In book 2 and in chapter 3 of the Analects, it is recorded that Confucius said the following: “If you try to guide the common people with coercive regulations and keep them in line with punishments, the common people will become evasive and will have no sense of shame. If, however, you guide them with Virtue, and keep them in line by means of ritual, the people will have a sense of shame and will rectify themselves.” Furthermore, in 7.6, Confucius is recorded to have said: “Set your heart upon the Way, rely upon Virtue, lean upon Goodness, and explore widely in your cultivation of the arts.” Confucius held a deep conviction that this “Way” exists and is that which should be pursued. Yet, bafflingly, it is said in another place when a disciple named Zilu asked Confucius about severing ghosts and spirits, Confucius replies how “… [he is] not yet able to serve people—how could you be able to serve ghosts and spirits?” (11.12) Zilu follows this up, asking Confucius again about death. Confucius, again, gives a similar answer: “You do not yet understand life—how could you possibly understand death?” (11.12)
Conspiracy theories are views that a minority hold and a fact are views that the majority hold. Where do we obtain facts? Well, from the authority positions that have presented it to us as a fact. Where do we obtain conspiracy theories? From people at odds with the fact. If a conspiracy theory ever becomes a majority, it will transform into a fact. If a fact ever comes to be a minority, it will become a conspiracy theory. What makes us prone to believe in conspiracy theories? Well, it’s that authorities don’t always get their facts right. The extent to which they don’t will fill people with doubt. Or maybe the authorities did something which created resentment.
This is not universally true, but can often be the case. Forgetting the idea that groups of people spread the myth that flat Earth was real, I’m talking about the belief in flat Earth itself, simply the idea that the Earth is indeed flat and not round. For people who honestly think that, would you not find many of them would say they think their belief is objective? Wouldn’t it simply be more the case that they were presented with faulty information? Can you say for all of them that they sought out this faulty information because of some negative event in their lives? Maybe their parents imparted the belief to them. Maybe the religious community they’re in imparted it to them. Maybe they just happened upon it on a poster or somewhere online. I don’t think one can safely assume that everybody who believes in conspiracy theories had some traumatic event in their past. I think there’s also many people who just enjoy thinking about and engaging in conspiracy theories. There are also people who know the information they’re spreading is wrong, but often times it doesn’t actually matter whether it’s right or not. Claiming that King Faisal was killed by the US and/or Israel is an effective political strategy. If someone has an anti-American sentiment, even if one doesn’t believe it, spreading the narrative is handy. The next person you spread it to could do the same thing you did or could swallow it wholly and pass it on to the next person. Or blaming America for Sisi and the sorry state of Egypt. Again, as above, it accomplishes its objective regardless of whether or not the claim is true or not.
Now, an objection to this definition has been raised by an English professor named Professor Murphy. The professor forwards an argument on (seemingly) my behalf—a belief that this author doesn’t believe he ever advocated for. Professor Murphy says: “So - you could definitely make a case that the most worthwhile thing people could do, if they worry about groups who embrace ideas that are patently untrue, is not to bang on about critical thinking skills or whatever - but to say, in effect, Stop trying to figure everything out.” I never once said this. I never said anything to support this. I’m not quite sure why she thinks I would ever say that. I would also (least I’d like to think) never talk like that. Except, this is a minor quibble, and point of even bringing it up is more to throw this out. Professor Murphy also seems to take a statement to the extreme. Professor Murphy notes how it’s “… always ironic when people hold up the wrong conclusions of scientists as evidence, somehow, that science isn’t objective or empirical. How come we know they were wrong? because their claims are falsifiable. How can they be falsifiable? because they are empirical and objective.” She seems to make the mistake of Platonists everywhere. Once you realize you’re doing it, it seems so obvious, but if it’s not pointed out, then you will repeat it in bliss. Mainly, science as she seems to think of it, doesn’t actually exist. Universals don’t exist. They’re just a concept in our minds. Yearning towards some universal of science is neither helpful nor useful. You can’t hold up Science (universal) and act like that is what actually exists. We as humans aren’t even capable of conceiving universals. That which exists in our mind is simply abstractions of particulars. Which means, that we must see how science actually works and not just some idealized fantasy.
