I remember a few years back when a friend at work would passionately support the idea that there was a conspiracy behind the events of September 11. Even though I thought he was off-his-rocker, we had a number of impassioned conversations about the subject. The flaw I saw in his logic was the number of people needed to pull off such a stunt. It seemed to me at the time, and still does, that given the number of people needed to ‘cover-up’ this event, it is highly unlikely. I mean there was talk that workers came into the building and weakened the structure before the event and that the true planes were diverted to another airport and that the people are alive and living in secrecy.

I wish someone would come up with a formula or theorem for calculating the probability of a given conspiracy theory that takes into account the number of people required to keep a ‘conspiracy’ secret and the probability that someone would leak the information.

One of the allures of a conspiracy is that the lack of evidence becomes evidence for a cover-up. The problem is the lack of evidence is not evidence for anything, let alone a cover-up. The issue here is a good example of a prior bias. In other words, conspiracy supporters come in predisposed to believing there is a conspiracy and they see the lack of evidence as evidence for a cover-up. Those who tend to be more skeptical will, of course, come in with a bias of disbelief.

Some people will seemingly hold to the conspiracy no matter what evidence is presented to them. It may make sense to hold a position when there is no supporting evidence however, there is no logical reason to hold a position when there is evidence to the contrary, or the evidence to the contrary outweighs the evidence for.

In the same way, the skeptic needs only have one piece of evidence that there is no good answer to in order to reject the conspiracy. As Greg Kokul once said, “Just because it is possible to be mistaken about something that seems obvious doesn’t mean it’s reasonable to think we are. This is the skeptic’s error.”

If a conspiracy is true; and I believe there must be some that are; then what evidence will help us determine the validity of such claims. I think one way is to look at the probability. One thing to consider is the number of people involved in the cover-up. As the number involved in the cover-up grows, the likelihood that they will be able to keep it under wraps decreases. Another thing to consider is the resources need to pull off the conspiracy. This is why you often hear that some group of ultra-rich people is calling the shots. In order for some of these conspiracies to be true, you would have to have considerable resources. Who else but an ultra-rich and elite group would have such resources?

Assuming we have someone or some organization with the required resources, we still need to have a motive. Why did they want Kennedy dead? Why do they want to cover-up the UFO crash in Roswell? Why did they take down the World Trade Center? Even if someone had a motive, that does not mean they did it. Assuming they had a motive and opportunity (resources), it does not follow that they did whatever the conspiracy theory states. We still need some other type of evidence tying them to the act.

Assuming we can demonstrate the means, motive, and opportunity of a group of conspirators, can we show any other evidence of said conspiracy? We have to look at the conspiracy as a whole and try to determine the probability of such an event. At least, at this point, our belief, while not necessarily true, will at least be rational.

Bayesian Cognitive Science research is looking into questions like how much evidence to the contrary is needed for someone to move from their initial position to an opposing position. I think this research might have some promise on this front. Research has suggested that the brain may employ Bayesian inference, in other words the greater the number of evidences and the strength of those evidences leads to greater degrees of certainty. It seems it makes sense to go overboard on the evidence in order to convince the greatest number of people.

Of course, there is human emotion that brings in the irrational aspect that might just throw the potential conspiracy probability theorem out the door.

Post scriptum

As a side note, after I finished writing this post, I received the latest issue of Philosophia Christi (Vol. 13 Num. 2) and one of the articles caught my eye. Right away, I had to read John W. Montgomery’s article, “How Much Evidence to Justify Religious Conversion? Some Thoughts on Burden and Standard of Proof vis-a-vis Christian Commitment.” Although my post is about the requirement commitment to believe in a conspiracy, John Montgomery’s comments on burden and standard of proof are insightful and appropriate to my point. I have taken a number of his points and consolidated them into my topic of belief in conspiracies.

1. Dr. Montgomery points out then the burden of proof is on the believer to show that their belief is true and not on the unbeliever that the belief is not true. In the same way, I think the burden is on the conspiracy theorist to show the conspiracy is true and not on the skeptic to show the conspiracy is not true.

2. “Proof depends on probability – not on absolute certainty or on mere possibility.”[1] There is a spectrum for the standard of proof from possible to absolute certainty. For a court of law, the standard of proof does not use absolute certainty or mere possibility because absolute proof is impossible to obtain and anything is possible in our Universe. Just because something is possible it does not mean that it is also compelling.

Probability, in a United States court of law, has three levels; beyond reasonable doubt; clear, strong and cogent; and preponderance of evidence.

For the preponderance of evidence, you need only show the evidence for is more compelling than the evidence against. For moral certainty, we need to have no other reasonable explanation.

For conspiracies, it is unwise to ask for absolute proof or to give credence to mere possibilities. Instead, we must determine if we are comfortable with evidence beyond reasonable doubt or simply the preponderance of evidence.

