by Home home
broadcaster and Times columnist David Aaranovitch wrote:
“......belief in the conspiracy makes you part of
a genuinely heroic elite group who can see
past the official version duplicated for the
benefit of the lazy or inert mass of people by
the powers that be. There will usually be an
emphasis on the special quality of thought
required to appreciate the existence of the
conspiracy. The conspiracists have cracked
the code, not least because of their possession
of an unusual and perceptive way of looking
at things. Those who cannot or will not see the
truth are variously described as robots or,
latterly, as sheeple — citizens who shuffle
half-awake through their conventional lives.”
Is Aaranovitch right? Are the conspiracists driven by a sense
of intellectual superiority? Does this explain their rejection of
our concept of reality?
In the course of researching this book, I have met with many
conspiracy theorists. There is no single personality 'type' that
I could identify. These people seem to encompass all ages,
ethnicities, sexual orientations, disabilities and genders.
20
A Dangerous Ideology
They appear to represent a wide cross section of the political,
social, economic and academic spectrum.
Some presented as arrogant, but no more so than you might
expect from any other social group. Many vehemently reject
the term 'conspiracy theorist.' Claiming it is used purely to
marginalise them and silence any debate of the ideas they
expound. Others seem less concerned.
I fully concede my opinion here isn't based upon anything
like a controlled scientific study. It is simply a result of my
wholly unscientific experience. However, I could not identify
the unified sense of superiority that Aaranovitch suggests.
Academia has also had a stab at figuring out why people
believe conspiracy theories. Jan-Willem van Prooijen,
associate professor in social and organizational psychology
at VU University Amsterdam, published his finding following
a 6yr study into the subject. Prooijen claimed to identify two
primary motivators that drive their beliefs. 'Fear and
uncertainty' and 'a sense of control.'
He noted that conspiracy theories tend to proliferate during
times of 'uncertainty and fear.' He cited examples of terrorist
attacks, financial crisis, natural disasters and so on.
Prooijen considered the fear and sense of helplessness,
engendered by such events, makes people more likely to seek
any explanation to account for their feelings. He wrote:
“The sense-making leads them to connect dots
that aren’t necessarily connected in reality,”
Whilst that may be the case, it doesn't really explain why
many of these beliefs both precede and persist beyond the
aftermath of traumatic world events. One might also
consider, for many conspiracy theorists, traumatic world
events are the core foundation of their beliefs. So it is
perhaps not surprising their voices are heard more loudly
when they occur.
Again Prooijen, like Aaranovitch, identifies a degree of
possible arrogance as a potential contributory factor. His
team split a sample group into two, giving one half an
exercise to undermine self-confidence, the other a confidence
21
A Dangerous Ideology
building task. They then asked both groups to consider a
particular Dutch conspiracy theory about the possible
deliberate destruction of people’s homes for corporate profit.
Their evidence showed the more confident group were more
likely to believe theory.
Conspiracy theorists say that science is no less corruptible
than any other human endeavour. Indeed, one of their oft
stated gripes about the rest of us is that, as a society, we
either cherry pick evidence to support our existing beliefs,
completely disregard it, or refuse to look at evidence we don't
agree with. This is almost exactly the same accusation the
rest of us level against them. We can't both be right. Can we?
So we are going to explore the basis for their 'wacky' theories
in relation to the 9/11 and 7/7 terrorist attacks. If
examining the proof they claim to back up their position
confirms our suspicions that they are deluded, at least it will
enable us to better refute their arguments. If we can't even
be bothered to consider their evidence, we don't really have a
leg to stand on.
Before we do, I just want to clarify some common ground
that I share with many of the conspiracy theorists I spoke
with.
Firstly the scientific method, the basis for empirical science,
is not disputed. I agree that an observation can prompt a
question. This question can be researched and a hypothesis,
tentatively accounting for the observation, can be made.
Ideally this hypothesis will then be tested through
experimentation to see if it is valid. If any evidence emerges
that disproves the hypothesis then, logically, the hypothesis
cannot be considered to be substantive, because there is
evidence it isn't. If it is not possible to disprove the
hypothesis, then it may well be considered a theory.
