Be an Intelligent Skeptic, not a Conspiracy Theorist
Conspiracy theory spans a pretty wide range, from the very probable to the batshit insane. For example, elections being manipulated by hackers or surreptitious government surveillance are entirely realistic possibilities. At the very least, there's certainly no evidence against them. This is very different from claiming the Earth is 6,000 years old and flat - there's overwhelming evidence against those fantasies.
I was always looking for a better term to distinguish the two. Personally, I defined conspiracy theories as ideas which are easily and overwhelming proven wrong. However, more realistic scenarios are often dumped into the same pool.
The School of Life has a fantastic video out which proposes a new term - Intelligent Skeptic. This is precisely what I was looking for! But there's much more here - the video highlights how we can take the best from being skeptical while avoiding the pitfalls of irrationality. Yes, the main distinction is as expected focusing on evidence while rejecting emotional biases. I'd like to add avoiding confirmation bias - something the video fails to mention.
Check it out, highly recommended!
I'm a big fan of School of Life. So many great videos there. Thank you for sharing this. Resteemed.
Intelligent Skeptic may be new favorite term. I've been wanting to write on this topic for a while now related to many in the voluntaryism/anarchist community who are convinced everything bad in the world is a government conspiracy, even if that means leaving some logic, reason, and evidence at the door. I love this description as well: an "emotional wound that overpowers the facalties of the mind." That's pretty consistent with what I've seen as well among those who aren't as much intelligent skeptics as they are die-hard conspiracy theorists.
Epistemology wasn't mentioned in the video, but I think that's a key to being one or the other. Having a good mechanism for determining if what you're "learning" is actually "knowlege" is so important. Knowing the logical fallacies is a good step in the right direction.
I think there's also a lot of ego and tribal identity wrapped up in this stuff. It's hard to "graciously and uncomplainingly abandon" an idea as the video says if doing so means you lose a part of how you view yourself. This, I think, is why confirmation bias is so strong among those who hold to their views even if evidence suggests they aren't accurately describing reality.
Sadly, this video exemplifies the exact type of irrational mindset it purports to be against. I have broken what I mean by this down in detail in the following post (not trying to spam, just think subtle half-truth vids like this need to be addressed and called out):
https://steemit.com/philosophy/@kafkanarchy84/examining-a-popular-video-choc-full-of-logical-fallacy-thinly-veiled-agenda-and-attempted-marginalization-of-thinking
I read your post and didn't think there was much value in responding to it as you seem pretty set in your opinions. The School of Life is anything but a scientism channel. It talks about philosophy, relationships, and human interactions, and I've enjoyed it quite a bit.
Whether you like it or not, "Conspiracy Theorists" as a term in popular use has gained a reputation for tin-foil hat wearing silliness. To me, the point isn't about CIA involvement in that process but about helping the most number of people find truth. If changing language is required to do that, so be it, just like focusing on "voluntaryism" over "anarchy" because the word anarchy is so misunderstood. If "intelligent skeptic" is a more useful term, that's what I'll use.
I have met a number of people who, IMO, have poor epistemologies. I recognize this because I also had a pretty poor epistemology for most of my life. They rely on their own experience and intuition instead of reason, logic, evidence, and skepticisms. They have made certain truth claims part of their identity so confirmation bias is in full swing, preventing them from easily and quickly changing their positions if given more convincing evidence.
One thing I was curious about after reading your post is what you mean by
How do you see the appeal to authority fallacy? I've asked you this before, but I don't think I got a clear response. Saying, "Hey, this authority on this topic has this well supported opinion" is not an appeal to authority fallacy. As explained here:
I've got much love for you, Graham, but I disagree with you on some aspects of how you come to knowledge via epistemology (from my perspective). You seem (to me) to put more trust in personal experience and intuition whereas I've done enough study on the human brain to think these things are not reliable. I'm not mad at you or judging you, I just recognize we have a different process which, given the same inputs, come up with different outcomes.
Right. I never present evidence. Only personal experience. Amazing how blind you are to how dismissive you are of any information that doesn't match your preconceived ideas. I say this with respect to you as a human, but this quality of blind dismissiveness is intolerable to me as a logician. I think it is good we clash.
