IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » Reference » The Repository

Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Conspiracy Theories as Examples of Pure Dogma
Conspiracy Theories as Examples of Pure Dogma
Mark Fournier (Elentar)
Submitted by Elentar
2nd December 2007
Conspiracy Theories as Examples of Pure Dogma

Dogma may be defined as established opinion, a doctrine put forth without evidence, or as a body of doctrines supported authoritatively by a church. But when you consider a combination of all three--an established opinion without evidence, supported by the authority of supernatural beliefs--you have a summation of everything that the JREF is opposed to. As it so happens, religion is the largest central distributor of dogma, but you can find it within other circles of opinion as well.

Theology is defined as "faith justified by reason." But this is another way of saying "A conclusion in search of a justification." This was the dominant philosophical approach of the dark ages, and it was this habit that kept them in the dark. Beliefs were fortified and communicated, supported only by citations of other beliefs, forming a circle of opinion with no means of objective correction. Theology remained a circle jerk, somewhat like partisan bloggers, who reinforce their mutual preconceptions by echoing them back and forth, referencing each other, accepting only what evidence confirms their beliefs and ignoring the rest (when they reference evidence at all.) This is the modus operendi of dogmatists, and it can become a prison which is difficult escape. This is what made science impossible in the dark ages, and it was only when a central dogmatic authority of the Catholic Church was shattered that science and philosophy could flourish.

This same hermetically sealed community of belief can also be found amongst political ideologues, proponents of various pseudo-sciences and occult dogmas, and amongst conspiracy theorists. Conspiracy theorists are notorious for this tendency to form communities of the deluded, for in their case the opinions they hold are often so outrageously wrong that conspiracists often appear genuinely insane. The internet has been instrumental in the rise of new conspiracy theories because it provides the opportunity to form the kind of closed, circular, and mutually reinforcing groupthink which was previously available only to close knit religious communities or tightly structured political groups. This means that conspiracists should be properly considered as a species of dogmatic believer similar to members of a religious sect.

Religious and political philosophies, however, may incorporate valid ethical and social observations, which may attract followers with different motivations, diluting the purely dogmatic elements. Consumers of pseudo-science make common cognitive mistakes which requires research to dispel; many may simply have not taken the time to know better, and may not have much at stake (those who pay thousands to psychics and faith healers are another matter). Their entertainment of nonsense may be casual and not a central feature of their personality; when the stakes are high, they go to a doctor, not a homeopath. Conspiracy theorists, on the other hand, are usually quite dedicated and quite vociferous in what they believe. But most importantly, conspiracists are barking mad--pure dogmatists. Examination of conspiracists will throw light on the nature and habits of purely dogmatic believers of all kinds.

Conspiracists share in common with other dogmatic believers the following traits:

1) Epistemological Incompetence. Conspiracists lack basic tools of comprehension concerning the way the world works. These include a poor understanding of logic, science, and human nature. They have little or no grasp of what James Flynn calls shorthand abstractions (SHA's). SHA's include the concepts of the market, percentage, natural selection, random samples, control groups, the naturalistic fallacy, the charisma effect, placebo effect, falsifiability and tautology, and the tolerance school fallacy. Some of these you may recognize by name, and I'm not going to go into a full explanation of all of them. Flynn's work is stellar. He is best known for the Flynn effect, the measured gradual rise in IQ over the last century. His conception of the SHA's is a must read; Flynn believes that the acceptance of scientific ways of thinking is responsible for the Flynn effect. You can find it here. This is where he lists and describes the SHA's and several anti-SHA's, the latter being common misperceptions leading to false conclusions.

The important point is that these are tools needed to understand the modern world. Without them, conspiracists literally do not understand how the world works. This is the root cause of all of their other problems. The conspiracy theory not only exploits this weakness, but reinforces it. Acceptance of conspiracy theories may in the long term actually impair the ability for critical thinking. One conspiracy theory leads to another, and all seem to lead, eventually, to the moral and cognitive black hole of anti-semitism.

