In practice, the goal of skepticism is not the discovery of truth, but the exposure of other people’s errors. It plays a useful role in science, religion, scholarship, and common sense. But we need to remember that it is a weapon serving belief or self-interest; we need to be skeptical of skeptics. The more militant the skeptic, the stronger the belief.

I also have a phonoharp, aka a fretless zither, to learn to play.

Work-wise… Teaching continues apace; my students are a good bunch; talkative, friendly and eager to engage with the material. In respect to the thesis; a lot of writing, some of it quite good, seems to be occurring when I go into the office. I’m seriously working on chapter one and building up a lot of useful notes for a substantial chunk of what is either chapter four, five or six. I’m paring down my notes for chapter one and trying not to overwrite it (too much). Sometimes I forget that you do not have to deal with every issue in one section; you can signpost and handwave and make promises to deal with issues and, as long as you actually keep to your word, all will be fine and good. So my worries about Brian L. Keeley’s Public Trust Skepticism doesn’t have to be dealt with as it emerges in the explication of his definition of `Conspiracy Theory.’

Well, enough talking about doing work. I’m going back to Keeley’s definition and the da Vinci Code. Not that they are particularly related, but both are work to be done.

–

The Dentith Files: A United Europe

This week Matthew Dentith talks about the Priory of Sion, and their links to the conspiracy of a united Europe.

Listen to Audio
MP3, 14m22s, 13.2MB

Well, we all know what “information sharing” means here. But what about “coordinated local activism”? How does it work? Here’s a first guess:

Alice: Hello Mr. Editor, I’m Alice from the newly-formed Friends of Methane group, a member of the International Climate Science Coalition. I read your story that [...]

Bob: Good morning, I’m Bob, I heard from the International Climate Science Coalition about the story in your paper that [...]

Tom: Dear Editor, I am Tom Harris, Executive Director of the International Climate Science Coalition. I refer to your news article titled [...]

Nah, that won’t work well, because the editors will quickly get wind of what’s going on. And besides, if they also know that the ICSC is behind the propagation of the said news story in the first place, then it’ll be pure disaster! Of course, this means that the ICSC will have to hide the fact that it’s behind all the “grassroots activism”…

Let’s look at Kiwiblog, bastion of the Right. David Farrar has been following up the actions of UMR, a polling company that does a lot of work for the Labour Party here in Aotearoa/New Zealand (for avid readers overseas who care not about international politics I can reveal that the Labour Party are the majority party in Government here). A few days ago Farrar revealed that (according to sources) UMR are polling as to what the Prime Minister, Helen Clark, should so should her Foreign Minister be found to have engaged in some suspicious, if not illegal, actions to do with donated monies. Given that polling companies should not work for competing interests Farrar has assumed that the poll was ordered by the Labour Party, something the Prime Minister has denied. Now, in comments on this post someone has suggested that this is a plausible denial by the PM; the poll may have been an omnibus poll with only some of the questions designed by Labour. Farrar, a Polling Man, doesn’t seem to have responded to this suggestion; his latest post assumes that the PM is lying…

So Helen will be reading the results of the UMR poll on how she has handled [Foreign Minister] Winston [Peters] very carefully.

and then argues that should the Foreign Minister be investigated by the Privileges Committee, then the PM will call an early election to curtail such an awkward enquiry. She may well trot out other reasons, Farrar claims, but the real reason will be stopping the enquiry.

Is this a Conspiracy Theory?

On some level, yes. The PM is just one member of the Cabinet and if she calls an election it will be (one would hope) the collected action of the Government with her as spokesperson. Indeed, given that the Labour Party is a well-oiled machine it fits the bill of a possible conspiring cabal with great ease.

So we have a cabal. Do they have a desired goal? According to the conspiratorial reading of Farrar’s theory, yes. They seek to stop an enquiry (and, presumably, increase their chances of getting back into government).

Is it a malign goal? Once again, plausibly yes. If the goal is to stop an enquiry that would be in the Public’s best interest, then the desired goal is malign in character.