To me, it comes down to what you and I consider evidence. If you submit what you consider a valid, peer-reviewed scientific paper and I show it to be otherwise, you don't accept that but instead change the topic and talk about how flawed the scientific process of peer-review is and how studies which you agree with were probably retracted based on prejudice instead of scientific rigor. That's difficult for me to work with if we can't agree on the mechanisms for how we come about knowledge over opinion (i.e. epistemology).
I'm not saying you don't submit evidence. I'm saying that when I bring significant doubts the validity of that evidence and you don't seem to be phased, that puts me in an awkward position wondering how I should proceed next time, if at all.
Either way, I agree, I do think it's good that we clash so we can keep each other sharp and question our assumptions in order to come to a better understanding of what is.
I have submitted vaccine inserts, direct statements from the CDC, and also documented evidence that the journals you reference are subject to massive compromising conflicts of interests. You have dismissed all of these, and have only replied with "my friend says this study is not reliable."
I would like to have a debate on a fair playing field, where "status quo" is not assumed to be an authority of some sort.
If you can pick a moderator I would be more than happy to formally debate this on either my YouTube channel, or a forum of your choice.
Graham, I haven't made this topic part of my identity. I'm willing to go wherever the data leads me, but I don't feel you're genuinely in the same position. From my perspective, you've tied this topic to your voluntaryist identity meaning there isn't much chance you'll easily change views on it as it would involve redefining yourself.
If I link to sources like this, I'm told the CDC isn't a valid source because they all lie. And yet the inserts and statements by the CDC are valid evidence? That's confusing. Inserts for all kinds of medications people consider safe include lists of possible side effects which are either really rare or possibly not connected directly to the drug at all, but listed because they were experienced at the same time the drug was taken during a study.
I mentioned a study of over 95k kids (among other studies), but it seems to me you're attacking the source, not the argument (genetic fallacy). I asked you as we've discussed this privately to provide me with your best, peer-reviewed paper explaining your position. What you gave me directly says right in that paper "there is no research data..." to support your claims. I pointed this out to you and you changed the subject and started talking about how the research process is flawed, how funding doesn't happen for the studies that would show the risks, etc.
This isn't worth my time because it's not a topic I care enough about. What I do care about is having a solid epistemology and properly understanding and avoiding logically fallacies. I've asked you a couple times to explain how you understand and use the appeal to authority fallacy and I'm still not clear on your answer. Talking about epistemology and use of fallacies is interesting to me because it helps me improve my thinking which I use in my every day life. Arguing about fields of study I have no training in isn't very interesting to me. It only matters up to the point where our decisions on the topic impact human wellbeing. It's a difficult topic for us indvidualist thinkers because of the emergent properties of our actions and how those could harm others. I haven't discussed with you your claims about herd immunity because I've looked into it myself, found problems with the evidence you've linked to in the past, and didn't want to go through another frustrating conversation. It's exhausting to bring these to your attention because, from my perspective, you've already made up your mind and the burden of proof (from your perspective) seems to lie with those who trust the research data that does exist instead of with those who are claiming it's all flawed without having solid peer-reviewed evidence to believe so.
So from my perspective, I'd rather move on to topics we both enjoy discussing. Maybe some day the research in this area will be even more clear and then it will be much easier for us to be on the same page for this specific issue.
Much love, Graham. :)
Evidently, the emotional wounds go pretty deep, to the extent of delusion. Even basic facts are ignored, while random patterns are misinterpreted as "fact" or "evidence". I think it would be healthy to engage with people and groups and find out exactly why they are so vehemently distrustful of everything, even cold hard evidence. Of course, they don't see it and won't believe anything you or I say, but with time and persuasion, I think they'll see the bleeding obvious. Alain is spot on - these are otherwise intelligent people who somehow seem to shut down their logic when it comes to some matters.
Yeah, it can be frustrating at times. I wonder, also, the impact of various chemicals on the brain (such as psychedelics) in connecting hemispheres in such a way to see patterns even where they don't exist. I get how that could have been an evolutionary advantage, even believing things which were not true, in order to survive and spread the genes, but I wonder how useful it is today.
Thanks again for sharing this.
