It has been said that a half-truth is more dangerous than an"whole lie," because the whole lie is likely to be discovered, while one may live comfortably believing a half-truth (a lie in disguise) indefinitely and never know it.

The video below was posted on Steemit a while back, and shared by a friend of mine on Facebook. While I suspect I would be labeled as having a severe confirmation bias and being a "conspiracy theorist" for saying as much, I saw through it immediately.

Here's the video. Please watch it and then examine my point-by-point breakdown.

Let's dig in.

"How to Resist Conspiracy Theories"

First, the title lets us know, in no uncertain sense, that the video has an agenda. This is fine, of course, as there is nothing inherently "wrong" with having a purpose or a desired end in undertaking or creating any project, endeavor, or enterprise. This video's self-stated purpose is to assist viewers in resisting conspiracy theories.

But, wait. Why resist and deny a phenomenon that actually happens? Conspiracy" is directly related to the word "conspire" (lit. "breath together with") which we know for a fact humans do. Humans have and do conspire together to bring about certain desired ends. Thus, "conspiracy theory" is simply a phrase indicating a hypothesis about the potential presence of humans in a specific context working together to achieve some mutually desired end. I am not sure why this phenomenon that is well-documented--indeed is most of human history--must be resisted and denied its reality. Oh well. Let's move on.

How does this video define conspiracy theories/conspiracy theorists?

From the intro:

We live in conspiratorial times. No one, however high their reputation, is entirely beyond suspicion. Every institution, even the most venerable, may be at it.

Hmm. In light of non-conspiracy theories like Watergate, the declassified Northwoods Documents, the Tuskegee Experiment,Operation Paperclip, the recent emails leaked from high ranking officials in the DNC, US depleted Uranium weaponry causing birth defects in Iraq, drone warfare killing babies overseas, massive conflicts of interest in government-sponsored healthcare organizations, in medical journals, on Wall Street, and in the criminal justice system, etc, etc, I'd say this is a pretty reasonable position to maintain!

To go the opposite route, and blindly assume some high-level political official, organization, or figurehead is beyond suspicion for potentially engaging in these types of acts would be, at this point for a student of history and someone who keeps up on the news, extremely irrational. But, let's move on, maybe there is something I am missing. Maybe a balance is to be struck soon by the narrator:

Whatever may publicly be said, something a whole lot ghastlier is probably going on in private.

I hope you caught that little flip in tone there, with the word probably. Up until this point, the "conspiracy theorist" mindset described by the narrator is perfectly logical.

Eveey institution, even the most venerable, MAY be at it.
(emphasis mine)

I emphasize "may" because this position is totally rational. It indicates not a certainty, or even a probability, for that matter, but a possibility. Now, in the most recent section of narration above, the narrator characterizes the "conspiracy theorist" as someone who assumes something probably is some way. This may be true for some individuals who hypothesize about conspiracy, but certainly not all. That would be a tremendously illogical assumption to make, as it is evidentially unsubstantiated in the video, and thus baseless.

Taking anything on good faith, seems a sure route to naïveté and disillusion.

Hmm. Conspiracy hypothesizers, each and every one, don't take anything on good faith? Where did this implied assumption come from? Sigh. Getting tired already of all these assumptions, but let's plow through, I suspect the narrator is just making a point, and will strike a balance with some counterpoint soon.

But the real choice isn't between naïveté on the one hand, and conspiracy theory on the other. The task is to find our way to an often illusive, third option: intelligent skepticism.

Awesome! This is logical. This is good. This statement is true, except for the mischaracterization/demonization of the readily understandable and neutral phrase "conspiracy theory," but I'll look past that for now.

Both the intelligent skeptic, and the conspiracy theorist, start from the very same place, with an awareness that things may well not be what they seem, and that what's widely believed may be patently false.

Agreed. 100%. Now I want to ask the more important question, where does this awareness that "things may not be what hey seem," come from? I think that is important to think about. It could be just a random doubt, but that doesn't make any sense given we know a little bit about how the human mind works. Doubts come from experiences. These experiences can be misunderstood and the "knowledge" gained therefrom later misapplied (just see the beaten and battered dog snarl at his new, loving owner), but having an awareness that things "may well not be what they seem" is a product of experience. Without the experience, however banal or remarkable (think Santa not being real, versus the theory of a geocentric universe) of a thing not being what it seemed at first to be, there would be no logical explanation for either the "intelligent skeptic" or the "conspiracy theorist" having aforementioned skeptical awareness. Can you see what I am saying?

