Towards Rigorous & Radical Conspiracy Theory

[American Dream]

It is a passion of mine to investigate and expose real conspiracies through investigations that can be backed by strong evidence, investigations that have the potential to seriously benefit our lives through significantly advancing our collective liberation. I think there is great power in researchers with shared values and shared interests working together on shared goals.

Fundamental to this process is a solid critique of White Supremacy, Patriarchy, Capitalism, Homophobia and all the other "isms". Folks that I can think of that are veering in this direction include Tom Burghardt, Peter Dale Scott, Jeffrey Kaye, maybe Robin Ramsay (I never subscribed to Lobster)- and perhaps others, too.

Given the criticism of "conspiracy theories" by structuralist-oriented leftists such as Noam Chomsky, who write it all off due to an overblown "Right Woos Left" kind of thesis, I think we need to develop Conspiracy Theory (with a capital "T") that is solidly anti-fascist, anti-racist, anti-authoritarian, anti-misogynist and also intelligently thought out.

What are the possibilities for helping make that happen more, here at Rigorous Intuition?

[justdrew]

I think the possibilities are good. but is it research or narrative construction that is needed? Research is always subject to re-interpretation, limited information, total lack of data, fake data, etc...

There are already vast amounts of probably accurate research long done, synthesis and collecting it together may be more urgent.

Also:
1. a plan to put this info before "the unwashed masses"
2. the need for a banner to rally behind
3. implementation activities

[seemslikeadream]

are we able to advance conspiracy theories that have yet to be confirmed as truth?

are we able to advance conspiracy theories that you believe are insane?

are we able to advance conspiracy theories that may take 50 to 100 years to prove?

or are you going to label them as moonshine?

sometimes you leave me with the impression that since I can not prove there is a force that can move the continents I must be nuts

example

in 1970 when I was a sophomore in college my professor told me he was not allowed to teach the "theory" of continental drift...yet

Abraham Ortelius (Ortelius 1596), Theodor Christoph Lilienthal (1756), Alexander von Humboldt (1801 and 1845) Antonio Snider-Pellegrini (Snider-Pellegrini 1858), and others had noted earlier that the shapes of continents on opposite sides of the Atlantic Ocean (most notably, Africa and South America) seem to fit together. W. J. Kious described Ortelius' thoughts in this way:
Abraham Ortelius in his work Thesaurus Geographicus ... suggested that the Americas were "torn away from Europe and Africa ... by earthquakes and floods" and went on to say: "The vestiges of the rupture reveal themselves, if someone brings forward a map of the world and considers carefully the coasts of the three [continents]."

......

David Attenborough, who attended university in the second half of the 1940s, recounted an incident illustrating its lack of acceptance then: "I once asked one of my lecturers why he was not talking to us about continental drift and I was told, sneeringly, that if I could I prove there was a force that could move continents, then he might think about it. The idea was moonshine, I was informed."

Rationality and Irrationality of Continental Drift Worthy of Pursuit

Ever since the revolution in the earth sciences culminated in the overall ac-ceptance of the theory of plate tectonics, philosophers and historians of sciencehave been analyzing this shift in geology. What made the development in ge-ology very interesting is its specific dynamics. Even though the hypothesis of continental drift was proposed by Alfred Wegener already around the 1920s, itwas firmly rejected by many geologists not only as unacceptable but even asunworthy of further pursuit. Almost half a century had to pass in order for thishypothesis to become finally accepted and elaborated into the theory of platetectonics. Such a development inspired discussions among philosophers and his-torians of science, which especially focused around two issues: first, the natureof the revolution in geology and the applicability of different methodologicalframeworks to it, and second, the rationality or irrationality of the stances of scientists throughout the revolution.With regard to the first question, some philosophers and historians of scienceargued that this episode can be described in terms of Kuhn’s notion of scientificrevolution (e.g. Stewart (1990)). However, the majority of them agreed thatLaudan’s account of progress of science is more suitable for this case-study (seee.g. Le Grand (1988), Frankel (1979), Laudan (1987)). The aptness of Laudan’sframework stems from two important notions in his account. On the one hand,his notion of a research tradition as a broader theoretical framework, constitutedby specific scientific theories, has been shown useful for capturing the rivalingcamps in geology, neither of which could be reduced to one generally acceptedtheory.
1
On the other hand, his distinction between the context of pursuit andthe context of acceptance (Laudan, 1977, p. 108-110) proved to be importantfor analyzing questions of rationality regarding this case study. According toLaudan, “acceptance, rejection, pursuit and non-pursuit constitute the majorcognitive stances which scientists can legitimately take towards research tradi-tions (and their constituent theories)” (Laudan, 1977, p. 119). As the namessuggest, the context of acceptance deals with the question as to whether acertain theory is to be accepted as the standard in the given field, while thecontext of pursuit deals with the question as to whether a (possibly young, un-developed) theory is at all worthy of further pursuit. Such a distinction allowsfor a twofold analysis of the rationality of judgments made by geologists duringthis time. This brings us to the second important topic that attracted interestsof philosophers and historians of science, as we have mentioned above.

