Critical Thinker, Conspiracy Theorist
The words ‘critical thinker’ and ‘conspiracy theorist’ have been appearing a lot in public and social media of late. Everyday we see a succession of assertions made by one ‘theorist’ or another, one thinker or another - some well founded and cogently argued, others poorly articulated and defended. The experience of Covid-19 in 2020 has brought the question of authoritative and reliable knowledge firmly into the spotlight. In the face of the maelstrom of ideas, rhetoric, assertion and hyperbole that arrive everyday, how does one know what to accept and what to reject?
One of the unfortunate (and occasionally dangerous) aspects of the COVID-19 experience in 2020 is the alarming rise in the number of conspiracy theories and theorists that have made their way into the ‘public square’. It is remarkable to note the visibility of these ‘theories’ now and the alarming scale of interest in them.
Conspiracy theories are dangerous for they come from a mind that is unwilling to subject its conclusions to the scrutiny of others or to an accurate interpretation of evidence. 'Conspiracy theories' are not theories at all. Rather, they are assertions arising from biases and urgencies held in the mind of the ‘theorist’ reinforcing their particular view of the world.
Research teaches the importance of a careful consideration of evidence while formulating conclusions (research answers) and the use of peer review to test one’s conclusions. Among other things, these aspects ensure that one’s conclusions do indeed align with what one has discovered. Peer review tests the structure of one’s conclusions/argument and also helps to identify and remove biases that might exist in one’s thinking (sometimes without knowing it).
A good researcher welcomes quality peer review, is ethical and feels a moral responsibility to construct his/her conclusions carefully - because a good researcher is committed to truth. A good researcher likes to discuss how they came to form their views and theories, as much as the theories themselves, for they are concerned to ensure that they are creating the best explanations possible for any issue, problem or phenomena they are studying. This means understanding research process as much as the outcome.
The problem with ‘conspiracy theorists’ is that they make assertions without presenting convincing evidence to support their views. Their assertions arise not from evidence per se but rather, it appears, from a faulty analysis of evidence or from a narrative or a story he/she holds in his/her mind about the world or some aspect of it that they are convinced is true and correct.
Second, when the conspiracy theorist is shown that their evidence is inadequate and unconvincing or, indeed, the evidence suggests something entirely different, they refuse to accept this and instead remain stoically committed to their view. This is an arrogance and is not evidence of a critical thinker. Rather, this is an inflexible person who does not have the humility to submit their ideas to the scrutiny of others (peer review) and of evidence. They do not allow themselves to be taught by others during the process of forming their views.
The obvious danger in the ‘work’ of the conspiracy theorist is that they don't seem to have much trouble with advocating for something that is frankly untrue or the evidence is weak or they have drawn the wrong conclusion from the evidence. Where this is the case, this can sometimes lead to dangerous outcomes. US President Donald Trump's recent pondering of the value of injecting bleach into the body as a treatment for Covid-19 - while not precisely an example of a conspiracy theory - is an example of someone in a position of authority suggesting something without any basis in evidence at all. Even worse, he irresponsibly aired his 'ponderings' publicly without acknowledging the possibility that someone might actually follow his advice - he is the President of the United States after all.
Conspiracy theories also encourage a needless mistrust in institutions and authorities. They can be pointlessly corrosive upon the goodwill that might exist between an authoritative institution and people. Do not get me wrong - I too have questions and doubts about Government and other kinds of authorities. I too like to challenge prevailing ideas when I feel there are sound reasons to do so. However, it does not serve people to needlessly foster doubt and mistrust in an authority or an institution when there is no good reason to do so. It is also reckless to foster this mistrust when that authority or institution might indeed have something of value for people - a mistrust simply based upon an assertion that they aren't to be trusted. As the old adage says, ‘only a fool turns from wisdom simply because they do not like the form in which it arrives.’
Consequently, conspiracy theories are to be rejected when and where possible - not through a mere desire to compete, to prove that one's ideas are better than someone else's. But rather through a genuine concern for the welfare of people and society at large.
One of the unfortunate (and occasionally dangerous) aspects of the COVID-19 experience in 2020 is the alarming rise in the number of conspiracy theories and theorists that have made their way into the ‘public square’. It is remarkable to note the visibility of these ‘theories’ now and the alarming scale of interest in them.
Conspiracy theories are dangerous for they come from a mind that is unwilling to subject its conclusions to the scrutiny of others or to an accurate interpretation of evidence. 'Conspiracy theories' are not theories at all. Rather, they are assertions arising from biases and urgencies held in the mind of the ‘theorist’ reinforcing their particular view of the world.
Some conspiracy theorists reject this label asserting that they are working for the public good by having the courage to challenge authorities and prevailing ideas. They argue that they are better viewed as critical thinkers - implying that all that is required to be a critical thinker is to challenge authority and prevailing understandings. This is not what makes a critical thinker - although challenging authority and orthodox ideas is often a feature of the work of a critical thinker.
As a career researcher of mātauranga Māori and indigenous knowledge, I have engaged in critical thinking for a long time. I was formally trained in the university system and was mentored in mātauranga Māori by a number of my kaumātua. I found 'critical thinking' present in both traditions and I am now actively engaged in fostering critical thinking within iwi/Māori communities. I see this as a fundamental capability in independent (mana motuhake), self-sustaining and self managing (tino rangatiratanga) peoples.
