That's actually a rather good example of the “yes, but…” cognitive dissonance I've been describing. I've spent a considerable amount of this thread trying to explain the mindset behind conspiracy thinking — the tendency to assume hidden motives, distrust contrary evidence, seek patterns and interpret uncertainty as evidence of deliberate wrongdoing. And the response is essentially: “Yes, but they've seen how the system operates and have been duped too many times.” But notice what has happened. There is no evidence offered for the particular conspiracies being discussed, no examination of the reasoning, and no attempt to establish whether the alleged deception actually occurred. Instead, the existence of previous wrongdoing is being used to justify suspicion of further wrongdoing. That's not scepticism. It's an assumption. Governments, corporations and institutions have certainly lied, deceived people and concealed information. That is a reason to check evidence carefully, not a licence to assume that every unexplained event has a hidden perpetrator. Genuine scepticism says: “I know people can deceive me, so I'll examine the evidence.” Conspiratorial thinking says: “I've been deceived before, therefore my suspicion is justified.” Those are not the same thing. And ironically, the reply demonstrates exactly the point I was making: rather than examining why people develop a conspiratorial mindset, it immediately supplies a reason why the conspiratorial mindset must be justified. “I've been fooled before” may explain why someone is suspicious. It does absolutely nothing to establish that their current suspicion is true. - That's the bit that seems to keep getting lost in this discussion.
Create an account or sign in to comment