(iv) When applicable, research grants which made the research possible are identified. Funding may be important because an author might be unwilling to contradict the premises and conclusions favored by the sources of his/her funds.
The complete absence of acknowledgements and notes pages in many conspiracy books is an indication that these folks depend exclusively upon the workings of their own mind. In short, there is no check-and-balance mechanism in place to recognize, acknowledge, and correct error.
CONSPIRACY “SCHOLARSHIP” -- part 2
As we consider all of the numerous right-wing political theories in circulation, how do we choose which particular theory to believe? Many times these theories have mutually exclusive propositions. In other words, the theories cannot all be true simultaneously---yet none of their respective adherents is prepared to acknowledge that their preferred theory is erroneous.
In an interview regarding Gary Allen and W. Cleon Skousen, Dr. Carroll Quigley made the following comment about his own research: "I may be correct or I may be mistaken..."
Do you know of any conspiracy proponent (either an individual or the entire conspiratorial school of thought that individual represents) which has ever acknowledged the possibility that they might be entirely "mistaken"?
In other words, would a Bircher ever say about their CFR/NWO theory: "I may be correct or I may be mistaken" ?
How about a Christian Identity conspiracy theorist? How about an adherent of William Pierce/National Alliance or Lyndon LaRouche or 9/11 conspiracy theorists or holocaust denial theorists?
Most of us readily acknowledge our fallibility as human beings but conspiracy proponents seem to start from the opposite point of view i.e. the only possibility of error exists in the non-believer community!
Does that type of mindset recommend itself as being capable of discerning fact from fiction or dealing fairly and rationally with complex subject matter?
Ockham's razor and Counter-Intuitive Propositions
To believe any of the major right-wing political conspiracy theories requires us to set aside most of what humans have learned from historical experience.
(1) Belief requires acceptance of the idea that thousands upon thousands of people have been willing participants in a conspiracy over a very long period of time but not one person has ever become disillusioned, and then defected, and then revealed confidential and damaging data about the existence of the conspiracy to legal authorities or congressional committees or the news media. [As news reports from Washington DC over the past couple years make manifestly clear, keeping secrets in our government (and in any free society) is very problematic.]
(2) Belief also requires acceptance of the idea that much more rigorous criminal conspiracies --- i.e. ones that are held together by physical threats and intimidation and which often operate in closed environments --- nevertheless routinely disintegrate and become known relatively shortly after inception…but less robust political conspiracies can somehow maintain superhuman iron discipline and never be revealed or compromised by insiders even after decades of existence.
By "more rigorous criminal conspiracies" I refer to the fact that certain conspiracies involve intimately-connected persons who operate in an environment where they directly control rewards and punishments and can inflict immediate and substantial harm on uncooperative individuals plus they often are trained in, and have little compunction about using, violence to achieve their objectives---which in this case is silence.
In recent weeks and months, for example, we have seen media reports about conspiracy indictments or trial verdicts involving police officers, military personnel, prison officials, and organized crime figures. These folks work in an environment which routinely involves threats, intimidation, and violence to keep people in line.
