Now, onto the main topic—conspiracy theories. Normally scientific colleagues would dismiss this topic altogether, claiming that responding to their argument in itself is a validation (at least in the view of those who believe in conspiracy theories), disturbingly similar to proponents of intelligent design. I admit that conspiracy is a very real and very probable phenomenon that should incite fear. However, when grand claims are made, such as the Freemasons are in league with the Catholics and the Jews to control the global economy (ignoring the historical tension between the three), brows must be raised. Of course, any a priori knowledge is dangerous, so dismissing these claims without proper evaluation is scientifically naïve (although one would ask if it’s even worth the time to consider, unlike the more existential subject of intelligent design), but I’d like to point to the fact that conspiracy theories tend to be a priori claims in themselves, so they must first produce evidence.
The root of conspiracy theories is actually something that I admire—a skepticism of the “official accounts” given by those in power (e.g. the Church, the state, the media, etc.). However, then the theories tend to branch out into ridiculous claims, usually involving Satanic cults, world order, and homosexuality. Really, check out The Order of Death by Alex Jones (a film that has shoddy scholarship at best, intentional deception at worst), which piles up claims similar to the ones made by the Roman Catholic Church and the King of France against the Knights Templar. Instead of Baphomet, however, Jones has posited that they deity they worship is Moloch, seen by some as a mistake in transliterating Hebrew (Moloch=mlk=melech=”king”), thereby changing the idea of idol worship to state worship, as was the case in Egypt.
What’s worse, however, is the fact that Satanism and Devil Worship (i.e. alternative religion) becomes the qualifying character. The following extract is from the film by Alex Jones:
“If your neighbor worshipped Moloch, the demon worshipped all over the Mediterranean and the Middle East, would you let your neighbor walk your dog or house sit or babysit your children?”
The use of fear here pleads to an emotional argument without any basis. Of course, this in itself does not invalidate their claim (although we have to look at the fact that they’re blanketing all evils into “Satanism,” which argues from a Christian standpoint, which therefore shows an agenda that conflicts with objectivity), but if it’s the only thing they present without solid evidence, then their claims go straight out the window.
Alex Jones, however, presents evidence, in form of video tape, photographs, documents, and “personal account” of an anonymous contributor. The video clip that he presents of a ritual going on in some Bohemian Grove has really bad quality and cannot establish the identity of any “world leader” participating in a so-called “mock human sacrifice” (I can’t even tell if they’re even in the woods or on a stage). Another video includes him trying to approach a fireman about secret rituals, when the fireman “says” “turn off the camera, buddy” (paraphrased). However, this seemed to be coming from a person off-camera as he looked to the side, and the disembodied voice actually seems to be on a different soundtrack (although one could argue that the disembodied voice was actually coming from right next to the cameraman). Regardless of the actual situation, this shows how easily video clips can be edited and touched with. The documents he presents also can be fabricated quite easily, although if they are genuine, one might ask how such secret documents were allowed to be obtained, especially by a “world order?” And this anonymous contributor? How are we to verify his existence in the first place?
Now, this is not to say that there isn’t a possibility that such things are true, especially given the fact that our administration seems very keen on expanding our influence. However, one must remember that the affirmative holds the burden of proof. Good evidence is indisputable (well, if it is disputable, then even more good arguments must be made to support the validity of the evidence). If the conspiracy theorist wishes to prove that I am not part of the “New World Order,” then he (most probably it’s a he with a geeky demeanor and social awkwardness) must establish how I did not just oversee a transaction between Microsoft and Apple in order to (secretly) monopolize the information industry’s hardware centers. Fnord.
No comments:
Post a Comment