To judge science you take the conclusions of scientists. See what has been created out of the conclusions of scientists. See whether it has brought pain or pleasure to society. Those are the grounds which science should truly be judged. Science, for it to advance at all, has to assume some basic assumptions, or else nothing would advance. If scientists spent all their time quibbling about philosophical problems they wouldn’t be very good at creating things useful for society. That is great. Science has improved the lives (for the time being at least) for hundreds of millions of people. Almost nobody denies the inventions that have come out of the endeavor that we call “science.” The problem is when we start to conflate this world view of science with absolute truth. Much of the fundamental dogma of what makes up “science” is highly questionable. For example, one of the fundamental laws of physics is that of matter conversation. The idea that matter is not created or destroyed, but simply transferred from some type of matter to another. According to “science” some miracle called the “Big Bang” occurred and after that matter suddenly existed. Scientists can’t seem to agree on whether this “Law of Nature” occurred before this miracle event called the “Big Bang.” Seems rather odd that fundamental laws of nature might not have even existed at some point. One could go on and on about this subject. One could talk about the peer-review system. One could talk about how Academia is structured. One could talk about where the funding comes for “science.” One could talk about securing that funding. One could talk about how science has been consistently wrong throughout its existence.
Now you can say that science itself doesn’t claim to know what exactly went on before the big bang because it is outside of observable phenomenon. Which, to an extent, is largely true. But, practically, the problem is we take the scientific worldview and turn it into a philosophy which we subscribe to. There are bad scientists. There are simply dishonest scientists. There are corrupt scientists. There are scientists who just don’t care anymore. There are those looking for fame. There are lazy scientists. Often the experiment is bad. Maybe it’s a tiny sample size. Maybe the subject wasn’t representative. Maybe the experiment wasn’t extensive enough. Sometimes it happens that studies are published and people just run with the conclusions and nobody bothers to try to recreate it because they just trust the author of the study. This is what science is. Then what’s especially true with science is that it needs to quit “philosophy.” Stop with the theorizing. Leave it to others. Scientists should be working on ways to better the lives of people. Some of the scientists that just do theory all day are little better than the philosophers doing metaphysics - and they are probably both hopelessly wrong.
There seems to be a misunderstanding with that was written. The sentence is saying that it’s not as objective or as empirical as the majority of scientists like to think it is. As was said, scientist only exists to the extent at which people engage in it and produce works in it. Science isn’t greater than the individuals doing it. There is no great ideal of Science that exists. This is a silly notion. Science is, quite evidently, a very useful means of investigation. Except, it claims too much and doesn’t translate well to other fields. That’s its fundamental problem. The limits of what can be achieved with science need to be acknowledged. That’s the ultimate point here.
Defining what exactly is a conspiracy theory is very much at the heart of this whole discussion. If you take the meaning of conspiracy literally, then it would have to involve an individual or group of people in on an conspiracy. The Cambridge Dictionary defines conspiracy theory as: “a belief that an event or situation is the result of a secret plan made by powerful people.” This class has involved much discussion about Flat Earth. If you take the dictionary definition, Flat Earth can’t really be a conspiracy theory because no individual or group made the Earth flat or round. Now, thinking the widespread belief in globe Earth was due to a certain group of people, then you could label that a conspiracy theory, but Flat Earth, in it of itself, can’t be a conspiracy theory according to this definition. Clearly, we need a definition that is more inline with what people mean when they call something a conspiracy theory. Professor Murphy took issue with this definition:
By the way, I don’t think you can define conspiracy theory as merely a minority opinion. There are lots of minority opinions that aren’t conspiracy theories. If after surveying the factual evidence, you dispute that climate change is a thing, that’s a minority opinion. If you argue that environmentalists are pushing climate change lies because they stand to make money doing so, that’s not a conspiracy theory (especially not if you can show actual money being made, or those motives being expressed). But if you argue that climate change lies are being advanced by Big Pharma, the Jews, the Illuminati etc. etc. who have somehow roped all of society into their scheme so as to - I dunno - dominate the world or something, that is a conspiracy theory. Unfortunately, she never defines anything, so I will be forced to guess what exactly she means. My best guess is that she means something like the way the Cambridge dictionary defined a conspiracy theory, which is strange. Based on Professor Murphy’s statements, it seems she would consider the belief in Flat Earth to be belief in a conspiracy theory. Except, we’ve shown how Flat Earth can’t be labeled a conspiracy theory simply based on a definition such as that. She must mean something a bit different by a conspiracy theory, but it seems impossible to tell right now. Maybe all this time we’ve been talking about a conspiracy theory that is not in fact a conspiracy theory!
