The basic error of conspiracy theorists - If it doesn't make sense to me, it must be wrong

[Penis Drager 2.0]

Some time ago I watched a video that was rather uninteresting at face value:

Spoiler: Video for context. Not necessary viewing to understand the point

TL;DW: guy compares volume of a sphere to volume of a cube. Sphere is a smaller ratio of the cube's volume than he expected. He concludes the sphere formula must be wrong and proudly posts his findings on Reddit where he gets mocked for being retarded.

I'm not going to bore you with the details of what this guy did. The point is he took a pretty basic geometry formula, compared it to another formula, and came to some surprising and unintuitive results. This is commendable. It is, quite literally, "doing your own research." But what makes all the difference is what you do with these kinds of findings.
The normie/NPC route is to accept what the textbook says at face value. Don't trust you lying eyes, it's in the textbook so it must be true. It's all well and good to have a degree of contempt for these kinds of people. It reflects a lack of curiosity. It's knowing without understanding. It's blind trust in authority.
Even dumber, though, is to outright reject what the textbook says because it "feels wrong." And this is fundamentally what most conspiracy theories seem to come down to. They latch onto a perceived contradiction in the default explanation and, rather than asking sincere questions in hopes of finding a resolution, they thickheadedly use it as a cudgel under false confidence that there is no resolution to be found. Any attempts to explain the contradiction away are disregarded as pilpul.
The guy who I'm using as a vehicle to explain this idea was so confident in his own intuitions that he wouldn't listen to anyone telling him why he's wrong. Those people are being "closed minded" while he's the one thinking critically and "just asking questions." And he made an ass of himself in the process.

Of course, the correct way to go about this sort of thing is to ask the questions. But instead of treating these questions as some sort of "gotcha," be genuinely open minded to the answers given. Sometimes reality doesn't match your intuitions. Your first priority should be to shift your intuitions to match reality.

 

[Dagoth AMOGUS]

Depends if a conspiracy theory help or hurts the proper people. There’s moral arguments and then there are effective arguments.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Of course, the correct way to go about this sort of thing is to ask the questions. But instead of treating these questions as some sort of "gotcha," be genuinely open minded to the answers given. Sometimes reality doesn't match your intuitions. Your first priority should be to shift your intuitions to match reality.

You're framing the situation as a cautionary tale about epistemic arrogance, but your actual target is epistemic independence. Lemme try to explain

The object lesson isn't about a geometry error, but about how you believe people should relate to knowledge they receive. You say that blind deference and blind defiance are two failures and propose a successful third stance, namely skeptical curiosity tempered by institutional humility.
But I believe this is where your frame collapses, because this "balanced" middle ground smuggles in the fatal premise that confidence in one's reasoning is only legitimate when it's filtered through communal correction (this is a form of epistemic dependency: the idea that a belief is only valid when it's socially corroborated)

The thing is that truth does not require an institutional certification. There is no metaphysical pipeline that makes a claim more valid because it passed through a textbook or received peer approval. The individual is the root processor of knowledge and thus the only location where validation can actually occur. Obviously that means that some people will get things wrong, but the enemy here is not error, it's dependence

The difference between a crank and a rational dissenter isn't how much he trusts himself, but rather how well he reasons. And as far as I can see you ignore or collapse that distinction. You're implying that epistemic virtue lies in proper social calibration rather than in logical rigor. That is why your archetype of "the conspiracy theorist" isn't someone who reasons badly, it's someone who trusts their own conclusions too early, or too much, or outside the Overton window
But reasoning doesn't become valid by awaiting permission. Either the argument holds or it doesn't.

So I disagree with the asymmetry you're positing (deference vs. defiance), the actual asymmetry is reasoning vs. obedience. One of these leads to truth and the other leads to consensus. And consensus is not the test of truth

 

[Penis Drager 2.0]

confidence in one's reasoning is only legitimate when it's filtered through communal correction

I don't think this is a correct way to interpret my post. But that's probably me not communicating properly.
While expert consensus is a valid heuristic for accuracy, that validity is very limited.

My point is to recognize that human reasoning is imperfect. If something doesn't make sense to you, your first goal should be to try to make it make sense. Other people have probably asked similar questions and run into similar problems that you have. Some of them might have found the answer that satisfies your barrier to credulity. If your question is truly something profound and unexplored/unanswered, that quality of your question will arise as a byproduct of further research.
The test of truth isn't to seek consensus or validation. It's to actively try to disprove your theory. Failure to do so is a success in your model.

 

[Elf Supremacist]

You're using mathematics to describe something that is often subjective or already in question due to bias. Mathematics is (for the most part) objective and can be proven by nearly anyone. An event that creates conspiracy theories often does so because it has loose ends, lies, odd circumstances, or sinister people in them. The loose ends are subjective, the facts are obfuscated, and the truth is hard to discern because often times, many of the pieces are not given to the masses.
I agree with your point on NPCs needing the textbook and only the textbook, that is a pretty simple, yet very effective picture you've painted.
I also think it is foolish to not at least humor your gut or your "feelings/vibes," you get them for a reason.
OP, I'm curious, what conspiracies make you have some sort of contempt for conspiracy theorists? Flat earth doesn't count.

