A chara, – A slight problem with the research published by the Electoral Commission (“Significant minority believe conspiracy theories”, May 6th) is that it does not involve conspiracy theories at all but rather propositions that contain more than a grain of truth.
For example, while there are numerous conspiracy theories in the medical field, usually involving “Big Pharma”, I was previously unaware that the blanket term “alternative medicine” fell into that category nor have I ever heard it described as such.
Similarly, the proposition that technology companies may be experimenting on us all is not the stuff of wild fantasy, but could be seen as an accurate depiction of the rapid growth of social media. This is fundamentally changing society in ways we are only beginning to understand and appears to be beyond the control of governments.
If I were a conspiracy theorist, I would conclude that the Electoral Commission deliberately commissioned research designed to make the Irish public appear gullible in order to justify its new and vague role as being a bulwark against disinformation and misinformation.
Ciarán Murphy: Confidence slowly drains away as the All-Ireland dream dies
Sting operations, AI and a national database: How Irish investigators aim to tackle ‘explosion’ in online child sex abuse
Home alone at Christmas – Helen O’Rahilly on a delightfully peaceful celebration
Christmas TV and movie guide: the best shows and films to watch
It also portrays the electorate as not being very bright, and therefore needing such assistance. For example, it suggests it is contradictory for a majority of the public to both believe in strict immigration controls and that immigration benefits society. It is not contradictory at all, let alone a symptom of mass confusion requiring intervention by the Electoral Commission. – Is mise,
DAVE SLATER,
Kilkea,
Co Kildare.
Sir, – The phenomenon whereby a portion of the population believe conspiracy theories is unsurprising but nonetheless worth quantifying and studying. It is not easy, however, to provide options that are necessarily or clearly untrue. In examining such beliefs in the Irish population one proposal put to the cohort studied was that “groups of scientists manipulate, fabricate or suppress evidence in order to deceive the public”.
Efforts made over decades by tobacco companies to deny the harm attributable to their products, or the so-called Diesel-gate scandal, would seem to show that this is not solely the belief of a paranoid fringe. There are clear instances of it in the modern era, leading to compensation payments in developed countries.
Perhaps more difficult to disentangle is the statement that “Alternative medicine is effective in treating long-term illness”. Acknowledging the power of placebo effects, if such a view is held by 30 per cent of the population as reported, then an intervention without any pharmacologic benefit may relieve aspects of illness and further reinforce those beliefs. Meanwhile, some instances of effective “alternative” treatments can be cited. Multiple studies and meta-analyses show that St John’s Wort is effective in depression, albeit with some side-effects and interactions, much like conventional anti-depressants.
A real concern should be that if these, to my mind defensible, views are labelled as “conspiracy thinking” their plausibility will act as the metaphorical gateway to baseless and erroneous views that are entirely wrong and harmful. The key objective should be to seek evidence and to question it objectively. – Yours, etc,
BRIAN O’BRIEN,
Kinsale,
Co Cork.