> Does anyone have any reflections on the psychology of conspiracy nutters?
I'm sure we could collect as many theories about conspiracy freaks as there are conspiracy freaks, on the ground that most of psychology is speculation.
> Indeed, evidence to the contrary is not sufficient to disprove these theories.
That's one of the attractions of conspiracy theories -- most of them can't be conclusively disproven, because most require proof of a negative, which is an impossible evidentiary burden, for reasons given here:
Conspiracy theorists and crackpots have a lot in common. One thing they share is the idea that, unless their critics can disprove their beliefs, the beliefs must have merit. In other words, they hold the opposite of the null hypothesis (the idea that an idea with no evidence is probably false) -- they also unfairly shift onto others their own burden of evidence.
> The funny thing is these people are otherwise quite intelligent and capable of rational thought.
Intelligence is no assurance of reasonable thought processes. For that, one must understand logic and certain scientific principles, like accepting the burden of evidence for one's own ideas, and being willing to sincerely doubt one's own conclusions. I have always suspected that conspiracy theorists (and crackpots) never learned the basics of evidence and research.
I'm sure we could collect as many theories about conspiracy freaks as there are conspiracy freaks, on the ground that most of psychology is speculation.
> Indeed, evidence to the contrary is not sufficient to disprove these theories.
That's one of the attractions of conspiracy theories -- most of them can't be conclusively disproven, because most require proof of a negative, which is an impossible evidentiary burden, for reasons given here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russells_teapot
Conspiracy theorists and crackpots have a lot in common. One thing they share is the idea that, unless their critics can disprove their beliefs, the beliefs must have merit. In other words, they hold the opposite of the null hypothesis (the idea that an idea with no evidence is probably false) -- they also unfairly shift onto others their own burden of evidence.
> The funny thing is these people are otherwise quite intelligent and capable of rational thought.
Intelligence is no assurance of reasonable thought processes. For that, one must understand logic and certain scientific principles, like accepting the burden of evidence for one's own ideas, and being willing to sincerely doubt one's own conclusions. I have always suspected that conspiracy theorists (and crackpots) never learned the basics of evidence and research.