[American Dream]

I think the possibilities are good. but is it research or narrative construction that is needed? Research is always subject to re-interpretation, limited information, total lack of data, fake data, etc...

There are already vast amounts of probably accurate research long done, synthesis and collecting it together may be more urgent.

Also:
1. a plan to put this info before "the unwashed masses"
2. the need for a banner to rally behind
3. implementation activities

Excellent points!

Yes, narrative construction is highly needed and we surely need something to hang that narrative on- compelling stories of un(der-)disclosed wrongdoing, which many/most would agree represents a grave injustice.

As to the "unwashed masses"- yes the question of audience also helps focus the question of goals. As to banner- we make the road by walking- this important question must develop organically with the narratives and investigations developed. And implementation activities- I think about this a lot, wonder about what made the late 60's/early 70's such a potent time in U.S. history- the history I best know.

Near as I can tell, there were a wide number of mainstream media open to subversive narratives at that time. Nowadays, that stuff is a bit more marginalized. There are still alternative radio stations that will cover these things- especially in the West and in New England- but in general we are facing the echo chamber effect. In other words, on the Internet and through other media, there is a lot of preaching to the choir.

I'm not really interested here in herding cats, nor in telling others what they should investigate, what their values and compass should be- more like I said before, "to investigate and expose real conspiracies through investigations that can be backed by strong evidence, investigations that have the potential to seriously benefit our lives through significantly advancing our collective liberation. I think there is great power in researchers with shared values and shared interests working together on shared goals."

So not sure what to say- but the Internet does offer some possibilities and the lack of access to even lefty "alternative media" is surely a two-way street. The more we develop solid political thinking and good values informing truly rigorous conspiracy narratives, the better we can make that road.

[seemslikeadream]

oh you are only interested in political conspiracy theories. ...never mind

[jakell]

Differing approaches are valuable, and the quest for the perfect one** means throwing many babies out with the bathwater.

My own...... Start from a narrow base, ie real word events and as current as possible, and build carefully from there. If no real world events fit the desired narrative, don't invent and confabulate, find something more constructive to do.
Don't let the tail wag the dog.


**This is usually fed by the assumption that there must be one overarching conspiracy to rule them all, and this is hinted at in the title here.

[American Dream]

Differing approaches are valuable, and the quest for the perfect one** means throwing many babies out with the bathwater.

My own...... Start from a narrow base, ie real word events and as current as possible, and build carefully from there. If no real world events fit the desired narrative, don't invent and confabulate, find something more constructive to do.
Don't let the tail wag the dog.


**This is usually fed by the assumption that there must be one overarching conspiracy to rule them all, and this is hinted at in the title here.

Yeah- I'm not into sweeping master narratives here and your approach is your approach- not trying to work with you on this.

[FourthBase]

It is a passion of mine to investigate and expose real conspiracies through investigations that can be backed by strong evidence, investigations that have the potential to seriously benefit our lives through significantly advancing our collective liberation. I think there is great power in researchers with shared values and shared interests working together on shared goals.

Fundamental to this process is a solid critique of White Supremacy, Patriarchy, Capitalism, Homophobia and all the other "isms". Folks that I can think of that are veering in this direction include Tom Burghardt, Peter Dale Scott, Jeffrey Kaye, maybe Robin Ramsay (I never subscribed to Lobster)- and perhaps others, too.

Given the criticism of "conspiracy theories" by structuralist-oriented leftists such as Noam Chomsky, who write it all off due to an overblown "Right Woos Left" kind of thesis, I think we need to develop Conspiracy Theory (with a capital "T") that is solidly anti-fascist, anti-racist, anti-authoritarian, anti-misogynist and also intelligently thought out.

What are the possibilities for helping make that happen more, here at Rigorous Intuition?

I vote for also having a solid critique of anti-capitalism, feminism, antiracism, queer theory, and the anti-fascist milieu in general. Us, too, basically. I propose that a solid critique of ourselves is also fundamental to investigation and liberation. Or did that kind of thing go out of style on the radical left? Or perhaps some folks are blinded by bias to their own blind spots, deaf to their own tone-deaf hypocrisy?

Let's investigate EVERYTHING.

Or are you willing to say "NTSHMA" to pretty much anything that doesn't confirm your own POV?

