'The Nature Of Conspiracy Theories' - Another Book That Fails Because Of Loose Thinking & Squishy Definitions

 "Standard conspiracy theories" remains something of an oxymoron because in the generally used context of how "conspiracy theory" is applied today it's a misnomer.  What we have then in cases like QAnon's gibberish, i.e. that the Dems are really a Satan-led cult that sacrifices infants, or Alex Jones' Sandy Hook false flag nonsense, are wacko ideations - not conspiracy theories.  Indeed, the term flung about - as in the mainstream media - is actually a brainless usage that ignores the strict meaning of the term "theory", i.e. in empirical science.   

 All this is relevant now as a new book has emerged, 'The Nature Of Conspiracy Theories',  written by a professor of American  Studies at the University of Tubingen in Germany.    Because of his lack of honing his definition it is no surprise he stumbles over making various claims, i.e. the "optimistic dimension" of  said "theories".  This also explains why his reviewer - Andrew Struttaford- also commits as many errors (WSJ, March 2, p. A15). i.e. "conspiracy theories can be fun".    Again, these lapses and major errors are possible when a writer comes to the table using the media term "conspiracy theory" instead of the more discriminating  "conspiracy ideation."  

 It is instructive here to focus more on Butter's lapses,  as distilled from the WSJ review piece.   According to Butter "evolution has trained the human brain to make connections and recognize patterns".  Thus he writes, "we are delighted to find these connections even when there are none."   In fact, Butter here is not advancing insights very much only recycling earlier twaddle.  For example, one paper from 2014 entitled 'American Conspiracy Theories" in which it is claimed:   

"researchers have found that inducing anxiety or loss of control triggers respondents to see non-existent patterns and evoke conspiratorial explanations."

And a similar piece of work ('Ingredients for Conspiratorial Thinking'  ) the same year from Michael Shermer in which the following assertion is rendered:

"Conspiracy theories connect the dots of random events into meaningful patterns (patternicity) and then infuse those patterns with intentional agency (agenticity). Add to this confirmation bias, the tendency to look for or find confirmatory evidence for what you already believe- and the hindsight bias (after the fact explanation for what you already know happened)  and we have the foundation for conspiratorial cognition."

But I torpedoed this codswallop in a November, 2014 post (to do with the overreaching of the Skeptics Society) noting:   

"Clever use of this pseudo-scientific,  dime store psychology template virtually any real conspiracy could be dismissed as nothing more then a combo of :  P (patternicity)+ A  (agenticity) + H (hindsight) + C (confirmation bias) nonsense!   

Think of it! In the case of the Iran-Contra conspiracy,  the shipping manifests revealing the assorted Hawk and TOW missiles  destined for Iran would be likened to "seeing a pattern".  This would then be "infused with agenticity"(sic)  because the missiles ended up with the Iranians - so someone had to be a bad guy in doing it- since the Iranians were bad guys holding American hostages.  The next step would be to accuse  Prosecutor Walsh of "looking for confirmatory evidence of what he already believed", i..e. the guilt of Oliver North, John Poindexter et al. because they "used their Government positions to create a hidden slush fund under the exclusive control of the conspirators”.  And finally, the coup de grace, Walsh would be accused of "hindsight bias" - advancing explanations after the fact for what he already knew happened. (Of course he knew, he uncovered the evidence in the course of his investigation!)"

More instructive than this "pattern completion" horse manure was Dr. Pat Banister's theory of mind and its basis for conspiracy awareness, delivered in a symposium in Barbados nearly 50 years ago.  This led to the critical distinction between the conspiracy analyst and conspiracy ideationist or  believer in indiscriminate 'conspiracism'.   Thus, Alex Jones with his Sandy Hook false flag bunkum (i.e. the kids shot at Sandy Hook were really child actors)  belongs to the latter, while the late JFK researcher Mark Lane belongs to the former - as I spelled out clearly with reasons in an obit post, i.e. 

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/05/rip-mark-lane-one-of-earliest-jfk.html

  Again, these distinctions are important and I'd argue no serious researcher or writer (or reviewer) can be taken seriously if s/he doesn't make the distinction between a conspiracy theory and ideation, or a conspiracy analyst and peddler of conspiracism.   

Getting back to Shermer's conspiracy pattern nonsense (which coincides with Butter's invocations) he makes light of Grassy Knoll observers' expressions on Nov. 22, 1963 and mockingly asks "Could that flash of light really have been a gun barrel?"   Well, uh, yeah, and even a GK shooter.  Indeed, a high tech investigation of one (Mary Moorman) photo produced an outline of the putative shooter behind the stockade fence, e.g.