The narrator almost seems to speak of skepticism as if it were in a vacuum. Oh well, perhaps I misunderstood him on this point. Onward.

The narrator goes on to address some "conspiracy theories" that actually were proven to be true, rightly saying that there is nothing inherently wrong with an "absurd" hypothesis. After all, often times truth is stranger than fiction.

So what separates the conspiracy theorist from the intelligent skeptic?

What separates the conspiracy theorist from the intelligent skeptic is not the possession of some odd-sounding hyphotheses. It's what they then go on to do with these hypotheses.

Hmm. Okay. I'm interested...

Intelligent skeptics know that hypotheses cannot be sustained indefinitely without evidence.

Ehhhh. I know a lot of "conspiracy theorists" that know that, too. Can I see some evidence that all individuals who hypothesize about conspiracies (that's what the phrase "conspiracy theorist" means, after all) think a hypothesis can be sustained indefinitely without evidence? I know some crazy people who think that way, but it is really the height of illogic to drop these blanket judgments on anyone who hypothesizes about conspiracies. I know a lot of self-proclaimed "intelligent skeptics" who are just as bamboozled by other fairy tales and hold on to their own brand of comfort with white knuckles like a child in bed in a dark, dark room. For example, I have friends that literally will not even look at information I present them in the interest of discourse. For them, it's already settled. This is religion.

Some people (from both "camps") get fooled and hold onto false notions. So what?

Intelligent skeptics know that the burden of proving a hypothesis must invariably fall on them, as the challengers to the status quo, and not on the upholders of the established ideology.

Well. Yeah. Pretty elementary stuff, no?

Cue the inane stereotyping.

The narrator then goes on to state that wild conspiracy theories can make their adherents feel superior, and that conspiracy theorists are simply suffering from emotional damage and need love and acceptance. The former statement is definitely true sometimes. The latter statement is also true sometimes. It is also sometimes true that the "intelligent skeptics" entirely miss the boat on certain "conspiracy theories" that turn out to be true, because that cannot see the evidence due to confirmation bias. This is the true balance I was hoping the narrator would strike. One of objectivity. Sadly, he just goes on baselessly marginalizing and attempting to infantilize a whole group of millions of unique, thinking, adult individuals.

The narrator proceeds to reference the fake moon landing conspiracy and says that (in so many words) conspiracy theorists are often poor people who want to feel like college professors. While I have to laugh at this "look-down-my-nose-at-you" hogwash, sometimes it is true. And sometimes it is true that "intelligent skeptics" who actually are college professors are dead wrong, and the poor guy who may get off on his knowledge and try to compensate for low self-esteem by flexing it, is dead...fucking correct.

Life is more complex than A is good, B is bad. That's what this video misses.

It would of course be deeply emotionally convenient if they really were to discover the secrets of cheap nuclear fission. If the elderly rich man was in truth a sexual predator. Or if climate change did turn out to be a hoax.

Riiiiight. None of this stuff is up for debate. We must label it "correct" or "conspiracy theory" and skip the part where we have an actual evidence-based discussion, because we already are under the burden of proof to the "status quo," as referenced above.

Except, this is a glaring logical error that I am afraid even a child could see. If there is still an evidence-based debate to be had (and there certainly is in regard to at least global warming and pedophilia in bastions of wealth and high political power, say in Washington, D.C.,) then there effectively is no status quo just yet.

HUGE LOGICAL FALLACY OF APPEAL TO AUTHORITY HERE. It's so damn subtle as to be dastardly. Half-truths slip by quote easily. Sugar can and does often mask other, more unpleasant elements.

Final thoughts.

The rest of this video goes on to present "conspiracy theorists" as nutjobs who need to just relax and trust the status quo. This is unnacceptable to true thinkers.

The video makes some excellent points, and is correct in many of its observations of the emotionally wounded, or simply overly trusting people to whom it assigns the blanket label of "conspiracy theorist." The truth is that the middle ground is just seeing things as they are. Many conspiracy theorists use the exact same approach to thought as attributed to the "intelligent skeptic" in the video. For those of us who can read between the lines--or even who can read the bolded video title itself--it is easy to see this short video has an obvious agenda: to slap a cheap stigma on an entire group of diverse individuals and smarmily declare oneself "intelligently skeptical."

Nah. Not buying it.