Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you...

And this just in the news!
http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/joe-scarboroughs-insane-cons...

Documentarian Errol Morris did this short piece called 'The Umbrella Man', about the mysterious man with an open umbrella standing right where JFK was assassinated. That day it was very warm and sunny in Dallas, with folks wearing short sleeve shirts. Near the motorcade, a man is standing under an open black umbrella. Many conspiracy theories held the umbrella man was the assassin or helped the true assassin - it was just too weird to not be significant! Ultimately, the man explained the umbrella was a protest - not against JFK - but against JFK's father, referencing Neville Chamberlain's umbrella and appeasement of the Nazis. Errol Morris said, "If you have any fact which is sinister, you can never on your own think up all the non-sinister perfectly valid reasons..."http://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000001183275/the-umbrella-man.html

CONSPIRACY   
I loved hearing that the guest philosopher was a refugee from his study of ?the philosophy of neuroscience.? There is no such thing as the philosophy of neuroscience, philosophy and neuroscience are not contiguous, there is no commonality between the two. Nothing learned in one field can be used in the other.
But the philosophy of conspiracy is a very worthy subject for the guest to explore. The question is: why are we attracted to conspiracy theories (whoever ?we? might be, but that is another issue best avoided here)? 
One of the great moments in Philosophy Talk history was when the brilliant Jenann Ismael (a philosopher of science) asked John or Ken: ?Why do you think everything needs an explanation?? That was a seminal moment in my education because it was clear that the search for explanations was the province of science, and subject to the good and bad rules of scientific ?proof,? mostly turning on how dramatic the presentation or illustration of that ?proof? could be made.  But doing philosophy is not about doing such explanations: it is about doing rational thinking about thoughts, rationally thinking and speculating about consciousness, with no hope of (or desire for) explanation. The goal is to explore, to talk about, to think about, but never really reach a final conclusion.  This is what Ken and John do on every show: they do philosophy by speculating (endlessly). A critic of the show once said pejoratively, ?Without science, philosophy is just endless speculation.? She was absolutely right (maybe with the word ?just? stricken).
But our culture?s overpowering and misguided blind obedience to, and worship of, science places ?explanation? on a pedestal; a pedestal so lofty that we prefer absurd explanations to simple ones for events that seem not easily explained.  And ?the quest for confirmation of what one believes is good and right,? which I say is a human instinct, impels one to find in conspiracy theories, the explanation that most confirms one?s beliefs (that for instance the CIA or God or Republicans or SpacePeople are behind every bush, pulling the strings of the human puppets).
Conspiracy theories are seductive because 1. They make one think that the matter is explained (when it really probably isn?t), 2. They confirm what the theory?s advocate believes about causation (very much apart from rationality), and 3. They provide a seductively dramatic (usually faulty) proof.

Fay, thank you for that little gem! I had never heard of The Umbrella Man before, but it's a wonderful illustration of what we've been talking about.

Mirugai, not sure how to interpret your bizarre claim that there "is no such thing as the philosophy of neuroscience," which is the field that Brian Keeley works in. You can learn more about this exciting area of philosophy on The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
 
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neuroscience/
 
  

I think its relevant to makes theories about conspiracies and i do believe some of them can be true. The only main problem i see is that people have nothing better to do with their daily lives , so they spend long periods of time over thinking about what is a conspiracy and what's really not a conspiracy. They over do it. Like the yin and yang theory preaches : Everything in moderation.
I have a post that i liked on facebook called "Conspiracy Watch" where a person makes all these assumptions about certain conspiracies. I think the truth is almost half of the material are not conspiracies, but ideas or normal things that go on in humanity. If this person would find a hobby to bring them outside for a few hours so they could really experience the world and learn some life lessons rather then be stuck on the computer all day ( then again i might be assuming too much). If you spend all the time thinking up these theories , not only will you miss out in life , but you'll also become really paranoid.

