Dog blog 7 - Moonwalking

Moonwalking

I love a good conspiracy theory. One of my favourites is the one about the Titanic: it was a massive insurance job.

Aliens

And there's plenty conspiracies about aliens of course. Although they're not quite as fashionable now as they were in the mid-1990s when the x files was on telly. Which was good and definitely "space" (see Dog Blog 5). I liked the first film too: Bees. And aliens.

I have a conspiracy theory of my own. Was the popularity of alien conspiracy theories, in part, a reaction in America to the break up of the Soviet Union in 1991? There's nothing like a common enemy to help define a group. When the Commies started to think about democracy, the conspiracy theorists swapped them for the US Government. One of the main threads to the conspiracies being that the US Government, and NASA of course, are in collusion with these aliens. And lying to the citizens.

Imagine. A coverup. A conspiracy of the highest order. A new enemy: our own leaders.

You need to read that last bit in the voice of the late and fabulous Don LaFontaine to get the full effect. Here's Don at work:

Incidentally, why do alien conspiracy theorists not pick on SETI more? They're actively looking for aliens. That's all they do. Have a listen to this stuff. Signals from space. Seriously.

The Moon

With the 40th Anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing coming up in 2 days time there will, inevitably, be plenty of conspiracies bubbling up about that too. There's loads on YouTube. Take your pick. I particularly like French Film director William Karel's Dark Side of the Moon:

The truth is out there

Conspiracy theories fascinate me. Because I think they can tell us a lot about how we interpret and understand the world. A few well made twists to the narrative and you have a completely different story altogether.

That's what lawyers do in court. "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I put it to you here's what really happened..." . Perry Mason and all that.

William Karel's moon video makes this point well. The entire documentary is itself a hoax. It deliberately uses footage taken out of context and some of the interviewees are scripted. William's point is to show the power of the media, how beguiling a well polished presentation can be. Watch for the credits at the end of the documentary to see who was reading the film script.

Like a case in court, conspiracy theories can be tested. They all rely on evidence to back the claim being made, and a particular narrative of events holding together well enough to persuade you.

The moon conspiracies rely on discrediting the claims of all those involved in the Apollo 11 space programme. Including (now) Professor Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin. Buzz always appears to be in reasonable mental health when he says he and Neil stood on the moon, walked around on it, and left a whole load of junk there. And brought back moon rocks. And took quite a lot of holiday snaps and made a video too. The conspiracy theories also have to discredit the testimony of Major General Michael Collins who flew the command module.

The conspiracies will also have to discredit the photos taken recently by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter of the moon landers, and the footprints left behind.

But then again, they were taken by NASA. I guess we'll just have to wait till the next lot of astronauts go up there and tell us what's really what. Click here if you fancy joining up.

What's so seductive about conspiracy theories?

I think part of the reason is the way we persuade each other about things. A fact is either right or wrong. Neil and Buzz either walked on the moon on the 21st of July 1969. Or they didn't. So far, so good.

But if there's doubt about an explanation for a set of historical events, you can't really rely on a yes/no mathematical type of proof. It doesn't do for that sort of thing. So you have to look instead to probability. What is the most probable explanation for what happened? What evidence do you have to back up the claim you are making (moonrocks, footprints on the moon, Professor Plum's revolver found in the library, etc.)? How credible and reliable are your witnesses (an ex NASA Major General versus an "unnamed source" on www.abovetopsecret.com or similar website)?

The problem with probability

Unfortunately, the problem with probability is that it doesn't give you quite the comfort blanket that going to the moon right now and seeing Neil and Buzz's footprints for yourself would do. Equally though, probability doesn't slap you quite as hard in the face for being an such an obstinate oaf (which, interestingly, is an old English word for elf).

Ghosts in the machine

I also think conspiracy theories hold sway because of the way our brains are hardwired. Even the most rational of us are running an operating system that's not much beyond (as a distinctly human brain) the 200,000 year mark in evolutionary terms. A bit better than a Pentium 2 PC running Windows 3.1. But far from perfect.

Derren Brown gives a number of interesting examples of this hardwiring in his excellent book Tricks of the Mind. One of these is an experiment carried out in Japan where (students, probably) were asked to sit in a room which looked through a window to a light, which would go on and off, and a counter. There were three levers in the room, and students were told that they had to collect as many points on the counter as they could in 40 minutes.

There was no connection between the levers and the light. But nevertheless the students developed elaborate techniques with the levers, convinced that somehow that influenced the light. Have you ever had a similar feeling waiting in the car at the traffic lights that you can magic them green? Be honest. It always works, though sometimes it takes a bit longer if you're not in the zone.

Derren also mentions work in this area carried out by Stuart Vyse. Stuart wrote a book called Believing in Magic, which is well worth having a look at. You can read some of it at Google Books (I've put the link to it for you. What a helpful Dog.). Stuart also blogs and has a lot of interesting things to say. Here's his website: www.stuartvyse.com.

Social conditioning can also reinforce this evolutionary hardwiring. Here's what Steven Pinker has to say about the idea held by some of us that we have a soul existing independently of the body:

Unavoidable human prejudice

I think we need to be much more mindful (and even wary) of our hardwiring, our built-in prejudices. It affects so much of our thinking. Like in ethical reasoning for example (I borrowed the phrase "unavoidable human prejudice" from Bernard Williams who guest stars on Dog Blog 6).

Think you're not hardwired? Have a look at this, taken from a clip by CNN News at the house of another moonwalker:

What's your initial reaction? Feel the hardwiring kicking in? Does the spooky music tip the balance for you? A shiver down your spine?

The more probable explanation

Now, reboot your brain, and watch this:

See what I'm getting at? The first video completely taps into your hardwiring. The second is measured and dispassionate. And given the highly unusual nature of the claim being made in the first video, you'd need much more convincing evidence to displace the probability that what you're looking at is a shadow of a living person walking in the next room. It's not Michael Jackson.

Though, having said that, Jacko was in a lot of debt: did he fake his death to boost record sales? Were you there? Did you see his dead body? How do you know for sure?

It's perfectly legitimate to be sceptical about a particular version of events. But for goodness sake test it against probability. And watch out for fancy lighting and sound effects, and generally any rhetoric that's tapping into your hardwiring. You could be falling victim to a conspiracy... .