2) Epistemological Relativism. Since conspiracists do not understand the methods for reaching a correct conclusion, all conclusions are equal and based solely upon the weight of authority. In short, there is no truth, only opinion. It is a sad fact that someone can acquire a scientific or technical degree without ever fully understanding the scientific method. It is possible to take the results of science as received wisdom, and parrot it back successfully on exams, without understanding how it was derived. Dogmas are conclusions, cues to stop thinking, rather than means of arriving at conclusions. There are some that will learn science in this way, and never move beyond the dogmatic mindset.

3) Confirmation Bias. Conspiracists disregard arguments that refute their thesis, usually by relying on the Genetic Fallacy--the source is in on the conspiracy, and therefore cannot be trusted. There is no truth, only opinion, and only the right opinion is acceptable. The Grand Cabal "got to them", or their interests are somehow served by the conspiracy. Their motives are therefore impure, and nothing they say can be considered worthy to discredit the conspiracy theory. Since conspiracists consider all arguments to be arguments from authority, the choice is not between correct methodologies, but correct authority.

4) Selective Bias. Conspiracists emphasize only those snippets of fact that confirm their beliefs, and disregard or dismiss the bulk of evidence which refutes their thesis. A common practice is quote mining, where a single statement (or even a portion of a statement) is quoted out of context as evidence for the theory. When the original source objects to the interpretation of the quote, the conspiracists fall back on the Genetic Fallacy, claiming that the source has been compromised since the original statement. Conspiracy theories are therefore unfalsifiable.

5) Exceptionalism. Conspiracists grant their own theories exception from logical or methodological principles that they routinely apply in the rest of their lives. Occam's Razor is a good example of an abandoned principle; it is hard to believe that a qualified engineer would not be familiar with this logical tool, yet there are many engineers amongst "Truthers", whose theories concerning the events of 9/11 multiply entities on a grand scale while the real explanation is remarkably simple.

6) 'Gaps' Arguments. Rather than provide a comprehensive argument, backed by evidence, conspiracists rely on a false dichotomy, attempting to argue that there are inconsistencies in the accepted explanation, and then presenting their own as the only alternative. When these gaps are filled the conspiracists pretend not to hear the new evidence, and continue to point to gaps that have in fact been filled. Since this new information contradicts their claims, it will not appear in discussions amongst the conspiracists, and will be blithely ignored when presented by someone else. This additional information is, in their mind, intended to refute what they have already decided is true and therefore obviously ideologically based and not worthy of consideration.

7) Theory of Agency rather than Process. For the conspiracist, there are no coincidences. Everything happens for a reason, and that reason is always an intentional agent. Any large scale, frequent, or dramatic events must be the product of deliberate planning, and carried out by an commensurately powerful organization. If those events are negative, a vast malevolent agency or cabal is at work. Small criminal groups or sole individuals cannot be responsible. Ignorance, incompetence, poor planning, or impersonal forces cannot play a role. For those who do not understand how the world works, the question is not how, but who, a systematic misapplication of intentional explanations.

8) Magic. For those who understand nothing about the world, all is magic. The agency is both supernaturally intelligent and powerful, and yet strangely inept. The cabal has virtually complete control of nearly all powerful institutions--economic, political, legal, social, criminal, and journalistic--yet somehow cannot prevent the conspiracists from uncovering their plot. They can, however, hide all the evidence, an ability which would require the cabal to command power that rivals the divine. Benjamin Franklin said that "Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead." The conspiracists believes that plots involving thousands can operate without detection, thanks to the near omniscience and virtual omnipotence of the conspiracy, whose members are all unswervingly loyal to the cause.

9) Occult Knowledge. Despite the fantastic powers of the enemy, the conspiracists have uncovered the Hidden Truth, marking them as in some way the champions of divine providence. This too is no accident; the conspiracist possesses a rare and special virtue. The conspiracist is thus cast in a heroic light, often an overcompensation for the mundane reality of their personal lives. They alone have broken through the web of illusions created by the cabal, and it is their destiny to free the world. Their Truth trumps all lesser truths, so outright and deliberate lies are acceptable. The objective is not truth (which does not actually exist unless it is theirs--relativists always make exceptions for what they believe, otherwise the relativist argument itself would collapse) but victory.

