No Sacred Cows

by David G. McAfee

  If corruption exists, I want it uncovered; I just don’t want false allegations born of ignorance to get in the way of real investigations. Even though there are a huge number of false claims hurled daily, I do believe in justice, and I think that any politicians guilty of conspiracy should be held liable for their actions. That’s why I encourage those who believe a particular conspiracy theory to do everything possible to prove it and make sure the responsible parties face consequences. If you really believe an alternative narrative to be true, you should work as hard as you can to establish the facts and expose that truth. Once you’ve gathered enough data and you think you have the evidence required to prove, for example, that the George W. Bush administration planned the attacks of 9/11, that vaccines cause autism, or that chem-trails exist, then you should hire a lawyer and take your case to an international court. You should show the judge(s) all of your scientifically valid evidence and expose the government for what it is. Even without the legal system, however, you can use your evidence to get independent journalists to join your cause and help you show the citizens of your country that their government perpetuated what could potentially be one of the largest conspiracies of all time. If the evidence is truly compelling, any responsible person who discovers it would do everything in his or her power to prove it to the world.

  Unfortunately, most believers don’t take me up on my conspiracy theory challenge. Instead, acting out of a deep mistrust for government, alternative theorists are more likely to simply perpetuate misleading and debunked YouTube videos and documentaries produced by other conspiracy-minded “experts” with whom they agree. Many theorists will even insist that it’s impossible to bring a country like the United States to justice for any alleged misdeeds, ignoring the numerous times in which international courts have ruled against America and other nations. If the corruption is indeed that deep, however, so much so that courts completely independent of the United States are a part of the conspiracy, that’s even more of a reason to show American citizens what their government officials are up to. A few good journalists could make their careers if they could prove even one of the many far-reaching conspiracies already believed in by many, even if the scientific facts and disclosures are only accepted by the so-called court of public opinion.

  When asked to provide empirical evidence required to prove their claims beyond a reasonable doubt, those who perpetuate false conspiracy claims often resort to the assertion that the ultra-competent politicians responsible have simply eliminated all evidence. But no evidence does not equal evidence, and it never will. You can’t claim that gods, aliens, or the government hid every piece of proof supporting your claims. When you do, it always sounds the same:

  “GOD IS SO GREAT THAT HE HID ALL THE EVIDENCE FOR HIS EXISTENCE. HE WANTED US TO HAVE FAITH!”

  “OUR ANCIENT ALIEN OVERLORDS WOULD BE TOO SMART AND ADVANCED TO HAVE LEFT EVIDENCE OF THEIR TIME ON EARTH!”

  “THE GOVERNMENT IS SO POWERFUL AND CORRUPT THAT IT HID ALL THE EVIDENCE FOR MY FAR-FETCHED AND UNSUBSTANTIATED CONSPIRACY CLAIM!”

  No matter the topic of discussion, “someone stole the evidence” cannot be used as evidence of anything in and of itself. You shouldn’t base your beliefs on speculation, or information that may be uncovered in the future, or documents you think have been hidden, because there are just too many assumptions involved. And if you have to start with assumptions and not facts to form your arguments, that is the first clue that you might be emotionally involved and need to take a step back and reevaluate. As Isaac Asimov said, “Your assumptions are your windows on the world. Scrub them off every once in a while, or the light won’t come in.”

  GOVERNMENT AS A GOD

  The pro–conspiracy theory arguments are often focused on the notion that the conspirators are capable of covering up anything—including all documents and possible loose ends regarding the government-sanctioned murder of thousands of citizens. In this way, false conspiracy theories are similar to religious beliefs. Those who put forth these unproven alternative series of events have an enormous amount of faith in the government’s ability to plan, execute, and cover up enormous terrorist acts across the globe (yet they underestimate incredibly motivated religious fanatics with time to plot). To me, this shows how people crave conspiracies for the same reason they crave gods. They want a higher power to be responsible; they want to live in a world in which someone is there, pulling the strings.21 To some, the only thing scarier than a world run by the Illuminati or a god is the reality: a world run by no one in particular.

