Monday, April 04, 2005

Chief's Rules of Conspiracy Theories

I have been reading conspiracy theories on the Internet, chiefly (no pun intended) regarding the 9/11 attacks and all the theories that Bush either caused or allowed it to happen for certain benefits such as arresting young Muslim men and invading Afghanistan and Iraq. How exactly that benefits Bush is a long story. Anways, being a rather skeptical person, I am just amazed by some of the wild distortions of logic that some people will come up with to defend their theories, so I have come up with the following rules that conspiracy theories must follow. Not exactly Newton's 3 laws of motion, but hey, I am just starting.

1. It is only necessary to observe the evidence that you wish to.

For example, the moonbats who believe that a cruise missile hit the Pentagon. As "proof" of this they cite a man who said he saw a plane hit the pentagon "like a cruise missile", ignoring the concept of a simile, and the fact that he, along with thousands of other people saw a "plane" hit the pentagon.

2. A lack of evidence is only proof of the depth of the cover-up.

Pretty self explanatory, I would have the evidence if only they hadn't covered it up so well!

3. Anyone who doesn't agree with a conspiracy theory is either part of the cover-up (see rule 2) or just a close minded drone of the government.

4. The law of inverse proportionality of authority. The validity of any source is inversely proportional to its authoritativeness .

Any government commission, serious academic (not those who teach humanities at Berkeley), law enforcement official, or politician, ie. the people who are in the position to actually know, are immediately suspect because they were probably involved in the conspiracy in the first place. Someone completely removed from the situation, like some guy posting on his website while watching reruns of Star Trek in his parents' basement is more likely to be untainted.

5. Occams corollary: The complexity and difficulty of a conspiracy theory is only proof of the depth and deviousness of the conspiracy.

No comments: