Corante

About this Author
DBL%20Hendrix%20small.png College chemistry, 1983

Derek Lowe The 2002 Model

Dbl%20new%20portrait%20B%26W.png After 10 years of blogging. . .

Derek Lowe, an Arkansan by birth, got his BA from Hendrix College and his PhD in organic chemistry from Duke before spending time in Germany on a Humboldt Fellowship on his post-doc. He's worked for several major pharmaceutical companies since 1989 on drug discovery projects against schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, diabetes, osteoporosis and other diseases. To contact Derek email him directly: derekb.lowe@gmail.com Twitter: Dereklowe

Chemistry and Drug Data: Drugbank
Emolecules
ChemSpider
Chempedia Lab
Synthetic Pages
Organic Chemistry Portal
PubChem
Not Voodoo
DailyMed
Druglib
Clinicaltrials.gov

Chemistry and Pharma Blogs:
Org Prep Daily
The Haystack
Kilomentor
A New Merck, Reviewed
Liberal Arts Chemistry
Electron Pusher
All Things Metathesis
C&E News Blogs
Chemiotics II
Chemical Space
Noel O'Blog
In Vivo Blog
Terra Sigilatta
BBSRC/Douglas Kell
ChemBark
Realizations in Biostatistics
Chemjobber
Pharmalot
ChemSpider Blog
Pharmagossip
Med-Chemist
Organic Chem - Education & Industry
Pharma Strategy Blog
No Name No Slogan
Practical Fragments
SimBioSys
The Curious Wavefunction
Natural Product Man
Fragment Literature
Chemistry World Blog
Synthetic Nature
Chemistry Blog
Synthesizing Ideas
Business|Bytes|Genes|Molecules
Eye on FDA
Chemical Forums
Depth-First
Symyx Blog
Sceptical Chymist
Lamentations on Chemistry
Computational Organic Chemistry
Mining Drugs
Henry Rzepa


Science Blogs and News:
Bad Science
The Loom
Uncertain Principles
Fierce Biotech
Blogs for Industry
Omics! Omics!
Young Female Scientist
Notional Slurry
Nobel Intent
SciTech Daily
Science Blog
FuturePundit
Aetiology
Gene Expression (I)
Gene Expression (II)
Sciencebase
Pharyngula
Adventures in Ethics and Science
Transterrestrial Musings
Slashdot Science
Cosmic Variance
Biology News Net


Medical Blogs
DB's Medical Rants
Science-Based Medicine
GruntDoc
Respectful Insolence
Diabetes Mine


Economics and Business
Marginal Revolution
The Volokh Conspiracy
Knowledge Problem


Politics / Current Events
Virginia Postrel
Instapundit
Belmont Club
Mickey Kaus


Belles Lettres
Uncouth Reflections
Arts and Letters Daily
In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline

In the Pipeline

« Amgen Buys Onyx | Main | Not Sent Out For Review »

August 26, 2013

On Conspiratorial Thinking

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

I recently had a e-mail exchange with someone who wanted me to read one of the many books out there that claims that some particular food additive is poisoning everyone. I'm not linking to the stuff, so I'll call the book's author Dr. Cassandra, for short. We argued about data and mechanisms a bit, but my correspondent also brought up what he felt were many other conspiracies around food and health, and I couldn't agree with him on any of those, either. That led to me writing this to him:

Let me get philosophical: one of the big problems with this sort of thinking is deciding what to trust. If you decide that Most Of What You Think You Know Is Wrong, then you have some work ahead of you. If these various authorities and well-documented sources of primary material are faked, then what *isnt'* faked? How do you know that the stuff you've decided to believe is on the level? My usual answer to someone who tries to convince me of the 9/11 stuff, etc., is to lower my voice and say "Well, yeah, but that's just what they want you to think". It's a universal answer. You can't falsify it.

Too often, what happens is that someone chooses to believe the things that fit their worldview, and dismisses the stuff that doesn't. That's human nature, but scientific inquiry is alien to human nature. If you start in with the conspiratorial stuff, then you end up skipping through the fields of data and sources, picking a daisy here and a cherry there, until you've made a wonderful centerpiece out of little bits from all over the place. And you can end up telling yourself, "See, this must be real. Look at this wonderful thing I've assembled, all the parts fit together so well - how can it be anything other than true?" But beautiful sculptures can be made from all kinds of found objects. If you start by assuming your conclusion - they're covering something up! - then you can get there any of a million ways.

So try this thought experiment: how do you know that (Dr. Cassandra) isn't just a plant? A false flag? Someone who's been put out there to make his beliefs look silly and under-researched (because believe me, he does)? Could someone in the pay of the Mighty Conspiracy do a better job of bringing its opposition into disrepute? That's the problem with conspiratorial thinking: the rabbit hole has no bottom to it. I refuse to dive in.

So my correspondent and I agreed to disagree. He thinks that eventually I'll see the truth of some of his beliefs, which I very much doubt. And I have little to no hope that he'll ever accept any of mine. The points made above have naturally been made by many others who've examined conspiratorial thinking, and I don't see much of a way around them. When you get to the Vast Overarching Conspiracy level of some of these schemes, you really do wonder how the believers manage to function. It's only a short step to the sorts of worldviews depicted in Diane Kossy's compendium Kooks: A Guide to the Outer Limits of Human Belief, which is worth a look if you've never encountered 100-proof paranoia before.

Comments (39) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Snake Oil


COMMENTS

1. John Wayne on August 26, 2013 10:01 AM writes...

I think this is excellent example of what I refer to as 'group not think' that appears to be dominating politics, health and other scientifically-related issues facing our society. It is hard to have a lively discussion with people who disagree with you about various issues such as health care, politics, gun control, global weather change and how to raise kids. A increasing number of people (in my opinion and observation) mentally throw a lot of issues into an 'us vs them' category that doesn't respect conflicting opinions.

I have a new rule that appears to be working: if somebody is unwilling to believe that other reasonable people could possibly disagree with them, change the subject. Unfortunately, this comes up more often than not.

Permalink to Comment

2. patentgeek on August 26, 2013 10:10 AM writes...

Eric Hoffer's 1951 classic The True Believer is a great dissection of the psychology of fanaticism. While more about mass movements than conspiracy kooks, most of his points are applicable, including the insight that fanatical belief systems are interchangeable, people not infrequently flipping from one to another.

Permalink to Comment

3. Dick Turpin on August 26, 2013 10:29 AM writes...

These are fine points. However, you would do us all a service if you developed your line of reasoning out to its epistemological limit (since you mention getting "philosophical").

If you do that, you will find yourself a solipsist. Now, as a scientist, you may or may not find that satisfactory, I don't know, but, on some level, the only difference between "mainstream (non-fanatical, scientific) common sense" and "fanatical conspiratorial crackpot theories" is the number of people who believe in each of those. The difference has nothing to do with truth.

And you will note that my attempt to communicate that fact to you is further undermining itself. Nonetheless, this is more than simply an exercise in sophistry. Trust me...

Dick Turpin

Permalink to Comment

4. Anonymous on August 26, 2013 10:30 AM writes...

There is science, and there is faith. Faith is belief in an idea, while science is belief in a process to test the idea.

Permalink to Comment

5. Twelve on August 26, 2013 11:07 AM writes...

Were you trying to cover your bets when you gave this guy the monicker 'Cassandra'? Cassandra, of course, was the figure in mythology whose dreary predictions were always right but never believed...

Permalink to Comment

6. CET on August 26, 2013 11:09 AM writes...

@3

Only in the absence of experimental evidence. To get un-philosophical about it, scientific arguments can be resolved with data.

To a first approximation, if the majority of investigators trying to answer a question get data that supports model A, and only a handful get data that supports model B, then we can say with some confidence that model A is more representative of reality. This is true regardless of the number of people who 'believe' A vs. B (see: Evolution vs. Creationism, etc). There are some obvious caveats in there about the details and the need reconcile accurate data regardless of whether it fits the current model, but in general, something like a scientific consensus can usually be reached for major issues.

When you start talking about the general public, you still get stuck on Derek's point about deciding who to trust. But the more accurate answer isn't determined by a simple majority opinion, it's determined by the data.

