Cass Sunstein and Conspiracy Theories

by Gerard Emershaw

Cass Sunstein is at it again. The disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 has created an avalanche of conspiracy theories on the Internet. Was the plane hijacked by terrorists? Did its pilot fly it to some deserted island? Is it going to be used as a weapon in a future terrorist attack? Did it fly through a wormhole? Apparently any time that Americans choose to use their First Amendment rights to think outside the box and suggest alternative theories outside the mainstream, Cass Sunstein is going to use it as an excuse to get up on his soap box and preach about the alleged irrationality of conspiracy theories. Some conspiracy theories are irrational. No doubt. However, a statement is only true or false in virtue of empirical facts. While Ockham’s Razor—the doctrine that the simplest explanation is most likely to be true—is a good intellectual rule of thumb, sometimes complex explanations far outside the norm turn out to be true.

While Sunstein uses the phrase “false conspiracy theories”—implying that there are also true conspiracy theories—and lists a few such theories such as Watergate and MKUltra, as usual, he seeks to lump most so called conspiracy theories together. In the course of his recent Bloomberg piece, he lumps together such theories as the belief that the United States was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, that the United States government created the HIV virus, that vaccines can be harmful, that Princess Diana was murdered, that the Apollo moon landings were faked, and that Osama bin Laden was already dead when his compound in Pakistan was raided.

Sunstein begins his argument by claiming that some people are predisposed to believe in conspiracy theories. Thus, he claims, if one believes that the government faked the moon landing, then one will also be inclined to believe that the government was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Notice his strategy. He begins with the most ridiculous example imaginable and then ties it into a conspiracy theory, which while unlikely, is still plausible given how inadequate government investigations of the 9/11 attacks have been. What he is saying is that if you believe any conspiracy theory—which is to say if you ever dare question the government line about any event—then you are a tin foil hat wearing crazy person who thinks that Capricorn One was more of a realistic docudrama than silly sci fi B-movie.

Next, Sunstein claims: “Remarkably, people who accept one conspiracy theory tend to accept another conspiracy theory that is logically inconsistent with it.” The example he provides are:

People who believe that Princess Diana faked her own death are more likely to think that she was murdered. People who believe that Osama bin Laden was already dead when U.S. forces invaded his compound are more likely to believe that he is still alive.

Notice his strategy. He is using the Osama bin Laden example to again reinforce his not so subtle point that daring to question the official government story makes one a good candidate for a padded room and straitjacket. Apparently, anyone who wonders how a man who was possibly terminally ill with kidney cancer could have lived for so many more years is automatically a psychotic to tends to hold two opposite opinions at the same time. While the conspiracy theory that Osama bin Laden died prior to the Navy SEALs raid on his compound in 2011 is likely not true, it is not at all crazy to question the government’s official story on the matter. Why have the photos not been released? Why was the corpse buried at sea so hastily? Questioning the federal government and vetting any and all “conspiracy theories” about it is just due diligence in this day and age.

Next, Sunstein discusses the relationship between conspiracy theories and social networks: “If one person within a network insists that a conspiracy was at work, others within that network might well believe it.”  This is consistent with Sunstein’s totalitarian belief that the government should send agents onto the internet and “cognitively infiltrate” groups espousing conspiracy theories. It is one thing to send undercover agents to break up a dangerous terrorist group or organized crime family, but to waste such resources to infiltrate groups whose only crime is exercising their First Amendment rights? No conspiracy theory here, folks. Sunstein came right out and suggested this. What Sunstein is doing here is playing the guilt by association card. Some of your friends and family may be crazy and dangerous people who question the government. Ostracize such people at once!

Sunstein next discusses the concept of confirmation bias. When a belief is strongly held, one tends to give additional weight to evidence which supports that theory while giving less weight to evidence which conflicts with the belief. However, this works both ways. Those who believe in a conspiracy theory are no more or less likely to be victims of confirmation bias than those who believe in the conventional story. No matter what the belief, each person must be careful when evaluated evidence. However, someone who believes in one of Sunstein’s preferred conspiracy theories—such as global warming—are just as likely to give undue attention to evidence that supports the theory and ignore evidence which counts against it. This is just a human tendency which has nothing to do with one’s particular beliefs.

Sunstein concludes by stating that while most conspiracy theories are harmless, some are dangerous—such as the belief that vaccines are linked to autism. Furthermore, he warns that attempts to provide evidence against a dangerous conspiracy theory may only make the belief stronger: “Efforts to establish the truth might even be self-defeating, because they can increase suspicion and thus strengthen the very beliefs that they were meant to correct.” It is odd that he does not mention the weather here. It seems that any time there is evidence that global temperatures are not increasing, that evidence only makes global warming conspiracy theorists like him more inclined to believe.

Some conspiracy theories are false and some are true. Some are more rational to believe than others. However, conspiracy theories—like any theories—must be put to the test of empirical evidence in order to confirm them or falsify them. In the case of conspiracy theories concerning the government, the government’s track record of lying means that any conspiracy theory involving the government has some chance of being true. While Ockham’s Razor should be the first tool employed, there is no substitute for due diligence. There are just too many government conspiracy theories that turned out to be true to make it rational to dismiss all government conspiracy theories without investigation. See this link for a list of such theories.