  Where believers see a secret and powerful force capable of anything, I see flawed individuals. I see how our governmental bodies behave and what they’re capable of. I see that our representatives lie, cheat, and steal, just like anyone else, and that they’re often caught for doing just that. What I don’t see is evidence to support the conclusion that nearly every single politician is somehow part of (or capable of being part of) enormous cover-ups that would span across the globe and political party divides, and throughout successive administrations. Most alternative theorists themselves would likely claim to have little confidence in elected officials’ abilities to govern, or even pass simple legislation, but they somehow find it easier to believe they’re capable of masterminding and executing massive, conspiratorial plots to the detriment of all citizens. Their belief in the government as an all-powerful deity is just too strong to be upset by mere facts and voting records.

  In the same way a religious fundamentalist might call scientific discoveries that challenge his or her beliefs the work of the devil, dogmatic alternative theorists often discount all opposition as part of the grand conspiracy itself. This black and white mentality is clearly flawed because it’s not fair or logical to assume that anyone who disagrees on specific, farfetched, and unproven claims is necessarily a part of the cover-up, or that they are embracing government authority for some monetary benefit. Yet, as someone who speaks out against unsubstantiated claims of all sorts, I’ve been accused of being a part of more conspiracies than I can count. David Aaronovitch, a British journalist and author of Voodoo Histories: The Role of Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History, describes the hypocrisy of this mindset in general.

  “It goes without saying, doesn’t it, that any of us who argue against the conspiracy theories are part of the conspiracy?” he said. “It’s interesting that, for conspiracy theorists, it’s quite often the case that they cannot accept the sincerity of others. Their own sincerity is not in doubt; the sincerity of others is a huge problem.”

  For the record, I’m not a member of the Illuminati, I’m not in the pocket of Big Pharma, and I haven’t been paid off by the government. I just haven’t seen empirical evidence to back up many ultra-complex conspiracy claims I encounter in daily life. If anything, I’m a shill for “Big Evidence.” That’s my only real agenda.

  THE ILLUMINATI

  There is no more god-like force in alternative theory lore than The Illuminati, a mysterious and powerful cabal that is thought by many to control the world. Studying the history of the defunct secret society, while perhaps not as impressive as the myth that is alive today, shows us a much more realistic story. The Bavarian Illuminati, which was founded by a German law professor,22 was only around for about 10 years.23 The group wanted to emphasize the importance of secularism and reason and, when its members came to power, influence public policy to reflect their values. The Illuminati in Bavaria didn’t fully realize its goals, and was outlawed and ultimately disbanded, but its legend lives on today.

  In modern times, the Illuminati refers to an unknown and essentially all-powerful group that counts nearly every major world leader among its ranks. Believers say the Illuminati quietly controls everything, from elections to the music industry, and that its members, allegedly including everyone from world leaders like President Barack Obama to singers such as Jay Z and Madonna, often feature the group’s symbolism—the most well-known of which is the triangle—in their works. Des
pite the vast network of conspirators supposedly present within today’s Illuminati, there isn’t a single piece of evidence for its existence at all. There are zero leaks, recordings, or slipups demonstrating that the group is still active, and believers can only point to its powerful members as the reason for that. They are so incredibly competent, according to theorists, that they can entirely conceal their high-profile operations without any information on them being revealed.

  Believers in the Illuminati often point to music videos and award ceremonies in which popular artists seem to be outwardly expressing Illuminati triangles, saying these clips prove there is an imminent New World Order attack coming from the global elite class, but these alternative theorists are only victims of their own mind. More often than not, singers, actors, and politicians aren’t surrounding themselves with Illuminati images. Instead, the theorists’ pattern-seeking brains pick them out due to their own perception biases. This is the same process behind why you might notice more white cars after buying one for yourself, as well as the reason why some people claim to see the number 23 as a constant in every facet of their lives. The fact is that, like the number 23 and white cars, you can’t avoid being near triangles sometimes—it’s one of the most fundamental geometric shapes. Furthermore, I’ve always wondered why a group as powerful as this legendary Illuminati would be so focused on these subtle advertising efforts. Dave Sirus, a writer for Saturday Night Live, points out the ridiculous nature of the Illuminati triangle belief in popular culture.

