Hard to Believe Doesn’t Mean Untrue
Response to a New York Times opinion piece that takes on blindly accepting consensus opinion versus dismissing so-called conspiracy theories, and how it relates to the UFO conundrum.
What the New York Times Said
On March 2, 2021, the New York Times published a thought-provoking opinion piece by Ross Douthat called, “A Better Way to Think About Conspiracies.” Douthat made several refreshingly rational and objective points. For example, he says that both blindly accepting consensus opinion as true and dismissing so-called conspiracy theories as false can lead to factual error. He acknowledges that conspiracies and cover-ups do exist in some cases, making it reasonable to consider them as plausible explanations. Douthat’s advice is to build the mental muscle to discern what is fact versus fiction, while also creating an environment where different theories can be debated without escalating to the extreme, like the storming of the Capitol.
Is simple always right?
Most of Douthat’s opinion piece had me nodding my head in agreement. But I paused when I read his first “tool kit” idea for discriminating among different “fringe” theories. He suggests that we should “Prefer simple theories to baroque ones,” meaning simple, plausible explanations should win out over explanations that require complex or sophisticated motives and execution to be true. He goes on to say, “Never leap to a malignant conspiracy to explain something that can be explained by incompetence and self-protection first.” Basically, don’t assume an evil plot when human error and self-preservation could suffice.
He offers the example of theories on the origin of Covid-19. While not advocating for this view, he says the more plausible explanation is an accidental release of the virus from a Wuhan lab and subsequent cover up, as opposed to the theory that it was deliberately engineered and released as part of a Gates Foundation or other nefarious schemes to scare and control us for purposes of world domination.
Admittedly, between the two, the accident theory is easier for our human minds to grasp and accept. We can fit that theory into a logical narrative that is disturbing but not at odds with past experiences. Our world is full of examples of people screwing up and processes breaking down. Though one would expect a facility researching, manipulating, and storing deadly viruses capable of infecting the globe to have rigorous and redundant security measures, nothing is 100% fool-proof.
But if, for purposes of this thought experiment, we accept that the virus was manufactured in the Wuhan lab, is it really more plausible that it was accidentally released versus deliberately sent out into the world? One we have a relatively simple story for; the other takes us into some very dark, uncomfortable, and nebulous terrain. Yet neither the accidental or deliberate release theory is currently backed up by any solid, publicly-available evidence, at least as far as I am aware.
In the absence of concrete data and evidence, can we really say one is more plausible or probable than another? Is it responsible to reach a conclusion one way or the other without any proof?
Similarly, Douthat claims that what he might have once considered fringe theories about UFOs became more plausible when the Pentagon acknowledged that video footage taken by Navy pilots was real but failed to provide an official or consensus explanation as to what was seen on those videos. His argument is that the mystery around it leaves room for alternative theories, which is fair. Yet, the implication seems to be that the plausibility of UFOs changed with the government release of this particular footage. Did it really? Is it that UFO theories actually became more plausible or just more believable to him and others unfamiliar with this topic? I would argue that they had long been plausible but as more information comes out, the general public is more willing to assimilate the idea of UFOs into their view of reality, making it more believable to people.
The caution is that just because we find something hard or disturbing to believe doesn’t mean it can’t be true.
It also doesn’t make it the most probable answer but to assume that the simple story is always the right one is intellectually lazy and could keep us from the truth. Reality is complicated, as are human motivations. Just because an explanation takes a dark turn into a coordinated quest for power, corruption, and greed shouldn’t immediately disqualify it even if there is a simpler theory. Certainly, human history is rife with atrocities and ploys to amass power and wealth. That it could happen on a grand scale in a clandestine way is hard to swallow but what if it is true? Wouldn’t it be better to know?
Is it a conspiracy theory or hypothesis?
I completely agree with Douthat that we should allow space for conspiracy thinking to explore the uncertain. I would also agree that some people take this way too far. Just as it is unwise to rush to dismiss certain hypotheses, it isn’t helpful to cling to a belief unsupported or contradicted by a preponderance of evidence. Buying into a conspiracy theory simply because it aligns with your partisan ideology, political leanings, or preexisting beliefs isn’t sufficient burden of proof. That too is intellectually lazy.
As we navigate the enigma of truth in the modern world, it may also be helpful to get clearer on what is a conspiracy theory versus a hypothesis. Going back to the UFO example, a conspiracy theory is that the government is deliberately deceiving the American public by withholding and obfuscating the truth about UFOs. A sample hypothesis is that objects that exhibit flight characteristics not demonstrated by human technologies are extraterrestrial in origin.
There is a difference. Choosing not to believe the conspiracy theory shouldn’t invalidate the hypothesis as being worthy of study. Part of critical thinking is being able to separate issues and judge them independently.
Hopefully we will someday discover the whole truth about the origin of Covid-19 and how it came to be a global pandemic. Hopefully we will also learn the truth about Roswell and the government’s handling of UFO information. But until then, and unless reasonable evidence invalidates it or zero evidence supports it, intellectual honesty and rigor demands that we not automatically dismiss theories because they challenge our view of the world or make us squirm.
For better or worse, in the years ahead we may find that the unbelievable is actually the most true.
My work is entirely supported by people like you. If you have liked what you see here, please consider sharing it, subscribing, signing up for a course or coaching, and/or making a donation via Venmo or buying me a coffee on ko-fi to help me continue to provide this service. Thank you!!!