[American Dream]

It is a passion of mine to investigate and expose real conspiracies through investigations that can be backed by strong evidence, investigations that have the potential to seriously benefit our lives through significantly advancing our collective liberation. I think there is great power in researchers with shared values and shared interests working together on shared goals.

Fundamental to this process is a solid critique of White Supremacy, Patriarchy, Capitalism, Homophobia and all the other "isms". Folks that I can think of that are veering in this direction include Tom Burghardt, Peter Dale Scott, Jeffrey Kaye, maybe Robin Ramsay (I never subscribed to Lobster)- and perhaps others, too.

Given the criticism of "conspiracy theories" by structuralist-oriented leftists such as Noam Chomsky, who write it all off due to an overblown "Right Woos Left" kind of thesis, I think we need to develop Conspiracy Theory (with a capital "T") that is solidly anti-fascist, anti-racist, anti-authoritarian, anti-misogynist and also intelligently thought out.

What are the possibilities for helping make that happen more, here at Rigorous Intuition?

I vote for also having a solid critique of anti-capitalism, feminism, antiracism, queer theory, and the anti-fascist milieu in general. Us, too, basically. I propose that a solid critique of ourselves is also fundamental to investigation and liberation. Or did that kind of thing go out of style on the radical left? Or perhaps some folks are blinded by bias to their own blind spots, deaf to their own tone-deaf hypocrisy?

Let's investigate EVERYTHING.

Or are you willing to say "NTSHMA" to pretty much anything that doesn't confirm your own POV?

I basically agree. I'm big on critiquing left cults and dogmas, privilege politics, lifestyle anarchism, questionable or non-existing strategies, wimpy liberalism, black bloc Manarchism, elevating one struggle above all others, Third World "solidarity" that veers towards charity and/or gives authoritarian movements a free pass, leaders not practicing what they preach, opportunism in general, the Non Profit Industrial Complex, destructive Separatism, Echo Chamber Politics, Clicktivism, etc. etc.


.

[Searcher08]

It is a passion of mine to investigate and expose real conspiracies through investigations that can be backed by strong evidence, investigations that have the potential to seriously benefit our lives through significantly advancing our collective liberation.

Myself, also. Totally.

I think there is great power in researchers with shared values and shared interests working together on shared goals.

Sometimes.
This is fine when you have a broadly homogeneous set of people ie an environment such as a Union or Charity... where the goals are provided by an external reference like the 'Articles of Association'...

The best research I have seen done is being done by a very large, non-homogeneous set of people whose only shared value is that of sustained outrage, with a goal of 'finding out more'. This has achieved consistent exposure in the UK media.

Fundamental to this process is a solid critique of White Supremacy, Patriarchy, Capitalism, Homophobia and all the other "isms".

NO.

Fundamental to the process is bringing an awareness of what biases you are ALREADY bringing to the party ie being aware of your own biases, worldview formation process and belief maintainence.

Firstly,
By talking about making a central focus of this possible endevour the production of 'critique' against assorted 'isms', you are demonstrating to me a fierce (and unexamined) commitment to the same binary logic, dialectic, argumentation non-holistic thinking superstructure that is a huge part of the problematique on the planet.
Secondly,
Framing everything as "anti-X, Y or Z" is often a very poor strategy for goal formation. The brain (Pribram et al) does not do NOT-X very well. It is like saying "DONT THINK OF BLUE ELEPHANTS" - keep thinking that thought and soon the only things on your mind will be azure and cerulean and turquoise pachyderms.

Folks that I can think of that are veering in this direction include Tom Burghardt, Peter Dale Scott, Jeffrey Kaye, maybe Robin Ramsay (I never subscribed to Lobster)- and perhaps others, too.

Notwithstanding that lots of folks here really like Peter Dale Scott, I would far rather consider US, OURSELVES, with all our faults and foibles, rather than external authorities.

Given the criticism of "conspiracy theories" by structuralist-oriented leftists such as Noam Chomsky, who write it all off due to an overblown "Right Woos Left" kind of thesis, I think we need to develop Conspiracy Theory (with a capital "T") that is solidly anti-fascist, anti-racist, anti-authoritarian, anti-misogynist and also intelligently thought out.

I'm afraid I have done a "Bert and Ernie" with you
I disagree wholeheartedly with this.
IMO 'We' need to develop nothing of the sort.

The types of articles you posted in the past are indicative of where you stand - such as the 'Conspirituality' pseudoskeptic piece , Illuminutti / MiB , you have both cognitive feet planted firmly in mid JREF.

What are the possibilities for helping make that happen more, here at Rigorous Intuition?

None. It is *precisely* the wrong venue.

You are talking about an
a) purely far left, b) reductionist, c)binary logic, d) non-examined epistemology e) pseudoskeptic project - with f) participants personally aligned on multiple levels.