 

[Meat Target]

Flat earth doesn't count.

I was just thinking earlier today that unironic Flat Earthers were never actually a thing. I think the brief time they had prominent early last decade was just trolls and shitposters, but know-it-all Redditors fell for Poe's Law, and thus set out to mock and ridicule it to prove how smart they were.

 

[Otterly]

Sometimes reality doesn't match your intuitions. Your first priority should be to shift your intuitions to match reality.

Let me just give an example from my own experience of the last decade or so.
Firstly, let me say I really enjoy the conspiracy theory thread because it’s fun, and I enjoy being presented with things I don’t believe or that go against what i was told of assume. It’s fun to see how other perspectives work and test your own ideas. It’s fun to encounter ideas that are whacky or unusual and sometimes even thinking about them even if you think it’s wrong gives you a fresh perspective.
Now MOST of those theories I know shit all about. I can ask people about quantum stuff and astronomy and history but really I dont know enough about any of it to really be ‘quite sure’ about anything. So for all that it’s very much oh, that’s fun, no idea if it’s true or not.
But then Covid happened. Covid is absolutely smack bang in the middle of my actual area of expertise. I fully admit to being a clueless retard over 99.9% of world knowledge but I do know a fair bit about:

-Disease in the context of molecular genetics
- making drugs in the context of molecular genetics
-clinical trial process, design and regulations
-manufacture of drugs, scaling of manufacture etc.

Right. So here’s a happening tailor made for me! And so I watched the news and read the papers and at first I was quite concerned because there’s going to be a nasty strain of something one day and maybe this was it. But then it was obvious it was all lies. I read the papers and went through the following stages

1. Oh that’s a silly way of putting it but OK I suppose it’s a niche area and everyone’s scared and maybe they just need a better writer…
2. No that’s really wrong why are they saying that that can’t be true. They really need some better communication …
3. Fucking hell we are being lied to on an epic scale - deliberately.

What I saw in Covid, and what I KNEW ‘could’ be true (ie the range of what could be really and scientifically grounded ) was so far off what we were told that I haven’t really recovered from it. The scale of the lies and the deception. The damage done to society by lockdowns - economic, psychological and health and freedom.
And now, with that in mind, I am not at all keen to dismiss conspiracy. I do think birds are real, but some of the rest of it I suspect there’s a kernel of truth there.
I agree that Assumptions that your world view is completely correct are dangerous, and when they’re shaken, as mine were during Covid, it leaves you questioning a lot.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

I don't think this is a correct way to interpret my post. But that's probably me not communicating properly.

Appreciate the clarification

My point is to recognize that human reasoning is imperfect.

I agree that human reasoning is fallible and that testing one's ideas is essential. But you still embed a form of epistemic outsourcing that I need to scrutinize

If something doesn't make sense to you, your first goal should be to try to make it make sense. Other people have probably asked similar questions and run into similar problems that you have. Some of them might have found the answer that satisfies your barrier to credulity.

This is true in a trivial sense, seeking answers is a part of inquiry. But the relevant test isn't whether others have addressed it, it's whether their explanations hold up under scrutiny. And that distinction is crucial
Pointing to a prior resolution is not in itself resolution. The fact that a belief is widely held or thoroughly debated doesn't give it epistemic weight unless the arguments stand on their own. So while it's pragmatic to ask whether others have answered a question, the standard is and remains internal: Does the explanation actually resolve the conflict by the standards of sound reasoning?

The test of truth isn't to seek consensus or validation. It's to actively try to disprove your theory. Failure to do so is a success in your model.

Here you're invoking falsifiability, the notion that the test of truth is to attempt disproof. But that principle presupposes that you have the capacity to evaluate disproof attempts. And that capacity cannot be validated externally; the capacity to evaluate something is not transferable. At some point, the individual must judge whether an argument is sound. Which means that epistemic autonomy is not optional
So the issue isn't whether others can help (they often can). The issue is whether truth becomes more valid by passing through consensus or institutional approval. And the answer is clear: It doesn't.
And if the only reason a person abandons a belief is because it failed to gain corroboration from others, then that's not an examined belief, it's a surrendered one.

 

[Penis Drager 2.0]

Mathematics is (for the most part) objective and can be proven by nearly anyone

Right. And this is why it's a good vehicle here. You can see in this guy the exact same pattern of reasoning employed by many conspiracy theorists in a situation were he is provably wrong. Most conspiracy theories, in contrast, have a degree of pseudo-legitimacy in that you can't rigorously disprove many of them in the same way you can with a math question. But the same fundamental error rears its head regardless.

what conspiracies make you have some sort of contempt for conspiracy theorists?