10) Mutation, Adaptation, and Cross Breeding. As conspiracists meet contrary evidence, they continue to invent and share counter arguments in a piecemeal fashion. Exposure to reason and evidence, rather than correcting the theory, actually forces it to adapt to become a more reason-resistant strain. In effect, criticism acts as a form of natural selection, weeding out the rational proponents and isolating the loons, while at the same time forcing the theory itself to evolve into something which cannot be falsified by any means. Many conspiracist arguments actually contradict other arguments presented by the same conspiracist, because they are pieced together from variant conspiracy theories. Since conspiracy theories rely on gaps arguments, consistency is not important, and this is why one conspiracy theory leads to another--they share common elements indiscriminately. The only thing that is important is that the real explanation be refuted so that the conspiracist alternative may be offered in its place.

11) Evangelism. Spreading belief in the conspiracy theory is of the utmost importance. The conspiracist believes himself to be the sworn enemy of an immensely powerful malevolent enemy, which must be defeated. Telling others what he knows will make him a less appealing target for the enemy. But in spreading the word, he also becomes the hero in a grand cause, a paladin in gleaming armor against the dragon. Converting others to his beliefs will not only lessen his cognitive dissonance (he is, after all, often told that he is crazy), but will also convince others of his heroic stature. In the eyes of converts, he will go from zero to hero in one easy step.

Although details of justification may vary amongst dogmas, these traits appear to be common to all systems of dogma. Consider Stalinism and National Socialism, both political dogmas. Both employed conspiracy theories of their own. Their biases, and general aversion to truth and the means of establishing truth, are fairly obvious. More suprising, as supposedly secular dogmas, both were notorious dabblers in the occult and wholesale distributors of pseudo-science. In their support for Lysenkoism, the Stalinists apparently thought they were in the position to legislate the laws of science. Hitler railed against "Jewish science". Fortunately for us this included nuclear physics, and led the Nazis to abandon the development of nuclear weapons.

Some invocation of magic and the occult seems to be required to protect any dogma from empirical challenge. Freudian psychology claimed to be able to recover repressed memories which even the patient didn't know about. This eventually led to the inanity of mutiple personalities, past life regression, and tales of vast satanic conspiracies. No evidence for any of this was ever found, and the entire charade has left the cult of Freud in ruins. But at the time it was claimed that only the psychotherapist had the knowledge, and ability, to reach these hidden truths. In the aftermath of these scandals, Freudian psychology was stripped of its scientific disguise and revealed to be an occult practice.

You may have noticed memetic elements at work here. I'm not completely convinced that the memetic model is coherent. For that matter, neither is Richard Dawkins, who merely proposed the idea of memes as the extension of the idea of simple replicators into another domain. But there does seem to be some organic, evolutionary process at work here. Dogmatic systems consist largely of false and irrational beliefs. They are dogmatic precisely because they are not rationally or empirically defensible. As such, a dogmatic belief system appears to be a viral agent which bypasses rational defenses and hijacks the mind. The problem with the concept of the meme is that it is too simple; if a meme is to be considered as a viral agent, we must remember that viruses are not simple gene snippets floating in the blood stream. They are packages of genes contained within a delivery system which includes defensive and offensive adaptations. They must be able to avoid detection and elimination, and they must be able to gain entry into the cell.

By analogy, systems of dogma must, in addition to their main ideological payload, be able to slip past or destroy critical defenses, must encourage evangelism, and must at first approach be attractive enough for consideration. This is no simple meme, but a compex system of mutually reinforcing ideas. The attraction can take many forms. The dogma may offer a seemingly simple solution to a difficult problem, be consistent with existing beliefs, be ethically compelling, make wonderful promises, appeal to the listener's pride, or come from a person loved or trusted. Yet the attraction is not the main problem. It is quite possible to consider nonsense without being convinced by it. It is at this point that the dogmatic defenses kick in.

In a free market of ideas, the dogmas that survive are those that are most resistant to reason and evidence--in short, those that that best resist falsification. No dogma is completely unfalsifiable, as virtually all dogmas make claims regarding the physical world. The solution is not to deal with contrary evidence or arguments piecemeal, but to embrace a broad strategy which undermines the legitimacy of inductive reasoning itself. This is best seen in the Wedge strategy, which seeks first to undermine methodological materialism, the basis of science, before advancing religious dogma in its place. Here we have, exposed for all to see, an element that is hidden in most dogmatic systems. Having found the population too smart for the dogmatists own good, they are actually seeking to reverse the Flynn effect and return us to a pre-modern way of thinking. In doing so, they would cut the thread upon which our prosperity, freedom, and even our very survival hang. Their success would lead to a staggering body count.