[1] Montgomery, John W. “How Much Evidence to Justify Religious Conversion?” Philosophia Christi Vol. 13 No. 2 (2011): 449-460

I have recently noticed that some people, myself included, often have contradictory aspects to their worldviews. That is to say that when you look at their worldview as a whole, you will notice what may not be obvious close up, that aspects of their worldview contradict other aspects of their worldview. I guess some people have not taken the time to reflect on their worldview and how they apply it to various aspects of their life.

If they are aware of the contradictions, perhaps they balance these contradictory aspects in some sort of creative tension. Or, perhaps, they balance them by compartmentalizing different aspects of their life by creating artificial boundaries of reality. They may have one way of viewing the world at work, another at home, and still another with friends.

They have to do something or else suffer psychological discomfort form the ensuing cognitive dissonance.

For example, you will find some Christians who speak of hating the sin and loving the sinner. In practice, they shun people they feel are living in sin. I fail to see the love. Other times, you will find Liberal Christians complaining that the Conservative Christians are being intolerant. Not realizing they are being intolerant of the Conservative Christians.

By no means, is this limited to the halls of the cathedral. Secular humanists want their morality to be relative and their science to be objective. Often, they cling to untenable scientism. For the true relativist, scientific theories are neither true nor false. They see scientific theories as useful – agreed upon – stories or, at best, a description that helps. For the true naturalist, morals are objective. They are defined by genetic code and there is nothing relative about them.

It seems to me that people don’t think about how what they believe in one area of their life flows into all the other areas of their life. Instead, they go through the smorgasbord buffet of competing ideas, selecting what looks appetizing to them at the time. They assume their life is like a divided Chinet plate and that they can separate different aspects of their lives. They use this artificial compartmentalization to avoid the obvious and painful realization that they are living a contradiction. The reality is the gravy is going to get on your vegetables. In that case, pick the gravy that works with everything on the plate.

By nature, I tend to think very logically. I don't mean like Spock from the original Star Trek. Emotion can sway me. I mean, I am a person who has difficulty if things don't fit or they contradict other known facts. I work in Information Technology so I understand causation. Add to that, I am an IT auditor so like to analyze things. I have been accused of being obsessive and a little anal about certain things. For example, I have a library and I will go though and make sure all the bindings are aligned on the shelf and the books are properly cataloged and categorized. Yes, I have a data base of all my books, too.

I really can't watch a movie without analyzing it. I don't accept the face value of claims of the paranormal. I always look for alternate explanations. I try to see things as systems; like how things connect and their interrelationships. I am even willing to change my opinion or beliefs if I have new insights, information or understandings. In fact, I have done so many times in my life. I guess, in a way, that makes me a bit of a philosopher.

On the other hand, I also realize that logic isn't the end all, be all, for truth. I am a very logical person, but, sometimes I have to suspend my analytical tendencies. That is not to say that I follow illogical paths of thinking; it simply means I recognize our human limitations. It would be the height of arrogance to presuppose my logic is perfect, that I have all the facts, that I have considered every potential, or that bias does not influence my thought patterns, whether consciously or unconsciously.

I see more and more, as I get older, that it is important to recognize our limitations. I grant the human race has accomplished many great things like putting a man on the moon and harnessing the power of the atom. I even think we will do things we cannot even imagine. Granting that, we will never cross the chasm to an all-knowing state. There will always be something we do not know.

What a downer. How can we know anything at all then? How do we operate with less than 100% certainty? What level of certainty can we obtain and still operate effectively? How much skepticism should we have?

In light of this, I think it is logical, prudent and perfectly appropriate to proceed with caution, charity and with as little dogmatism as possible. I do this, typically by viewing things as a probability of being correct or true and not black or white. For example, for all I know we can all be in the Matrix, however, I do find that while it is possible, it is not probable. If I had to give it a number, I would give it less than one percent, maybe like 0.01%.

I am not holding two contradictory beliefs, I am recognizing my limitations. After all, isn't that the most logical thing to do?

Update: Facebook Comments

DT: You write very, very Don! I enjoyed this piece on logic. Yes, you are logical, which I find to be a great quality, as well as organized and highly articulate. You are also a systems thinker like I am, seeing patterns, commonalities, and the whole as well its parts. You ask good, thoughtful questions. I like what you say about probability and caution and that is important to realize our limitations and not be dogmatic. Very, very well said, Don! Thanks for sharing!

RR: Lately, I've been reading about confirmation bias; that phenomenon where rational people subconsciously filter out data that does not fit with their bias. Or, rather, give higher priority to data that does.

RR: I've also been reading about cognitive dissonance where people, step by step, rationalize their way past the discomfort of having two conflicting opinions in their minds. This, it is opined, is one way people work their way into cults and what we call wingnut beliefs like the notion that judgement day will arrive on May 21, 2011. Or that Christ will return at any day, for that matter. We work our way around the tough, chewy bits, one rationalization at a time. We are logical, reasonable and rational and yet lacking. At the end of the day, life is full of scary shit. We need to believe there's a plan, even if we don't like the plan (see Joker with Harvey Dent, Dark Knight); we need to put order to what is, essentially, an often senseless and meaningless experience. That's not to say we shouldn't try. But, at some point, it makes sense to give in to the senselessness. Sometimes the effort to make sense out of the chaos only produces a different form of chaos.

DT: @RR, in response to your first posting: that's easy to do! We all see things through our own paradigm. Anais Nin wrote that "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." So true! I think we seek out that which we agree with as a way of validating ourselves, which is much simper and easier than being open to new, opposing information which we may need to think through, analyze and come to terms with from a new paradigm.

DT: @RR, to your second posting: Buddhists call what you talk about as 'giving in to the senseless' as "non-attachment" and yes, it does make sense at some point to embrace things as they are, to un-attach, if you will, from giving some things meaning and our time, rather than cause ourselves suffering (from the Buddhist perspective, samsara), or what you cause 'chaos.' (See http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/samsara.html)

Me: I didn't think I would have inspired such a stimulating discussion, great thoughts.

SC: Finally had time to read this. Thank you. For a long time I pursued conviction as a way of understanding the world/existence, meaning I sought intricate logical constructions that I would convince myself explained reality. As I got older though, I realized each time I achieved a mental equation that explained everything ... events the next day refuted my equation, however carefully constructed. This disillusion is somehow amplified by parenthood. With time I have come to understand that explaining everything is impossible and the burden of attempting logical explanation of everything is quixotic at best, and distracting at least. With time I began to understand that the world unfolds around me, largely as a mystery, whether I impose logic on it or not. And looking at it from that angle, I began to more and more appreciate the mystery rather than to ruthlessly impose logic on it. Certainly there are core convictions and truisms that we must live by, but those tend to be simple and deep, requiring little logic. Beyond that lies a world filled with mystery that in time I have become convinced that I can never fully understand. The mystery that surrounds me is the purview of God. And I am comforted by that. **Thanks for helping me think like this on a Thursday night a midnight ... really.

DT: I appreciate and enjoy the deep thinking that has happened in these postings! Thanks everyone!

Me: ‎DT, Me too. SC, Sorry for keeping you up at night. I hate trying to fall asleep and then get into some deep thinking because I never get sleep them.

Parenting is such a hard job. I have to admit that being a parent sounds like a good idea until the weight of the responsibility kicks in. I was thinking the other day about how the apple does not fall far from the tree and that reminded me of far too many examples in my life. I could not help but pray that God would protect my children from my mistakes and shortcomings. I want the best for them and often feel I don't do enough. Of course, some parents do too much and that ends up bad for the children too.

I've wanted to write about this for awhile. For many people their only source of philosophy comes from the media. Their philosophy is built from songs, movies, TV shows, and the Internet. There is so much rich material out there to draw from. I will do a number of other posts on philosophical truths that come from popular culture.

"crawling in my skin, these wounds they will not heal, fear is how I fall, confusing what is real"

"there's something inside me that pulls beneath the surface, consuming/confusing, this lack of self-control I fear is never ending, controlling/I can't seem"

"discomfort, endlessly has pulled itself upon me, distracting/reacting, against my will I stand beside my own reflection, it's haunting how I can't seem... to find myself again, my walls are closing in"

"For I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but I cannot carry it out. ...but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members... O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" - Romans 7:18, 23-24 ISV, NASB & KJV

"Thank God through Jesus the Messiah, our Lord, because with my mind I myself can serve the law of God, even while with my human nature I serve the law of sin." - Romans 7-25 ISV

"Therefore, no condemnation now exists for those in Christ Jesus, because the Spirit’s law of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. What the law could not do since it was limited by the flesh, God did. He condemned sin in the flesh by sending His own Son in flesh like ours under sin’s domain, and as a sin offering, in order that the law’s requirement would be accomplished in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those whose lives are according to the flesh think about the things of the flesh, but those whose lives are according to the Spirit, about the things of the Spirit. For the mind-set of the flesh is death, but the mind-set of the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind-set of the flesh is hostile to God because it does not submit itself to God’s law, for it is unable to do so. Those whose lives are in the flesh are unable to please God. You, however, are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, since the Spirit of God lives in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. Now if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead lives in you, then He who raised Christ from the dead will also bring your mortal bodies to life through His Spirit who lives in you." Romans 8:1-11 Holman Christian Standard Bible