The Marginalization of “Conspiracy Theories” Due to a Lack of Empirical Proof

Many people will marginalize collusion and conspiracy as a “conspiracy theory” because there is not enough empirical proof to properly explain the crime. It should be noted that empiricism is just one tool in the bag of those who draw on the values of the enlightenment period, and that rationalism is also an important tool to draw on from enlightenment values (Rationalism vs Empiricism). Rationalism does not require empirical proof, and since the primary tools of Machiavellian politics (read “The Prince” from Niccolo Machiavelli for more) are deception and criminal behavior, we need a system that can make inferences from the data points that are available to us, much like a detective would use causal inferences to work backwards from a crime scene to discover the root motive, weapon, and criminal(s) responsible for the crime. A well thought out crime can be quite difficult to both detect and infer the causes of, especially if all of the physical evidence was cleaned up properly, and misdirection techniques were effectively employed. A rationalist might point out that just because there isn’t any concrete evidence proving a conspiracy or crime was committed, doesn’t mean that a crime wasn’t committed, as that would be considered the “argument from ignorance logical fallacy”, which is fallacious reasoning that “asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true.”

It can be inferred through observation and reason that the State in its current form is a well oiled criminal machine adept at covering its tracks, and finds ways to deal with those who get too close to the truth; to believe otherwise is at the least naive and simpleminded, in many cases intentionally ignoring the obvious, and at times, complicit in the criminal behavior. There is more than enough data points available for us to observe the truth in the world around us, but this implies that we must actually start reasoning from what we see in order to conceptualize and realize it.

“I can see nothing,” said Watson. “On the contrary, Watson, you can see everything. You fail, however, to reason from what you see.” ~Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure of the Blue Carbuncle

On the importance of reasoning skills (aka, rationalism) in relationship to empirical proof:

“When critical thinking is introduced into the classroom — and very often it is not — it is often approached monologically, for example, by having students divide a set of statements into “facts” and “opinions”. Unfortunately, a taxonomy that divides all beliefs into either facts or opinions leaves out the most important category: reasoned judgment. Most important issues are not simply matters of fact, nor are they essentially matters of faith, taste, or preference. They are matters that call for reasoned reflection. They are matters that can be understood from different points of view through different frames of reference. We can, and many different people do, approach them with different assumptions, ideas and concepts, priorities, and ends in view. The tools of critical thinking enable us to grasp genuine strengths and weaknesses in thought only when they are analytically applied to divergent perspectives in dialectical contexts. Dialogical and dialectical experience enables us to develop a sense of what is most reasonable. Monological rules do not.” ~Richard Paul, Dialogical and Dialectical Thinking

We must stop approaching our problems monologically, to instead engage them multilogically, otherwise our perception of reality will be too narrow, and we will be too easily manipulated by those who are orchestrating the big picture.  This implies that in order to make a proper diagnosis of our world’s problems, and to infer the motives, individuals, groups, and means of the crimes being committed against the people, we need to collect as many viewpoints as possible, while also crossing disciplines and domains, such as political, psychological, philosophical, technological, cultural, scientific, spiritual, and sociological, while also looking for patterns and trends over both narrow and wide periods of human history.

Egocentric Oversimplification – the natural tendency to ignore real and important complexities in the world in favor of simplistic notions when consideration of those complexities would require us to modify our beliefs or values. ~Richard Paul & Linda Elder

“For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are often more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are.” ~Niccolo Machiavelli

When we are overly reliant on the external appearance of things, (aka overly empirical) we will fail to discern the truth underlying them, and will therefore be easily deceived by the external. This is why truth has always been an inside job, and why we must look beyond appearances when drawing conclusions. ~Nathan Martin

We live in a complex world, and it is important to resist the temptation of oversimplifying it by reducing reality to the level of the material and empiric only; instead, it is prudent to rely on all of the Logocentric tools currently at our disposal, so that we can better grasp the complete scope of reality.  Only then can we properly identify and deal with the criminal behaviors, including the collusion and conspiracies, perpetrated against humanity.

About Nathan