As a career researcher of mātauranga Māori and indigenous knowledge, I have engaged in critical thinking for a long time. I was formally trained in the university system and was mentored in mātauranga Māori by a number of my kaumātua. I found 'critical thinking' present in both traditions and I am now actively engaged in fostering critical thinking within iwi/Māori communities. I see this as a fundamental capability in independent (mana motuhake), self-sustaining and self managing (tino rangatiratanga) peoples.
I am concerned that conspiracy theories are having an impact in our iwi/Māori communities. They do not serve us and some are downright dangerous. I am also frustrated by their influence when I know that we have our own traditions of critical thinking and ways of assessing the world around us. How else could our people have successfully navigated Te Moananui-a-Kiwa (the Pacific), established new settlements in Aotearoa and Te Wai Pounamu, learnt how to make use of the resources of the forests and waterways and so much more if they did not have a culture and practice of observation, testing and evaluation?
It is vitally important that we foster critical thinking in our iwi/Māori communities today - so that they build resilience, make the very best decisions possible and take the best actions achievable for their health, wellbeing and mana.
Research (and wānanga) teaches one how to think critically - to understand how to pose questions correctly, how to design ways of addressing those questions (methodology) and how to formulate answers to research questions based upon evidence and reasoned argument.
Research teaches the importance of a careful consideration of evidence while formulating conclusions (research answers) and the use of peer review to test one’s conclusions. Among other things, these aspects ensure that one’s conclusions do indeed align with what one has discovered. Peer review tests the structure of one’s conclusions/argument and also helps to identify and remove biases that might exist in one’s thinking (sometimes without knowing it).
A good researcher welcomes quality peer review, is ethical and feels a moral responsibility to construct his/her conclusions carefully - because a good researcher is committed to truth. A good researcher likes to discuss how they came to form their views and theories, as much as the theories themselves, for they are concerned to ensure that they are creating the best explanations possible for any issue, problem or phenomena they are studying. This means understanding research process as much as the outcome.
The problem with ‘conspiracy theorists’ is that they make assertions without presenting convincing evidence to support their views. Their assertions arise not from evidence per se but rather, it appears, from a faulty analysis of evidence or from a narrative or a story he/she holds in his/her mind about the world or some aspect of it that they are convinced is true and correct.
Second, when the conspiracy theorist is shown that their evidence is inadequate and unconvincing or, indeed, the evidence suggests something entirely different, they refuse to accept this and instead remain stoically committed to their view. This is an arrogance and is not evidence of a critical thinker. Rather, this is an inflexible person who does not have the humility to submit their ideas to the scrutiny of others (peer review) and of evidence. They do not allow themselves to be taught by others during the process of forming their views.
The obvious danger in the ‘work’ of the conspiracy theorist is that they don't seem to have much trouble with advocating for something that is frankly untrue or the evidence is weak or they have drawn the wrong conclusion from the evidence. Where this is the case, this can sometimes lead to dangerous outcomes. US President Donald Trump's recent pondering of the value of injecting bleach into the body as a treatment for Covid-19 - while not precisely an example of a conspiracy theory - is an example of someone in a position of authority suggesting something without any basis in evidence at all. Even worse, he irresponsibly aired his 'ponderings' publicly without acknowledging the possibility that someone might actually follow his advice - he is the President of the United States after all.
Another problem with conspiracy theories and theorists is the fostering of unnecessary fear in people as a consequence of their assertions. They like to point out dangers everywhere when none exist or they overstate the scale of a danger. High levels of anxiety already exist in society - and often for very good reasons. Many people are burdened by employment worries, family issues, health challenges and much more. They don’t need yet more reasons to worry and it is frankly irresponsible to create more anxiety when there is no good reason to do so.
Conspiracy theories also encourage a needless mistrust in institutions and authorities. They can be pointlessly corrosive upon the goodwill that might exist between an authoritative institution and people. Do not get me wrong - I too have questions and doubts about Government and other kinds of authorities. I too like to challenge prevailing ideas when I feel there are sound reasons to do so. However, it does not serve people to needlessly foster doubt and mistrust in an authority or an institution when there is no good reason to do so. It is also reckless to foster this mistrust when that authority or institution might indeed have something of value for people - a mistrust simply based upon an assertion that they aren't to be trusted. As the old adage says, ‘only a fool turns from wisdom simply because they do not like the form in which it arrives.’
Finally, conspiracy theorists tend to blur the line between theory and action. That is to say, they are quick to call for some course of action arising from their often spurious conclusions. A good researcher understands the distinction between quality knowledge creation and excellent action taking - each must be carefully considered. Just as one does not rush one's conclusions, one also does not rush the decision regarding actions that ought to be taken.
Consequently, conspiracy theories are to be rejected when and where possible - not through a mere desire to compete, to prove that one's ideas are better than someone else's. But rather through a genuine concern for the welfare of people and society at large.
Further Reading
‘Analytic Thinking reduces belief in Conspiracy Theories’ by V Swami et al, in Cognition 133, (2014), 572-585. See here
‘Conspiracy theorists lack critical thinking skills’ by John Elder in The New Daily 26 July 2021. See here
quite difficult to tell what is true (or sounds reasonable enough to be plausible) Vs some other stuff. On the subject of Conspiracy theories CT, a chap that i found plausible at the time suggested that there are not a whole lot of CT- mostly its just about money
ReplyDelete