Grandma believed the moon landing was fake

The other day, grandma's belief that the moon landing was fake came up in a dinner conversation with a friend. There were smiles, a chuckle or two, after all, to us, grandma was a nice old lady, very grounded aside from being convinced that we had not put a man on the moon.

There was some disagreement among us as to whether people who believe the moon landing was not real should be qualified as conspiracy theorists. The main argument for this qualification was that this is what pretty much everybody calls them. It is one of the top two or three examples in every single book about conspiracy theories.

The main argument against the label is that the moon landing "conspiracy" is a scientific issue, unlike most other primary examples, which are very much "who dunnit" stories.

The conversation soon moved on to gardening, house maintenance and other subjects.

But the blogster thought, well, let's have a look at what the internet says, what does Youtube offer?

Oh my! There are tons of grainy old videos as well as new ones. Watching a few revealed several staples of the belief system, such as the moving flag and double shadows as well as a brief speech by Neil Armstrong in the 1990s in which he mentioned "protected layers of truth". The guy who posted this clip seized on Armstrong's known reluctance to do public appearances and these few words to substantiate his claim that it all was a hoax.
But, as for all science related hoax claims, there are abundant videos that debunk these, such as Michio Kaku on the moon landing "hoax".

However, the resilience of hoax claims related to early space exploration is remarkable. There are even people who are sure that more recent projects are a hoax, including the international space station.

This beggars belief because it shows such vast ignorance of science that you may well ask what our education system has accomplished.

We then went and had a look at some of the professional debunkers and  researchers in the field of conspiracy theories and found many to be - politely phrased - wanting.

One reason for this is outside of the control of experts: the sheer volume and the unbeatable diversity of such claims. This makes it look like a cousin to the well known Murphy's Law which is anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Anything that can be made into a conspiracy (hoax) story, will be made into one.

Psychologists have been studying the phenomenon, and you can find plenty of information in the media, for example, this New York Times Magazine piece Why Rational People Buy Into Conspiracy Theories.

The NYT article provides some clues for the widespread unease that creeps into discussions of conspiracy theories. A biggie is the fact that it has traditionally been linked tightly to the concept of paranoia, as shown by the title of Hofstadter's book The Paranoid Style in American Politics. Given that being called paranoid is right at the top of psychologically and socially devastating labels, the author of the NYT piece uses versions of the word "surprising" rather surprisingly often for a short article (three times).

The first use brings believers in from the margins: What’s even more surprising is that this sort of theorizing isn’t limited to those on the margins.

The second use describes the attitude of believers: They found, perhaps surprisingly, that believers are more likely to be cynical about the world in general and politics in particular.

The third use aims at the political theories: Surprisingly, Swami’s work has also turned up a correlation between conspiracy theorizing and strong support of democratic principles.

The often used strategy to marginalize people who believe in a conspiracy theory is, at least in our opinion, not great when 63 percent of registered American voters believe in at least one political conspiracy theory. But making fun of such beliefs is common, remember that even we smiled about grandma - although that smile was an acknowledgement of the fact that her belief regarding the moon landing was of no practical consequence whatsoever.

We don't want to dissect the whole NYT article, though there is much more to say, so we should be glad that the all out accusation of paranoia has been abandoned, even if only by psychologists, in the face of the 63 percent, and replaced by the concept of powerlessness.

The article ends with Either way, the current scientific thinking suggests these beliefs are nothing more than an extreme form of cynicism, a turning away from politics and traditional media — which only perpetuates the problem.

Needless to say, we don't agree with the conclusion "which only perpetuates the problem" because we don't see the issue as a unified problem, as we indicated with the introduction of the idea of "practical consequences".

When talking to regular folks, it seems that lots of "conspiracy theories" are not much more than an adult version of the monster under the bed stories we make up as children, entertaining, of little of no consequence.

Since the article and the researchers follow our dictum Anything that can be made into a conspiracy (hoax) story, will be made into one, one simple step in approaching "the problem" is to try and separate the many stories into different categories. It seems unproductive to lump - as the article does - the Boston Bombing, the Death of Princess Diana, 9/11, Watergate, and the Tuskegee experiment into one and the same story.

We are almost certain that the number of 63 percent of people who believe in at least one political conspiracy is very much at the low end of reality and that you'd get an even higher percentage if you queried people on a vast array of theories.

Aren't at least some of the major religions conspiracy theories?

The best advice, after trying facts, is probably the perennial Don't believe everything you think.

It did work for grandma.