Given that the definition of a conspiracy theory has been established and where we get conspiracy theories from, the question comes up about how we should deal with them. This brings up an ethical question in it of itself. Minority opinions (conspiracy theories) can be controversial. Controversial opinions can lead to ostracism from mainstream society. This depends on how much pleasure one finds in discovering the “truth.” Most people don’t need to know and shouldn’t know. Most people will live more happy and fruitful lives without knowing minority (not racial minority) opinions. There’s probably a small portion of the overall population who finds great joy in intellectual pursuits, but they are a minority. Societies are a reinforcing structure where they will reward you for holding majority opinions while punishing you for minority ones. That’s just the way the system works. One can get worked up about whether it’s just or not, but we’re only concerning ourselves with the happiness of the individual. In that sense, learning of minority opinions isn’t something that should be encouraged. Since human societies are self-reinforcing, there is actually no need for the individual to go out of their way to change or push back against anything. All societies throughout the ages have it baked into their system in one way or another. Simply not a concern.
What is meant by society being self-reinforcing is that if one steps outside of established “truth,” that individual is going to encounter a certain degree of flak. What exactly this “flak” consists of differs across time and country, but the general concept is the same. One can pick off a couple easy, further off examples. For example, questioning the Communist Party’s legitimacy for ruling China will usually get one censored in China. Preaching unconventional doctrines in a Church can lead to one getting getting excommunicated. Flak doesn’t necessarily have to be something so grand. It is often the case that an individual can lose friends because he expressed a minority opinion. People who would have talked to you in the past no longer wish to interact with you. It happens for social media companies as well. Advertisers will drop, or threaten to drop, their advertisements if some social company refuses to deplatform content which the advertisers find objectionable. It could be in terms of stock value. Becoming associated with some political cause can cause investors to not want to buy into a company. It could be in terms of reputation. A newspaper publishes a story that has an opinion that other newspapers find detestable. Those newspapers could then spend the next week criticizing that newspaper. A company receives too much publicity and thanks to that it finds itself in the crosshairs of the government. This is just a short list. What exactly flak can consist of is much larger in scope than what a single person can quite comprehend.
The more difficult question is what to do with the intellectual elite of society. The ones who make it their mission to discover some sort of “truth.” This is a question of education. Minority opinions should be sought out by such people. Rarely is what the majority imagine what is actually true. It may also be true as well that what most people think is true in a general sense, but misses a lot of nuance. Mainstream society recognizes this to some extent. People are constantly encouraged to seek out alternative opinions. It then becomes, where actually are you supposed to seek out these opinions? I shall offer a few remarks. You can’t get caught up in your time. You need to know historical context. The past has always been the key to the future. You should make use of institutions, but don’t put too much faith in them. Do not think that ultimate truth rests in them. Don’t put too much faith in titles or renowned names. One can function on the inside or out, both have issues. Do not discount folk wisdom. Do not get arrogant and look down on the knowledge of common people. Knowledge is based on what has come before. Build on top of it instead of trying to recreate it. Be booksmart, but don’t rely on them or be pedagogical. Be able to read renowned positions, even if you think they’re completely wrong. Always give the author the benefit of the doubt, granted they’re deserving of it. Try to separate yourself from yourself (the reality in which you exist) to the extent that it is possible.
