 |
Issue 10 - Spring / Summer 2005 Page 57 |
Analyzing "Conspiracy Theory"
|
BY DAVID RAY GRIFFIN
It seems widely assumed that any such case [for government complicity in 9/11] can be rejected a priori by pointing out that it is a "conspiracy theory". Indeed, it almost seems to be a requirement of admission into public discourse to announce that one rejects conspiracy theories. What is the logic behind this thinking? It cannot be that we literally reject the very idea that conspiracies occur. We all accept conspiracy theories of all sorts. We accept a conspiracy theory whenever we believe that two or more people have conspired in secret to achieve some goal, such as to rob a bank, defraud customers or fix prices. We would be more honest, therefore, if we followed the precedent of Michael Moore, who has said: "Now, I’m not into conspiracy theories, except the ones that are true."
To refine this point slightly, we can say that we accept all those conspiracy theories that we believe to be true, while we reject all those that we believe to be false. We cannot, therefore, divide people into those who accept conspiracy theories and those who reject them. The division between people on this issue involves simply the question of which conspiracy theories they accept and which ones they reject.
Plausible vs. Implausible
To refine the point a little more: There are some conspiracy theories that, although we may not be convinced of their truth, we find at least plausible, so we are willing to entertain the possibility that they might be true. We are open, accordingly, to reading and hearing evidence intended to support them.
There are other conspiracy theories, by contrast, that we find completely implausible, so we tend to suspect the intelligence or sanity of people who believe them or who even entertain the possibility of their truth. Whatever facts they offer as evidence we reject out of hand, holding that, even if we cannot explain these facts, the true explanation cannot be the one they are offering. But the question of what we find completely implausible – "beyond the pale" – is seldom determined simply by a dispassionate consideration of empirical evidence.
Plausibility is largely a matter of one’s general world view. We are also influenced to some degree by wishful-and-fearful thinking, in which we accept some ideas partly because we hope they are true and reject other ideas because we would find the thought that they are true too frightening. At least sometimes, however, we are able, in spite of our prejudgments, to revise our prior ideas in light of new evidence. Most revisionists about 9/11, in presenting their evidence, seem to be counting on this possibility.
Applied to 9/11: Evidence is the Key
To apply this analysis to the attacks of 9/11: it is false to suggest that those who allege that the attacks occurred because of official complicity are "conspiracy theorists", while those who accept the official account are not. People differ on this issue merely in terms of which conspiracy theory they hold to be true, or at least most probable. According to the official account, the attacks of 9/11 occurred because of a conspiracy among Muslims, with Osama bin Laden being the chief conspirator. Revisionists reject that theory, at least as a sufficient account of what happened, maintaining that the attacks cannot be satisfactorily explained without postulating conspiracy by officials of the US government, at least in allowing the attacks to succeed. The choice, accordingly, is simply between (some version of) the received conspiracy theory and (some version of) the revisionist conspiracy theory.
Which of these competing theories we accept depends, or at least should depend, on which one we believe to be better supported by the relevant facts. Those who hold the revisionist theory have become convinced that there is considerable evidence that not only suggests the falsity of the received conspiracy theory, which we are calling "the official account," but also points to the truth of the revisionist theory.
Excerpted (with permission) from The New Pearl Harbor by David Ray Griffin, pp. xxiv & 206, Olive Branch Press, 2004.
* * *For more stories, plus many more extras, please get your copy of Issue #10 at our on-line store or at Chapters, Indigo, Barnes & Noble, Borders and many specialty bookstores across North America.