Hacker News Reader

Comment by generalizations | Hacker News Reader

I note this focuses on climate change, and doesn't really stray beyond that. I'd be more interested in something that also addressed conspiracies that turned out to be true, like 'government surveilance' conspiracies from pre-snowden times, and could identify the difference.

It's important to note that often, suspicions of malfeasance by people in authority turn out to be wrong; but sometimes they are not. Claiming that people in power never conspire to do wrong - as this article seems to do - is pretty hard to back up.

View on HN

The opening and closing lines are "real conspiracies do exist". Because of that, I didn't feel like the article claims that "people in power never do wrong".

Theories about conspiracies that turned out to be true are not conspiracy theories. The main characteristic of a conspiracy theory is that it cannot be disproved.

(It is unfortunate that the term "conspiracy theory" adds another meaning to the already confusing word "theory".)

> The main characteristic of a conspiracy theory is that it cannot be disproved.

Then my government surveilance example fits your definition. "If there's no evidence, then it's well hidden."

However, I would also say that in practice your definition leads to fallacy. In general use, what I've noticed is that literal 'theories about a conspiracy' are labeled as "conspiracy theory", and then dismissed because "conspiracy theories can't be disproven and are therefore crazytalk." (I think there's a term for that fallacy, but I can't find it.)

I would change the definition - the main characteristic of a conspiracy theory is that it is believed despite a lack of evidence, or even evidence to the contrary.

Believing Epstein could have been killed, because the circumstances around his death seem extremely suspicious, isn't a conspiracy theory.

Believing that the Clintons sent a hit squad to kill him in order to cover up Pizzagate is a conspiracy theory.

People who believe the former also likely hold some doubt, because the actual evidence leaves room for doubt. It is after all possible that he did kill himself, stranger things have happened.

Whereas, no one who believes the latter will likely be convinced otherwise, because belief is obviously a matter of faith in that case, not reason.

You have a strange definition of conspiracy theory, and your intended use of the phrase is stranger. My criticism of a non-literal use of the word still stands - by your usage, anything that isn't proven yet is labeled conspiracy theory, which is also automatically crazytalk.

Government surveilance, and even COVID-19 (as mentioned elsewhere on the thread) were both by your definition crazyperson conspiracy theories until someone went out and proved it.

To me, it's unintellectual. New theories are dismissed out of hand, since they lack evidence and are considered tantamount to flat-earth theory; any investigation is therefore unwarrented.

Edit: in your example, you're confusing 'belief that something could have happened' with 'belief that something did happen'. Is that all you're trying to say?

>My criticism of a non-literal use of the word still stands - by your usage, anything that isn't proven yet is labeled conspiracy theory, which is also automatically crazytalk.

I never claimed that any unproven theory is automatically crazy talk. I even provided two examples to show the difference between belief in the likelihood of an unproven conspiracy, and conspiracy theory, and nowhere did I use the word "crazy."

>Government surveilance, and even COVID-19 (as mentioned elsewhere on the thread) were both by your definition crazyperson conspiracy theories until someone went out and proved it.

Again, nothing in my definition implied "crazyperson." And none of those were conspiracy theories. People knew about government surveillance, and people knew about COVID. Conspiracy theories by definition don't have proof.

And yes, until they are proven, they are conspiracy theories.

>To me, it's unintellectual. New theories are dismissed out of hand, since they lack evidence and are considered tantamount to flat-earth theory; any investigation is therefore unwarrented.

Let me explain the scientific process for you, basically. You come up with a hypothesis, you test that hypothesis, you judge the likely truth of that hypothesis based on the evidence.

Yes, new theories without evidence are dismissed without of hand. They should be. Nothing about that implies that investigation is unwarranted, rather, it implies that investigation is necessary to provide evidence to validate the claim.

Conspiracy theorists, however, do not attempt to validate their claims, or provide evidence, or consider evidence to the contrary. They simply believe as an article of faith. That is not intellectualism, that is the nonintellectual position. The intellectual position is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And if the best evidence you have for your claims are Youtube videos or Gematria, you deserve to be ridiculed.

>Edit: in your example, you're confusing 'belief that something could have happened' with 'belief that something did happen'. Is that all you're trying to say?

Sorry, you used up your opportunity to be taken on good faith, so good night.

1. But surely they were conspiracy theories until the moment when they became conspiracy proof.

2. Just because something cannot be disproven doesn’t mean it can’t be proven.

3. There are many theories that can be disproven, but haven’t yet been. These are still theories until such a time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com