Which Is It, "Conspiracy Theory", or "Conspiracy Fact"?

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
I will make this brief:

1) Conspiracies are facts
2) Not all conspiracy theories are facts

Agreed.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
This is somewhat targeted at concerned citizen who states that thinking conspiracy is dangerous and irrational. This is naive, because we know for a fact that conspiracies have and do happen regularly. There have been several instances where theories have later been proven to be facts.

I agree with your assessment that conspiracies do happen.

Some are of a more malevolent nature.

Some are more easily hidden by those in power.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Conspiracy theories are like any theories. They are based on some grounds which can be interpreted to indicate something, such as a plausible scenorio. In media and cultural studies, a lot of the stuff that gets written could be called conspiracy. The feminists argue how society is patriarchal and women are deliberately marginalized, the film critics argue how a movie was made to portray certain political ideologies or as propoganda, gay activists argue how homosexuals are discriminated against. Like any theory, a conspiracy theory needs to be adjudged based on the evidence available.

Agreed.

The majority of people do not understand people who see the "conspiracy" might actually be seeing something based upon knowledge, experience, and seeing through the veil of lies being cast about by those in power.

Saying that I have to say some times though it is just people seeing something that is not there and they are reaching for a vague connection, simply because they can.

Usually this is Scotoma.

Quote from : Wikipedia : Scotoma

A scotoma (Greek for darkness; plural: "scotomas" or "scotomata") is an area of partial alteration in one's field of vision consisting in a partially diminished or entirely degenerated visual acuity which is surrounded by a field of normal - or relatively well-preserved - vision.

Every normal mammalian eye has a scotoma in its field of vision, usually termed its blind spot.

This is a location with no photoreceptors, where the retinal ganglion cell axons that comprise the optic nerve exit the retina.

This location is called the optic disc.

When both eyes are open, visual signals that are absent in the blind spot of one eye are provided from the opposite visual cortex for the other eye, even when the other eye is closed.

The absence of visual imagery from the blindspot does not intrude into consciousness with one eye closed, because the corresponding visual field locations of the optic discs in the two eyes differ.

The presence of the scotoma can be demonstrated subjectively by covering one eye, carefully holding fixation with the open eye, and placing an object (such as your thumb) in the lateral and horizontal visual field, about 15 degrees from fixation (see the blind spot article).

The size of the monocular scotoma is surprisingly great: 5×7 degrees of visual angle.

The term scotoma is also used metaphorically in psychology to refer to an individual's inability to perceive personality traits in themselves that are obvious to others.

In other words, people simply see what they want to, because they can.

Scene from The Da Vinci Code

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
UFO's for example can be interpreted to indicate ET's thus creating a theory. This theory can then be furnished with evidence to make it stronger and stronger, until it becomes just as solid as any theory and therefore it is just as credible. The more solid a theory the more useful it becomes to interpret something.


[edit on 5-2-2010 by Indigo_Child]

On U.F.O.'s and "aliens" I am "alien-agnostic".

Until I see one of either or both I will not claim they do exist.

I will however say we as humans are arrogant as Hell if we believe we are the only ones in the Universe, therefore logic dictates there may be life out there.

This however does not mean I'm going to go traipsing to Roswell looking for evidence.

reply to post by Indigo_Child


Conspiracy theories move our focus away from how a system operates, to who's operating it. Herein lies the problem. When speaking of a whole society, nothing is ever solved by attacking people, rather than attacking ideas. The result of conspiracy thinking is therefore witch hunting; Neo-Nazis hunt down Jews, Leftists hunt down capitalists, Conservatives hunt down homosexuals and Christians hunt down Satanists. Among all this mess, the problems are still there, since no one's paid attention to them, rather than to figure out who were behind them.

Conspiracy thinking divides people and creates two camps: those who believe and those who do not. This means that even if a conspiracy idea is true or partly true, and someone is able to debunk that conspiracy, the problem no longer exists. If you claim powerful capitalists are plotting to take over the world, and someone manages to prove your religious theories wrong, no one will bother listening to those who actually have something intelligent to say on the matter.

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz
Great idea and awesome OP.

Can we come up with another term? 'Alternative Knowledge' perhaps? When an overwhelming majority of the masses can't even agree on the 'official' story (JFK, 9/11, for example(s)), is it even fair to call the 'alternative' theory (if even more commonly accepted) the 'conspiracy'?

And, how about some new analogies/metaphors. I know some folks have done some research on Conspiracy Theories that have been proven true [the "33" and "Top 10" threads come to mind], but we need some more 'laymen' examples.

When someone asks me what I think about a [controversial] subject, I simply provide them evidence to an alternate theory to which they reply, "wow, that's very interesting, but..." then go on to use that all too polarizing word, "Conspiracy" - to which I often reply, "You know, just 500 hundred years ago, the Sun being the center of our solar system was a conspiracy, and people were being executed for supporting this idea, so..." - got any more?

Yes, I'm quoting myself

I have gotten at least one more answer from over here...

"Scientific Controversy"