Positive versus Negative Conspiracy Theories
The dissertation is progressing rather well. I've had one chapter approved and another sort-of approved.
The second chapter is the one where I lay out the categorization of the types of conspiracy theories. I have them separated as to scale, focus, and obviousness. The wider the scale of a conspiracy theory the more unlikely it actually is: a conspiracy theory that is about a single event is, prima facie, more plausible than a conspiracy theory that involves the global control by the Illuminati. Too many moving parts, too many people to keep the secret, etc. The focus is important because there is a difference between political theories and ones that cover just knowledge. The people on ancient aliens are conspiracy theorists--they're not just putting forth an alternative view (which is incorrect) of history but are making a claim that there position is being rejected because it threatens the establishment. Climate change denial is as much a conspiracy theory as believing MI6 assassinated Princess Diana. The obviousness is a bit more tricky. We can identify most conspiracy theories because the theory itself makes the case that they are conspiracy theories. However, another kind are implied conspiracy theories as their claims can only be true if a conspiracy supports it. For instance, homeopathy only works as medicine if there is a giant conspiracy of medical professionals, universities, and pharmaceutical companies seeking to suppress it. Otherwise we would very likely see pharmaceutical companies throwing patents on homeopathic treatments. The implication is that the conspiracy exists and that's why "they" don't want you to know about homeopathy.
I take much much longer to explain that in much greater detail. My advisor though has gone through three versions of this chapter before giving me the "sort-of" approval. I have a few problems that I need to fix: notably, I have to introduce everything that I am going to talk about in the beginning of the chapter, which is something that I have done in my course work papers but for some reason when I write this I fail to do it. It's easily fixable and there's other formatting issues that I need to address as well. However, there's one comment that has kept coming up. My advisor has been asking me if there is a categorization scheme that I want to add to the chapter. I've seen the comment, shrugged, thinking to myself "no, I think I've got everything."
The first categorization scheme is heavily adapted from the work of a political scientist. The other two are my own invention. I was very proud of myself in coming up with the direct v. implied theories as it was one of those things which seems so obvious when encountered for the first time but was very difficult in the creation process. Then I had a revelation: there is another categorization scheme--that of positive versus negative conspiracy theories.
Positive conspiracy theories are those that are making an assertion. That assertion can be direct or implied, it can be political or academic, it can be one of the four different kinds of theories that represent the scale of them. No matter where else they fall they are making the claim that the official story is false and their theory is the truth. They are positive conspiracy theories because they attempt to make a change in our worldview and then replace it with a new thing. These are typical conspiracy theories that are advantageous because we understand what the point of them is, that however is where we can leave any admiration or appreciation of them, because of what they do to both the believer and society at large.
The second theory would be that of negative conspiracy theories. These are theories that don't offer any kind of explanation other than the official story being wrong or having inconsistencies. These are the types of theories that are "just asking questions." This is the "Loose Change" of 9/11 conspiracy theories where they show a slew of inconsistencies with the official story and ask tons of questions regarding the melting of steel I-beams and the rate of falling debris. The frustrating aspect of these theories is that every point they make, is via a rhetorical question. The theory doesn't say anything leaving it up to the audience to fill in the gaps.
My only reticence in adding this distinction is that negative conspiracy theories are incomplete. Bill Kaysing's original moon landing denial theory (as in it's the original theory) leaves the reader hanging. If it was faked, then what happened. The same with the early 9/11 theories: ok fine it was a cruise missile but then what? The official stories explain the event, even the positive theories do so, these 'just asking questions' theories just leave out the second half. As incomplete theories they have the advantage of not pinning down the conspiracy theorist to hard claims which can be debunked but that comes with the price of revealing that the only thing going on here is a burden shifting.
I'll have to think about adding this since it does seem as though the distinction is complete theory v. incomplete theory where the latter may just be a tactic allowing the conspiracy theorist to weasel out of direct challenges.
The second chapter is the one where I lay out the categorization of the types of conspiracy theories. I have them separated as to scale, focus, and obviousness. The wider the scale of a conspiracy theory the more unlikely it actually is: a conspiracy theory that is about a single event is, prima facie, more plausible than a conspiracy theory that involves the global control by the Illuminati. Too many moving parts, too many people to keep the secret, etc. The focus is important because there is a difference between political theories and ones that cover just knowledge. The people on ancient aliens are conspiracy theorists--they're not just putting forth an alternative view (which is incorrect) of history but are making a claim that there position is being rejected because it threatens the establishment. Climate change denial is as much a conspiracy theory as believing MI6 assassinated Princess Diana. The obviousness is a bit more tricky. We can identify most conspiracy theories because the theory itself makes the case that they are conspiracy theories. However, another kind are implied conspiracy theories as their claims can only be true if a conspiracy supports it. For instance, homeopathy only works as medicine if there is a giant conspiracy of medical professionals, universities, and pharmaceutical companies seeking to suppress it. Otherwise we would very likely see pharmaceutical companies throwing patents on homeopathic treatments. The implication is that the conspiracy exists and that's why "they" don't want you to know about homeopathy.
I take much much longer to explain that in much greater detail. My advisor though has gone through three versions of this chapter before giving me the "sort-of" approval. I have a few problems that I need to fix: notably, I have to introduce everything that I am going to talk about in the beginning of the chapter, which is something that I have done in my course work papers but for some reason when I write this I fail to do it. It's easily fixable and there's other formatting issues that I need to address as well. However, there's one comment that has kept coming up. My advisor has been asking me if there is a categorization scheme that I want to add to the chapter. I've seen the comment, shrugged, thinking to myself "no, I think I've got everything."
The first categorization scheme is heavily adapted from the work of a political scientist. The other two are my own invention. I was very proud of myself in coming up with the direct v. implied theories as it was one of those things which seems so obvious when encountered for the first time but was very difficult in the creation process. Then I had a revelation: there is another categorization scheme--that of positive versus negative conspiracy theories.
Positive conspiracy theories are those that are making an assertion. That assertion can be direct or implied, it can be political or academic, it can be one of the four different kinds of theories that represent the scale of them. No matter where else they fall they are making the claim that the official story is false and their theory is the truth. They are positive conspiracy theories because they attempt to make a change in our worldview and then replace it with a new thing. These are typical conspiracy theories that are advantageous because we understand what the point of them is, that however is where we can leave any admiration or appreciation of them, because of what they do to both the believer and society at large.
The second theory would be that of negative conspiracy theories. These are theories that don't offer any kind of explanation other than the official story being wrong or having inconsistencies. These are the types of theories that are "just asking questions." This is the "Loose Change" of 9/11 conspiracy theories where they show a slew of inconsistencies with the official story and ask tons of questions regarding the melting of steel I-beams and the rate of falling debris. The frustrating aspect of these theories is that every point they make, is via a rhetorical question. The theory doesn't say anything leaving it up to the audience to fill in the gaps.
My only reticence in adding this distinction is that negative conspiracy theories are incomplete. Bill Kaysing's original moon landing denial theory (as in it's the original theory) leaves the reader hanging. If it was faked, then what happened. The same with the early 9/11 theories: ok fine it was a cruise missile but then what? The official stories explain the event, even the positive theories do so, these 'just asking questions' theories just leave out the second half. As incomplete theories they have the advantage of not pinning down the conspiracy theorist to hard claims which can be debunked but that comes with the price of revealing that the only thing going on here is a burden shifting.
I'll have to think about adding this since it does seem as though the distinction is complete theory v. incomplete theory where the latter may just be a tactic allowing the conspiracy theorist to weasel out of direct challenges.
Comments
Post a Comment