Now I suppose one could go all post-modern and throw out the notion of an objective truth, but that way lies madness . . .

Permalink to Comment

7. Anonymous on August 26, 2013 11:35 AM writes...

"Now I suppose one could go all post-modern and throw out the notion of an objective truth, but that way lies madness . . ."

I tried that, took the red pill and changed my name to Neo. It didn't end well.

Permalink to Comment

8. Helical Investor on August 26, 2013 11:46 AM writes...

Off topic on the food subject, but a good book that takes a look at alternative medicine is Simon Singh's 'Trick or Treatment'. Worth reading just for how it is written, as the author brings the history of medical development, clinical testing, etc. into the stories related to different medicinal efforts.

Despite being 'in the field', I found the book not due to an interest in medicine / alternative medicine but because I enjoyed another of the author's works 'Big Bang', which is a look at the history of astronomy that reads like a fiction thriller. 'Trick or Treatment' is good, 'Big Bang' is very very good (IMO).

Zz

Permalink to Comment

9. Curious Wavefunction on August 26, 2013 11:49 AM writes...

One of the best books I can recommend in this context is Michael Shermer's "The Believing Brain" as well as his previous "Why People Believe Weird Things".

There's also a nice book about the history of conspiracy theories in this country which just came out: "The United States of Paranoia" by Jesse Walker.

Permalink to Comment

10. old man on August 26, 2013 11:49 AM writes...

100 proof is only 50% if you are comparing to alcohol strength. 200 proof is the good stuff!

Permalink to Comment

11. exGlaxoid II on August 26, 2013 12:03 PM writes...

Ran into a simular situation this weekend. The latest theory running around the public Lyme disease community is that the CDC upped its estimates of the number of undiagnosed cases in order to increase sales of the next Lyme vaccine. Of course it has nothing to do with the new studies show how widespread ticks that are carriers or how most physicians outside of certain areas of the NE are oblivious to the disease...

Permalink to Comment

12. Big Fish on August 26, 2013 12:45 PM writes...

Saw a documentary on TV (properly titled: Tapped) this weekend about bottled water industry. And how all kinds of additives in the plastic bottles are leaching-out and poisoning us, particularly children because parents believe bottled water is better than tap water.

Permalink to Comment

13. Anonymous on August 26, 2013 1:58 PM writes...

The worst food additive is sodium chloride.

Permalink to Comment

14. Anonymous on August 26, 2013 2:04 PM writes...

All drinks should be labeled with a clear health warning:

Contains up to 10^6 ppm hydrogen hydroxide.

Permalink to Comment

15. Rich Rostrom on August 26, 2013 5:09 PM writes...

"100-proof paranoia"

Would that be fear of persecution that is only half delusion? (And therefore half reality?)

Permalink to Comment

16. srp on August 26, 2013 6:47 PM writes...

I generally concur with Derek's view but you have to be careful what you label a "conspiracy theory." Groups of connected people can act in parallel to advance particular agendas in science and public policy without forming a conspiracy per se.

Go back and read Edith Efron's magisterial 1984 book The Apocalyptics on how a small group of scientists and policy entrepreneurs embedded the "zero-threshold, one molecule is too many, most cancer is caused by industrial carcinogens" philosophy into our regulatory institutions. Science had little to do with it, but to this day most people assume that these policies are solidly grounded in well-established findings. Some say (I've only read reviews) that Gary Taubes is pretty devastating on the promotion, despite a lack of strong science, of the government's long-running anti-fat, pro-carb dietary advice.

That's just two examples in the health area; there are others I could cite. I don't think that either of these cases qualifies as a "conspiracy," but they do reflect the ability of small groups of "establishment" activists to supersede reasonable doubts or even the main findings of research.

Arguably, the way the tobacco companies dealt with the risks of smoking constituted an actual conspiracy. The distinction is that these were individuals a) secretly working together to b) advance propositions that they themselves believed not to be true while c) pretending to other motives.

In the first two examples I listed above, a) is tenuous, b) does not apply, and c) is possible but questionable so I don't think they should be classified as "conspiracies" of the sort Derek and his interlocutor meant. But not all corruption is conspiratorial.

