Are there any conspiracy theories that you just think could have an element of truth?

[AhhhHereItGoes]

I love all things conspiracy theory - from a psychological/social point of view it's interesting to see what makes people fearful or pessimistic.

But I often do see some conspiracy theories a bit like Urban legends in that they could be an exaggerated truth.

Are there any conspiracy theories or rumours that you just think 'maybe...' or even ones you're completely sold on.

hopes nobody thinks the Queen is a metamorphic lizard alien

About the moon landings.....I watched a clip of Buzz Aldrin being asked about it by a little girl. At one point in the interview he clearly says “because we never went there”. I’ve tried to convince myself he didn’t actually mean that but you just can’t get away from it.

www.snopes.com/fact-check/buzz-aldrin-moon-admission/

www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/05/ozone-layer-healing-after-aerosols-un-northern-hemisphere

We banned CFCs which caused the problem and the ozone layer is slowly repairing itself.

Amount of oil reserves are a best guess -as tech improves we find more or it's cheaper easier to get to previously thought impossible or too expensive reserves – plus if price of crude oil increases reserves that were too expensive to get to suddenly become viable.

I don't think global warming is a big conspiracy more like an inconvenient truth that we are slowly getting to grips with.

If being a 'conspiracy theorist' mean being a critical thinker who likes to examine things based on what you know and have been told rather than taking everything you're ever told at face value, then acknowledging that you don't have all of the answers but still have doubts is just being honest and another sign of an open mind?

Except that that is NOT the definition of a "conspiracy theorist".
Critical thinkers are critical thinkers. Conspiracy theorists try to fit facts to their theory. Nothing to do with critical thinking.

Thanks for the explanation, Lweji

Going on the way they sowed panic at the time, though, one would have been forgiven for thinking that we simply didn't have that amount of time to wait before we were all burned to a crisp.

Global warming is definitely not a conspiracy. The data is there for everyone to analyse.

However, denying global warming is a conspiracy. Exxon et al being guilty parties.
www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

one would have been forgiven for thinking that we simply didn't have that amount of time to wait before we were all burned to a crisp.

We didn't have time to wait to act to limit it. That was true.

The same applies to global warming and green house emissions, but, sadly, some are dragging their feet. Trump's US [grr]

Re Diana. The only person who survived the crash was the only one wearing a seat belt - her bodyguard.

Except that that is NOT the definition of a "conspiracy theorist".
Critical thinkers are critical thinkers. Conspiracy theorists try to fit facts to their theory. Nothing to do with critical thinking.

Whose definition, though?

It sounded to me that, by saying that I didn't know much about an issue but that something didn't ring true, I was accused of being a conspiracy theorist - but also being told that I'm not a good conspiracy theorist.

A lot of it is semantics, really. One person's terrorist is somebody else's freedom fighter. One person's religious fruitcake is somebody else's devout believer.

Either we have the freedom to think about things and form our own beliefs, opinions, suspicions or just musings - or otherwise we should be told what to think and never question anything unless we have 100% certainty and proof of it.

If you don't know much about something, then it's best to learn more about it, or trust the experts.
If you ask pertinent questions about a subject (about which you know more or less), then that's critical thinking.
If you start off by saying that something doesn't ring true and try to find evidence for it not being true, then you're a conspiracy theorist.

Sorry, meant to add - we do NOT have any freedom to oppress, threaten, subjugate or express ourselves violently towards others on the basis of our beliefs; but we still have the right to form and hold those beliefs for ourselves.

No-one seems to have yet mentioned anti-vaxxers, now that is a highly dangerous CT which is getting more dangerous all the time, and one which makes me very very angry...

It sounded to me that, by saying that I didn't know much about an issue but that something didn't ring true, I was accused of being a conspiracy theorist - but also being told that I'm not a good conspiracy theorist

But lots of things don't ring true if you know nothing about the subject. That may not make you a conspiracy theorist but it sure doesn't make you a critical thinker either.

Am I thinking critically if I say "What about AIDS huh? They told us it would kill us all, but now it seems to have disappeared! I know nothing about AIDS or medical advances or drug research but it sure seems fishy to me!"?

