Conspiracy theories (Venue A: Caffè Nero)

THE VENUE: Caffè Nero

It's autumn so we will meet indoors for the next few months.

When we meet indoors, we run the same event in two locations: Caffè Nero and Starbucks, so as to provide capacity for as many people who would like to attend, without overwhelming any one venue. Thus, there will be two events published, and you can choose which one to attend. Please don't sign up for both. This event is for the Nero location.

We meet upstairs at Caffè Nero. An organiser will be present from 10.45. We are not charged for use of the space so it would be good if everyone bought at least one drink.

An attendee limit has been set so as not to overwhelm the venue.

Etiquette
Our discussions are friendly and open. We are a discussion group, not a for-and-against debating society. But it helps if we try to stay on topic. And we should not talk over others, interrupt them, or try to dominate the conversation.

There is often a waiting list for places, so please cancel your attendance as soon as possible if you subsequently find you can't come.

WhatsApp groups
We have two WhatsApp groups. One is to notify events, including extra events such as meeting for a meal or a drink during the week which we don't normally put on the Meetup site. The other is for open discussion of whatever topics occur to people. If you would like to join either or both groups, please send a note of the phone number you would like to use to Richard Baron on: website.audible238@passmail.net. (This is an alias that can be discarded if it attracts spam, hence the odd words.)

THE TOPIC: Conspiracy theories

This week's topic has been prepared by Duncan.

A conspiracy theory has been defined as an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, often political in motivation, or more narrowly a conspiracy where other explanations are more probable.

Labelling something as a conspiracy theory suggests a questionable claim to knowledge that we might think the claimant doesn't have. We might say that knowledge requires justified true belief and whilst there is belief and perhaps a claim of justification, one cannot know something that isn't true. The flat-earther's claim fails simply because the Earth isn't in fact flat.

What is it about the nature of conspiracy theories that makes them interesting ? After all, we are all occasionally mistaken about things (!!) and we sometimes fail to change our minds when presented with factual evidence to the contrary.

One distinction is that CTs require an element of secrecy rather than mere disagreement or error. There is a sense of being controlled by unseen forces who wish to keep the truth from us, to their advantage rather than ours.

Another factor is the theorist's claim to have evidence or knowledge that the rest of us aren't privy to. This may give them a sense of power, a sense of belonging to a small group with special access to that information, and a superior intellect for having 'seen through' the deceit that others couldn't.

Further, it seems part of human nature to identify gaps in official narratives about significant events and to explain and fill them. After all, all histories are incomplete. However, whether we should explain these gaps as evidence of conspiracy is questionable. And adding unnecessary causes or explanations seems to fall foul of Occam's razor.

How should we treat conspiracy theorists ? One suggestion is that we should be kind and understanding. However, this risks allowing potentially harmful theories to spread, as is the case with vaccine or human-induced climate change denial. This relates to the question of tolerance that we discussed last week.

Is claiming that something is a conspiracy theory open to a counter-claim of itself being a conspiracy theory ? The accused may say that we have no more relevant knowledge than they do, or that we have some malevolent agenda in attempting to question their theory, or that we have simply been hoodwinked.

It may be that we overuse the term, sometimes when other people are simply mistaken and there is no ulterior motive.

There do seem to be some claims that were initially labelled as conspiracy theories, but that have subsequently been shown to be true, often years later as evidence emerged.

Of course, as rational philosophers with finely honed critical thinking skills, we would never fall into this trap. Or would we ? If we needed to be sharper, we could always attend the International Conference on the Philosophy of Conspiracy Theory in Amsterdam.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_conspiracy_theories
https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2020/12/17/conspiracy-theories/