Permalink to Comment

17. N on August 26, 2013 10:01 PM writes...

This usually comes up for me in the form of: big pharma doesn't want to cure cancer, it's more profitable to have a lifelong treatment. I have stopped conversing when this particular argument comes up because it's not a debate, it's a soap box speech that will just end up convincing people of a lot of stupid things.

Permalink to Comment

18. Anonymous on August 27, 2013 3:52 AM writes...

Most conspiracy theories could never work for the simple fact that people are mostly acting as individuals for their own self interests, so in most cases it's in the interests of at least one insider to blow the whistle.

Permalink to Comment

19. David Kroll on August 27, 2013 5:31 AM writes...

Despite being a pharmacologist blogger and getting the typical (and intellectually lazy) pharma shill label, nothing compares to the amount of mistrust and paranoia I've encountered in writing about foods derived from bioengineered crops. I'm finding the GMO "discussion" a particularly complex science communication challenge.

Permalink to Comment

20. Derek Lowe on August 27, 2013 6:45 AM writes...

#19, David - I take it the difficulty is that you refuse to accept that Monsanto is the evil, multitentacled beast behind everything that goes bad in the world? And that every bit of so-called evidence that might possibly say otherwise is the work of their sinister agents?

Permalink to Comment

21. Anonymous on August 27, 2013 7:17 AM writes...

The funny thing is, I wonder how the conspiracy theorists would react if a company claimed it is trying to takemover the world by brainwashing everyone with evil poisons. They would probably claim this is just a facade to do good things for the world.

Permalink to Comment

22. MTK on August 27, 2013 7:33 AM writes...

Blue pill or red pill?

I guess the conspiracy buffs believe they've taken the red one while the rest of us the blue one.

Permalink to Comment

23. Anonymous on August 27, 2013 7:37 AM writes...

@22: The problem is that everyone believes they've taken the red pill.

Permalink to Comment

24. cthulhu on August 27, 2013 10:01 AM writes...

Umberto Eco's "Foucault's Pendulum" seems on point here.

Permalink to Comment

25. wayland on August 27, 2013 11:14 AM writes...

yes maybe I'll read the pendulum again, I enjoyed it a lot last time. "I have time on my hands after all." (what happened to all the guys on here talking about how unemployed they are (as I)? too depressing to read the blog any more, or back in the game, or what?) I had a dream, I've seen the light, I took my pills, now I'm all right, I just hope I can still enjoy the Eco.

Permalink to Comment

26. Yancey Ward on August 27, 2013 11:17 AM writes...

Well, Derek, Cassandra is usually depicted in Greek mythology as being a true prophet, but not believed by anyone- both the gift and curse from Apollo.

Permalink to Comment

27. Yancey Ward on August 27, 2013 11:20 AM writes...

Damn, I should have read the comments first. I see Twelve has already noted the improper naming. Of course, maybe Derek was trying to hedge his beliefs.

Permalink to Comment

28. Derek Lowe on August 27, 2013 12:54 PM writes...

#5 and #27: that's exactly what I was doing! I think that the chances of "Dr. Cassandra" being wrong are pretty darn near 100%, but hey, you never know. If he's right, though, I'm pretty sure that it's going to be by accident.

Permalink to Comment

29. metaphysician on August 27, 2013 3:18 PM writes...

#28-

Or possibly by technicality. Consider nitrites in pork, for example. Whether that counts as a "additive killing people" or an "additive saving lives" depends entirely on how you frame the question.

Permalink to Comment

30. J. L. Mandelson on August 27, 2013 3:46 PM writes...

> If he's right, though, I'm pretty sure that it's going to be by accident.

Yeah, on rare occasion the crazy and ridiculous conspiracy theory really does end up being the truth after all. We're seeing this right here & now with the NSA domestic spying revelations. "Hah! I told you the government was recording everybody's phone calls and intercepting their email! Who's out of touch with reality now?"

Permalink to Comment

31. tt on August 27, 2013 7:47 PM writes...

