9 March 2007

A Theory of "Conspiracy Theories"

I don't believe in any of the popular "conspiracy theories".

I don't believe in 9-11 "conspiracy theories".

But the point must be made that the US government has lied before about major events and this doesn't help their cause when they make pronouncements about anything. The US government has also faked incidents and possibly allowed attacks on the US to happen in order to justify its actions. This was also practised by the Nazis.
(A couple of examples are the blowing up of the Maine in 1898 and the Gulf of Tonkin incident of 1964).

In the case of the assassination of JFK, the most famous of the so-called "conspiracy theories"; the mother of all conspiracy theories; I don't really think that those who believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the assassin or not the only assassin are "conspiracy theorists", they are basically people with their rational faculties intact.

The case for something other than Oswald being the sole assassin does not qualify for the term "conspiracy theory". It qualifies for the term "case proven beyond reasonable doubt."
The first and principal reason for this is that Kennedy was obviously shot at by someone firing from the notorious "grassy knoll". There is abundant and clear evidence for this.

That's the reality that emerges after an examination of the basic facts.

It is a testament to the power of whitewash, propaganda, lies, media distortion and manipulation, doublethink, and defamation that people can think otherwise.
The Warren Commission is definitely a near farcical farrago of bullshit. As was admitted as early as 1967 by law officers.
In the case of the blatant framing of Oswald, it may have been a question to a point of "you will believe what you are told to believe, or else."

--------------------------
Generally speaking, making progress in such matters is a perhaps question of getting people to do at least two things:
1) Thinking independently, thinking for yourself, doing your own thinking and
2) Only believing things for which there is evidence.
=============


David Aaronovitch wrote a book about "Conspiracy Theories". 
He makes great play of "Occam's razor".
But he mischaracterises "Occam's Razor", depriving us of a full appreciation of a philosophical theory named after an English genius.
"Occam's Razor" is not simply - or possibly not at all - the following:
"The simplest explanation is always the best."
If it were simply this, it would obviously be false.
The simplest explanation is not always the best.
The (most) correct explanation is always the best.
"Occam's Razor" - as characterized by Aaronovitch - is not really relevant to conspiracy theories.
......
"Occam's Razor" is, to a point, the view that "the simpler explanation is better (not the best)".
Still, even were it simply this, it is part of medieval scholastic philosophy which, in many ways, is outdated and superseded.
----
Today we can see how downright fraudulent some of scholastic philosophy is.
It was often a philosophy in service to a religion.
----
[
Einstein said something like "make things as simple as possible, but no simpler."
]
......
------------------------------------------------------------
A theory is a theory, not always a "conspiracy theory".
In the case of some, it seems that a "conspiracy theory" is a theory that the speaker doesn't agree with.
--------------------------------------------------------------
At the end of the day everyone has a little light of reason in them, and a theory will be rejected
if it's not true.
......