WHistle blowers eventually keep schtum because they sign gagging orders and / or are threatened with massive legal bills if they keep going.

Lweji - I think we'll have to agree to disagree on terminology, then.

I still maintain that 'conspiracy theorist' is a loaded term without universally-accepted currency.

I see no issue with seeking evidence from a basis of scepticism that people who are widely known/believed to have lied or, 'spun' the truth before and/or have something to gain from deceiving you might have done it (again).

However, I do agree that close-mindedness and deliberately discounting any evidence that doesn't support your pre-determined conclusion is very poor intellectual practice.

Am I thinking critically if I say "What about AIDS huh? They told us it would kill us all, but now it seems to have disappeared! I know nothing about AIDS or medical advances or drug research but it sure seems fishy to me!"?

Not sure I follow you on that one. We were never told that it WOULD kill US ALL, only that nobody was immune from it. Lots of people diagnosed with AIDS have died and still are, but the vast majority of people (in the west, at least) have neither been diagnosed with nor died from AIDS. Normal medical advances have reduced the devastation and extent caused by it.

Therefore, I would agree with you that you would indeed NOT be thinking critically were you to seize on AIDS/cancer/diabetes/measles/PCOS/whatever and simply discount its proven reality on the grounds that you and those known to you don't suffer from it.

I see no issue with seeking evidence from a basis of scepticism that people who are widely known/believed to have lied or, 'spun' the truth before and/or have something to gain from deceiving you might have done it (again).

But that isn't a conspiracy theory.

As per Wikipedia definition:
"A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful actors, often political in motivation,[2][3] when other explanations are more probable.[4] The term has a pejorative connotation, implying that the appeal to a conspiracy is based on prejudice or insufficient evidence.[5] Conspiracy theories resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and an absence of evidence for it, are re-interpreted as evidence of its truth,[5][6] and the conspiracy becomes a matter of faith rather than proof.[7][8]"

Then you have actual conspiracies (e.g. by tobacco companies about smoking) and healthy scepticism about spun stories (e.g. the high rate of suicide among Russian journalists).

But lots of things don't ring true if you know nothing about the subject.

By 'not ringing true', I don't mean the same as 'having no understanding of'.

I know nothing about quantum physics, I've no experience of piloting an aeroplane, I've never been to Kenya. Nothing about them gives me any personal cause for suspicion, though - I just know that I know nothing about them.

theconversation.com/in-defence-of-conspiracy-theories-and-why-the-term-is-a-misnomer-101678

@VoteJadot That's correct, they keep threatening you sending letters, to your face and stalking your social media accounts.

Anyone got any idea where the idea you can't fly continent>continent/country>country in the Southern Hemisphere comes from, when it's so blatantly not true?

VoteJadot That's correct, they keep threatening you sending letters, to your face and stalking your social media accounts.

Interestingly, though, it's Sandy Hook conspiracy theorists that threaten parents and relatives. www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/23/conspiracy-theories-internet-survivors-truth
www.bbc.com/news/av/magazine-39458092/sandy-hook-victim-s-sister-i-receive-death-threats

There's no such thing as a "cure for cancer" because there is no such thing as cancer. Cancer is just an umbrella term the medical community use to describe any pathogenic abnormal cell growth.

The fundamental nature of cancer is confounding, even for HCP's. It's inherent in our muticellularity. This article is the clearest discussion of the issue for non-HCP's I've every found.

Why Cancer Isn’t Going Anywhere. It’s been with us since the origins of multicellularity. It’s part of who we are.

@Handsoffmysweets and @Fedup21 I have forwarded you Bishop's PM.

Nothing about them gives me any personal cause for suspicion, though - I just know that I know nothing about them.

The problem is that you start reading conspiracy theories, with their half truths, and the seed of doubt is planted in your head. But then, you don't go and seek the source of knowledge or learn more about the subject. You keep that feeling that something doesn't ring true.

The issue of cure for cancer is interesting. On one hand there are theories that the powers that be are hiding a cure for cancer. On the other hand, the HPV vaccine (that is designed to prevent one cancer) is a target for conspiracy theories too.
I bet that if there was ever and was released a universal cure/vaccine for cancer, it would be denied as existing by the same conspiracy theorists that claim it exists now.