I think Derek hit the nail on the head with the conspiratorial mindset. I used to argue with these people about how illogical if us to believe in massive cover ups. They often forget that governments and corporations are filled with people just like them who have parents and kids too. For their theories to be true, then they have to assume that all of these people that make up these organizations are inherently selfish and evil. That's a view of human nature that I cannot fathom. It's impossible to keep a secret for long even with the tightest controls and penalties in place (the NSA is a perfect example of how the truth comes out eventually). Unfortunately, the Internet and celebrity culture give these kooks a platform to organize and be heard. It's just plain sad when parents take medical advice from a minimally educated playmate (can Jenny McCarthy be held liable for kids dying of measles?). Anyways, it's an uphill battle, but I guess it's something all of us who utilize the scientific method must combat.

Permalink to Comment

32. Hibob on August 27, 2013 11:06 PM writes...

@17 N: Actually I like engaging the "big pharma doesn't want to cure X, it's more profitable to have a lifelong treatment." types. The trick is to explain that greedy Pharmas would make even more money selling cures than they do treatments, at which point their objections evaporate. I explain the competitive advantage a cure would have over treatments, the lower financial risks a cure would present, and the time value of money: would you rather get paid in dribs and drabs spread over 20 years or get paid in full the same day you hand them the pill?

Permalink to Comment

33. hibob on August 27, 2013 11:18 PM writes...

@19 David Kroll: That one is a challenge; the argument is really about personal aesthetics but it's masked as a public health issue. The only time I've come close to a success is when they say GMO containing foods should be labelled because they don't trust the safety of the foreign genes. I ask them if GMO peanuts that have had the main allergen (Ara h2 glycoprotein) removed also need to be labeled as GMO. After all, no new genes = no new ingredients.

Permalink to Comment

34. sepisp on August 28, 2013 5:08 AM writes...

Rather than just lambast the conspiracy theorists as crackpots and so on, it would be better to consider them as an part of a continuum of "concerned citizens". Although there are organizations and governments to take care of some policy analyses, it would be downright dangerous to claim that 100% to them. In the West, we're easily complacent about this, forgetting that the policymakers are people, just as anyone. If the government is absent, then people have to fend for themselves. Before the FDA, for instance, anyone could add virtually anything into food and medications, and it was up to the individual and local communities to monitor and enforce food safety. Yet thinking that now that there is the FDA, everything is automatically right is hazardous. There needs some "organic" vigilance.

True, people also have an impressive facility to overdevelop their conspiracy theories. These are extreme cases only, however.

Permalink to Comment

35. Anonymous on August 28, 2013 5:26 AM writes...

@34: I agree: Trust, but verify. And *then* stop listening.

Permalink to Comment

36. Anonymous on August 28, 2013 5:58 AM writes...

With conspiracy theories, I find myself following a simple algorithm:

1. Listen until I get the basic idea
2. Do I really care? If No, go to 9
3. Could I do anything about it? If No, go to 9
4. Will someone else deal with it? If Yes, go to 9
5. Can I check the facts? If No, go to 9
6. Can I be bothered? If No, go to 9
6. Think and check the facts
7. Do the facts prove the theory? If No, go to 9
8. Stop listening

Permalink to Comment

37. Anonymous on August 28, 2013 6:07 AM writes...

Oops, I mis-numbered 6-9 above.

Permalink to Comment

38. Kent G. Budge on August 28, 2013 10:52 AM writes...

#36-#37: It actually kind of worked the first way.

Permalink to Comment

39. John on September 28, 2013 11:27 AM writes...

@31 There is one conspiracy theory, Chemtrails -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory -- which perfectly illustrates your point.

In order for it to work, there must be literally hundreds of people saying to themselves, "What I am doing is very likely injurious to everyone, including those whom I love, and even including myself. However, I am too loyal to the conspiracy to blow the whistle on it." Is that even plausible?

At least some versions of the 9/11 conspiracy theories require the participants to be really smart and really stupid simultaneously.

Permalink to Comment

POST A COMMENT




Remember Me?



EMAIL THIS ENTRY TO A FRIEND

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):




RELATED ENTRIES
How Not to Do It: NMR Magnets
Allergan Escapes Valeant
Vytorin Actually Works
Fatalities at DuPont
The New York TImes on Drug Discovery
How Are Things at Princeton?
Phage-Derived Catalysts
Our Most Snorted-At Papers This Month. . .