Discussion on:

Four reasons why people believe in conspiracy theories

The less people know about the fundamentals of basic science,
economics, or politics makes it easier for them to fall for conspiracy
theories based upon half-truths.

> There is a strong association between income and belief
> levels: the better-off are less likely to believe in conspiracy
> theories. (Perhaps this can be chalked up to education.)

Or perhaps the more-well-off can afford to defend themselves against the conspiritors?

"There is a strong association between income and belief levels: the better-off are less likely to believe in conspiracy theories. (Perhaps this can be chalked up to education.)"

Uhmm... I don't think so. Unless you count actors/actresses and TV personalities in the "low income" bracket.

I found it very interesting that the official NASA moon landing photo was "lost" and had to be redigitized.

correction, the filming of the moon landing was lost and had to be reproduced very recently. I do have a basic knowledge of science.

I think a major factor is that if people cannot trust the people in power (or the people defending the event) they are more likely to believe that they are being lied to and something else is behind it.

If Charlie Sheen is considered low income, then what am I? As far as being educated, I graduated college. This article is way off.

"Uhmm... I don't think so. Unless you count actors/actresses and TV personalities in the "low income" bracket."

Are you honestly implying that actors are the rule and not the exception when it comes to the rich? I think the use of actors as an example probably is a key indicator that you are probably of the less educated variety. Do you believe staunchly in conspiracies too?

"Back in 2007, Patrick Leman wrote in the New Scientist that belief in
conspiracy theories is on the rise thanks to the distribution power of the
Internet.

Take the JFK conspiracy, for example: In 1968, two of every 10 Americans
believed it to be true. In 1990, nine of 10 Americans believed it to be true."

The internet wasn't even around in 1990, not in the way we know it today.

I have all the proof of that that I could ever wish for.

My grandfather was the head of the Masons for the State of New York. My father never got beyond the 3rd degree and is just getting by on his retirement and social security. I'm still working my butt off and never got a single break.

If the Masonic Lodge(s) were in control of the U.S., then I would have gone to an Ivy League college, gotten a military commission instead of an enlisted job, and retired to a high-level management position or government office.

Nope. Anyone who beleives the Masons are in control of the United States is an escapee from the insane asylum or a retirement home for the demented.

Sure, a lot of people in higher levels of government and business are Masons, and deals may be discussed and agreed on between individuals at masonic functions; but the organization itself isn't controlling anything.

What degree did your grandfather achieve as head of the Masons for the state of New York?Your father obviously wasn't the right material. That's why he only got to the third degree.Presumably you didn't get very far either that is why you are" still working your butt off".
Interesting in your last paragraph, you concede that a lot of people in high levels of government and businesses are Masons. So what does that tell you? Are you actually admitting that there is influence by being a Mason?

Here's a conspiracy for ya... this last week in the news media I have heard several stories mention "conspiracy nuts" and the like. Sci fri American, which became useless propaganda about 10 years ago, is in on it too apparently.

Curious as to how Andrew came to write this up. Someone at corporate suggest it?

BTW I read Scientific American cover to cover, every issue from 1973 through around 2001. When I canceled my subscription I wrote the (then new) chief editor with my observations. His reply indicated he acknowledged some of my criticisms, chiefly that there was now an official "position" within the over all operation. (one example now is assuming "climate change" to be man made, for instance)

Used to be it was all about the science, whatever that was and wherever it went. aka "objectivity." As a source scientific American is as subjective as fox news and cnn any more.

It is hard to refute the evidence that the demolition of Building 7 of the World Trade Center 7 hours after Towers I and II fell was nothing more than a cover-up to destroy all of the files of Enron and Arthur Anderson that were being held inside the offices of the SEC in Building 7. I'm sorry if you think I'm paranoid or a lunatic, but before you judge me or condemn me, you should look at the YouTube video on the subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AXG6KEiM2k&feature=related

Everyone knows that the people who propogate conspiracy theories were planted there by the government to throw everyone off. This way the government (aka "the Masons who are assisted by aliens") can inject nanobots into our bloodstream whenever we give blood, get vaccinated or log into GMail. Everyone who studied the historical documents "Independence Day" and "Men in Black" already know this. We are just waiting for the rest of you to catch up.

3 out of the 4 coud be appplied to the Global Warning Hoax - Let the flames begin...

Global Warming is just a money making scam. Supporting scientists are just making a living with research grants. Think of all the money that is being made by solar and wind industries, which incidentally are largely supported by government handouts and incentives. Once these payments are cut, companies go out of business. Al Gore is a large beneficiary of global warming, which he of course promotes as a real thing. I believe he has a large residence on the seafront somewhere. You almost hope that his house might get washed away by the rising water level.

Oops - damn keyboard - "could be "

pgit: Why go from one conspiracy to another with your statement:

As a source scientific American is as subjective as fox news and cnn any more.

While it may be true that news reporting leaves a lot to be desired lately, you are accusing two stations of having a conspiracy to report the news in a "biased" fashion.

If that is your belief, then you need to elaborate with specific examples of proof for both of those networks. That you may dislike one or the other or both is not conclusive enough.

