Conspiracy theorists and how to deal with them

Firstly, this is not an academic paper, it's merely some preliminary ideas. Secondly, it's not meant to be persuasive. It's just a few considerations which may clarify.

What causes conspiratorial thinking?

In order to believe a proposition or statement, like "London is in England", you have to either take the statement on faith or on evidence; just as one takes, for example, the question of the existence of God on faith or on evidence. In the case of conspiracy theorists, they seem to be initially taking things on evidence, because they cite evidence in support of their claims. However, and what is particularly interesting about conspiracy theorists, is that they seem to have unshakeable faith in their chosen conspiracies, once they have settled upon them. That is, they become immune to evidence thereafter, specifically counter-evidence, and thus, we can argue, they become more faith-based once they have selected the theory that in their view, best accounts for the evidence.

To give a simple example, they might believe that the world is flat, and that all textbooks, governments, educational globe manufacturers, astronauts, etc., are conspiring to show the world as a ball, even though it is in fact a disc. They might notice a few things, like that we always see the same face of the moon, or that the horizon seems flat, rather than curved. And, once they encounter the conspiracy theory of flat-eartherism, they adopt it on the grounds of that evidence. But what is interesting is the question of why they persist in the belief despite counter-evidence, and, what is it about their psychology that makes them attracted to the unconventional position (flat-eartherism), in the first place. 

The general consensus amongst psychologists seems to boil down to these scenarios:

1. Being an outcast, even epistemically (e.g. not adhering to mainstream religion). A sense of being disempowered or marginalised, and needing to gain a sense of purpose and power (e.g. persons who are unemployed, uneducated, ridiculed, etc.). 
2. A need for community, as per other people / "regular people", and to be in a group of people. However, due to being an outcast, the person would therefore seek other outcasts. 
3. A need to have a sense of power or a sense of specialness (special knowledge that others are not aware of), due to being an outcast or outlier. A deep desire to be respected and considered special. However, due to low education and exclusion, finding sources of "alternative facts" which provide the source of "special knowledge" or "hidden knowledge". (Latin for hidden is "occult").
4. The 'special knowledge' gained by accepting the alternative theory, creates further ridicule and outcast status, which leads to a vicious cycle of the person wanting to be respected, accepted, and known to be special. In short, the person doubles down on their ideation because of being even more outcast and therefore feeling that their rejection is part of a "plot" to prevent them from educating others as to the "special knowledge"; meantime, it really is a result of them alarming others with irrational or counter-evidential ideas.
5. The Dunning-Kruger effect is involved, that is, not knowing just how low their general knowledge levels are, and therefore, not being aware of just how incompetent or ignorant they are, and hence over-estimating their competence and knowledge levels. Rudimentary knowledge of science and lack of critical thinking apart from general suspicion, leads the person to accept anything that fits in with their rudimentary knowledge base.
6. Due to outcast and ridiculed status, a growing resentment of those in power, and a growing mistrust of authority; generalised paranoia and suspiciousness.

The above scenarios make it highly probable that a large proportion of the population would fall for conspiracy theories, because feeling marginalised, disempowered, suspicious, anxious, and an outsider, is quite a common experience. Furthermore, most countries neither teach critical thinking skills, nor require sciences to be taken throughout school. 

Hence, we find that with the advent of social media, it is now relatively easy for anyone with minimal knowledge levels to identify, locate and join a conspiracy group or, what I prefer to call, a conspiracy cult.

The conspiracy cultist develops delusions of grandeur, claiming to have secret knowledge. Once the person has established their secret power in their own minds (Dunning-Kruger: they do not know what they do not know, or just how limited their understanding is), they conclude that others who disagree must be fundamentally mistaken or wrong, or worse, in cahoots with the "evil ones". 

This leads to a further us/them dichotomous split in communities as the marginalised seek comfort in the conspiracy group, and the non-marginalised ramp up their messages of rejection due to the eccentricity of the assertions made by the marginalised group. 

They then feel persecuted for their secret knowledge, and that those who reject the secret knowledge are choosing to reject it out of some unhealthy motive, or in a sense, their sinful nature. The result is the conspiracy theorist then divides the world into themselves, those who are in the know, and, the enemy, or, the hidden conspiratorial cabal that control everything, and their "shills", or "sheeple" that is, those who defend the status-quo or who profess conventional knowledge. A "Shill" is someone who defends the status-quo knowledge base, and a "sheeple" is someone who merely follows it as if true, but can't defend it.

