The Trap of Grand Conspiracy Thinking

MyDaddy67 — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 04:30:22 +0800

It seems that humans have an inherent tendency for conspiracy thinking, although some have more of a tendency than others. However, we shouldn’t think that conspiracy thinking is restricted to a few crazy people. Keeping on the lookout for genuine conspiracies is important, which is partly why conspiracy thinking persists. By examining extreme conspiracy theories, we hope to identify those patterns of thought and cognitive traps that we all fall into to a lesser degree. Being familiar with grand conspiracies will also help us identify more subtle flaws in our day-to-day reasoning.

To some extent, we all have a little conspiracy theorist inside each of us; the notion that dark and powerful forces are working against our interest grips our attention and can seem very compelling. This is, in fact, an adaptive trait, such as anxiety, for example. It is useful in moderate amounts but is counterproductive and even debilitating when extreme. While there are certainly conspiracies in the world, conspiracy thinking can be a cognitive trap that is easy to fall into but very difficult to get out of.

Suggested Reading: “The Conspiracy Meme” by Ted Goertzel, Skeptical Inquirer Volume 35.1, January/February 2011

Norther, Ph.D, is an advent conspiracy theorist in Lowyat Forum. He has the ability, in his own view, to see the conspiracy for what it is. His tendency to detect a conscious agent behind natural or random behavior or events enables him to read between the lines and recognize the hand of the conspirators at work. He has also started many topics in advance technology, nuclear energy, quantum physics, genetics, astronomy, and ancient civilizations. He received his bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees from University. He is currently most active in Kopitiam and PhD School, with a total Cumulative Posts of 132.

Below are the three Grand Conspiracy Theories discussed by Dr. Norther in the PhD School section:

1. Mars Colonies (Mar 21 2012, 03:25 PM) — He provided evidence that suggests Life on Mars, Mariner Valleys, Earth Base Eve, Colonization of Cydonia (region of Mars), as confirming the conspiracy.

2. Extraterrestrial Advance Technology (Mar 30 2012, 09:23 PM) — He presented a range of hypotheses of Space Aliens UFO Technology with Mind Control ability over humans.

3. Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion (Mar 30 2012, 09:55 PM) — He shared Dr. Paul LaViolette’s works on the secret knowledge of Antigravity Propulsion unknown by others about the Electrokinetic Propulsion Technology in Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit and the Sightings of Black triangle (UFO).

Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong

MyDaddy67 — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 21:39:25 +0800

I came across these statements in this forum section (http://forum.lowyat.net/topic/2176065/+1840#). It seemed that the poster's method of inquiry that seeks to describe, explain, and predict occurrences in the natural world, tends to work backward from desired results. This is also referred as “motivated reasoning.” It indirectly helps in my research to investigate the percentage of Malaysians who are “scientifically illiterate,” despite the profound impact science has on our daily lives.

QUOTE(SalahAdDin @ Apr 13 2012, 12:14 PM)

Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong

There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible. Evolutionists prove that getting a college education does not impart wisdom.

Since I’m neither evolutionary biologist nor geneticist, I’m wondering if that is some kind of unscientific thinking masquerading as scientific thinking. Does the thinking appear to be scientific but is, in fact, faithless to science’s basic values and methods? This definition is indebted to Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World, p. 13.

Because pseudo-scientific thinking often looks and sounds like real science, it can be quite hard for non-scientists or casual readers to tell them apart. Luckily, there are certain criteria of pseudoscience that any educated person can use to distinguish it from true science, including the following:

· 1. Does it make claims that are not testable?
· 2. Does it make claims that are inconsistent with well-established scientific truths?
· 3. Does it explain away or ignore falsifying data?
· 4. Does it use vague language that almost anything could be counted as confirming it?
· 5. Does it lack of progressiveness?
· 6. Does it involve no serious effort to conduct research using scientific method?

Our discussion of the case study in this thread is indebted to William D. Gray, Thinking Critically about New Age Ideas (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1991), chap. 5.

Lowyat.NET: Latest topics by MyDaddy67

The Trap of Grand Conspiracy Thinking

Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong