Conspiracy Theories, Robin Ramsay
Conspiracy Theories, Robin Ramsay, Pocket Essentials, Hertsfordshire, 2006
Chapter 1 - Distinguishes between pernicious (all-encompassing) conspiracy theories and CTs (need a term for good ones).
P. 11-12 - Presents the notion that dismisses that all-encompassing CTs can be linked to small groups (cabals). (Which Balsham touches upon…) Put forward the Cock-up theory of history as the explanational paradigm rather than reference to a conspiracy (which he points out is usually the kiss of death if mentioned in political discourse).
p. 12 - The problem of all-encompassing CTs is inference and evidence-checking.
p. 14-15 - Nice quote on CTs and the reluctance for academics to discuss them.
p. 16-18 The Wallance-Protheroe-BBC example.
p. 21-22 - Hostility to CTs rests on two false assumptions: One is that CTs posit overly simple explanations of complex social processes (which, admittedly, might be true for some pernicious CTs) and the other is that the choice is either CT or cock-up version of history when often the actual explanation is a little of both.
p. 23 - The notion of pluralism of processes (or groups) in the explanation of a social event is commonsense (many processes produced the observed events) but it tells us little as an explanation per se.
p. 41 - A characteristic of ‘good’ CTs is that they never die but rather when they are seemingly refuted either the theory changes or it garners new adherents.
p. 44 - The Publishers’ Secret Society Case Example: Person A believes in CT B. Supposed evidence for CT B is X. X is later found to exist/be true, but X is not sufficient to warrant belief in CT B.
Case study from the Robin Ramsay book in re the man who believes that a cabal within the publishing industry is putting in derogatory comments about himself in their books. As Ramsay points out it latter transpired that there was a secret society in the industry but that was not proof that they were putting in messages about him. Indeed, the secret society might have been doing all sorts of other things. This will be a good example of a counter-example; you can keep the premises but show that the argument does not guarantee the conclusion.
Example Argument for Class
I read a lot of books. In some of these books I have found veiled references to myself. I began to believe that there was a secret society within the world of Publishers and that this society devotes itself to putting derogatory comments about people, including myself, in the books that they publish. People mocked me for believing this but recent evidence from the UK proves that there is a secret society within the world of Publishers. Why are they out to get me?
Reconstruction in Standard Form
P1. If there is a secret society within the world of Publishers then they might be putting messages in the books they publish.
P2. These messages would be derogatory comments about me.
P3. There does exist a secret society within the world of Publishers.
Therefore,
C. A secret society within the world of Publishers is putting derogatory comments about me in the books they publish.
Analysis
This is an inductive argument. Is it strong? You might agree that it is possible that a secret society in the world of Publishers is putting messages in their books but that doesn’t mean that they are about you. Then again, the existence of a secret society within the world of Publishers does indicate that they are up to malign (or even benign) acts such as inserting messages about people in their books. They may well be a consortium for anonymous donations or even a Secret Santa Society for Christmas.
p. 45 - Ramsay on the link between belief in CTs and belief in the paranormal. Doesn’t claim to know exactly why this is the case but posits that belief in unorthodoxy in one case will tend to be accompanied by unorthodox beliefs in another.
p. 46 - Ramsay commits what I will now call ‘the Russian Fallacy.’
Argument
Western Scientists have long claimed that all psychic and paranormal research is fruitless as it is mystical mumbo-jumbo despite the large amount of research done by these scientists in the 1960s and 70s. However, we should take into account the Soviet Union’s interest and research in this field in the 1960s and 70s. If a strictly materialist and anti-religious culture such as Communist Russia took a keen interest in psychic phenomena and the paranormal then it is hard to argue, as most Western Scientists did, that it is all nonsense.
Standard Form
P1. If a materialist and anti-religious society was engaged in the research of psychic and paranormal phenomena then there must be scientific merit to such a study.
P2. The Soviet Union was a materialist and anti-religious society.