Before any idea can be accepted as a theory it must pass
rigorous checks. If the experiments are repeatable, if the
evidence is corroborated, no matter who undertakes the
study or conducts the experiment, regardless of where and
when; if the results or findings consistently support the
proposition then, in the absence of any contradictory
evidence, we may accept the hypothesis has become a
22
A Dangerous Ideology
theory. Simply put, a theory only exists if the evidence
supports it. If it doesn't, it remains little more than an
unsubstantiated belief.
The process of checking the evidence that supports or
undermines a hypothesis, the cross-referencing of data and
analysis of experimentation by suitably qualified people, is
vital. This is ostensibly the 'peer review process.'
I agree that a published paper, having undergone the peer
review process, carries more weight than one that hasn't.
However, refusals to publish papers for peer review should
also be noted. If there is resistance to test, or even consider
evidence, we must ask why. If the hypothesis is simply
dismissed without any attempt to logically disprove it or
scrutinise the evidence offered, then it stands unchallenged.
It isn't proven but nor is it invalidated. I accept that
exclusion from the peer review process indicates nothing
other than an illogical veto on further inquiry.
If experimentation isn't feasible, such as in the case of most
historical analysis, it is still possible to move a hypothesis to
a theory through the systematic cross-referencing of
evidence, the use of verifiable sources and the peer review
process.
Primary ev
idence comes in two forms. Firstly we have
'material evidence' such as physical remains, soil samples,
objects etc. Then there's 'written evidence' such as first-hand
witness statements, contemporaneous documents, official
reports and so forth. When we are considering relatively
recent events, unedited footage showing what happened
could be considered 'material evidence,' whilst a filmed
interview with a survivor could be seen as 'written evidence.'
Secondary evidence is corroboration of the existence of
primary evidence. For example, a peer reviewed paper on the
use of biological weapons during the Vietnam War is strong
secondary evidence of biological warfare. An article in the
Washington Post, on the same subject, is less convincing. It
may be considered secondary evidence but its objectivity is
more questionable.
When assessing the value of any evidence it is important to
23
A Dangerous Ideology
consider the possible agenda of the individual or group who
may have produced it. Especially when considering if a
source is 'reliable.' A peer reviewed scientific paper into the
effects of smoking could be considered evidence from a
reliable source. However, if you subsequently discover the
research team behind it were funded by a tobacco company,
its credibility becomes doubtful. Establishing independence
is important.
Conspiracy types frequently offer theories about world events
which they ask the rest of us to believe. When we don't,
because it makes no sense, they often accuse us of ignoring
the facts.
The definition of a fact is:
“A thing that is known or proved to be true.”
So before we accept their 'facts,' we need to see some 'proof.'
If that proof meets the evidential standards we've discussed,
we can accept it as a 'fact.'
This does not mean that facts remain unchallenged. As new
evidence emerges, the evidential basis changes. So facts are
not considered immutable. They are logical conclusions
drawn from current evidence.
While that evidence endures, so do the facts. Facts can only
change when hitherto unknown evidence disproves them.
Without supporting proof, there can be no subsequent fact.
***********************
24
A Dangerous Ideology
Chapter 2
Who Are The Conspiracy Theorists?
Working diligently in his office, in the late 1980s,
Tim Berners Lee was trying to solve a puzzle. He had all the
pieces. The transmission control protocol and domain name
system for identifying computer networks (TCP/IP); the
'Internet' of connected computer networks like the NPL
network, ARPANET and CYCLADES and hypertext, such as
Aspen Movie Map. He even had his own hypertext system
called ENQUIRE, which he’d developed earlier in his career.
His problem was, as a contractor for CERN (the 'Conseil
Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire' or 'European
Organization for Nuclear Research'), he needed to be able to
openly share his own and his colleagues work with other
researchers, across the globe, quickly and effectively.
What Berners Lee did next literally changed the world,
though he didn't know it at the time. He brought all the
strands together, produced his hypertext markup language
(HTML,) and proposed a browser based, interconnected,
computer communication system. Today we call this the
'World Wide Web' and the Internet wouldn't exist without it.
25
A Dangerous Ideology
Lee's brilliance shouldn't be underestimated but, essentially,
he 'joined the dots' and came up with a single, cohesive
answer to a question.
Without the Internet, as we know it today, it is unlikely that
conspiracy theories would have risen to their current
prominence. Of all the amazing advances brought about by
our ability to communicate and share information
instantaneously across the planet, increased awareness of
'conspiracy theories' isn't generally considered one of them.