Parallels to religion

As we saw in the recent case of the anticipated alleged "reincarnation" of JFK junior (2 Nov 2021 in Dallas) by Q-anon conspiracy cult members, and, the alleged "Storm" that was going to prevent Biden becoming president - neither of which happened - it is clear that there are parallels between conspiracy theories and religions, but specifically christianity. I list a few here:

1. Lack of critical thinking or skepticism about the belief canon itself; a specific set of beliefs which are loosely interrelated, contradictory, and yet concurrently held (Princess Di was assassinated and she will return/was hidden; Elvis is still alive and he was assassinated; etc.)
2. Blind obedience/adherence to the leader, e.g. "Q", Trump, Jim Jones, etc.
3. Messianic behaviour, e.g. in the 2 Nov incident, the leader was having people kiss a ring on his hand; followers blindly failing to correct the leader, e.g. Trump prescribing bleach for Covid-19
4. Reincarnation or return myths, e.g. Trump will come back to power and Biden won't be given Presidency; JFK junior will return; John Frum and Cargo Cults; etc.
5. Demonisation of a specific group, e.g. Protocols of Elders of Zion; Illuminati; Masons; Liberals; Democrats, Satanists, etc., as being part of a cabal or constituting it to take control of the entire world;
6. An arch-enemy or devil figure, e.g. Hillary Clinton and the Pizzagate myth; Obama birther myth, etc., and having demon minions ("Shills");
7. Parallels to sin, truth and redemption: the sin is being a blind "sheeple"; the truth is [whatever conspiracy theory they are peddling]; redemption is recognising status as sheeple and "blue pilling" to exit "the matrix" and see "the truth".
8. The cabal or devil is trying to bring about an apocalypse, at which point the god or saviour will return. Parallel the book of Revelation to The Storm in Trumpism.
9. Just like the threat of hell, damnation and armageddon, the conspiracy theorist sells fears of digital bioslavery, transhumanist surveillance, and the "depopulation agenda" via various mechanisms (be it covid, be it nuclear war, be it starvation, cancer from GMO crops, etc). Fear God, the christians say; and, Fear Bill Gates, the conspiracy theorists say.
10. Self-serving bias. Conspiracy theorists attack others on the grounds of being mindless followers, aka sheeple. However, they uncritically follow the tenets of Q-drops and other mere allegations, e.g. those of David Icke. So ironically, they are also sheeple; merely following a different epistemology. This fundamentally shows that just as a religious person will angrily declare that others are utterly mistaken and heretical in their beliefs, religoius people fail to appreciate that to the others, they are heretics, and that their mere beliefs are highly offensive.
11. Incorrigible. Like religions, no counter-evidence is grounds to reject a conspiracy theory, in the believer's mind. Just as evolution does not persuade christians that Genesis is false, hijacker passports in the wreckage does not persuade 9/11 theorists that 9/11 was just some terrorists. Every counter-evidence piece, is proof of cover-up, that the Cabal are hiding their tracks. Similarly, in religion, counter-evidence is either a trick of the devil or God testing our faith.

Risks of conspiracy theories

During covid-19 we saw a number of risks of conspiracy theories, such as:

1. Heightened skepticism about scientific remedies such as vaccines, masking and social distancing;
2. Sabotage and damage to infrastructure such as 5G towers in the belief that they caused Covid;
3. Heightened disease spread due to conspiratorial thinking;
4. Large-scale death, with the USA death toll exceeding all wars except World War 2;
5. Break ups of families and relationships where one person fell for the conspiracy cult and the other people in their life did not. By attacking their views that they strongly believe in, you further reject, disrespect, and demonstrate apparent hatred for them. The same feelings come into play with religion. This is why religious wars occur, and why families ostracise those who reject the family religion, or refuse to accept new members, e.g. sons/daughters in law, who are not part of the family religion.
6. General distrust and breakdown in public trust of science; conflation of science with fascism and governmental authoritarianism or worse, naziism; and hence, reduction of scientific character and support of a nation; falling behind in scientific progress nationally.
7. Living in fear.
8. Murder, e.g. the father who used a speargun to kill his children because he believed theories about Lizard aliens (that his children were lizards).

Ways of responding

Psychological

Hostility to the conspiracy theorist is guaranteed to fail due to the fact that they are marginalised and alienated. Fundamentally what they want is love and acceptance, praise and respect. However, like with strongly proselytising family members who advocate other practices or cults which have similar structures (e.g. strongly proselytising religions, cults, and multilevel marketers), the anger that conspiracy theorists provoke makes it very hard to offer them any tolerance.

In this article I argue that tolerance of conspiracy theorists encourages them in the mistaken belief that their views are accepted, or acceptable. Just as inviting a family member who sells MLM products will encourage them to continue and step up their sales attempts, or just as asking for a copy of say, their literature, would encourage a cultist to proselytise.

Fundamentally the conspiracy theorist sells fear and lives in fear. And, he offers his secret knowledge as a way to staunch, but not eradicate, fear. Because once there is no more fear, the attraction of the theory is diminished. In fact, it is fear, confusion, anxiety and loneliness which lead to seeking explanations for fear. When we are filled with fear we look for a cause. And a convenient one presents itself: A malevolent all-seeing all-powerful cabal. But fear is meant to protect us from realistic threats, not imaginary ones.

