But who is the elite who conspires against the people? You say :(rulers, scientists, top management, actively governing elements of the upper class etc.)"
"Conspiring against the people" already assumes a lot which I think may cause confusion.
"Tricking" may be a more fitting word, because to rule effectively at least some people need to be deceived at least some of the time.
Imagine young children. They already have a world model in their heads. It's simpler and more wrong than that of adults.
Therefore, children cannot understand how and why adults "rule" them.
The same applies to mentally disabled people with low IQ, say, Down's syndrome sufferers.
From their perspective it is unexplainable how others (normals and better) achieve the successes they see them enjoy, and how they can rule over those low-IQers.
From their POV, it's a "conspiracy" of the non-Down's.
The same applies generally to cognitive ability and superior world models ("knowledge", insight capacity):
Imagine two brothers, one seeing normally, the other congenitally blind.
They like to box each other for sport. The seeing brother, not surprisingly, wins every time. The blind brother now only can perceive the immediate outcome - he wonders why the seeing brother keeps winning, and envies him.
What he does not know, is that the seeing brother has a vast advantage over him, that is much more significant than the immediate outcome of their boxing matches - for he can see the whole world, colors, things - a whole
world of perception and experience and learning and insight is open to him, that is completely closed to the blind brother, and the blind brother is unable to fathom this at all.
The same principle applies to significant differences in cognitive ability, for example in IQ100 people and Downies:
The low-IQ people sure notice that they somehow end up as losers in social competitions for resources, status, power and high-quality mates; but they cannot quite understand why, just as the blind brother cannot really completely
understand the magnitude of the comparative advantage his seeing brother enjoys.
So, those cognitively more limited people do, and have done so, tend to come up with rationalizations, explanations why those others succeed: Curses, conspiracy, witchcraft, dark magic, voodoo, religious explanations - so called "magic thinking".
History of Whites is full of it, esoteric believers still do it, and in more primitive races, for example among Negroes, it is still most widespread.
Now, everybody with IQ100 can understand how chanceless those with IQ of 60 (widespread in Africa), 70, 80 are - even 90 is enough of a difference to produce great differences in insight capability and competitive outcomes.
That's the left part of the IQ bell curve.
The right part of it is even more dramatically making a difference in outcomes - people with IQs of 130+, or 150+, live cognitively "in another world" than those with IQ 100 - from the perspective of the IQ150s, those with IQ100 are just as
retarded like the IQ 60ers are to the IQ 100s.
Millions of people try their hand at the stock market to get rich. Almost nobody of them ever gets rich, most lose money. Warren Buffett, with a suspected IQ of 160+, made a personal fortune of about 80 billion dollars just by investing intelligently.
Social class, positions of power, and wealth, are all highly correlated with IQ.
Sure, IQ is not everything, it only measures certain aspects of reasoning ability; but is indispensable, and just like health or strength, more is always better.
So, there is a "conspiracy" of the few cognitively gifted people in the socio-sexual competition all people fight with everybody.
I belong to the science class/caste and know a lot of people in my class, internationally. Not me nor my colleagues are aware of any conspiracy. We didn't receive any letter from fellow conspirators inviting us aboard their little global scheme.
And yet you defeated your competitors/enemies in the social war for status, resources and mates: By being smarter than many others, you rose over them socially, in power, in wealth, in access to quality mates.
You overcame your competitors in school, university etc. - which are battle grounds where those who a smarter defeat the less able, to be selected in positions of privilege.
You may not have been aware of it now - but you murdered, killed off, exterminated other humans! This will greatly surprise you, as you never thought that true.
Sure, you did not murder in the legal sense.
But by defeating the inferior competing humans in school, university and in the general struggle for jobs/resources/status/mates you forced all the people who lost against you in those competitions in inferior positions:
Wherever you are now, whatever you have now, if you were to vanish suddenly, another human, the guy just slightly less competent than you, would have your nice job, nice home, nice car, nice mate, nice children. By being successful
you took all that away from him, and he now has to make do with an inferior home, inferior car, inferior mate, inferior children or no children at all.
Life quality and social status are strong predictors for health and life span. Being socially defeated causes stress, and from that illness and death.
By having successfully reproduced, you took that chance from all other men (as every woman only has a limit in time and number in terms of the children she can produce), and at least one man will not have the children you had with your mate; therefore, you exterminated the potential children of that man,and therefore, suppressed the spread of his genes to advantage the spread of your own ones.
The guy in the social pecking order just beneath you will have a lower-quality mate, and therefore lower-quality offspring, disadvantaging his children and advantaging your children even in the next generation and all the future.