Grue and Laura: Jorge has put it so succinctly, and I thank him for it: "Science can only establish facts or give support to theories about facts.  It has nothing to say about values or motivation." Perfect. "Values and motivation" are what philosophy is all about, and science has nothing to say about it. Neuroscience is the darling of TED talks because it is full of colors and flashing synapses and all kind of nonsensical, fruitless attempts to connect biology and chemistry and physics, to philosophical stuff like happiness, desire, perception, morality, etc. The confusion arises because neuroscience is about the brain (and brain-associated structures), and it is commonly believed that what we call "thought" is somehow resident in the brain. But philosophy has no concern or interest in where thought might be "located," it is only concerned with the content of thought...philosophy is rational thinking about thought. Brain science and philosophy are not connected, they are in mutually exclusive, non-intersecting spheres of Matter (the realm of science) and Consciousness (the realm of philosophy (rationality), poetry (metaphor) and comedy (irony): everything is in one or the other sphere. 

I think what became clear from the show is that "Conspiracy Theory" is a term that some people use as an excuse to quit thinking.  John dismisses the theory that there was some sort of conspiracy to kill JFK, as if that is wild and unsupported, but that is the official view of the US government.  It is sort of odd that John calls that irrational, when he wants to use formal investigations as a source.  The House Select Committee on Assassinations found there was a conspiracy and that was the last formal investigation by the government so it represents its last word.  A conspiracy was involved according to the US government, so why does John think they are wrong?  Is he just paranoid?  No, he just quit thinking and so comes to absurd conclusions.  Like with 9/11, Ken told him it was some sort of conspiracy regardless and somehow that just doesn't matter, once that word was used thinking stopped.  John did this most dramatically with WTC-7.  It was a 47 story building that just collapsed for no good reason on 9/11.  It is often missed as it was smaller and later in the day, but it was a 47 story building.  To just ignore that is ridiculous.  You can't just ignore huge skyscrapers falling down for no good reason.  Again, thinking just stopped.  That is the real issue here: Why does thinking stop when people start to use that word?

This show seemed to dance around testimony and childhood.  I don't find it hard to fathom conspiracy when I'm still kind of shocked about this whole St. Nick thing.  What a crock.  My apologies to the true believers.  Seriously though, aren't we conditioned to conspiracy by our upbringing?  Isn't most... and I do mean a vast majority of our knowledge based on testimony?  Do you really understand the workings of the crapper before taking your liberties?  People take their lives on faith.  Conspiracy is somewhat a product of this testimonial foundation rooted in childhood.  The modern dilemma of sustainability is our disconnect from nature and a reliance on the scientific and technical testimony that we are actually making progress while destroying our earth.  That sounds kinda-sorta conspiratorial.  Oh, but Mama, that's where the fun is? as a caller pointed out.
 
I would say that I found Ken's dismissal of conspiracy disheartening - from a mind that I admire for the most part.  When a caller mentions John Lennon's murder and he says something like "... I don't have an opinion of any of this sort of thing..." I think RichardCurtisPhD has a point in saying conspiracy is being used to avoid thought.  It's ok to refuse the activation energy to engage a conspiracy theory, but if your show is on conspiracy theory then I think the caller needs a prod before dismissal.
 
I take exception to Mirugai's assertion that neuroscience is inherently separate from philosophy.  I have a hard time separating philosophy from most things as it spans the gap of perception and thought.  Certainly values, motivations and normativity are a part of philosophy.  These parts don't define philosophy exclusively if even mostly.  Historically philosophy was science... way before science was cool.  Now, I think philosophy shades science more than Mirugai thinks...but...that?s just my opinion man?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c.

There are all sorts of conspiracy theories. And, all sorts of conspiracies. And that is just the point surrounding conspiracy. When I returned to these United States, years ago, after a seven-year absence, it was known within higher government circles, that I was back. It did not truly matter, but, I was harassed---because, given my circumstances, government fools and lackeys COULD harass me, without fear of retribution. Eventually, the security police tired of their surveillance of my life and activities. I was able to get a job; marry, have something of a life and retire---much as if I have never been a pariah in the first place. Many of my former countryfolk, including the last progenitor of our family line, never returned to these United States. I am happy to be anywhere, right now. Anything is better than nothing. Pretty much. As they say sometimes: there it is...

...but people's being out to get you doesn't mean you're not paranoid. 

My major beef is with people who are intensely sceptical of what (they at least call) the official line but tremendously credulous of any alternate hypothesis.   This is the same phenomenon seen in people who go from one sort of religious/political fanaticism to another...they never met a middle they didn't like...to exclude---the old saws 'straining at gnats and swallowing camels' and the one about eyes, motes, and logs (or beams) come to mind.