The Argument from History

Conspiracy theory arguments generally fit into about four arch-types. There's the contrary evidence that is used against the official position, the random evidence which doesn't contradict the official position but is stuff left out because it is irrelevant, the argument from special pleading where "facts" are just made up and if true would support the conspiracy, and there's the argument from historical example. 

Conspiracy theories have an uphill battle challenging the accepted view on a purely rational basis. We may not trust everything that the government says, indeed we should not, but the official story is usually evaluated by experts. People that have spent their lives in a specific field that do not have merely their jobs on the line but their life's work. An Egyptologist isn't making a mistake in ignoring the "aliens did it" hypothesis, they've figured out the method by which the pyramids could have been built and then wrote a publication on that which was then read by other experts who look for issues with that publication. No one who investigated the JFK assassination was uninterested in figuring out who did it, the fact that a lone gunman was responsible was surely vexing to the public given the image of the president. In publicizing the explanation via the Warren commission, they are staking their historical connection to such a momentous event on their conclusions. 

Arguing the first three alternate versions of the event opens up the conspiracy theory to scrutiny in hard facts that can be argued against. Yes, the stones used in the Pyramids are too big for us to use even a crane to move, but enough workers, some ramps, and some rollers and you'll get them up there. Umbrella man is certainly strange, but guess what? He was found and he was just a--to put it in modern terms--a troll, a really silly troll.* 

Conspiracy theories do not appeal to the rational parts of our brain, they appeal to us emotionally/psychologically. Our worldwide pandemic has no villain, so we have no emotional outlet. The conspiracy theories offer that outlet. They blame everyone from President Obama to Bill Gates (to count the more popular theories), because that vitriol has to be directed somewhere. None of these conspiracy theories are gaining traction with the general public because the public has at least the basic understanding of how a disease spreads. We don't blame Bill Gates for the seasonal flu for the same reason. The conspiracy theorist has to ground their claims in something real. 

One of their best methods is to force an analogy. Their theory is weird, they admit, but did you know that X happened which is kind of like their theory--so now it doesn't sound so implausible. It's a hook that you can quickly look up, read a wikipedia article about it, and then think, 'hey if this person isn't lying about the first thing who am I to say that they are lying about the second?' 

Any conspiracy theory about the U.S. government, if it's worth even listening to, is going to mention MK Ultra--a series of CIA funded projects that tested mind control, psychological torture, and blackmail through the use of illegal drugs and blackmail. The subjects of the project were unwitting, i.e. they never gave consent and we only know about half of what they did because the CIA attempted to destroy the records (they apparently just forgot about the ones we have). If you didn't know about the MK Ultra programs, and someone was trying to pitch the theory that the CIA killed X (where X is literally anyone), you are supposed to be so flabbergasted about what they actually did that you are willing to believe anything they could have done. 

Similarly, the mention of Operation Paperclip, where the US government's precursor to the CIA secretly smuggled Nazi scientists and officials into the US to help with the Cold War is mentioned to buttress claims about how evil the US is and how they wouldn't balk at working with the worst possible individuals. There isn't a school shooting denier that isn't going to mention Operation Northwoods a proposal that was never put into action in which the US would shoot down one of its own passenger planes and then blame Cuba. Alternative energy claims will cite the destruction of the Los Angeles trolley system as some kind of evil ploy to keep public transportation down (there are other equally bad reasons this happened). Any anti-vaxxer worth their salt will mention the Tuskegee Syphilis Study but will get the facts wrong. A good anti-vaxxer will mention the swine flu debacle of 1976 in which the disease was over hyped as a problem and the vaccine caused some people to get sicker and die (though statistics on this are that a small number of people had adverse reactions to the vaccine). 

The historical precedent argument works because it plays on our general suspicion that the powers that be are up to something and these examples are verifiable evidence for that general claim. Anything that follows isn't going to be questioned since we have been primed by the truth so checking up on the further claim seems unnecessary. This credulity is relied upon by the conspiracy theorist. Further, if we did attempt a fact check on what follows it isn't going to be a simple wikipedia entry, it's going to be five or six diverse places that we need to check. It's a sales pitch whose hook is a true fact, but then it slowly draws you in deeper and deeper to the more fantastic claim that you are less likely to question. 

This is especially true if the first verifiable claim is also fantastic or shocking. Northwoods is an incredible plan that is horrifying with respect that it was actually pitched to the president. Project Stargate, the CIA/DIA/DARPA investigations into psychic warfare is the plot of a movie which is so absurd it strains the rational mind into understanding that while a fictional narrative, the government actually attempted it. 

The dangerous facet of this argument is that it lends to our desire to appear smart. Of course, the first thing happened, I totally knew that...the second thing, yeah, just like the first thing. 

What we have to remember is that just because the CIA funded MK Ultra it is not the same CIA now. I'm not letting the CIA (hello spies) off the hook, I'm just saying that then is not now, and we must consider historical context for each operation. The Cold War was a legitimate concern and the Nazis were really really good at rockets, giving the world the first field test of ballistic missiles, it made sense to snatch those scientists up given that the USSR was doing the same thing. In hind sight, of course it looks unethical and should be considered such.

However, that's a red herring and exactly what the conspiracy theorist wants: getting bogged down in a historical debate when we should be focused on something else--their theory. Whether or not Paperclip was ethically justifiable is irrelevant to the conspiracy theory they are touting. Yes the 1976 Swine flu vaccine was problematic from a public health standpoint (in both promotion and execution), but that lends nothing to the veracity of whether or not Bill Gates created the corona virus. When dealing with these kinds of arguments the best skepticism is to stay focused. 

*He was protesting Joseph Kennedy Sr.'s support for Neville Chamberlain (who always carried an umbrella) appeasement strategy prior to WWII.