People often criticize Confucius because he doesn’t often give arguments for why people should believe that the Way or the Will of Heaven exists. He almost assumes them to be true. On the other hand, he really doesn’t spend much time talking about Gods or metaphysical theories. Why? Sounds like he was more concerned with the present. The concepts serves to reinforce the present, regardless of the truthfulness or falseness of their existence. He didn’t feel a need to try to systematize it and crosses all the t’s to make sure there’s an argument for everything and that there were no contradictions. Confucius was a practical man trying to find solutions for his time. This isn’t unique to ancient China, in Rome we have Varro who “… asserts, however, that it is advantageous for states if brave men believe, albeit falsely, that they are the offspring of the gods. For, in this case, the minds of men, borne up by the assurance that they are of divine stock, boldly undertake enterprises of great magnitude, carry them through all the more forcefully, and by their very confidence fulfil them with greater success.” (Augustine 97) Our intuition is trained well. We shouldn’t discount it simply because we have new theories. Thinking through things too hard can often take us to absurd positions. One famous example of this is one of Zeno’s arguments about motion. It goes: “… in a race the quickest runner can never overtake the slowest, since the pursuer must first reach the point whence the pursued started, so that the slower must always hold a lead.” (Aristotle Physics Chapter 9) Which, if you think about it, is completely logical in principal, but we clearly know this to not be the case because Achilles will run faster than the tortoise.
In summary, a conspiracy theory is a minority opinion, while a fact is a majority opinion. Developing a belief in a minority opinion is often due to experiencing or witnessing the failings of the institutions which are supposed to present the facts. In addition, it can often be due to amusement or for political ends. Majority opinions are facts that individuals in a society cling on to largely because human societies are constructed in such a way that they will receive a certain amount of flak for not holding them. Majority opinions propel one up that’s society’s social ladder—holding minority opinions often turns out to be quite a hindrance to this. For the average individual, one doesn’t need to concern themselves with conspiracies. For the intellectual, seeking out minority opinions is imperative if one is serious about seeking out the truth.
Works Cited
Confucius, and Edward Slingerland. Confucius Analects: With Selection from Traditional Commentaries. Hackett Pub. Co, 2013.
Aristotle, and Jonathan Barnes. The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation. Volume One. Princeton University Press, 1995.
Augustine, and R. W. Dyson. Augustine: The City of God against the Pagans. Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Cambridge Dictionary | English Dictionary, Translations & Thesaurus, dictionary.cambridge.org/. Accessed 16 Dec. 2024.
Discussion afterward -
Me:
We just don’t agree on definitions. I think holding a fact independently of the brain is silly to me. Facts only exist to the extent which they’re in our minds. A definition of a fact can only be what is popularly thought. Same thing with science. Science to me isn’t a set of protocols to discover the truth. Science is the people, conclusions, and worldview it produces. Even if it was a methodology for discovering truth, it’d be a mistaken end. That’s what I meant by theorizing. Plenty of scientific work has absolutely no impact on people’s lives and the point of it is to just accumulate more facts. Science’s end should be betterment of people’s lives. If it doesn’t or can’t accomplish that, then it is useless to me.
Professor:
It’s nicely written. But how right you are! I would indeed have liked to see you engage with Kolbert and Chesterton - they are both first-class thinkers, who raise very interesting points. I was kind of surprised you didn’t bother much with Chesterton. I would have thought his emphasis on how “common sense” comes from the immeasurable and unanalyzable influence of experience, rather than logic, would have appealed. But then, you’re pretty clear that I don’t get your point, so probably have missed it again. :) - I would also very much liked to have seen you engage with details and reality, rather than rather sweeping generalizations (see below).
It does feel like you’re sidestepping the real discussion, though. When you say that it’s imperative to seek out minority opinions if we want to seek out the truth - what do you mean by “truth?” And how will we evaluate those opinions in order to assess whether they reflect the truth? That is the million dollar question. Science, in fact, offers a way to conduct this enquiry - at least in the realm of the natural world (which is really the only area it relates to). So you’re side-stepping the real challenge here, I think. It sounds more like you’re discussing whether truth matters for most people - it’s more a political analysis: most people should just believe what makes them happy, and the intelligentsia can get on with the business of apprehending truth.
I often feel that the analysis here has an almost allegorical flavor - different sorts of people are generalized, and things like “science” and “institutions” take on the quality of mechanical forces whose effects can be calibrated. But everything is so much messier, and most of these generalizations tend to fall apart. For instance: Does a minority opinion really hold you back? Lots of people hold minority opinions and do just fine (the Flat Earthers seem to be doing OK, at least when they’re not accidentally killing themselves). And no, majority opinions do not become facts. If everyone believed you did not exist, you would not cease to exist. Yes, this is a philosophical position (as I’ve been keen to point out); there are schools of thought that argue that, in fact, nothing actually can be said to exist - reality is whatever you think it is! but we’re going with the philosophical definition that underpins Western thought since the late 17th century, because you know, that’s kind of where we’re at. You don’t have to submit to it, but you have to show that you understand it, and get where it’s coming from.
