Everyday Erinyes #136

Experts in autocracies have pointed out that it is, unfortunately, easy to slip into normalizing the tyrant, hence it is important to hang on to outrage. These incidents which seem to call for the efforts of the Greek Furies (Erinyes) to come and deal with them will, I hope, help with that. As a reminder, though no one really knows how many there were supposed to be, the three names we have are Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone. These roughly translate as “unceasing,” “grudging,” and “vengeful destruction.”

In view of the fact that two of the charges to which Paul Manafort pleaded guilty yesterday are charges of “conspiracy,” I thought it might be appropriate to share some thoughts on what conspiracy is and why it’s not always crazy to suspect its existence. After all, people do conspire, and have done throughout all of recorded history, and probably unrecorded history as well.

It’s reasonable to suppose many of the views that are now dismissed or mocked as conspiracy theories will one day be recognised as having been true all along. Indeed, the net effect of terms such as “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracism” is to silence people who are the victims of conspiracy, or who (rightly or wrongly) suspect conspiracies may be occurring. These terms serve to herd respectable opinion in ways that suit the interests of the powerful.

The term “conspiracy theory” was popularized by Sir Karl Popper during the 1950’s. Whether or not it was his intention, the popularization of the phrase gave the concept a bad name.

To characterise a belief as a conspiracy theory is to imply it’s false. More than that, it implies people who accept that belief, or want to investigate whether it’s true, are irrational…. [emphasis mine]

It’s a function similar to that served by the term “heresy” in medieval Europe. In both cases these are terms of propaganda, used to stigmatise and marginalise people who have beliefs that conflict with officially sanctioned or orthodox beliefs of the time and place in question.

If, as I believe, the treatment of those labelled as “conspiracy theorists” in our culture is analogous to the treatment of those labelled as “heretics” in medieval Europe, then the role of psychologists and social scientists in this treatment is analogous to that of the Inquisition.

Those are harsh words. But then, Inquisition-like behavior is mighty harsh behavior. David Coady, the author (he’s a Senior Lecturer at the University of Tasmania, hence all the “-ise” spellings) suggests we stop using the terms. Personally, I fear it’s too late for ceasing to use the terms to make much difference. The concept that suggesting we don’t know everything about the facts behind an occurrence has become so ingrained that I suspect changing the vocabulary will merely tarnish the new vocabulary.

Instead, I would recommend establishing specific guidelines as to how to determine what kind of conspiracy theory is conceivably rational and should be investigated, and what kind of conspiracy theory is irrational and can be dismissed. Since it’s not really possible to teach “common sense,” some kind of objective guidelines are needed.

I just characterized a conspiracy theory as “suggesting we don’t know everything about the facts behind an occurrence,” and while that’s a vast oversimplification, it can give us a starting point. For a conspiracy theory to be worth investigation, it must concern an occurrence. It must be about something which actually happened. On this basis, it’s unnecessary to examine Alex Jones’s theory that Hillary Clinton has established a pedophile sex tourist facility on Mars. There is no evidence such a facility exists. There is plenty of evidence that human life on Mars is not possible without technical equipment so large that it couldn’t be missed, and there is no evidence such equipment exists on Mars. Therefore there is no occurrence.

Even if there is an occurrence, there is a point beyond we can reasonably conclude that no conspiracy existed and dismiss further speculation. There was an occurrence at Benghazi in which people in fact died. Knowing no more than that, it was worth investigating suggestions of a conspiracy. It isn’t any more. The occurrence has been thoroughly investigated by investigators who had a huge emotional investment in finding a conspiracy. If there were evidence of a conspiracy, it is impossible that these investigators could have missed it. But none was found. Therefore, no conspiracy. So my second criterion would be to look for the motives of any investigators who may be going to investigate, or have already investigated, such theory.

{I might point out that Traitor Tot, or someone in his crime family, is aware of this one, and he has pulled it out himself in describing the Mueller investigation as “fourteen angry Democrats.” However, Mueller is a lifelong Republican, as are Comey, and Brennan, and Strzok, and the majority of FBI agents.}

These two criteria are a start, but they also only get us so far. I’ve talked about situations where there is no evidence to support a theory. But what if there is evidence? What if some of it is video evidence? It becomes crucial to be able to evaluate evidence, and particularly video evidence.

Fortunately, since a couple of weeks ago, we have some help with this. Siwei Lyu, an Associate

Professor at the University of Albany, SUNY, has given us some excellent information about how to detect a “deepfake” video – one which has been so meticulously put together with the latest computer technologies as to “deceive even the elect.” Professor Lyu warns his main guideline is not always going to work, because deceit keeps getting better and better, but he’s pretty sure it will work at least through the 2018 election.

If you go to the link, you will find technical information worded in such a way as to make it clear to non-technical people. But the bottom line is that people in deepfake videos do not blink normally, because the fakers don’t have enough closed-eye images to duplicate the normal human blink pattern. So if you ever see a video of someone saying something kind of unexpected, watch it again (sound off if it’s barfworthy), and look for the blinks.

As Lyu says, this isn’t going to work forever. But he and his team are working to keep up, so stay tuned.

Alecto, Magaera, Tisiphone, turn you attention to us this week (and keep us in your sights at least through November 6) and give us a pinch to wake us if if we fall for something. But also, help us remember that some conspiracies are real.

The Furies and I will be back.

Cross posted to Care2 HERE.