So is is a Conspiracy Theory? Note that Farrar doesn’t talk about it being a conspiracy (which doesn’t necessarily make it not a putative Conspiracy Theory; lots of Conspiracy Theorists deny they are putting forward Conspiracy Theories) and that’s because it probably isn’t. For one thing, calling an early election for the reasons of stopping an enquiry might be one of many rationales for calling the election. It may be a significant one or it might not be; an election has to be called soon and there might be other factors motivating calling it early (Farrar does seem to think that his cited reason is going to be a significant one, however:

So if Helen does call a snap or early election, it will not be due to any of the public reasons she will trot out. They will be as ludicrous as her justification for the 2002 snap election - she claimed an extra 12 minutes a day of points or order (about the status of the Alliance) had paralyzed Parliament and made governign impossible.

The reason will be the possible testimony of Owen G Glenn - Labour’s largest donor.

which does kind of make the whole thing swing back towards Conspiracy Theory…). More importantly, however, you could argue that this is just a) normal operating procedure for governments (now) and b) it isn’t particularly secret; the talk about enquiries is happening in the media and everyone is watching how the Government is going to act. Just because they might lie, or distort their real reasons as to why the election might be called early doesn’t make it necessarily conspiratorial, in the same respect that a child lying about why they said someone wanted sugar in their coffee when they did not (true story) doesn’t make the child inherently deceitful.

I haven’t really answered my own question here, I realise, but that’s because this is a vexing issue. Some things look obviously conspiratorial and some things don’t; that still leaves a whole host of things that are possibly conspiratorial, or conspiracy-like, and that’s the kind of definitonal debate I’m working on at the moment.

Should be working on at the moment. I seem to be writing a blog post rather than a thesis chapter right now.

Back to work.

It’s been a long time coming.

Then, of course, there is the Qantas flight. And a mighty stoosh happening in regard to the infamous ‘9/11 Mysteries’ video tape.

Steve Conspiracies (or Conspiracy Theories) are popular at the moment but I was not prepared to discover that Steve Fosset, adventurer, might be the subject of a (unrelated? In the world of the Conspiracy Theory surely this cannot be the case) Conspiracy (Theory).

“I discovered that there is absolutely no proof that Steve Fossett is actually dead. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, I’m a man who deals in facts, and I don’t really care if he is alive or dead, it make no difference to me. What I am interested in is the truth - and a proper criminal investigation of this man’s disappearance was never undertaken by law enforcement or officials in the state of Nevada.”.

says risk assessor Robert Davis. Exciting stuff, but there’s no need, Mr. Davis, to deny being a Conspiracy Theorist (thus treating the term as merely pejorative). You clearly are a Conspiracy Theorist; the question is whether your Conspiracy Theory is actually warranted. Frankly, given my mistrust of the rich and wealthy, I’m inclined to say it might be, even though I’m no expert in the field of finding the remains of crashed aircraft.

Well, enough of that. Time to get back to work. Chapters don’t write themselves, you know.

Next time; the EU and Conspiracy Theories thereof. The time after that, JFK. I like JFK; it allows me to talk about another love of my life, the Principia Discordia and one of its authors, Kevin Thornley.

–

The Dentith Files
MP3, 17m53s, 4.1MB, first broadcast 27 July 2008

This week Matthew takes a look at historic conspiracies and contemporary conspiracy theories. He compares the two and makes some conclusions about that can tell us about modern society.

As noted a few days ago, I’m giving a presentation at the Skeptics Conference down in Hamilton. It’s at 9:15 in the AM and I’m not really expecting anyone I know or love to go (not even the FHG). Frankly, I don’t want to go, but that’s really only because 9:15AM, on a Saturday, is a time I like to experience in the privacy of my bedroom.

Still, it will be a good chance for those of you interested in scepticism and philosophy to come and hear me talk. Of course, if the issue of ‘The Skeptic’ is out by then you will have read my paper (but my voice is so dulcet that really, the presentation is a far better deal), although I might have had some comments upon it by that time so replies and suchlike could be added in for fruitiness and flavour.

Anyway. As noted in the first sentence I had a two hour eye exam; I have keratoconus and thus need to have the topography of my eyes mapped from time to time to chart the progress of the disease. The good news is not only has the natural stiffening of my cornea (which happens in your late twenties and early thirties) started to counteract my growing astigmatism but, and this is far more important, my ability to read really small print is better than average.

Years of reading footnotes has finally paid off.

If I was the Fundy Post I’d link to a music video now.