We are for rationalism and the scientific method. If we are to put everything that we oppose under a single umbrella, dogma would be the best choice. The New Atheists--whom I heartily applaud--chose religion in general as the target, but I think this is both too narrow and badly aimed. I suspect that this is where Sam Harris was going when he says we shouldn't call ourselves atheists, and when he supported methodological rather than dogmatic religions. From reading their books I can see that their target was dogmatic religion. But the choice of religion in general is too narrow because it misses the Stalinists, Nazis and fascists, pseudo-scientists and psychics, the postmodernists, and the conspiracy theorists. It is badly aimed because it includes non-dogmatic forms of religion, including deism. Hal Bidlack, the talented and wonderful host of every TAM meeting, is a deist. So were Thomas Jefferson and most of the American founding fathers. We can live with the deists. It's the dogmatists that are the problem.
Article Tools

By Jonathan Harrison on 4th January 2009, 06:01 AM
Excellent summary!

I would add the term "epistemological paranoia". Someone with a conspiracist view of the world views the question of 'how knowledge is produced' through a paranoid lens, and this ultimately determines all the logical fallacies that appear in conspiracist methodology.

I would also argue that, not only are conspiracists unable to construct scientific theory, they cannot even come up with an uncontaminated hypothesis, because any hypothesis they present will have a paranoid premise.

In my own field - countering Holocaust Denial - every statement I read from a denier has a conclusion that is predetermined by a paranoid premise. A paranoid hypothesis deliberately framed to avoid engagement with reasoned argument.

Conspiracy theory is thus anti-theory; anti-science; the essence of negationism.
Reply With Quote
By angelsaramark on 10th January 2009, 09:51 PM
Proving or disproving most "conspiracies" is like proving/disproving God. You can't really do either in most cases unless the conspirators are caught or until they finally unseal all the relevant documents in 2038 when everyone that could be jailed is dead and no one alive give's a rat's behind about it. So you are correct that many conspiracy theories are pure dogma with no support, others are disinformation put there for some unclear purpose and probably what we know nothing about is where the true conspiracies await.
Reply With Quote
By Eyeron on 16th August 2009, 03:59 PM
May I have permission to cut and paste this to another forum? I'd love to see how the Conspiracy cultists respond to this.
Reply With Quote
By Eligbak on 9th November 2010, 04:31 PM

A lot of sciency and philosophical words that I'm sure most conspiracy buffs wouldn't understand, nor is there a reason why they should bother to try. I'd say in this forum you're preaching to already converted ears, at least from my (limited) impressions.

Your treatment of religion is a very superficial and degrading one - people have discussed the human condition in any number of guises, be they religion, philosophy or psychology. Take something by or about Augustinus, who was a theologian, a philosopher and a saint to boot , and you'll find he's almost as existential as existentialism, I bet. By the way, the Dark Ages (c. 300-700 CE) are called dark because we don't know very much about them, not because it was particulary dark in their heads.


There are attempts to brand conspiracy theorists as mad, or ostracise them in other ways using the trappings of scientific authority (or the clipping of newspaper articles). In my view, this misses the point, or rather works to their advantage, because conspiracy believers have already absented themselves from the prevalent consensus and founded their own, yes you could say: churches.

Vincent Bugliosi makes a compelling distinction in his book about the JFK mythology - on the one hand, you have the real theorists that do the research, write the books and give lectures, on the other their following that is fed information from the theorists. And among the theorists those that spread conscious lies, although they know better, and real believers. Some real research about this should be interesting, otherwise we just have to take Mr. Bugliosi's word for it. He mentions many theorists by name, so he will have spoken to quite a few of them over the years.

