They're out to get me

OK, lets talk about conspiracy theories. First off, this term has come to mean a crackpot idea with little or no real merit. By and large this is true. But not always. For some reason long ago I became absolutely fascinated with conspiracy theories, not the various theories themselves, but how they work with the social psyche. I even went so far as to create my own & see if I could get it to catch on, I was happy to see my work come to fruition a few months later when a friend told me my own conspiracy theory back to me, and he got it from different sources & thought it was his own. Like any good theory people must be able to independently come to these conclusions on their own.
No conspiracy will be believed if it all comes from only one source & you cannot look it up on your own. Also people are very good a correlating data incorrectly. Look at rush lumbaugh, many times have I heard very intelligent dissemblance of the facts only to have him pull a conclusion from left field, or right field if you will.
Now a good way to look at if something is a crackpot theory or may have some legitimacy it is good to apply that old scientific precept Ockham’s razor.

Ockham’s razor : A rule in science and philosophy stating that entities should not be multiplied needlessly. This rule is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known.

We’ll take the current theory on psicron’s blog to dissect: (yes, I know that it is ‘deeper and more complex than what I’m portraying here, shut up it’s a case in point not a comprehensive dissection of every angle of a particular theory)
Smoking doesn’t cause cancer. Cancer is a nutritional imbalance.
The conspiracy points thus far:
OK first point of the conspiracy: cancer research needs to have a sustainable plausible cause of cancer.
Second point: government is untrustworthy and give false health information.
Third point: any testing uses too high doses to be valid.

So on the first point: cancer research need to give people something to believe causes it. Well, people are pretty much convinced that just about everything causes cancer now adays, they don’t care so much why, but how to fix it. If it was proven smoking doesn’t cause cancer it would not make a shit-bit-o-difference to the pharmacutical companies who do cancer research. Simplest solution cancer researchers don’t care what causes cancer. Point null.

Second point: government gives false health information. Ok, I agree, don’t trust your government but they serve one of 2 intrests a: truth, or b: biggest pocket book. They wouldn’t bother lying and saying the guy who paid us the most causes cancer. Tobacco lobbies have donated far more money to the government than the anti-smokers. So it seems likely that choice a: truth won the day. Simplest solution, no conspiracy

Third point: any testing uses too high doses to be valid. Well there is some merit to this sort of thing occurring, however these are not the primary styles of tests which are done, most of these tests are done on humans, hundreds of thousands of them. And unless 99% of the doctors & researches are lying as well (not likely), smoking causes cancer. 1% of tests saying it is safe is acceptable statistical annomally. Simplest solution, tens of thousands of researcher over the last 50 years have not ‘been faking it’.

Now the problem with conspiracy theories is you keep finding ‘corraborating’ evidence which ‘prove’ your point. It is not real evidence, mostly coincendental evidence that the mind draws connections too, much like the big dipper is not really drawn in the sky. Conspiracy theories are easy to believe because they most often play on our mistrust or fear. The good ones have both. There are all sorts of alternative medicine conspiracy theories out there today, playing on our fear of sickness, of not being in control of our bodies, mixed with our mistrust of chemicals & the governmental practices. Like any good theory many have a basis in truth and then go out to left field. I have something against the charlatans who preach false hope, as much as I hate the pharmacuticle companies for preacing false hope. A sane & rational approach is use nature as much as possible but don’t shun chemicals when nature can’t help, and nature cannot always help.

Anywho
Enough of my holy roller rant.

Words of wisdom:

A ZEN STORY
by Camden Benares, The Count of Five, Headmaster, Camp Meeker Cabal A serious young man found the conflicts of mid 20th Century America confusing. He went to many people seeking a way of resolving within himself the discords that troubled him, but he remained troubled. One night in a coffee house, a self-ordained Zen Master said to him, "go to the dilapidated mansion you will find at this address which I have written down for you. Do not speak to those who live there; you must remain silent until the moon rises tomorrow night. Go to the large room on the right of the main hallway, sit in the lotus position on top of the rubble in the northeast corner, face the corner, and meditate." He did just as the Zen Master instructed. His meditation was frequently interrupted by worries. He worried whether or not the rest of the plumbing fixtures would fall from the second floor bathroom to join the pipes and other trash he was sitting on. He worried how would he know when the moon rose on the next night. He worried about what the people who walked through the room said about him. His worrying and meditation were disturbed when, as if in a test of his faith, ordure fell from the second floor onto him. At that time two people walked into the room. The first asked the second who the man was sitting there was. The second replied "Some say he is a holy man. Others say he is a shithead."

Hearing this, the man was enlightened.

-De