People conspire all the time. For example: The Bay of Pigs was a conspiracy, (by our very own CIAand President Kennedy). Bank robbers, drug dealers, murderers, rapists, insider traders, con artists, are all examples of people who conspire to do some evil or another.

If you have to use an ad hominem "throw-word" like 'conspiracy nut', at people who think that there is more going on than they are told, it is prima facia evidence that you want to silence them. For whatever reason.

People who wish to debunk conspiracy theories always try and make out that people who believe in them are nutcases. They try and bunch them altogether, and condemn the whole lot without even looking into any possible evidence.
How much of science is based on just theory and wild supposition, before it may or may not be proved to be true? How about dark matter or dark energy, for example? It used to be thought that the universe was static, then they changed their minds and found out it was expanding.Then they found it was actually accelerating in expansion, and tried to find a way to explain this. So much of this is guesswork, isn't it?

Conspiracy theories... nearly meaningless phrase, unless given specific scope within discussion.

Scientific American's ability to be "scientific"....
Science has never been without "beliefs" or "bias" (reason: people)... it just continues to strive toward a better understanding of the physical world around us.
VERY hard to state any scientific "fact" without depending on some "limited, current" understanding on which the "fact" depends (Relativity vs Newtonian vs string theory?)
And being "scientific" about Human beings actions/beliefs?..
Well , let's just say. we have a long way to go.

Generalities (strong association between income and belief levels)
This brings up many issues:
- correlation does not equal causation.. ( sorta related to article - people seeing patterns in things - I suspect is a very human trait).
In a way... the article has proven it's own point .. they are seeing patterns in things .
- statistics...
......often misused or misrepresented.
......presented without complete references
Which is why Mark Twain's made the observation of "lies, damn lies and "statistics"

Biggest reasons for "conspiracies" ..
- trust betrayed ( numerous examples in institutions of Gov, etc...)
How does anyone belief in the "facts" presented around a specific event, when there a numerous examples of people in positions of authority lying to the public?.. people take this personally (fool me once , shame on you.. fool me twice , shame on me).
The example of change in opinions about the Kennedy assassination, is likely to be more a representation of loss of trust in government (after Watergate/Nixon, Iran/Contra, etc.....)
We - as a people in the US - had lost our innocence.

- complex issues trying to be understood by people with limited understanding (trying to make sense of things). Education alone will not address this completely.
Somethings are beyond the comprehension of a large number of people.
And somethings are beyond the comprehension of ALL people.

Traits might mean that a person has a tendency to accept conspiracy as a viable theory.

Others may have traits that make it difficult for them to see conspiracy even when it does exist (Gulf of Tonkin, Nazi Death Camps, etc.)

History has plenty of examples of both.

"Reasons" would be factual matter (for which conspiracy may or may not be a viable explanation:)

A 1000-page report that neglects the fact that a 47-story building that fell down -- I mean, neglects to mention that it happened, let alone offers an explanation.

A claim that, even though the attack was a complete surprise, teams were dispatched to collect every video with a view of the Pentagon strike within an hour.

Facts that don't seem to fit the explanations offered: those are the reasons people suspect conspiracy.

Shermer claimed that certain traits make conspiracy a more or less acceptable theory. If there were no perceived discrepancies in the available data, personality traits would be a null issue. Please be more careful.

jrlambert - "something" is not always equivalent to "some thing" (nor "maybe" and "may be," et al).

Any sufficiently advanced technology is assumed by some people to be magic (or a miracle). And string enough coincidental 'evidence' together and you'll find *some* loon that will run with it for you.

e.g. it was a miracle that Jack Ruby appeared to me in a dream in 1961 burning G.W.Bush's long form and saying the american King's successor had been born in Kenya. Imagine my shock a couple years later when Ruby murdered Oswald in TX so LHO (notice the similarity to BHO;s initials - just a coincidence?) couldn't testify how this guy named G.H.W.Bush from the CIA had hired him as an assasin to avenge the lives lost at the Bay of Pigs. This was all foretold by Nostradamus, of course.

Nevermind that Kenya didn't become a country until 1963.
The 'form of a burning bush' was a nice touch, don't you think?

I think the publishers of these write-ups should moderate the postings. I am disappointed that some people who call themselves educated chose to disagree by being nasty and rude. This is not a forum for insults or abusive languages...we claim being civilized, yet we are the most backward humans when it comes to behaviour and interaction. TR should not publish and write-up that has any form of insult, abusive language or rude. Even with what I have said now a lot of people will still attack me. In conclusion, EVERY PERSON HAS THE RIGHT TO BELIEVE IN WHATEVER THE PERSON SEES FIT.

The very term "conspiracy theory" is a manifest scheme to control
permissible public discourse. Overwhelming evidence is what generally
convinces me. For example when I saw the 1963 Look magazine
photograph of Oswald standing in front of the TSBD building while the
Kennedy limo drove by, or when I saw the original Zapruder film of the front
of Kennedy's head getting blown clean off. Skepticism is intellectual
dishonesty when evidence is overwhelming.