Oh - the reason why FE is considered a conspiracy theory is not because of the belief itself - as you rightly say, that’s just a different belief about the shape of the earth. But it requires that a huge swath of the population has colluded to cover up the real shape of the earth with bogus globalism: airline pilots, radio enthusiasts, navigators, historians, mathematicians, astronomers, anyone who works at any of the hundreds of science museums, sailors, the military of every country, people who make maps, photographers, NASA, everyone who has worked on a rocket, everyone who’s done ham radio, etc. etc. That’s why it’s considered a CT.
Me:
Objects and events exist independently of fact. Facts are human-made that are creating by humans observing and interpreting. For example, you have a tree fall in the forest. The tree will fall whether or not anybody observes it or not. BUT the fact that the “tree fell” requires an observer to construct the narrative.
Professor:
Yes! In fact, this is I think what is called “Tarski-type truth theory?” i.e., “truth” is the property of language; a statement is true if and only if it is, well, true - ie, describes an independently existing reality.
That’s how I was trying to explain the “fact/inference’judgment” thing - that these are categories not of realities, but of statements. Objects & events exist independently of our talking about them. But they themselves are indeed the facts.
The goal is to figure out a way to make statements about the world that reflect that reality - to not get stuff wrong. The big contribution of empiricism, really, is to acknowledge that this process is really hard, and that what makes it complicated is the almost imperceptible interplay between the fact of the tree falling, the perspective and interpretative power of the observer (inf/judgment), and the words that come out of the observer’s mouth when they’re telling someone else what happened (cue endless capacity for the above three categories to be hopelessly intermingled).
Of course, the “truths” available to science are not the Great Questions. To quote the useless git Shakespeare, there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Science isn’t about the eternal verities - it’s about mundane things like, What makes volcanoes erupt? Which mushrooms kill us, and why? How does the body work to fight disease?
But thinking about this stuff isn’t silly, surely. Every human society has tried to figure stuff out: there’s agricultural and hunting practices, remedies for warts, etc. etc. What sets empiricism apart is not that the people who came up with it are better or cleverer. It’s that they came up with a way to approach the question, “How do I know this statement is true?” that clarified so many of the confusions that kept us from accurately describing reality.
Hence, in the last 200 years, we’ve transformed absolutely everything. You and I are discussing using a technology that to anyone in the 15th century would have looked like absolute magic. We would probably have been burned. But it’s not magic; ordinary (clever, but ordinary) people figured out properties of certain natural materials and forces, and one thing led to another, and now we’ve got the internet.
Whether it’s improved our lives is another story! and here, I think Chesterton, devout Catholic as he was, is hinting at a big point: logic and science are great stuff, to be sure, but they do not point us to the heart of what it means to be human, nor are they equipped to help us make sense of some of the stuff that matters most. And perhaps what you’re really focusing on (and again, I’m probably wrong) is not so much whether empiricism helps us accurately describe material reality, but whether that pursuit is as important to happiness as we think it is.
Mind you: when it comes to conspiracy theories - I would argue strongly that people do, on the whole, suffer from being at odds with reality. In obvious practical ways (Mike Hughes) but also because it requires strenuous cognitive dissonance, and a lack of trust in everything and everyone. Reality might suck, but delusion tends to be lonely and stressful. People often think others are better off with their delusions, but rarely that they themselves benefit from them - we usually reserve to ourselves the right to know.
By the way, I just reflected on the grade and upped it a bit (mundane consideration but there you are) because you’re definitely engaging philosophically, and I was looking a bit too hard in certain areas (no mention of confirmation bias, etc.)
Have you read any Wittgenstein? I haven’t! but it’s one of my retirement goals: apparently, his big point is that everything is language - that in the end, much of human enquiry ends up being a language game. He’s the originator of the famous quote “Whereof we cannot speak, there we must be silent.” (Or wait, is it Kant?)