The negative effect of your success over your socio-sexual competitors goes all the way down the social ladder, until some way down, there are men who will never reproduce at all because you did, because you won over them - and in a certain sense,
you not only killed those men by your success, you outright exterminated them, because their genetic line ends with them.
Conspiracy is an imprecise word - but you surely have friends, family and generally allies of your own social, that is, cognitive class, and you help each other out - in the search for a good job, or you share tips on where to get a better job,
or investment or tax tips etc. etc. - and you keep this assistance to your own social circles, your own "allies" - and you do not even care to extend this assistance to people of significantly lower class than yourself,
because you do not expect they could ever reciprocate, so your investment in them as allies would be wasted/lost.
From the perspective of those much lower in cognitive/social class this amounts indeed as you and your "pals" conspiring against them.
And now, of course, the same effects apply for those above you in social and cognitive class, because you are not at the top, far from it.
Those that are much more higher up in cognitive ability, power, wealth have their own social circles, their own issues - but they move billions of dollars and "rule the world", instead merely doing solid work as a scientist.
On top of that there is also a very significant knowledge difference: From their socially and financially elevated positions they enjoy knowledge and perspectives on economy and society that you lack, for they have to deal with much
grander issues and wide-ranging problems than you have. Your specialization in education and ability, most of your insights and knowledge, are limited to your field of science. Of almost everything else you know little or nothing.
You cannot quite concretely comprehend how to rule a country, or how to make billions from investing. It's weird and confusing from your perspective, and you cannot quite understand it. Otherwise you would do the ruling and
make those billions of dollars yourself, instead of bothering with your job, wouldn't you?
And, just like you will keep your best tips and insights to your own social-cognitive class, your family and friends, those far above you socially and cognitively and financially will do just the same: You will not advise underclass members
on how to become a successful scientist instead of, say, a cook, and how to profit most from it socially and financially, just as billionaires will not talk to you about tricks to make a few millions more easily by figuring out some investment
insight - which you probably feel is unfair, and kind of a "conspiracy" against you.
I see you really distrust elites, but please define the elite you distrust more accurately. I am a scientist, but I do not consider myself as elite. I do not know elites personally. The elites are always in the higher echelons of society. I wonder if even elites consider themselves as elites, but rather just ordinary people, working with their higher-than-usual salaries.
As pointed out above, you may underestimate how superior those few significantly above you are, just like Down's syndrome sufferers cannot understand how it is to be "normal".
It's organically impossible to perceive, to experience what one lacks the neural machinery or/and the knowledge of.
At least the science caste seems to be, from my point of view -as an insider-, out from the conspiracy. This is comforting, because the science class is responsible for the analysis of the global warming phenomenon.
Conspiracy is, as pointed out above, an too inexact word. There are many complex incentives, conscious and unconscious, to selfishly act for one's own benefit.
Many scientists need money from somewhere, research grants etc. This is delivered from the government, which may be ideologically biased; or companies, which have an interest in certain research results as basis for political arguments to further their economic interests, for example pharmaceutical companies, or pesticide or food companies. Known or unknowingly biased from this, many scientists make sure the outcome of the research is according the interests of the people who pay them - for scientists whose work sabotages the interests of their employers and money suppliers are soon out of their jobs, and fall in social status, must fear to lose their homes, car, mates, or not have enough money for getting children etc.
I have myself bent experimental outcomes to please the institute I was employed at, otherwise I would have lost my job, or would have get difficulties getting my degree.
Just as journalists, most scientists are actually prostitutes, that must report so that their superiors/clients are pleased. This is not universally so, but common enough, especially in scientific fields of immediate political or commercial import.
If the elites are conspiring with climate change, they are conspiring without the science castes support. I do not think the end result would be convincing..
As I said above, most scientists can be openly or indirectly, consciously or unconsciously bought, at least influenced.
Scientists are human first. Humans have human needs and weaknesses.
I do not want to open that can of worms:
But obviously there is no scientific consensus; some scientists have one opinion on a matter, other scientist the opposite opinion. This may be so due to purely scientific reasons, or due to social, ideological or financial influences.
And, unlike chemistry, medicine, or climate science, are not "hard" sciences where you can easily run experiments and get clear results. You cannot easily cheat or come to different results in hard science or math or engineering,
because you get reliable results and can prove/demonstrate everything in experiments. This you cannot do with "soft" sciences, which are actually, because of this reason, no real sciences.
Please reconsider this sentiment. If we distrust science in general, we can just close the shop, abandon all hope in understanding the world, and go back to any religious dogma of our choosing. Game over, man. Game over.
No, it's not so dire. Science is just another field of socio-economic, political conflict, which is, like all other things, abused to get advantages in the socio-economic war.
