Three Postulates of Moonbat Conspiracy Theories


Awhile back, I had come up with a set of heuristics, or general rules of thumb to judge the relative plausibility of conspiracy theories, first only one, then two, and just recently completing them as a full set of three, in the spirit of Clarke’s three laws, as well as Isaac Asimov’s laws of Robotics and his semi-humorously intended laws of Humanics.

But these are postulates, not laws, though they have shown themselves remarkably consistent and useful predictive guides indeed.

The postulates are general observations on the characteristics of conspiracy theories ranging from the seemingly sound to the completely kooktastic ones, and of what things to look out for and sound the shenanigans alarm when dealing with the claims of those chaps wearing tinfoil hats.

The 1st:

  • The likelihood of any given conspiracy theory being true is inversely proportional to the amount of bat-shit insane rationalization that goes into it.

The next involves what’s known as “cascade logic,” fallacious reasoning in which the conspiracy must be ever-widened with increasingly enormous numbers of people “in” on it to support its attendant theory.

Never mind that it’s extremely illogical to claim that a conspiracy can involve thousands or millions of people, all of them comically evil and as obedient to their masters as Daleks, with not one of them ever blowing its cover even once for personal gain or ethical qualms, or any of the other reasons people often have for blowing big secrets wide open.

If the United States government can’t even keep the secret of the atomic bomb, or more recently, the scandals of even the secretive political administration of president Bush II, though conspiracies do happen, and secrets are often successfully kept, as well they sometimes should be, it’s the successful conspiracies that no one, and I mean no one uninvolved, ever hears about until said conspiracies become unsuccessful and thus no longer pose a threat.

The 2nd:

  • The plausibility of any given conspiracy theory is inversely proportional to the number of people allegedly involved in it.

This last one is a variant of Godwin’s Law, dealing with the invective that flies when unsupported claims of conspiracy are challenged by those of us less inclined to be taken in by or promote them.

The 3rd:

  • The probability of being accused of implication as a craven shill, stooge, or dupe in a conspiracy is directly proportional to the degree of implausibility a critic attributes to the alleged conspiracy’s attendant body of theory and to the level of self-righteous hostility of the theorist.

I find these useful for separating the absurd theories from the more likely ones, and best used together in looking for fallacious and baroque chains of argument, including cascade reasoning, special pleading and ad hominem arguments of motive and knowing or naive involvement in the conspiracy by proponents.

I hope you find these amusing if nothing else…but never forget that the most important thing is the evidence for a claim — these postulates are only intended to raise the proverbial red flags, to note when something sounds fishy, but are a good indicator of nonsense if evidence is not forthcoming from the claimant.

About Troy Loy

I seek to learn through this site and others how to better my ability as a person and my skill at using my reason and understanding to best effect. I do fractal artwork as a hobby, and I'm working to develop it to professional levels, though I've a bit to go till I reach that degree of skill! This is a crazy world we're in, but maybe I can do a little, if only that, to make it a bit more sane than it otherwise would be.

Posted on Monday, 0:17, February 20, 2012, in Misunderstandings & Nonsense, Skepticism & Skeptics and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. 3 Comments.

  1. Reblogged this on Gideon Jagged and commented:
    I would only add that I don’t think conspiracies are probable because of a kind of inverse square law: the likelihood of a secret remaining a secret is inversely proportionate to the number of people who know it. 3 people = 1/9 odds; 4 = 1/16, etc.

    Like

  1. Pingback: the controversy of conspiracy « JRFibonacci's blog: partnering with reality

  2. Pingback: What's this "Tinfoil Hat Club" stuff, anyway? |

Commenting below. No spam or trolling, or my cats will be angry.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,045 other followers

%d bloggers like this: