Skeptic Project

Looking through the CRNU blog that Muertos posted in another thread, I stumbled upon a rather interesting post about one Cass Silverstein and his advocacy of government involvement in debunking conspiracy theories.

The original blog post quotes a CT blogger:

>>"[W]e suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of believers by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity. (Page 219.)"
>>

However, the PDF of 'Conspiracy Theories ( http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585 ): Causes and Cures' that I found, only had 29 pages, not 219. So maybe it's intentional altering to make it seem more sinister (use of the words "planting" and undermining") or perhaps it is simply referring to another article. However, it does say on page 29:

>>"Some conspiracy theories create serious risks. They do not merely undermine
democratic debate; in extreme cases, they create or fuel violence. If government can
dispel such theories, it should do so. One problem is that its efforts might be
counterproductive, because efforts to rebut conspiracy theories also legitimate them. We have suggested, however, that government can minimize this effect by rebutting more
rather than fewer theories, by enlisting independent groups to supply rebuttals, and by cognitive infiltration designed to break up the crippled epistemology of conspiracy minded groups and informationally [sic] isolated social networks."
>>

Independent groups to supply rebuttals? Hey, we qualify for that!

But anyways, I wanted to see what others here think about such "government sanctioned debunking". Should it be done openly or secretively? Online or at rallies?

Personally, I think if the government took an "open" approach to debunking, such as sponsoring/creating debunking websites that it would do more harm than good. No one entrenched in conspiracy theories is going to trust any sort of government source, unless it's taken out of context or supports their world view in some way. (I.e. Bush's use of the term "New World Order".)

Inversely, "enlisting independent groups to supply rebuttals" would be a much better option... but by the nature of conspiracy theories, this would have to be in secrecy to have any sort of effect. And if word of that ever got out via some regular ol' joe debunker letting it slide or some FOIA request... the conspiracy community would absolutely lose it, and it would solidify their beliefs in such a way to make it even more difficult to shake them from it.

In the document (which I haven't finished reading) it says that:

>>"Our primary claim is that conspiracy theories typically stem not from irrationality or mental illness of any kind but from a “crippled epistemology,” in the form of a sharply limited number of (relevant) informational
sources."
>>

So I guess the method he suggests is something like simply providing other information sources to people who say... only look to infowars for their news.

So, thoughts on government involvement in debunking CT's?

Yeah, I don't think it could ever really work out. Silverstein states that conspiracy theories are sort of "self-sealing", in that they are sometimes almost impossible to challenge. Any attempt to rebuke them could just be seen as legitimizing them. I guess I just would love to get paid for sitting at my computer is all.

Are you sure he wasn't writing exactly about TZM?