Conspiracy Theories, Skepticism, and Critical Thinking

Let's begin with stating some answers/questions. The first is whether or not there is life in the universe aside from Earth life? We would have to honestly answer: probably. I can recall some finds on meteorites that seemed to have fossilized single cell organisms on them, but I do not remember if those finds were confirmed or validated. However, it seems unlikely given the scope of the Cosmos, with a materialistic outlook, that this planet is the only place with life in or on it. The next question should be obvious: is there intelligent life in the universe other than on this planet. Again, probably. The answer is the same for the same reasoning. Without adopting both a unique and privileged place in the universe it would be impossible to rule out the possibility that there are other intelligent life forms somewhere in the great sky of the universe. The last question: has intelligent life visited this planet? This answer is more distinct: extremely doubtful. There are a number...

Goal post shifting is not a fallacy that is used in arguing for conspiracy theories. Rather it is used in defense of them. Perhaps the biggest problem in dealing with conspiracism is that facts do not matter. The person arguing a conspiracy theory has their little quasi facts, but more importantly they are arguing from a position of belief first evidence later. This is once the conspiracy theory takes hold. I know that I am generalizing the position here but typically a person has a feeling that something isn't right, then they move toward digging around for evidence that they were right, then they begin a series of only looking for the evidence that supports that belief. Make no mistake, conspiracism is every bit a faith based argument as religious belief. Try arguing with the Ken Hams of the world that the story of Noah's ark is literally impossible to have happened (never mind the putting the animals on the boat, think about the plants and oddly, the fish). They won't bu...

We've been on the Ad Hominem for a few posts by now and it will end soon, but first we must consider the use of the Ad Hominem and how can create an effect. The important thing to remember is that a fallacious ad hominem argument doesn't need to be false, the truth value of the attack is irrelevant to the argument. What matters, and this is important, is that relevance. The Birther Argument is the argument that the former president of the United States, was not a naturalized citizen, and thus unfit to serve the office. This presents a good litmus test for Ad Hominem because, like it or hate it, it is relevant. The Constitution is very specific on this point, that only a naturalized (that is to say, a person born within the legal definition of the United States--this includes embassies and military bases) citizen can serve the office. In the 18th century, this was a law that made a great deal of sense. The framers of the Constitution did not want someone with ties to a foreign...

Coincidentally my wife purchased a new cell phone, and while she was busy tooling around with it, I read through the several little booklets that came with it. We can't call them manuals really because they are just warranty information, a picture that tells you where all of the buttons are, tucked into that booklet was the FCC warning regarding electromagnetic radiation (EM hereafter). The warning states that the phone is compliant and safe to use, gives a caution that the phone may get warm if pressed against the face, and that it shouldn't be used constantly against the skin. Interestingly, it leaves out why. The movie, "Thank You For Smoking" (2005), the protagonist ends the film having set a meeting with some cell phone executives and reminding them of the mantra that there is no proven link between cell phones and cancer. This being his long time advice for cigarette companies, who historically have spent billions throwing the science that linked cigarette smo...

In order to further illustrate the difference between the informal fallacy of ad hominem and a proper use of an attack on a person's character we will delve into the meta-conspiracy of the end of civilization. This will not require us to get into anything specific, so pick your poison: Illuminati has destroyed civilization, the satanic/atheist/homosexual agenda has finally won, the Federal Reserve Bank has crashed the dollar for some reason. Which ever version is most appealing to you let's pretend we're already there. A popular mantra for people (like Alex Jones and Glenn Beck) claiming that the end of the world is near unless X is done is that gold is the only currency that will be accepted in the post-Calamity Mad Max world that is to come. You need to buy gold, and their food buckets, or else it's just a Hobbesian state of nature with some cannibalism to throw in there as well. The first question we want to ask is: do they have a point? Well it depends, and pred...

All conspiracy theories operate under a fallacy. They have to otherwise they wouldn't be conspiracy theories and there are hundreds of fallacies that can apply. Everything from bias reporting, cherry picking, argument from ignorance, to newer ones that are just becoming apparent in the age of the internet. It becomes necessary when teaching skepticism to point out the most popular fallacies in reasoning, but then there lies the possibility of taking it too far. The problem with informal fallacies is that they depend on context. This is in contrast to formal fallacies which depend on neither context or words. P & ~P is always false it does not matter what "P" stands for. Our good friend Ockham said that the law of non-contradiction is the only law that binds god. Yet the informal fallacy is so context driven that the point gets missed by even intrepid, intelligent, and good looking informal logic instructors sometimes neglect it. We'll start with Ad Hominem fal...

The first proper conspiracy theory that we deal with is the Flat Earth conspiracy. This conspiracy alleges that the shape of the Earth is really flat, rather than an oblate spheroid that literally everyone is taught. The first point I need to make is that, this is not merely an alternative explanation of the world. This isn't "People's History of the United States" style geography (physics? geology? I'm not even sure what to call it) an entire conspiracy is necessary that convinces everyone put a few intrepid investigators into "knowing" that the earth is, in fact, a globe. Why would anyone believe that the Earth is flat? There are a couple of answers to this. The first is religious literalism. The Judeo-Christian book repeatedly talk about the Earth having four corners. In the Old Testament the Earth is described as being underneath a dome, much like a modern stadium (there's a lot to list but for evidence sake: Psalm 19:1, Isaiah 45:12, Daniel ...