conspiracy theories socy223 exam #1 definitions

human brain is designed to:

- keep us alive

- make quick decisions

- feel good about decisions after we make them

what do muller-lyer arrows show

knowing the truth isn't enough to stop the illusion

tools used to be able to separate what's true from what just feels true

- logic and the nature of science

- the sociology and psychology of thinking

- case studies

the logic and nature of science

how to tell a good argument from a bad one. what separates science from pseudoscience

the sociology and psychology of thinking

how out minds trick us and how to spot those tricks

case studies

paranormal claims and conspiracy theories that are fun to dive into but also provide good lessons in critical thinking

choice between seeing the world as it is and feeling bad about it vs distorting view to feel better about themselves

people tend to distort the world

hume's maxim

no testimony is sufficient to accept a miracle unless the testimony being false would be miraculous then the claim it is making

what hume's maxim is simular to

occam's razor

occam's razor

among competing hypotheses, the simplest is usually the most reasonable

hume

a wise person proportions their beliefs according to the evidence avalible

how we evolved

evolved to survive, not to think logically

what extraordinary claim require

extraordinary evidence to support them

evidence for bigfoot

- eyewitness testimony

- pictures and videos

- old legends of bigfoot-like creatures

- oversized footprints

reasons to be skeptical

- pictures and videos are grainy and consistently demonstrated to be fake

- footprints are often found from other animals or faked

- no one has produced any hair or scat that DNA didn't show to be from a known animal

- no living specimens, skeletons, or body parts have been produced

the burden of proof

lies on the person who is making the claim

hanlon's razor

never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity

mark twain

its far easier to fool somebody than to convince them they have been fooled

false flag operation

a harmful act, usually a military or political one, designed to appear to be carried out by someone other than who is actually responsible for it

problematic consequences of false flag conspiracy theories

- they erase accountability

- they exploit victims

- they distract from reality

- they breed cynicism and distrust

- they can incite violence

most likely to believe in conspiracy theories

young people

elements of conspiracy theories

- a claim that has not been proven to be true

- nothing is as it appears

- everything is intentional, nothing happens by accident

- everything is connected

- the world is divided into goof people and evil conspirators

- the theory can't be disproved

conspiracy for 9/11

the attack was secretly planned by members of the US government

conspiracy for the capital attack

the deep state, government officials who are actually running the country, send people to the capital to encourage unrest and rile people up. they are responsible for what happened that day and it's being covered up

conspiracy for sandy hook elementary school shooting

It was orchestrated by the obama administration and that supposed family members were "crisis actors"

operation northwood

false flag plan by the US military to organize terrorist atatcks against US military and civilian targets to blame it on Cuba. (this actually happened)

intentionality bias

our tendency to assume events are planned rather than accidental

how conspirators are seen by conspiracy theorists

- unbelievably competent

- every now and then they mess up a little bit

the real illuminate

- group formed by a bavarian professor that was dedicated to enlightenment ideals

- dissolved after about 9 years

invention of illuminate conspiracy

invented later by people who need a villain to explain social change

founding fathers and the illuminati

- helped justify their actions and beliefs

- as the french revolution became increasingly difficult to defend, the illuminati allowed the founding fathers to justify their earlier support for the revolution

illuminati fading

faded quickly and mostly disappeared by the end of the 1700s, but it was too irresistible to go away entirely

comeback of the illuminati

- 1960s when two hippied wrote a parody text describing a parody religion

- basked on practical jokes and hoaxes

- started sending fake letters to magazines about a secret organization called the illuminati leading to all sorts of parodies

- people did not recognize it was a joke and started believing it

modern illuminati conspiracy

- secret group that manipulates wold events to create a new world order, a one-world government controlled by them

- believers claim that everything -wars, economic crises, elections, celebrity careers- is orchestrated by the group

- any lack of evidence is seen as proof of just how powerful it is

how conspiracy thinking works

- start with a conclusion

- look for evidence that fits

- ignore conflicting evidence

- link anything ambiguous

definition of conspiracies

a belief that powerful groups are secretly coordinating behind the scenes to achieve hidden goals

what conspiracy theories almost always involve

- secrecy

- some sort of malevolent intent

- distrust of official accounts

right wing conspiracies

- often emphasize threats from below or outside (immigrants, minorities, international organizations)

