Conspiracies are bias

Anyone who is sceptical of the official or a commonly held belief souring a world event and seeks to find an alternative theory to describe the event is described as being a “conspiracy theorist”. That’s what we all do on ATS we are looking for how it really happened because we don’t believe the official story.

This however is also the root problem with allot of conspiracies. They are fundamentally bias as whoever is researching them or preaching a personal view is doing so from the assumption that the official story has to be wrong. Usually this view is formed by a mistrust of the governmental establishment or society as a whole. “We don’t believe them” is almost the unofficial motto of the conspiracy community and the only reason all of the time we don’t believe them is because it is them who are giving us the narrative to explain how it happened.

This means that there cannot be any balance for it is assumed from the outset that the official story is wrong and this is usually compounded by a belief that a higher power must be at work. As a result of this the author’s opinions are directing the research rather than the research directing the opinions. This in turn naturally means that the researcher will only give credit to any source that backs up his predetermined view that there must exist a secret truth. It’s not like anyone is going to provide information in a conspiracy that will cast aspersions and questions their view and theory.

For example say a significant word event happens, we’ll call it event X. Let’s assume a perfectly logical and fact based narrative as to how event X occurred is put forward by the mainstream media and government but as a sceptical mind I automatically assume this explanation has to be wrong as it comes from “them”. Following this assumption i will go and find evidence and sources to back up my view any research I do will be directed by the view that there is a sinister truth behind event X. I may find that most sources back up the official story however I will inevitably find a source (Source Z) who says I am right. Despite the numerous other sources who categorically say I am wrong and the official narrative is correct it is “Source Z” who will be used to back up my view that the story behind event X is a lie.

This is the template that most conspiracies on ATS work to. It is disinformation. If Source A, B, C, D.... say that you are wrong and are backed up the strongest of research and scientific diligence someone on ATS with exquisite Goggling skills will find Source X. Once they have Source Z no other source will be accepted because it contradicts their predetermined view which is defended with such fundamental aggression any attempt to silence this view will be squashed. This effect is multiplied by the number of people on ATS who are more susceptible to believe the beliefs of others if they go against the established truth. They are after all fellow conspiracy theorists.

reply to post by kevinunknown


I disagree that 'conspiracies are bias', I would say that 'conspiracies can be bias' - but then anything can be.

Bias exists in every facet of human life and it is up to us as individuals to try and ignore our biases and take a unbiased view whenever a conspiracy is put forward.

You for example are bias towards certain conspiracies (in that you don't believe in them), hence why you have made this thread. There is nothing wrong with that of course, it's human nature, but bias is not exclusive to conspiracy theories.

Originally posted by kevinunknown

"This however is also the root problem with allot of conspiracies. They are fundamentally bias as whoever is researching them or preaching a personal view is doing so from the assumption that the official story has to be wrong. Usually this view is formed by a mistrust of the governmental establishment or society as a whole. “We don’t believe them” is almost the unofficial motto of the conspiracy community and the only reason all of the time we don’t believe them is because it is them who are giving us the narrative to explain how it happened."

Im going to have to completely disagree with you, when I research conspiracies I usually think its(the conspiracy) not true but try to have an open mind. Sure, some people will automatically assume the official story isnt true, but I think most people know the official story can be true too, even those who research conspiracies. And almost everything you read that has to do with politics is "bias" to a certain degree because everyone has their own opinions, it's not unique to conspiracy theories.

[edit on 14-7-2010 by CREAM]

I have never actually said I don’t believe in all conspiracies it’s just that I am very sceptical. For example I have written a conspiracy concerning the pan am 103 bombing, 7/7 and the Echelon system. You said at first that conspiracies can be bias and then said that bias exists in every aspect of human life, I would include conspiracies in that and therefore by your logic they also have to be bias.

One thing you are overlooking is that the "official story" can also be biased. Political, relgious, economical, etc. reasons can distort any story for any reason.

Usually, I just assume the official story is valid, unless something strikes out as odd to me. For example, the super bullet that hit JFK. At that point, I would be interested in learning more - otherwise, why dig into a story unless you find the topic very interesting, or just want to prove other people wrong for the sake of proving them wrong?

Originally posted by kevinunknown
I have never actually said I don’t believe in all conspiracies it’s just that I am very sceptical.

I am aware of that, which is why I said 'certain' conspiracies, not 'all'.

Originally posted by kevinunknown
You said at first that conspiracies can be bias and then said that bias exists in every aspect of human life, I would include conspiracies in that and therefore by your logic they also have to be bias.

Yes, I said that conspiracies, like everything else in life, can be bias. I think you should thoroughly read before replying in future.

This is a great topic. Cheers.

Everything observed becomes biased as the observer applies their individual filters.

A conspiracy is simply the collaborative effort of several people accomplishing their goal. The connotation associated with the word conspiracy has grown exponentially with the onslaught of media and rate at which information is distributed in this age.

The theory of a conspiracy is really no different than any other theory, in that it is an educated guess.

Beyond the observer, the conspiracy and the theory is the truth, which is absolute and cannot be biased. That is the grail we seek as like-minded individuals.

We all know that what our senses read and report on are flawed, incongruent and fundamentally opposed to our DNAs programming and that is why we instinctively attack the lies.

Of course there is a strong possibility that I am full of crap and all of these words were a waste of time writing and reading!

The good news is that I wrote them alone which means there cannot be a conspiracy associated to any of it.

Peace

Originally posted by kevinunknown
I have never actually said I don’t believe in all conspiracies it’s just that I am very sceptical. For example I have written a conspiracy concerning the pan am 103 bombing, 7/7 and the Echelon system. You said at first that conspiracies can be bias and then said that bias exists in every aspect of human life, I would include conspiracies in that and therefore by your logic they also have to be bias.

You said in the first post that they are bias because people who make conspiracies are "doing so from the assumption that the official story has to be wrong.", thats what I disagree with because imo that usually is not the case, after they've researched the topic they may come to that conclusion, but going into it very few people already fully believe there was a conspiracy. I agree that with anything that involves politics and opinions is going to be bias, but thats pretty much a given.

reply to post by zroth


Hmmm a interesting outlook. We have to accept i think that there is such a thing as knowing something to be true. That may sound naive but I do believe in such a thing as true knowledge. I want to ask you and everyone else when they think conspiracy theory becomes conspiracy fact, because it is only the conspiracy facts i am interested in.

reply to post by kevinunknown


This is a good question. I think it becomes fact when all the data is presented and the outcome becomes clear.

Take Monsanto as an example. All of the data is available to demonstrate that they sell weed killer as well as genetically modified seeds that are weed killer resistant. Farmers are forced to buy Monsanto seeds because the modified gene is patented. The conspiracy theory was that they were trying to patent organic life and own all rights to said life.

We now know that this is conspiracy true but instead of acting we went back to watching survivor 29 on our iphone 12 between tweeting success stories of Farmville (sponsored by Monsanto) on Facebook.

Funny how not a single person starred your OP or Flagged your thread although its 100% true and important in the motto of the site "Deny Ignorance". Putting a paranoid-spin on every event is just as bad as putting a leftist, rightist or mainstream-spin on every event.

Somewhere someone commits a murder and the paranoid immediately asks "Was the murderer remote mind-controlled?" completely bypassing the possibility of the murderer merely being a murderer or the thing having some other cause.

When people overdose on the conspiracy-idea it creates some horrific distortions and delusions. These can become severe enough that a brilliant thread such as this is simply ignored.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Ah thank you for commenting i thought this thread was dead. I do think it is a important topic but if nobody bothers to comment or flag there isn’t much i can do. Thank you for your contribution.