How do you argue with conspiracy theorists?

Why waste your breath? Life is too short.

That’s what they want you to think they want you to do.

I say you don’t! The minute it becomes obvious they are only interested in hearing themselves speak I just walk away.

Tell them the butler did it, aha yeah that’s got em stumped!

@ucme . . . the butler? just how much do you know?

Rarebear got some good advice here.

Like fundamentalists, I find they are much to immersed in their beliefs to face the possibility that they are wrong. They also tend to be the type of people that just talk over other people and don’t really hear a word that they are saying.

By not arguing. When you argue, you set yourself up as an enemy to be resisted. Present your own angle – conversationally! – so that it kinda, sorta, looks like theirs. Or else approach the whole entire matter obliquely.
You can use deconstruction if you like; it was designed to ruin everything for everyone. I don’t like deconstruction.

In this Age of Internet, you can just link ‘em over to somewhere where they’ve done the work for you, and let it be.

@crisw A good Fundamentalist will answer you, point for point.

I just drink alone instead.

@Blondesjon I cud tell ya guvnar, but it’ll cost ya. Nudge nudge….wink wink…......say no more!

I don’t. I have tried. They discount all real world debunking and cling to things with outre sources.

The same way that you argue with conspiracy denialists.
With reason.

They seem to have three things they use as get out clauses. they are, telling you to “wake up”, telling you to “do some research” or using a pascals wager for whatever their thing is, such as “well, dont believe me if you dont want to, more bomb shelter for me” or “well, dont believe me if you dont want to, ill be the one laughing when the new world order comes to pass” or something like that.

Really, you cant argue with them unless they know how to argue and how to be logical and rational.

The main way conspiracy theories work, is they take a load of small coincidences and points, and then claim there is just too much coincidence for it to be a coincidence. and then propose an explanation that really does not explain anything. The way to counter this, would be either by debunking all the little coincidences and points, or by pointing out loads of little counter arguments and claiming there are too many for their argument to hold water.

Take the 9/11 conspiracy for example. they say, what about building 7?, what about jet fuel not being able to melt steel?, what about there being no clear pictures of a jet hitting the pentagon? what about the buildings falling in 9 seconds? therefore… bush did 9/11. when really, saying bush did 9/11 with nothing to back it up except the dozens of questions, is just like saying aliens from the planet zoot did 9/11.

The way you would debunk this would be, dont you think building 7 could have taken some damage? do you think the steel really needed to melt and not just lose some structural integrity? do you think security cameras could really photograph an object flying around 600 miles and hour? do you know that if you count it properly the buildings fell in 11 to 12 seconds? do you really think bush was smart enough? do you really think no one would have spoken up by now? therefore, its just a crazy conspiracy theory.

However, just because most conspiracy theories are wrong, dont go thinking that the world is totally legitimate and that there are no dirty deeds or corruption. Conspiracy theory usually has some truth to it. For example, the conspiracy theory that all TV is a mind control project by the government to keep us dumb. Just because that is a bit crazy and a a bit paranoid, does not mean TV does not make you a little bumb. The same goes for 9/11, while bush was no doubt not behind it, dont think they have given everyone all the facts. they probably still have some people now, a decade later, trying to figure out exactly what the hell happened and how it happened.

Easy, you listen to what they have to say, and after you pick yourself up off the floor from laughing too hard, see if they’ll stick around long enough to listen to what you have to say.

How do you convince them they are wrong and you are right? You don’t. Believing in a conspiracy is much like having a phobia. They are totally irrational, and cannot be changed in the fact of logic or facts. In fact, some people believe conspiracy theorists suffer from a mental illness.

I don’t generally spend much time arguing with them. It’s too hard to do that with a straight face for too long.

@crazyivan, you’re casting a wider net in your assumptions than is my experience, but speaking as someone who buys into many conspiracy theories, I will offer that it might be useful to think of such folks as faithful to a particular ideology (much like a religion). It is truly a matter of seeing the world differently and often in upside-down opposition to conventional thought.

Arguing competently for a conspiracy theory is difficult, because it requires a ton of energy to separate and determine fact from fiction (unless someone is merely believing things indiscriminately) without the benefit of codified sources and because “real” conspiracies are often drowned in a sea of disinformation to increase the likelihood of the truth being discredited.

Interestingly, you just recently offered one of the staples of “incompetence/coincidence theorists” that millions of people would have to be in on the conspiracy and that nobody’s spilled the beans all this time.

I don’t bother to try. Arguing with a conspiracy theorist is exactly the same as arguing with someone who’s devoutly religious. Nothing will sway them.

Ignore them. It’s not worth the energy.

This book might give you some talking points.

If they offer empirical support for their beliefs I will discuss their subject with them.

If they can’t or won’t offer support for their beliefs, I will not waste my time discussing things with them.

Another book that helps is this:

http://www.amazon.com/People-Believe-Weird-Things-Pseudoscience/dp/0805070893/

also offering great insights.

Thanks for all the great answers. There seems to be a common thread between them.

@mattbrowne, that’s an excellent book. I’ve read it several times.

@mattbrowne I will definitely have to check it out. Read an excerpt on Googlebooks and it looks great. Thanks for the heads up.

Yes, it’s a great book, not only about conspiracy theories but also about debunking pseudoscience and pseudohistory in general. It also explores young-earth creationism and why this seems to appealing to many people.

@mattbrowne

Agreed- it’s a very good book. as are many others Shermer has written.

@mattbrowne, yep, I wrote a 12 page essay in highschool about why YEC doesn’t belong in science classes and Shermer’s work was my most cited source. He’s also a pretty cool guy.

I think it all depends on the issue which is being discussed and the reasons. I don’t buy most conspiracy theories myself but there are a few I am willing to take a second look at such as John F. Kennedy’s assasination. I enjoy watching Jesse Ventura’s show as well.