Anyway. Best of luck - apologies for long-winded replies (can’t resist a discussion) - hope you find the good life!
Me:
How do you determine that? A fact comes from somebody observing it and then interpreting it. The fact that computers were built or rockets sent into space has nothing to do with this. There’s events and there’s things, but facts only exist to the extent which they’re in humans. Facts don’t exist independently of ourselves. Unless you appeal to God, a rock cannot determine the fact that it’s a rock. The rock is still there, but there’s no fact that it is a rock. With a conspiracy theory you necessarily have to have truth and falsity. Facts are things that align with our observation. Facts exist within us. Some group of experts or mass group of people observe something enough times and then it becomes fact. That’s how you come to the majority/minority definition. I don’t think there necessarily has to be a conspirator in a conspiracy theory because the way the word is usually used encompasses a much broader meaning. Capital T Truth and capital F False don’t exist. You can only define it in relation to ourselves. You talk about empiricism but you’re conjuring up something which has no real existence. You can’t define truth and falsity like that. I don’t think it’s logically coherent.
Professor:
Well - like I say, isn’t this about language?
Yes, a rock is a rock. And yes, defining it and naming it as ‘“a rock,” and saying the words “This is a rock” - that categorization comes from inside human heads, and reflects the categories and language we use language to describe the world. And yes, only language is true or false. A rock isn’t true; it’s a rock. Or rather, it just is.
But if it is out there, then language does have something to measure up against. Thus, the statement “this is a rock” is true, if the speaker is pointing at the real thing that is, in fact, a rock as we define it. If the speaker is pointing at a donut, they are not saying a true statement of fact. If rocks exist - by extension, if an independent reality exists, something that would be here even if every human died tomorrow - then language can indeed produce true or false statements, insofar as they reflect the reality out there accurately.
Of course, things get complicated. “Treating your friends to a dinner of fried dog turds and live wasps will make them sick, and is really cruel” - most of us would think that was “true,” but it’s not one claim about the world but several - some of which are about concrete realities, some of which are just purely about us. Disentangling all that is one of the things we focused on (fact / inference / judgment).
I’m not clear on how you can argue that reality does exist - the rock can still be there - but, at the same time, that things can become true statements not because they reflect reality, but because lots of people say them. Unless you mean that reality exists, but nothing we do or say touches on it? And here, again, that’s why I brought up computers and rockets and so on. If our ability to make true statements about the properties of things has no relation to the things themselves, it is strange that we’ve figured out how to manipulate them so well.
Me:
The problem with interpretations is that we interpret things to make sense to ourselves. The very idea of what a “rock” is isn’t something that exists independently of humans. The “rock” (or that which makes up a rock) can very much exist, but all of what makes up a rock is a human approximation of everything which that rock consists of. I also think you’re making the mistake of conflating utility with absolute truth, it’s two separate things. Something can serve its purpose, but not be entirely true. Science is a model of interpreting the universe, it is not what is actually out there. We’re projecting our own concepts onto the reality outside of us. Something is only a rock because we share a common understanding of what a rock is. Without that shared understanding, that “rock” is no longer a rock. You’re jumping from language can attempt to measure reality to language produces true statements because they reflect reality. Things become truths because of consensus. That doesn’t mean it’s all entirely subjective, but that you can’t take out the fact that consensus plays a role in interpreting reality. And I never argued that when I see a rock a rock could actually be there. I’m not sure we can separate ourselves apart from our senses, and as long as our senses deceive, we can’t really entirely trust them. I think the rock certainly could exist, but I also think it could be some kind of stimulation that my consciousness is receiving from an outside force. I don’t we can’t know definitively. You’re assuming that language maps perfectly on to reality, and I think that’s simply mistaken.
Me:
And I don’t know. I think you looking for confirmation bias in these papers to up our grade is in itself a form of confirmation bias if you ask me.
Me:
You never said include confirmation bias in the paper. All you said was: “A discussion of social, psychological, cognitive or other factors that make us vulnerable to conspiracy theories;”. So I think in a way you posed a question and then answered it by yourself and then went looking into the papers to look for your own answer.