy. I will deal with each of these problems below.
The first problem could be considered pedantic. Earlier I said that generalism's main appeal is that it allows us to dismiss the outlandish problems. This means that there is a certain class of conspiracy theories that we can categorize as the outlandish ones. The average person has certain intuitions regarding which of these theories are in this category. CTs citing the Illuminati, New World Order, Bilderbergers, or any of the globalist theories with world spanning secret societies easily fall in this. Theories about chem trails, perpetual motion machines, and Atlantis; could be categorized on the edge of this type of theory.
What about the other theories? The ones that refrain from secret society reference or impossible science? Are these theories to be dismissed under the generalist position? Theories with an aura of plausibility, no matter how tenuous would also be tossed out as well. We'll discuss this more below, but right now I would like to focus on the idea that we can generalize conspiracy theorists under this position as well. The stereotype may hold, that all conspiracy theorists are social isolates obsessing over the minor details with miles of red string connecting pictures to news clippings in a spider web of hypotheses. This allows us to dismiss not only their theories but them as well. This is prima facie wrong and reduces dismissal to an ad hominem about the kind of people that push these theories. It is also demonstrably false. Not all conspiracy theorists fit this category, in fact some would argue that we are all conspiracy theorists--not that we accept some theory regarding the federal reserve and the Titanic, but that we form connections in our heads between unrelated occurrences. There is no standard to what kind of person is a conspiracy theorist that we should trust and one that we should dismiss. A person claiming that the media is controlled by the Tri-Lateral Commission is only different in accidental features than a pastor claiming that the devil controls the media or the opposing political party controls the media. Perhaps two out of three of those people's theories should be dismissed without consideration but should the people advancing those theories? That doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
Secondly, that it is intellectually lazy. Yes debunking theories takes time, (according to the "bullshit asymmetry principle" an order of magnitude more time than creating the theory) but that time is necessary. Any position worth holding is worth defending. The theories that seem impervious to refutation, can be dismissed without particular engagement but in order to determine what theories those are requires particular engagement. No one is going to be able to disprove the labyrinthine maze of the time cube theory, but without any kind of engagement we could not do so.
Thirdly, and most importantly, the generalist position would cause us to dismiss legitimate theories of conspiracy. A conspiracy is two or more people engaging in an activity in secret usually for nefarious reasons (though I've yet to see a benevolent one). At some point before a conspiracy can be evidentially proven, the suspicion must exist and the generalist position would be to dismiss that theory. This seems premature. A theory must at least be given its chance before dismissal.
For example if a person were to be claiming that there was government cover-up over the famous crash in Roswell NM, the generalist would dismiss the claim. However, they would be wrong to do so as there was a cover up: just not of aliens but of a secret military project concerning nuclear weapons. The theory, while minor, represents a flaw in the generalist camp.
While the opposition theory, the particularist, is more daunting it represents the more intellectually honest and rigorous position with a minimum of the stereotyping that the generalist position requires.
This generalist position has some advantages to it. The first is that because "conspiracy theories" have certain qualities that can be identified, it helps to be able to save time by not having to deal with each and every person that knows the "real story" behind it all. Dismantling conspiracy takes time, much more time than is usually put into the theories themselves. In some cases the theories violate Popper's falsifiability standard thus are nearly impossible to refute. For example, how would one begin to attack the position taken by David Icke--that 4th dimensional shape shifting lizard creatures after our monoatomic gold have assumed control of world leaders (notably the Queen of England)? We could point out that the constellation Draco has no known habitable planets orbiting the stars in it, but Icke would merely respond with, 'not that Draco, the one that exists in the 4th dimension.' We could ask what is mono-atomic gold and then be prepared to endure a length history of the successes of alchemy that were apparent to the "ancients" but lost to us. We could apply Occam's Razor, yet that would give us solace it would do nothing to dull the theory itself.
The Generalist position allows our out of hand dismissal. Icke's position is fantastical, relies too much on fantastic goal post shifting and the outright violation of the Occam's principle as well. Similarly with theories surrounding the assassination of JFK, MLK, Yitzakh Rabin; the theories do not stand up to any kind of evidential standard, and anyone discussing the "real story" is retreading old stories. The ability to dismiss these theories without particular engagement is the most appealing.
There are several problems with this position that severely overcome the appeal of it. They are that it overly generalizes not only conspiracy theories but also conspiracy theorists, is intellectually lazy, and notably can result in the dismissal of legitimate theories of conspiracy. I will deal with each of these problems below.
The first problem could be considered pedantic. Earlier I said that generalism's main appeal is that it allows us to dismiss the outlandish problems. This means that there is a certain class of conspiracy theories that we can categorize as the outlandish ones. The average person has certain intuitions regarding which of these theories are in this category. CTs citing the Illuminati, New World Order, Bilderbergers, or any of the globalist theories with world spanning secret societies easily fall in this. Theories about chem trails, perpetual motion machines, and Atlantis; could be categorized on the edge of this type of theory.
What about the other theories? The ones that refrain from secret society reference or impossible science? Are these theories to be dismissed under the generalist position? Theories with an aura of plausibility, no matter how tenuous would also be tossed out as well. We'll discuss this more below, but right now I would like to focus on the idea that we can generalize conspiracy theorists under this position as well. The stereotype may hold, that all conspiracy theorists are social isolates obsessing over the minor details with miles of red string connecting pictures to news clippings in a spider web of hypotheses. This allows us to dismiss not only their theories but them as well. This is prima facie wrong and reduces dismissal to an ad hominem about the kind of people that push these theories. It is also demonstrably false. Not all conspiracy theorists fit this category, in fact some would argue that we are all conspiracy theorists--not that we accept some theory regarding the federal reserve and the Titanic, but that we form connections in our heads between unrelated occurrences. There is no standard to what kind of person is a conspiracy theorist that we should trust and one that we should dismiss. A person claiming that the media is controlled by the Tri-Lateral Commission is only different in accidental features than a pastor claiming that the devil controls the media or the opposing political party controls the media. Perhaps two out of three of those people's theories should be dismissed without consideration but should the people advancing those theories? That doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
Secondly, that it is intellectually lazy. Yes debunking theories takes time, (according to the "bullshit asymmetry principle" an order of magnitude more time than creating the theory) but that time is necessary. Any position worth holding is worth defending. The theories that seem impervious to refutation, can be dismissed without particular engagement but in order to determine what theories those are requires particular engagement. No one is going to be able to disprove the labyrinthine maze of the time cube theory, but without any kind of engagement we could not do so.
Thirdly, and most importantly, the generalist position would cause us to dismiss legitimate theories of conspiracy. A conspiracy is two or more people engaging in an activity in secret usually for nefarious reasons (though I've yet to see a benevolent one). At some point before a conspiracy can be evidentially proven, the suspicion must exist and the generalist position would be to dismiss that theory. This seems premature. A theory must at least be given its chance before dismissal.
For example if a person were to be claiming that there was government cover-up over the famous crash in Roswell NM, the generalist would dismiss the claim. However, they would be wrong to do so as there was a cover up: just not of aliens but of a secret military project concerning nuclear weapons. The theory, while minor, represents a flaw in the generalist camp.
While the opposition theory, the particularist, is more daunting it represents the more intellectually honest and rigorous position with a minimum of the stereotyping that the generalist position requires.
Comments
Post a Comment