A few that come to mind:
Chemtrails:
"I don't understand why regular contrails can stick around for a long time. I know cloud seeding is a thing. These long-lasting contrails seem to show up before overcast rolls in. So weird looking contrails must actually be some sort of harmful chemical cocktail."
9/11:
"I don't understand how paper can survive a plane crash. I don't understand how a building can fall adjacent to a neighboring collapse despite not taking a direct hit. I do understand the motivation for a false flag though so it must be a false flag."
Suppressed medicine:
"I don't understand just how complicated it is to truly 'cure' someone of a chronic illness. I do understand financial motivation to keep people dependent on drugs. Some compounds claiming to be cancer cures get described as physically harmful/toxic. So there must be an active suppression campaign."

Now there's nothing inherently wrong with asking these questions. And it's perfectly fine to be unconvinced by the answers you receive. I'm not even necessarily saying every one of these conspiracies is wrong or stupid. But more often than not, the kinds of people who buy into them wholesale don't even bother giving the explanations a listen. It becomes a point of pride that they're clued in on something "the masses" are too ignorant to understand and so they, themselves, refuse to entertain the possibility that the might be wrong.

 

[We Are The Witches]

Ok, so basically "appeal to authority" is retarded, but "appeal to emotions" is also retarded.

Noted, we already knew that.

 

[Elf Supremacist]

I was just thinking earlier today that unironic Flat Earthers were never actually a thing

No, they're real. I work with a gentleman that is dead serious about it and is one of the conspiracy theorists that spews every nonsensical thing he sees on Tiktok. Kind of a personal lolcow

Chemtrails:

Understandable. I'm glad you don't lump them into cloud seeding. I think chemtrails may be a psyop to fool the normies into thinking cloud seeding is dumb/fake.

9/11:

I don't think the "textbook story" of 9/11 is the truth. Building 7 and the lack of footage/plane wreckage at the Pentagon is my "evidence" but I won't fight you on it. I don't remember 9/11 so I don't have the emotional connection older folks do.

Suppressed medicine:

Don't know enough about this one, but I understand the conspiracy theorist's point on curing someone being a lost investment.

You can see in this guy the exact same pattern of reasoning employed by many conspiracy theorists in a situation were he is provably wrong.

See, I think you might be using it as a blanket statement for all conspiracies when that is simply not viable. Flat Earth, space/moonlanding, lizard people, etc. is foolish but there are other theories that can't be proven either way without being in the know.

 

[byron]

Flat Earthers were never actually a thing

There are definitely a thing. In my experience, they are mostly conservative christians who believe that the bible says the earth is flat.

One interesting parallel that I've found between debating conspiracy theorists, and debating leftists, is that both groups don't like to answer questions. I've talked to flat earthers and asked them if the moon is flat, or if it's a sphere, and they'll say things like "that's irrelevant - what does that have to do with anything" instead of just giving a simple answer.

It's possible that leftists encounter the same thing with rightoids, and it's possible that conspiracy theorists encounter the same thing with non-theorists. I wouldn't know. I just know they don't encounter that with me, but I do with them.

 

[Penis Drager 2.0]

epistemic autonomy is not optional
So the issue isn't whether others can help (they often can). The issue is whether truth becomes more valid by passing through consensus or institutional approval. And the answer is clear: It doesn't.
And if the only reason a person abandons a belief is because it failed to gain corroboration from others, then that's not an examined belief, it's a surrendered one.

Yeah, I agree with you here. My point is in the sincerity in asking the question regardless of whether the question is asked internally or passed through a consensus filter.
I am talking in terms of heuristics here though, because abandoning all heuristic leads to useless solipsism debates.

As a heuristic, you default to the default until the default no longer works. Much like how it's a default notion that reality exists beyond your own mind, you can't prove it. This is why I emphasized the barrier to credulity. What does it take for you to believe something? Because certain assumptions have to be made regardless.

there are other theories that can't be proven either way without being in the know.

Right. And I said it's not inherently wrong to entertain many of these ideas. It's the steadfast certainty and a priori disregard towards conflicting information that I take issue with. You'll find that many of your 9/11 questions are answered with a simple google search, for example. Maybe the answer you'll find isn't airtight. But harping on WTC-7 as if it's something that simply hasn't been accounted for in the official narrative is just a proclamation of ignorance rather than evidence of conspiracy.
[edit: I'm not shitting on you with this statement. I'm willing to assume you have looked into the official narrative and were unconvinced for perfectly valid reasons. But you know exactly the kind of retard I'm talking about.]

Ok, so basically "appeal to authority" is retarded, but "appeal to emotions" is also retarded.

Noted, we already knew that.

Nowhere did I mention appeal to emotion.

 

[We Are The Witches]

Nowhere did I mention appeal to emotion.

The term was supposed to be flexible. I am not necessarily referring to the fallacy where you appeal to the audience's gullible mind and feelings in order to win an argument, or to get an advantage.

I am referring to the appeal of this person's own desires (and feelings, misguided intuition, rooted in biased thoughts) in lieu of logical reasoning.