Most of us think it unlikely that a bunch of sci-fi addicted,
pot smoking, heavy breathers, randomly mixing Vedic
mythology with amateurish political analysis and a
persecution complex, will produce a meaningful paradigm.
This is not a description, I hasten to add, the conspiracists
accept, as they eagerly await the forthcoming 'paradigm
shift.'
So is this image of the troglodyte geek, sitting in the red eyed
glow of their computer screen, making up connections and
evidence to suit their own predetermined world view,
accurate? For us to make such claims we have to
demonstrate good reason.
If we rely upon assumption and poorly evidenced opinion for
our own rebuttal of conspiracy theorists ideas, they would be
justified in claiming that it is us, not them, who have fallen
into the trap of intellectual laziness. If we value objectivity,
we need to look beyond the stereotypes and take a hard look
at the reality.
Writing in the UK broadsheet newspaper The Guardian,
political theorist and historian Dr Hugo Drochon[1] has
offered his opinion on the matter[2]. He states:
'You can find conspiracy theorists across all
walks of life – and yet certain stereotypes
remain, and refuse to be disproved: white
middle-aged men who have lower
educational qualifications and are
unemployed are still most likely to be
conspiracy theorists.'
26
A Dangerous Ideology
What is the data analysis Dr Drochon uses to support his
conclusion about whom the conspiracy theorists are? He
doesn't reveal this in the article, so we can only look at the
demographic studies that do attempt to define the
conspiracy theorist diaspora.
Political scientists Joseph Uscinski and Joseph Parent wrote
a book on the subject.[3] Rather than simply ask people if
they thought the Earth was flat, or if 9/11 was a Jewish plot
to enslave humanity, Uscinski and Parent conducted a large
scale survey seeking to identify 'conspiratorial thinking.'
They set a series of statements that required respondents to
indicate their level of agreement or disagreement. These
included, for example, “Much of our lives are being controlled
by plots hatched in secret places,” and “The people who really
'run' the country are not known to the voters.” The pair then
analysed their results to identify those most likely to be
conspiracy believers and to gain a measurable insight into
who these people were.
Women were just as likely to be conspiracy theorists as men.
Black and Hispanic people represented the ethnic groups
most likely to believe the theories. Conspiracy theorists, in
keeping with the general population, came predominantly
from outside of academia but a notable 23% were University
educated.
What surprised Usc
inski and Parent the most was that
conspiracists couldn't easily be categorized by ideology.
Liberal and conservative, socialist and capitalist, Democrat
and Republican were all equally likely to be conspiracy
believers. They did find 'independents' had an increased
propensity to believe but, whilst statistically notable (and
perhaps not entirely unexpected,) it didn't amount to a clear
ideological predisposition.
However, they did find a statistical link to age. Those borne
in the late '60s to early '80s (Generation X) were statistically
the most likely to be 'truthers.' When the scientists tried to
account for this they recognised that this was the generation
who had developed their political sensibilities during a
period characterised by conspiracies that were subsequently
proven to be true.
27
A Dangerous Ideology
“Every age sees scandals, but Gen X’ers
grew up in a somewhat anomalous age of
less innocence: in the wake of shocking
assassinations, galling FBI and CIA
revelations, Vietnam, Watergate, and Iran-
Contra,”
So Dr Drochon's opinion offers an interesting hypothesis,
but lacks supporting evidence. It appears to be little more
than his own unsubstantiated personal view. This doesn't
mean he's 'certainly' wrong, only that the evidence suggests
he may be. If we are going to rise above the speculative drivel
offered by our 'loony conspiracy theorists' friends, then we
should avoid jumping to evidentially flawed conclusions
ourselves.
For example, some studies have been undertaken to try to
figure out how many conspiracy theorists there are. The two
most notable were both conducted by the market research
company YouGov, in collaboration with the University of
Cambridge Conspiracy and Democracy project.[4] Their
findings were quite revealing.
They claimed that 19% of Americans believe that 9/11 was
an inside job, 11% of Brits thought the same and 18% of
British people believed that man-made climate change was a
lie, compared to 13% in the US. They also found that at least
50% of people (in both the U.S. and the UK) accepted one or
more of the many conspiracy theories they defined. These
included those who thought alien spaceships crashed at
Roswell or the moon landings were faked; the people who
thought JFK was assassinated by the government and others