  “The Illuminati is the belief that the most powerful people on Earth are in a conspiracy to leave giant clues that they’re part of a conspiracy,” Sirus tweeted.24

  NUMEROLOGY AND SYNCHRONICITY

  The effect responsible for the perceived repetition of triangles by some Illuminati believers is probably not too far off from something you experience in your daily life. Do you feel like you look at the clock more often when it’s on a certain number, like 11:11? Many people do. There are a lot of supernatural theories for why people are drawn to these numbers, especially when it comes to 11. Some people say seeing the number will grant you one wish, while others believe it’s an angel trying to communicate with you. People who believe in numerology might even think seeing 11 somewhere is especially important, considering it is the first of the so-called Master numbers.25 We have plenty of paranormal explanations, but what does science say? Why are people drawn to clocks at 11:11? The answer is simple: they aren’t. It only seems that way because the number has been given significance in some cultures. In other words, if 11:11 means something to you, you will notice it more. You might look at the clock 30 times in a four-hour period and not even realize you looked at all, but the one time you glance up and it reads “11:11,” you register the significance and it sticks out in your mind. This is part of the pattern-recognition skill set for which humans are known, and the phenomenon, despite being linked by many people to numerology and other allegedly supernatural notions or forces, is well known and well studied. The interesting thing is that, for some people, “12:34” is the number they think they see most often. Similarly, someone who was born on December 19 might be “drawn to” clocks when they read 12:19. It’s all a matter of perception.

  Noticing recurring patterns is common with humans, and it’s part of what has made us a successful species, but sometimes we are so good at it that we notice patterns that aren’t actually there. This is the case when someone believes the number 11 appears to them more frequently and in a meaningful way, but there are many other examples. The 23 enigma, for instance, describes the belief that most major tragedies and developments in the world are connected to the number 23. The number itself is said to mean any number of things depending on the believer, from good luck to bad luck and everywhere in between, but this act of noticing it over and over again is just another form of selection bias. Author Robert Anton Wilson, who is often credited with popularizing the so-called enigma, has admitted that people can see the clustering illusion effect with anything—not just the number 23. He also said most conspiracy theorists suffer from “varying degrees of paranoia.”

  “When you start looking for something you tend to find it. This wouldn’t be like Simon Newcomb, the great astronomer, who wrote a mathematical proof that heavier than air flight was impossible and published it a day before the Wright brothers took off,” Wilson said.26 “I’m talking about people who found a pattern in nature and wrote several scientific articles and got it accepted by a large part of the scientific community before it was generally agreed that there was no such pattern, it was all just selective perception.”

  Coincidences happen all the time, but many people feel the need to attribute those random chance events to something greater or more meaningful. This happens with numbers like 11 and 23, but these only represent a small subset of potential examples. How many times have you been humming along with an earworm, a song or tune stuck in your head, only to have it play on the radio minutes later? Have you ever been talking about your sister just as she called? These events don’t mean you are a psychic and, in fact, they don’t mean much of anything at all. Statistically, it is likely that, at some point, you would receive a call from your sister while discussing her. Think of all the times you mentioned her name and the phone didn’t ring, and think of every song you’ve had repeating in your head that didn’t suddenly start playing. You tend to disregard those misses, while remembering and categorizing the inherently more interesting and unexpected (and therefore notable) hits. This phenomenon of noticing unrelated coincidences and attributing meaning to them is called synchronicity, and it was first coined by Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung. Jung, who used the concept to promote paranormal ideas,27 may have introduced the notion of inherently meaningful acausal connections, but many others have championed it, as well. As Jonathan C. Smith pointed out, “Popular paranormalists have made much of coincidences.”