Rigourous Intuition's community who share many of these characteristics:
non far left, non reductionist, not 'black and white' thinkers, look at how they look, are holists
and work with very hetrogenous groups with not-aligned members.

My constructive suggestion is to set up a sub-section of the Metaforum (sp?), which is a pseudoskeptical community that has high standards of argumentation and is pretty polite and constructive.

[jakell]

It is a passion of mine to investigate and expose real conspiracies through investigations that can be backed by strong evidence, investigations that have the potential to seriously benefit our lives through significantly advancing our collective liberation. I think there is great power in researchers with shared values and shared interests working together on shared goals.

Fundamental to this process is a solid critique of White Supremacy, Patriarchy, Capitalism, Homophobia and all the other "isms". Folks that I can think of that are veering in this direction include Tom Burghardt, Peter Dale Scott, Jeffrey Kaye, maybe Robin Ramsay (I never subscribed to Lobster)- and perhaps others, too.

Given the criticism of "conspiracy theories" by structuralist-oriented leftists such as Noam Chomsky, who write it all off due to an overblown "Right Woos Left" kind of thesis, I think we need to develop Conspiracy Theory (with a capital "T") that is solidly anti-fascist, anti-racist, anti-authoritarian, anti-misogynist and also intelligently thought out.

What are the possibilities for helping make that happen more, here at Rigorous Intuition?

I vote for also having a solid critique of anti-capitalism, feminism, antiracism, queer theory, and the anti-fascist milieu in general. Us, too, basically. I propose that a solid critique of ourselves is also fundamental to investigation and liberation. Or did that kind of thing go out of style on the radical left? Or perhaps some folks are blinded by bias to their own blind spots, deaf to their own tone-deaf hypocrisy?

Let's investigate EVERYTHING.

Or are you willing to say "NTSHMA" to pretty much anything that doesn't confirm your own POV?

Always a good place to start, some folks seem to regard this as too complex, and then immediately go on to propose a top down (and allegedly objective) complexity instead. I would choose the former as at least it puts the observer in the frame

Well defined starting points are essential in any investigation as they allow us to backtrack. What I don't understand is why ideology (anti-this, anti-that) is inserted into the equation, especially at the outset. This is me being (consciously) simplistic though, and portraying it as an investigation. If anyone sees it as being anything other than basically an investigation, I'd be interested to know why.

[Searcher08]

It is a passion of mine to investigate and expose real conspiracies through investigations that can be backed by strong evidence, investigations that have the potential to seriously benefit our lives through significantly advancing our collective liberation. I think there is great power in researchers with shared values and shared interests working together on shared goals.

Fundamental to this process is a solid critique of White Supremacy, Patriarchy, Capitalism, Homophobia and all the other "isms". Folks that I can think of that are veering in this direction include Tom Burghardt, Peter Dale Scott, Jeffrey Kaye, maybe Robin Ramsay (I never subscribed to Lobster)- and perhaps others, too.

Given the criticism of "conspiracy theories" by structuralist-oriented leftists such as Noam Chomsky, who write it all off due to an overblown "Right Woos Left" kind of thesis, I think we need to develop Conspiracy Theory (with a capital "T") that is solidly anti-fascist, anti-racist, anti-authoritarian, anti-misogynist and also intelligently thought out.

What are the possibilities for helping make that happen more, here at Rigorous Intuition?

I vote for also having a solid critique of anti-capitalism, feminism, antiracism, queer theory, and the anti-fascist milieu in general. Us, too, basically. I propose that a solid critique of ourselves is also fundamental to investigation and liberation. Or did that kind of thing go out of style on the radical left? Or perhaps some folks are blinded by bias to their own blind spots, deaf to their own tone-deaf hypocrisy?

Let's investigate EVERYTHING.

Or are you willing to say "NTSHMA" to pretty much anything that doesn't confirm your own POV?

NTSHMA - binary logic allows only "with us or against us"

What about investigating... logics? Did you know there are more than one? Or of dialectic? Or the domination of scientism? Otherwise it is like the people at the then BRAND NEW EXCITING left wing think tank called Demos in London. They produced lots of 'critiques' and 'analysis'. Zzzzz...

[slimmouse]

Heres my own radical conspiracy theory,

We need to look closely at our debt slavery.

We need to start printing our own money.

Debt slavery by neccesity sincerely reduces the kind of compassionate qualities that simply ooze from most of us when we arent all too busy simply fighting for survival.

[NeonLX]

^^^^Being an old-@ssed, formerly protestant honky, I'm not able to comment on that post, slim.

[slimmouse]

^^^^Being an old-@ssed, formerly protestant honky, I'm not able to comment on that post, slim.

OK. How about, " we've forgotten who we are"?