Therefore,
C. There must be scientific merit to the study of psychic and paranormal phenomena.
Analysis
The argument is valid in that the premises guarantee the truth of the conclusion but is the first premise plausible? Whilst it may be true that there is real psychic and paranormal phenomena that motivated the Soviet Union’s interest in a scientific study it might also be the case that there are other motivations. Maybe the other world superpower, the USA, was engaged in such research and the Soviet Union was simply copying them just in case something of merit turned up in the studies?
It’s a problem in re PHIL105 and causation; the research of the two superpowers might be due to a common cause (there is such phenomena) or that the research into this area by one superpower caused the other superpower to engage in it as well (so that if it did provide fruit they would not be left behind).
p. 57 - List of evidenced CTs.
p. 61 - Ramsay’s characterisation of the paranormal-conspiratorial fusion in fiction:
“The paranormal conspiratorial fusion on which such programmes [‘The X-files’ and ‘Dark Skies’] are built has three elements:
1. An acceptance of what used to be described as the paranormal or psychic as real, routine and operational.
2. Distruct of any government, especially the US central government and a willingness to believe it capablr of great evil and great secrecy - to believe, in short, that it is a conspiracy against its citizens.
3. The belief that there has been a massive US government cover-up of information on the subject of UFOs and that there has possibly been a cover-up of contact between extrs-terrestial beings and officials of the US government.”
p. 69-70 - The CFR corollary to the Publishers’ Secret Society story of page 44 (my inference). Ramsay discusses the Council of Foreign Relations (the CFR), a post WWI group that focusses on Anglo-American-European relations. Members of the CFR dominate the ranks of US foreign service and many have seen this as a conspiracy to subvert America. However the presence of CFR members in the foreign service of the States doesn’t tell us much, in the same way that UK foreign service members tend to have attended Oxford and Cambridge. These are simply good training grounds for this kind of work.
p. 73-75 - The right wing’s obsession over elite management groups. He distinguishes two distinct views of the radical right: hard-cores who believe in the all-embracing CTs (Masons, P2, et al) and fear that as many of these groups acted without our knowledge for long periods of time (P2) then who knows what is happening today? and soft-cores who believe there are transnational forces seeking to undermine the nation state and/or status quo (WTO et al).
p. 94-5 - Against the claim that CTs oversimplify reality (critique on all-embracing CTs).
p. 95-6 - The presence of all-embracing CTs makes research that might look conspiratorial immediately suspect.
p. 96 - Judging which CT to research is a matter of judging the evidence.
p. 102 - Ramsay buys into the conspiracy theory that claims that mind control by implants is very real and has been since the 1990s.
p. 105 - Ever accumulating/aggregating CTs; just add your favourite CT to the theory (See also p. 69 for the New World Order aggregation).
p. 112 - Unforeseen consequences of disinformation tactics. A report on Soviet sponsorship of terrorism finds that the CIA report downplays the situation in contrast to a book on the subject. The Director accuses the department of not knowing enough about the subject unaware that the book was the result of a controlled disinformation leak.
p. 117 - Disinformation ploy: read-but-don’t-copy
p. 119 - The Double-Bubble: lead research down one (wrong) avenue of investigation and then discredit that avenue of research (a form of the Strawman?). Quote on p. 124.
p. 129 - The Right worries about conspiracies by outside forces, the Left worries about them being from within.
p. 143-4 - Conspiracism: the unhealthy fixation on CTs rather than a realisation of the systemic flaws of our controlling bodies.
It is the claim that:
a) the cock-up theory of history is more or less correct and,
b) the view that what CTs are true are of the small rather than all-embracing variety.
p. 145 - A similar point to Pigden’s; most people falsely characterise CTs as only the all-embracing view. He goes slightly further and claims that we should applaud CT researchers for challenging the consensus view of history (perhaps ala Balsham and his worry that the view of an unconspired world looks somewhat like one that is conspired).