Which image  - compliments of researcher Richard Charnin from his blog-   was declared authentic by an MIT analysis team, as Charnin noted.   But even if one were to be so blearyy- eyed as to see nothing of significance in the image, the skeptics could hardly deny the difference in the two images below of JFK's head- with the real autopsy photo on the right, and the fraudulent mock up on the left. 

No "patterns" to decode  here, only real head images - the one on the right showing the massive rear head wound that would only have come from a shot from the front, i.e. the grassy knoll.

Another canard compliments of both the WSJ reviewer and Butter is that conspiracies proposed (i.e. real ones like the JFK assassination) are "usually too complex, too many people involved".  This is basically an absurd and artificial complaint or criterion if the number is exactly that needed to succeed! For example, if 55 individuals were needed to make the JFK assassination succeed, then who's to say that was "too many"? In relation to what, exactly? Yes, it sounds like a lot, but not if the objective was to change the course of U.S. history - which it did! Had JFK lived the Vietnam War would never have been fought since his National Security Action Memorandum 263 planned a pullout of all U.S. personnel by 1965. (As per Freedom of Information released dociments, ca. 1997)

If, 1,100 were needed for the BCCI banking conspiracy to succeed ( as it did for years!) then who is to say that was too many? I mean we're talking about a criminal bank with its paws in 73 countries, for god's sakes! By the same token, if 400 people were needed for the Iran-Contra conspiracy to succeed (e.g. double dealing with the U.S. backed Contras in Nicaragua and the Iranians at the same time to funnel arms from the latter to the Contras, in violation of the Boland Amendment) then who is to say it is "too many"?

Then there is the claim of Butter's that: "Conspiracy theories create meaning, reduce uncertainty and emphasize human agency."   Thus, "there is no room for chance or contradictions.  There must be something else behind errant data."    

But again, this is where the work of actual conspiracy analysts comes in, the better to separate conspiracy wheat from chaff.    Again, conspiracy analysts, such as Mark Lane, Peter Dale Scott, Harold Weisberg, Richard Charnin and others (like yours truly) comprise serious people possessing some measure of intellect who brought their scientific, mathematical and other aptitudes to the investigation of multiple aspects of a putative real conspiracies like Iran-Contra and the JFK assassination.  These people put in real man hours and actually published their work in authoritative media (e.g. BOOKS - real books!) and respected forums as opposed to spreading bunkum through half-assed posts in the lowest dreg regions of the net, like 4chan and 8chan.

Nor is the inclusion in our works of  "multiple footnotes, references and appendices" merely the casual "adoption of a style to convey seriousness."   Because only a congenital idiot  would make such an insipid argument with a text that also includes actual photographs of Kennedy's shattered cranium and leaking brains. And only a self-declared fool would suggest an effort to convey seriousness when the footnotes, references and appendices expand on the data and images, including using mathematical support (such as in my book using fractional calculus to show the Oswald LIFE photos were faked).

  Back to Butter.  His claim that the "argumentative structure" e.g. in the social sciences "is often strikingly similar to conspiracy theories"  also falls down because not enough discrimination in his definitions is attempted. Because of this the WSJ reviewer can embark on all kinds of discursive  rhetorical forays including the reference to the  "strange world of conspiracy theories" (as opposed to the strange world of conspiracy ideations) and "the paranoid style" dominating social sciences at universities.  Then going on to drag in the "long running academic assault on objective reality".    All of which inevitably leads to Stuttaford's jaundiced and severely conflated conclusion: 

 "A society where people talk unchallenged about 'their' truths  is not best suited to take on the nonsense of conspiracism".

But perhaps a proper full  university course on the subject, taught as an adjunct of  theory of mind - based on Bannister's work- might enable a more objective and serious approach.   Commencing at a place we finally get our definitions straight the better to separate objective reality from subjective and wild ruminations.  So information consumers are less likely to conflate actual conspiracies with conspiracy bunkum and the twaddle of crackpots - such as hail from QAnon and Info Wars.  Thus, far less likely to be disinformation consumers.

Errors may then also be avoided by assorted media - reporters, such as when CBS' Nancy Cordes foolishly compared QAnon garbage to Oliver Stone's movie 'JFK'.  E.g.

• CBS' Nancy Cordes Proves She's A Gullible Idiot By...

See Also::

They’re worried their mom is becoming a conspiracy theorist. She thinks they’re the ones living in a fantasy world.

AND:

• Conspiracies and Belief: Separating Wheat from Chaff
• And: 
• Higher IQ Liar Children, Conspiracy Awareness & Th...
• And: 

• Parsing Key Aspects Of The JFK Assassination Docum...