- score higher on sensitivity threats leading them to be more drawn to conspiracies about dangers from outsiders (crime, terrorism)

left wing conspiracy theories

- often emphasize threats from above (corporations, billionaires, government elites)

- often emphasize systemic inequality , so they tend to gravitate towards conspiracies involving exploitation by elites or corporations

people most likely to endorse conspiracy theories

people on the far left or far right

why are people on the far left or far right most likely to endorse conspiracy theories

largely because they distrust mainstream institutions

psychological mechanisms

- human view behavior through moral categories

- moral clarity feels good

- evil motives explain otherwise confusing events

- once evil is assumed, then disbelief is a serious betrayal

- the moral division protects groups identity

- it all creates emotional certainty, which always trumps factual certainty

how japanese internment camps show how conspiracy theories work

US government was convinced japanese americans were plotting against the US from within. when told there was no proof of conspiracy, response was that no proof was proof in itself

paranormal

claims involve phenomena that appear to violate or exceed current scientific understanding, but are not necessarily impossible in principle

pseudoscience

involves claims that present themselves as scientific while systematically violating the norms of scientific reasoning

supernatural

beliefs involve entities or forces that are explicitly described as beyond the natural world, beyond physical law and beyond scientific investigation in principle

what determines a category for a claim (paranormal, pseudoscience, supernatural)

ofter the explanation being offered for the claim rather than the phenomena itself

problems in scientific thinking

- theory influences observations

- the observer changes the observed

- equipment constructs results

example of theory influencing observations

what we expect to observe affects what we do observe

example of the observer changes the observed

the fact of being observed makes people behave differently in sociology experiments

example of equipment constructing results

what is measured by an IQ test is treated as intelligence and anything that isn't measured by the best is not intelligence

problems in pseudoscientific thinking

- anecdotes cannot make up a science (or even reliable evidence)

- scientific language does not make something science

- unorthodox ideas are not more likely to be right

- rumors do not equal reality

- unexplained does not mean unexplainable

- coincidences are seen as deeply significant

difference between scientific and pseudoscientific medicine

- scientific medicine: assumes it can be wrong and is open to assessments of whether it is

- pseudoscience: core ideas tend to be organized in a way that protects them from being disproven

expectations for scientific medicine

- claims about treatments are testable

- evidence can contradict the claims

- when evidence does contradict the claim, the theory behind the treatment is changed and abandoned

red flags to look for when confronting medical claims

- a single mechanism is used to explain so many unrelated things

- the language sounds scientific, but the key terms are vague or hard to define as they are actually used in treatments

- testimonials are treated as especially strong evidence

- negative evidence is reinterpreted instead of being accepted

important takeaway for considering medical claims

whether the explanation for people saying they feel better holds up to systematic testing

homeopathy

treatment of disease with minute doses of a remedy that, if given in massive doses to healthy persons, would produce effects like those of the disease

principles of homeopathy

- like cures like

- less is more

- water remembers the substance that used to be there

perpetual motion machines

machines that can run forever without any energy source

skepticism

application of doubt, critical thinking, and evidence-based reasoning to claims, rather than simply dismissing (or accepting) them out of hand

becoming an everyday skeptic

- ask "how do we know?"

- look for evidence, not just anecdotes

- be comfortable with "i don't know yet"

how to know if something is science or pseudoscience

- empirical evidence

- reproducibility

- falsifiability

- self correction

empirical evidence

claims must be testable against the world

reproducibility

if it only works once, it's suspicious

falsifiability

if a claim is wrong, we much be able to demonstrate that it is

self correction

science admits mistakes and updates

norms of science (robert merton)

- universalism

- communalism

- disinterestedness

- organized skepticism

universalism

what matters isn't who makes a claim but rather the evidence to support it

communalism

science is a collective enterprise with results meant to the shared, not hoarded

disinterestedness

scientists are supposed to pursue knowledge for its own sake

organized skepticism

all claims should be critically questioned and evaluated

cold fusion as a cautionary tale

in 1989, researchers at the university of utah announced in a press conference that they had achieved the holy grain of energy- nuclear fusion at room temperature which would produce limitless , clean, cheap energy

red flags with cold fusion

- the jumped ahead of all the normal processes of sharing scientific findings. they skipped all the normal checks and balances

- the findings were first announced at a press conference. no presentation at a professional conference

- there was no publication in an academic journal, much less anything peer reviewed

- the research was self funded by the scientists