Indeed, crucial for survival in the Savannahs a hundred thousand years ago. Today, not so much :)
I engage in critical thought, and too often conspiracy theories are completely devoid of this and merely serve to reinforce existing confirmation bias.
Thanks for sharing this @liberosist, I had not previously heard the term "intelligent skeptic"... it's a great! And definitely something that the Steemit community needs a healthy dose of.
Yes, it's a new term and pretty apt! Unfortunately, I don't think a video is going to change the minds of stubborn conspiracy theorists.
Okay so, I get the premise here but labeling people "conspiracy theorists" is a logical fallacy in my opinion. Just because someone mistrusts government propagandists who have lied countless times, doesn't make them some fringe paranoid conspiracy buff, it just means they don;t trust liars.
I do agree with the premise that some conspiracies are total BS, and have no evidence for them. People should go where the facts lead them rather than where the hypothesis leads them. This confirmation bias issue has lead people into echo chambers of insanity.
I would just not label someone a "conspiracy theorist", it is a biased term and losing it's power...
This is precisely what the video is about, instead labeling then "intelligent skeptics". The conspiracies that are "total BS", those can be labeled conspiracy theorists.
Well I would not label them "conspiracy theorists", I would just call them crazy people. They are not actually conspiracy theorists because they have no evidence to back up their theory. Therefore they are more conspiracy failed hypothesis pushers. They don't have a "Theory" because theory is backed up by evidence. They have a failed hypothesis, like the "Flat Earth Theory" is not a theory it is a failed hypothesis.
My issue with it is this.
By labeling the nutjobs who believe in Flat Earth just as an example "conspiracy theorists", it allows the media to label anyone who believes in any other conspiracy a "Flat Earther". They just lump everyone in together and use that term to discredit everyone who mistrusts government.
I see you are not pulling any punches :) I find it difficult to argue against that. I had ranted about the misuse of the word "theory" in a recent post, but I suppose the popular meaning of the term is today different from the scientific one. The term "conspiracy theory" in itself is a funny oxymoron.
Intelligent Skeptic! I have just embraced this. Being a scaredycat I tend to question everything and fall into conspiracy theory more than I care too.
I've followed some of Alain de Botton's works before he started the school of life series, smart guy
Damn that sounds so much like I use to listen to that band before they became famous...
Hahah... So much cooler though, IMO. :)
Same here, who could forget A Guide to Happiness? Definitely a spiritual predecessor to The School of Life.
The video was a decent effort, but I lost track trying to count all the logical fallacies used in the argument.
Please, name one.
Briefly rewatching the video I see, straw man, straw man, straw man, straw man, false dilemma, appeal to authority, appeal to popularity, throwing the baby out with the bath water, the use of the term 'conspiracy theorist as an ad hominem, the characterization of suspicion as, always, nothing more than fragility brought on by wounded emotions. Oh, sorry,you only asked for one.
Genuine, intelligent skeptics, who deal in empirical facts would know that relying on the word of government propagandists is an utterly indefensible position, and that 'conspiracy theory' has an actual definition that is NOT equal to, 'some fantasy made up to justify suspicions borne of psychological trauma'. The whole thing is, in fact, a quite well crafted ad hominem woven to create the illusion that all is right in the world, and those who experience fear, for genuine reasons, should simply be loved more.
If this were the venue for such a thing, I would teach a class on the differences between logic, and emotional persuasion.
Okay, I'm bored now, I think I'll go learn about actual things.
Funnily enough, you seem to be repeating everything said in the video. Maybe you were offended by the implication that irrationality and rejection of empirical facts is caused by emotional wounds to watch the rest.
I watched it four times, and I don't see how anything you've said makes any sense.
To each their own, then.
Again, you are not making sense.
For all people who can't figure out for their own...
No chocolate spread is an island
Excellent post!! thank you for sharing
Love your post but what if there actually is a conspiracy?
There are always conspiracy theories that are probable and evidence shows up eventually. That should be where intelligent skepticism comes into play.
I was intel and I am joking just a tad but yes, intelligence like George Soros who is not an American citizen or a Hungarian, or A Russian citizen and yet he spends more money to implement his policies and he is supposed to be Jewish yet all the policies he supports are against Judaism not for it. and so, in some ways I am very serious that a conspiracy is in the works and he is just a paid point man