  “A present-future coincidence might be seen as a prophecy, an event that correctly follows an omen or prediction. A present-present coincidence might suggest a set of events that are remarkably linked by some paranormal process outside of the world of causality,” he wrote. “The best way to explore what is going on is to contemplate a variety of remarkable coincidences.”

  SKEPTICISM VS. DENIALISM

  Many alternative theorists claim they are “just asking questions” about the government’s stories surrounding particular events, ever remaining doubtful of their claims, and that by doing so they are practicing rigorous skepticism. But the problem isn’t with asking questions; it’s with the conjecture-based assertions that follow. False conspiracy theories aren’t just about questioning authority; they’re about making up and perpetuating false versions of events without hard evidence. If you’re wondering where to draw the line, here it is: if you don’t perpetuate unfalsifiable and conspiratorial claims out of your own ignorance, using the government of the gaps fallacy, then you probably aren’t a part of the alternative theory problem. David Aaronovitch explains this quite well:

  “As long as conspiracy theorists are confined to raising what they call ‘disturbing questions’ about the official theory, they’re on safe ground,” he said. “But as soon as they get into the business of saying what their theories are clearly, what they think happened, then they have to begin to meet some evidential tests too. And it’s at this point that conspiracy theories inevitably falter.”

  While it’s true that skepticism in a broad sense is based on questioning claims, pure distrust of governmental entities is not synonymous with scientific skepticism—and it isn’t a methodology that will help you get to real answers. In fact, to me it seems most alternative theorists have the very faith that scientific skepticism makes unnecessary, although they may put it in different places than other believers. I understand not trusting the government blindly, but what I don’t get is how people claiming to be skeptics can trust random, poorly designed websites even more. This pseudo-skepticism that allows for belief
in grandiose and unfounded conspiracy claims is not about an honest search for reality, but about paranoia, gaps in knowledge, and reaffirming previously held ideas.

  Doubt is healthy and important, but if you don’t follow up with critical thinking and a real, objective search for evidence, and instead you treat the government parties differently than others, it becomes stubbornness and denial. And denialism isn’t skepticism. Skepticism, as a process for determining the truth, is about questioning claims and looking at the evidence presented. Once the facts are gathered, a skeptic makes a determination based on those facts, and not based on a prior belief that one party is wrong and engaged in a cover-up. Denialism, on the other hand, is characterized by a refusal to believe something despite the overwhelming evidence that it is true.28

  Lee McIntyre, a research fellow at the Center for Philosophy and History of Science at Boston University, explains that it’s important to distinguish between when we believe or disbelieve because of a high standard for evidence and when we are “just engaging in a bit of motivated reasoning and letting our opinions take over.”

  “When we withhold belief because the evidence does not live up to the standards of science, we are skeptical. When we refuse to believe something, even in the face of what most others would take to be compelling evidence, we are engaging in denial,” McIntyre wrote for the New York Times.29 “In most cases, we do this because at some level it upsets us to think that the theory is true.”

  For a good lesson in the differences between skepticism and denial, we need to look no further than the television series The X-Files. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Special Agent Fox Mulder, the character who serves as the believer in the show, is actually a good example of a skeptic. Yes, he “wants to believe,” but he doesn’t usually do so without good reason. Mulder is curious. He asks questions and he always investigates thoroughly until he finds a reliable source or uncovers a paper trail. He doesn’t simply accept extraordinary claims on a whim despite the fact that, in his world, those claims often have merit. He’s right, and he proves it time and time again. FBI Special Agent Dr. Dana Scully, on the other hand, who represents the “skeptical” mindset, is actually not a good skeptic at all—she’s a denier. Scully, a Catholic, not only embraces her religious faith without applying any skeptical inquiry whatsoever, she also continues to doubt the existence of paranormal beings and high-level conspiracies despite seeing overwhelming evidence showing they are real. She is proven wrong repeatedly, yet she maintains her steadfast denial and reluctance to investigate certain matters. Scully is good at doubting far-fetched assertions, but she isn’t a good skeptic because she lacks Mulder’s passion and curiosity and because her conclusions are shaped by preconceived notions and not scientific proof.