Dear Reader,
It’s worth noting a mild discrepancy in the research undertaken by the Electoral Commission, published under the heading “Significant minority believe conspiracy theories” on May 6th. The study seems to be less about conspiracy theories, and more about perceptions that carry a considerable amount of authenticity.
Many conspiracy theories circulate within the domain of healthcare, particularly involving large pharmaceutical companies. However, the broad label “alternative medicine” is not necessarily synonymous with such theories. Nor do I recall ever hearing it referred to in that light.
Similarly, the idea that tech companies could be using us as test subjects is not a product of impractical imagination. Rather, it could be viewed as an apt illustration of the swift expansion of social media. This surge is impacting society in ways we’re only just starting to comprehend and appears to exist outside the jurisdiction of goverment controls.
If one was keen on spotting conspiracy theories, it might be easy to leap to the conclusion that the Electoral Commission purposely commissioned research to portray the Irish public as susceptible, there by legitimising its emerging and ambiguous function as a safeguard against false information.
The study also suggests that the general public lacks intellect and hence requires this level of assistance. For instance, the research finds it confusing that most people can simultaneously value stringent immigration controls while finding immigration beneficial for society. But this is not a contradiction at all, and certainly not an indication of widespread confusion that warrants intervention from the Electoral Commission.
The prevalence of belief in conspiracy theories among a segment of the population is somewhat predictable, yet it’s still crucial to quantify and understand this phenomenon. But presenting options that are undeniably or obviously false isn’t simple. Examining such mindsets among the Irish populace, one hypothesis offered to the studied group was that “groups of scientists manipulate, fabricate or suppress evidence to deceive the public”.
However, considering the long-standing attempts by tobacco companies to dispute the harmful nature of their products, or the infamous Diesel-gate scandal, it’s evident that such beliefs aren’t limited to the paranoid fringe. Concrete examples of such cases exist today, leading to compensation payouts in developed countries.
Deciphering the assertion that “Complementary therapy works in curing chronic disease” can prove rather intricate. Given the influence of placebos, if 30 per cent of people, as inferred from reports, believe in this theory, an intervention devoid of any medical advantage may alleviate some facets of the illness, thus fortifying such perspectives. In the meantime, there are examples of effective “complementary” remedies. Numerous investigations and meta-analyses have demonstrated that St John’s Wort is successful for depression, even though it has certain side-effects and interactions, similar to traditional anti-depressants.
A significant worry should be, if these, in my consideration justifiable, perspectives are tagged as “conspiracy theories”, their credibility may serve as an allegorical entrance to unfounded and incorrect beliefs that are completely inaccurate and detrimental. The main aim ought to be to pursue proof and objectively scrutinise it. Regards,
BRIAN O’BRIEN, Kinsale, Co Cork.