Conspiracy theories don’t hold up to scrutiny because they are not based on facts. They are based on faulty premises or emotions that aren’t really attached to the facts.
And as with the theories they spout, conspiracy theorists are blinded by the emotion they attach to the issue, and are willing to put aside verifiable counterproof because of their dedication to fighting for their assertions.
With their beliefs driven by their hearts, rather than their brains, conspiracy theorists are in many ways the equivalent of religious zealots.
Consider the theory that first brought the conspiracy theory issue to light — that children were being trafficked out of Washington, DC pizza parlour basement. As bizarre as Pizzagate is and as many times as it has been dismissed (starting with the fact the pizza place has no basement), that belief continues for the simple reason that people loathe child abuse (even the vast majority that doesn’t buy into the Pizzagate theory).
Adopters of the theory conclude, or actually dismiss, their arguments with statements like “I’m just trying to protect the children,” or in most cases, counter the rational, fact-fueled debunking with charged proclamations like “Why don’t you care about the welfare of children?”
In effect, the latter changes the topic of debate. Deflection is one of the conspiracy theorist’s best tools, and they use it at every opportunity because it puts the onus on you to defend yourself against their unfounded, and usually unrelated, allegation, and relieves the pressure on them to defend their opinions.
You’ll never change conspiracy theorists’ minds because they are emotionally attached to the issue they are promoting, they believe they are better educated than you on whatever the issue is, consider themselves better connected than you (and therefore privy to “insider” information), and they believe their motives are altruistic rather than destructive.
They also consider any pushback on their beliefs as personal attacks, and will either walk away from a debate in a huff, or lash out at the attacker in an escalated manner (which further emotionally charges the confrontation).
By any definition of villainy in classic literature, conspiracy theorists are villains.
They aren’t, really. They’re primarily uninformed or most often misinformed, because they have based all their arguments on a premise (or hearsay) and haven’t bothered to check on the facts (or refuse to check them) before passing the rumour along.
When dealing with conspiracy theorists, as in dealing with religious zealots:
- Cite facts and back them up with sources — they don’t have any facts to back up their opinions; they only have their beliefs, and they will attempt to discredit your facts with unqualified dismissals such as “don’t believe the media” or “I was simply stating my opinion.” They don’t subscribe to the belief that you need facts to formulate opinions, believing that their faith should carry more weight.
- Ask for clarification on their sources — they don’t really have any sources, only vague allusions (thats why many of their statements start with “everybody knows” or “many times,” and they will dismiss their lack of sources with either the need to protect their sources, or by pointing out how easy it is for you yourself to find the proof you are asking them to provide. If it’s indeed easy to find, why are they not providing it?
- Challenge them to support their opinions — they can’t, which is why they often make statements and demand to be proven wrong, rather than offering proof up front as to how they’re right.
In all fairness, there are well-informed conspiracy theorists, who can back up their opinions with verifiable proof. The challenge is that anything can be proven with research — a news report on a poll is not definitive proof because another media source could interpret the findings in a completely different way — and when you take away the context, something can end up with a totally different assertion. Consider the number of quotes used to illustrate something different than what the person making the statement intended, and proven as such when the missing context is provided.
The caveat is that it sometimes takes time to uncover the disputable fact, which is why some conspiracy theories are disproven sometimes years after they’ve been allowed to proliferate.
The current anti-mask conspiracy revolves around the belief that masks don’t protect wearers from infection, which to a certain degree is true (though recent studies have shown masks do offer a modicum of protection to the wearer).
The faulty reasoning is that wearing masks is meant to protect the wearer — surgeons wear masks to prevent the surgeon from spreading germs to the patient, not to prevent the surgeon from catching whatever the patient is suffering from, which when you think about surgery, it’s really related to physical ailments like tumors, broken bones or failing organs. To my knowledge, nobody has ever been operated on to remove viruses from human cells, simply because it’s impossible to do so.
The best way to deal with conspiracy theorists is to challenge them to rationally back up their opinions, state your case to counter their claims, and then let them be.
You can’t change their minds because they aren’t trying to debate; they’re trying to further their self-worth (remember, they think they’re smarter than you and better connected than you, which is why they sometimes preempt your desire to thank them when your eyes are finally opened to the “truth”). And many will even state outright they don’t want to argue. But you have to keep calling them out in a civilized manner — challenge them to provide facts; don’t attack them personally or dismiss them, because that throws open the door to deflection and they will gladly step through it to avoid the burden of proof about their original stance.
The best you can hope to accomplish is that maybe, if enough people see the inability to counter facts with anything but dismissals or personal attacks, the conspiracy theorist will start to lose influence. Also, if enough of their loyal followers start to do their own research to back up their leaders’ claims, they may discover the actual truth.
And having more well-informed people is good for everybody.
hypoCRITICAL THINKING 
Recent Comments