There is nothing of this abuse of science in math or chemistry or physics - because it's not feasible to trick hard sciences. But soft sciences are different; you can either have a synthesized molecule or not,
or have a working solar cell or not; but there is much more guesswork and interpretation in answering the question if a certain drug is effective, or if a certain social or economic policy works well or not.
Science is the only worthwhile tool for the humanity to know what is "probably" true and real.
Yes. But science can not be applied to everything easily, for example "law", or "social science", psychology much of medicine etc. is not a true science, because you cannot easily use experimental falsification of hypotheses.
Science is not perfect, but it is the best thing we have to understand stuff. The only thing we have.
Yes. But again - science is done by humans, which are limited by human nature. Biases and interests are worked into science, in politically critical fields at least.
To repeat the idea above: You will not find two chemists holding significant different opinions about, say, carbon and it's chemistry; but you find a lot of scientists in soft sciences, like medicine, nutrition, psychology, sociology etc.
- and climate science - who hold very opposing views.
Science as a method is great, but humans are incapable so far to apply scientific rigor equally in all fields of study.
Thus, I would never allow a random internet discussion to influence my perceptions, unless there was some sound scientific evidence (from a reliable source and publication) to back the claims up.
There are quite a lot of climate scientists doubting that global warming is a great, unusual or dangerous phenomenon.
But scientists have employers, and therefore most scientists are not really free. Try doing science that proves that fossil fuels cause global warming and is dangerous to humanity in Saudi Arabia or Russia; you will quickly lose your job;
or try to find scientific proof for things the sponsor of your job at a US university does not like, and you will lose your job as well.
Science is not really free, at least not in certain politically critical fields - because real scientific results tend to be true, and are therefore very dangerous politically.
Only scientifically proven evidence should be considered.
No. If I have a company that makes drug X, and scientist find that X is worse than drug Y, I will know this is the truth, but I will fight this truth. I will try to come up finding scientists who get different results, pay them well, if they "find"
evidence that X is better. Perhaps you are a bit naive, or at least a very honest person? Past evidence plentifully proves that the world, that humans, and human science, does not work so idealistically.
If X being perceived publicly as best makes me a billionaire, and X being perceived publicly as inferior makes me poor again, because I own X, then I will do everything in my power, legal or not, to make sure that X gets the scientific results I want,
even if the science is manipulated or even outright wrong.
Conspiracy theories are a waste of time like any speculation without the means to prove it experimentally.
Yes. Non-falsifiability is per definition unscientific. I call it the "dragon in the cellar problem": Someone says there is a dragon in the basement, so I go looking for it and see nothing. The person says the dragon is invisible. So I throw
some flour in the air in the cellar, which should settle on the invisible dragon and expose his outlines. Then the person says the dragon is permeable to flour, etc. etc.
Conspiracy theories, however, are used as a propaganda tool to kill certain facts and ideas in the public sphere. Example:
Some guy has made, by chance, a photo of a secret military aircraft. The photo is leaked, on all websites. It cannot be censored anymore. Now the government must make it a conspiracy theory, by "information pollution" - the same picture is modified in many ways, and republished by gov. agencies in many forms, in many media, with many a conflicting story. For example that it is aliens, or visitors from inner earth, which is actually hollow, you know, and contains a whole civilization etc. etc. Much nonsense is produced, which now stands equally besides the original information, which now is only one little part of all the information, which makes it seem doubtful and irrelevant. Because the original report is now in public associated with aliens, flat or hollow earth theories, everybody laughs at the stupid "conspiracy theory", and the fact that there has been indeed a critical piece of secret information is removed from public consciousness.
You could be wrong. You could be right. You cannot verify it.
Exactly. With global warming, we cannot know. And therefore we should not be willing to accept huge tax increases - nothing else is the goal of the global warming political propaganda - just like that.
I am also not willing to accept huge tax increases to defend against evil space invaders or the evil dwarves from inner Earth just like that, even if many would like to take my money to this end and provide many graphs and pictures and
measurement results to make me accept it.
Has anyone seen any phd thesis (with peer-reviewed published articles) on conspiracies or the psychology of it? That would be an interesting read.
You seem too naive from my point of view. You could just as well expect a phd thesis on getting away with murder undetected.
You seem to have a good grasp and respect for science, but seem not to understand that people will lie, cheat, kill to further their interests, and that science is not immune to this.
For example, if I had the chancee to kill a million people without anybody noticing to get a billion dollars I would kill those people.
Now imagine what I would do to divert the scientific process.
You may say I am a "bad" person, but I think I am just a normal, real person, and that you perhaps have very weird moral limitations.
History and current affairs prove that real people are more like me, not like perhaps some people wish people would be like because it would make everything easier, clearer.