Last week in an Economics class (Loughner related, IMO)

[itsrobert]

The topic of the Federal Reserve was discussed. A couple students said they knew all about the Federal Reserve because they watched an online video of 'Money Matters'. The Prof. had not heard about 'Money Matters' and had the duo conduct a presentation of what they had learned from 'Money Matters'.

I sat their with my jaw open, uncomfortable at how could people fall for this conspiracy crap. They went on about the Federal Reserve is a secret organization and don't report to anyone but their own. They talked about being off the Gold Standard and how US currency is worthless. The video blamed the Lincoln and Kennedy assassination on the Federal Reserve and the predecessor to the Fed Reserve. Wars and other things blamed on the fed reserve. The duo kept saying, "I don't know if this is true or not, but this video says it is"

As they talked, they looked more and more uncomfortable, as they were seeing the feedback in our facial expressions.

While the rest of the class and the Prof was being polite. I said that I am not buying the conspiracy theory and in fact it looks like it is fueled by someone with an agenda. I also said that kind of talk could be dangerous.

All I can say people putting out these conspiracy theories need to be held accountable for the crap they put out.

[JDPriestly]

1. The Federal Reserve has been very secretive.

Check out Bernie Sanders' website to see an audit of the Fed's hand-outs to businesses during the bail-outs. It took an act of Congress to obtain release of that information about how our money is distributed to the powerful and wealthy to be used as they wish for their profit.

So, there is some truth in what the other student said in your economics class. I don't have any opinion beyond that.

I haven't seen any evidence that the Fed was behind any assassinations. I doubt it. The Fed consists of banks and bankers. They don't need to assassinate people in a physical sense. I believe that it was bankers who exposed Elliot Spitzer's payments to a prostitute. I could be wrong about that, but that is my understanding.

[itsrobert]

2. There is always some truth in conspirary theories

that what makes them more believeable to some.

[JDPriestly]

3. Very true, itsrobert. That's what is so confusing.

And that is why the government should not withhold information from the public unless absolutely necessary. People get just a tiny bit of information and if that little bit does not explain an event satisfactorily in the minds of the people interested in it, then they build theories around the event that somehow link the tiny bit of information to the resulting event. That's how the human mind works. We make up stories about things because we want to understand things. That is where myths and literature -- and science -- come from. People trying to explain things without having all the data that they need to really understand them.

I theorize about things all the time. In fact, it is part of my work. The test is to compare theories to evidence. And not all evidence is useful.

That's why courts apply Rules of Evidence in order to determine what evidence may be considered. That's why scientists use the scientific method.

So, your friends were taking one step toward finding out the truth which is exploring a theory. Now they need to put that theory to the test. I suspect that they will end up having learned some interesting new facts but deciding that much of the theory was false.

I'm not an expert on economics so I can't say for sure. I'd be interested in hearing what your professor said.

[spin]

4. How do you do that and keep freedom of speech?

Obviously freedom of speech has limits. As some say, "You can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater."

Let's imagine that you uncover data that shows that a Republican administration is involved in a conspiracy to secretly sell arms to Iran in order to finance guerrilla warfare against Hugo Chavez and Venezuela. (Something similar to Iran Contra).

You decide to publish this data or to make a video documenting the conspiracy. Suddenly you find yourself the target of an investigation by the FBI and they use a new law that restricts your rights to generate a conspiracy theory that might cause distrust of the government.

I agree that a lot of really foolish conspiracy theories exist but I prefer to study them and make my own mind up. That's why I like our freedom of speech and the press. Without these freedoms we may only be able to read official government propaganda as occurs in other nations.

[coalition_unwilling]

5. Karl Popper, the noted philosopher of science, argued that for any

scientific hypothesis to be valid, it must also be 'falsifiable'. By that, Popper meant (I think) that there must exist a set of potential conditions or data that would, if true, prove the hypothesis wrong. One problem with many conspiracy theories is that they are not falsifiable. That is, there is no set of potential conditions or data that if true prove the conspiracy theory false to the satisfaction of the person propounding the theory. Those conditions or data when posed simply become, in the minds of those promulgating the conspiracy theory, evidence that the person presenting the condition or data is him- or herself part of the very conspiracy.

The best way to counter such whack-a-doo theories is to ask those propounding them what it would take to prove their theory wrong (or 'false'). In other words, ask the person propounding the theory what would make his or her theory falisfiable (without letting him know of Popper's test). Often, the mere asking of the question will cause the person offering the theory to stop in his or her tracks. And, if he or she does come up with something that might render the theory 'false,' why then you have the basis for an on-going dialogue and for educating the person further as to how they may have fallen victim to flawed reasoning.

[readmoreoften]

7. Conspiracy theories are also not science.

Theories and explanations for political facts can't really stand up to "falsifiability." Unconditionally support of Obama is a good example of failing the falsifiability test--whatever Obama does, he has a "secret reason or plan" behind that action. Of course, so does unconditional criticism of Obama--whatever he does has a "secret ulterior motive." But neither of these situations are science or even scientific.

Popper's ideas are still interesting, but Kuhn's criticism of Popper holds a bit more sway these days. Popper's goal was to discredit Marxist economics and psychoanalysis as "non-sciences" and to promote capitalist economics as a veritable science. The problem with this is that capitalist economics are just as falsifiable as Marxist economics. Every recession is "explainable" and "temporary" and "a necessary part of the system"; every time the stock market goes down instead of up, it is re-explained to conform to the paradigm.

Popper's ideas are pretty important still in lab testing, for example, but they're not always relevant in all scientific fields (quantum physics, astrophysics, etc. for example) and using them to argue against non-scientific scenarios is a strange misuse in my opinion.

[coalition_unwilling]

9. Conspiracy theories are most definitely NOT science. On that, I think

we can both agree 100%. But a theory is a hypothesis and, as such, should be subject to testing of its validity just as any scientific hypothesis would be.

I was responding to these sentences in the OP: "The video blamed the Lincoln and Kennedy assassination on the Federal Reserve and the predecessor to the Fed Reserve. Wars and other things blamed on the fed reserve."

Not having seen the video in question myself, I am loath to create strawmen. But I think asking this question of the two students might provoke an interesting dialog: "What would it take to convince you that the Fed was not responsible for the Lincoln and\or Kennedy assassinations?"

In other words, what data or conditions would make the theory of Fed responsibility 'false'? That's neither Capitalist nor Marxist, that's just sound logical reasoning, imho, and a solid antidote to magical thinking and its ilk.

[Odin2005]

8. Another Popper fan? So I'm not alone!

:hi:

[mmonk]

6. They are secret.

Talk of the gold standard though is associated with the right.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LanternWaste]

11. You can of course validate your statemen...

You can of course validate your statement that the Fed is unaccountable with valid and peer-reviewed source material?

[27inCali]

12. Founding Father's warned us about the international banks

I'm sure there are some very lame theories out there about the Federal Reserve, but it's still an awful scam cracked up by a bunch of scum-bag bankers.