People have told lies for money since times immemorial, no need to bother with explaining that. I guess when you make a living with conspiracy theories within the acceptable limits of evidence, you're a historian. Slightly beyond that, you're David Irving. Beyond that, you're a half-educated history buff, an amateur. And with a couple of delusions and much creativity, you're a bestseller author like Dan Brown. I don't know, but being !Dan Brown! has its advantages. Creative people tend to lead more interesting lives. (Correct me if I've been proven wrong.)

Unless much of the world has suddenly gone mad (fluoride poisoning? stupidity rays? TV?), people haven't really changed a great deal. Is it the environment that has changed? All kinds of irrational beliefs are reported to be on the rise. The sources and quality of information have changed - one Google search would be enough to convince my Grandpa that the Internet is beyond redemption or sanity. I'm not sure what he would think of George W. Bush and Tony Blair - my old Opa was a believer in the Third Reich - but he wouldn't call them trustworthy individuals. I'm not sure if everybody has really realized what 9/11 was: the end of an age. The reaction to it, or rather: the run-up to the 2003 invasion, made polite old spy-writer John le Carré write The United States of America has gone mad and most of the world agree with him, even if it took a few years. We're still collectively reeling from the shock and haven't overcome the dichotomy of old and new values yet: Is it now okay to torture, imprison and kill on suspicions to save lives? What about peace and love, the notion that we shouldn't burn witches because most of them used to be fakes, that torture tends to produce lies and violence begets violence, and how do we reconcile ourselves to the fact that we're still being deceived and manipulated, or have become more aware of it? I guess it's fair to say we've mostly evaded these questions so far. What does it say about what our moral values will be in the future, and how can people like Bugliosi claim that it hasn't always been this way? I mean, were there ever such things as honest governments and a desire among our leaders to build a better world with as little malfeasance as possible? Probably not, if you believe Noam Chomsky. The good old safe, comfy world is dead. And with it, although media tycoons and presidents get more powerful, much idealism and good will, the respect for persons of authority and the belief that real world events are the results of rational decisions, careful weighing of evidence and personal responsibility. This isn't a childish, foolish thing. People don't trust the news anymore, at least that's what the news say. And politicians as a class are despised und presumed to be corrupt. Somehow, it has become cool to be corrupt, because the big shots tend to get away with it.

If people prefer to hunt for alternate realities, it's a quest for better truths and explanations than the official/real ones, because that's untrustworthy information, somehow dangerous, or would destroy that person's view of himself or the world. They, the believers simply don't trust you. You can defeat their arguments, but probably never that underlying motivation. (Try convincing a politician that voting machines are fundamentally unsafe, if you're a security expert with a possibly dark past... but not Kevin Mitnick) Any reasonable person will sit on the fence from time to time, but any ad-hoc decision will probably be based on whether you trust the world around you, and how far. I think the BBC did a test on this a while ago, they posed a question like "The British government is monitoring all your telephone calls, true of false?" More than half the subjects responded yes, if memory serves. The "correct" answer was supposed to be no. Of course, the Brits aren't, only the Americans have that kind of technology. It also depends on what you mean by "monitoring" - listening in? Storing the where, when and who? That's what most governments do or are about to do.

I guess that sums up the mindset of the average nerdy conspiracy-consumer, and even fence-sitters like some journalists. Hardcore belief and paranoia is something that needs years to grow, I suppose. Maybe from bad experience, a tendency towards the secretive, fear, or family ties like Lee Harvey Oswald's. His mother was a conspiracy buff - we might owe his enduring secret agent legend partly to her. I believe I've read somewhere that conspiracies tend to be more widely believed among computer nerds, the underprivileged (what a word!) and ethnic minorities, but maybe that's from research still to be done, and only my common sense intuition so far.
Reply With Quote
By Maksutov on 24th July 2017, 09:47 PM
Some interesting observations. Thanks for posting.
Reply With Quote
By Tero on 18th January 2019, 09:11 AM
My quick summary of conspiracy and its believers: a way to simplify the world. It parallel the rules of thumb we apply to quick decision making. It has long evolutionary beginnings, when it was necessary to fight or flee.
Reply With Quote
By Skeptical Phil on 1st February 2019, 05:15 PM
I like it..Good job!
Reply With Quote

International Skeptics Forum » Reference » The Repository

Article Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:51 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.