Religious parallels

As we saw earlier, conspiracy theorists think that, like atheists who reject the salvation offered by Jesus, that they are defective, sinful, or somehow "abusing free will" to "reject" the "gift" of "salvation", a conspiracy theorist is angry with others because they "abuse free will" to "reject" the "gift" of the "secret knowledge" and should "do their research".

But is the rejection of the conspiracy theorists' wares the same as deliberately choosing ignorance? Or is it choosing to disbelieve the truth claims that are on offer? Non-theorists (ie sheeple and shills) certainly know WHAT the claims are, because they are able to make references to red pills, lizard rulers, jesuits, Rothschilds, Georgia Guidestones, NWO, George Soros, pedophile pizza restaurant frequenters, The Storm, Area 51, David Icke, masons, illuminati, controlled demolition of Building 7, banksters, Princes Di, Elvis, JFK, etc etc. We all have heard these things. However, most of us do not accept them, and certainly don't accept them all, and moreover generally only give credence to a small minority of these theories. But why?

The conspiracy theorist has these options:

1. Assume that non-theorists are stupid OR
2. Assume that, as accused, non-theorists are collaborators with said lizards, banksters, illuminati, masons, etc., that is, they are shills, OR
3. Assume that non-theorists also "did their research" and came to a different conclusion.

Let me give the reader a template argument to think about.

1. X really controls the world/ is a huge threat that wants to control the world / wipe us out.
2. X is malicious and out to eliminate humanity/ eliminate our race /do some other evil thing. 
3. X is hidden, and tries to conceal their actions by lies and propaganda, e.g. "Lugenpresse", "CRT", "revisionism","cancel culture", "fake scriptures", etc.
4. But we know that X is real because of E (some strange evidence, e.g. Building 7, Covid arriving the same time as 5G, most persons involved in X are rich, etc).
5. We should therefore fear X, and appeal to Y, who can save us.

Now. Swap "X" for anything you care to. Lizard aliens. Illuminati. Masons. Jesuits. Jews. Terrorists. Muslims. Communists. Satan. Bill Gates. Baal. Loki. A scapegoat. Whatever you wish. All you have to do is swap out X and E and you will end up with either the Bible, or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or the 9/11 conspiracy theory, or JFK's assassination, or even Apartheid.  So, as we can see, none of these belief systems - religion, cults, and conspiracy theories, - really differ in structure; they merely change the names of the "deities", "devils" or "cabals" (X), and the evidence for that deity, cabal, or devil (E). Y, in our example above, is a saviour or hero figure, e.g. God, Jesus, Buddha, Trump, Q, Hitler, Verwoerd, etc. I am not saying all religions are bad just because some "saviour" types were bad (or even evil). I'm just saying that the thought pattern and thinking style is the same, and therefore, that religious or superstitious people generally would be more susceptible to conspiracy theories.

By superstitious, I do not mean to be pejorative, in the sense of, old-fashioned ignorant beliefs. I mean specifically mistaking correlation for causation, like the Skinnerian pigeons. You see a black cat, you have a bad day. Next time you see a black cat, you expect a bad day, and have a bad day, so you come to associate black cats with bad days. Yet the black cat has no magic powers. This is merely confusing correlation (seeing a black cat a few times), with causation (thinking the black cat somehow caused the bad day). The same applies to conspiracy theories. You see some evidence E, you think that E correlates with the events which are horrible, and you mistakenly conclude that E caused the events. A recent example: 5G tower rollout started at the same time as Covid. People therefore assumed that 5G caused covid. This is the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

But conspiracies are not just superstitious; they are religious, because they have doctrines, leaders, tenets, practices, and demonisation. The argument structure of a conspiracy theory is fundamentally religious and based on allegations and claims of evidence which are only spuriously linked to the events in question, and which in the long run become articles of faith which do not get doubted or questioned, much in the same way that we have inerrantists who overlook the thousands of biblical contradictions. So far, no Q-drops have come true, but Q-anon persists.

Perhaps if the conspiracy theorist can see that fundamentally, he is selling a cult or religion, he might re-think the matter and ask: inasmuch as any random cult may be irrational, is my thinking perhaps predicated on the same thought processes that create cults? The fact is, it is.

Whether we are headed for apocalypse, and the help offered by the conspiracy theory

Firstly and objectively, this is the best time in human history. We're merely designed to think otherwise. Humans are fundamentally skeptical and paranoid. That's how we were designed by evolution to survive in nature. If you think everything outside is a butterfly, you will get eaten by a tiger. But if you occasionally mistake a butterfly for a tiger, no harm comes to you. In a natural environment, it helps to be skeptical and nervous. Just not in an office, or on a social media website. There it is positively self-sabotaging.

Secondly, almost every culture has an "end of world" myth. And, pace the problem of induction (that we can't legitimately assume that the future will resemble the past), we nonetheless have not remotely encountered anything close to apocalypse. Even World War 2 and the Holocaust, as horrific as they were, killed a paltry 3% of the world's population, slightly worse than Covid. Probably the closest we came to apocalypse was the Black Plague, which allegedly killed around half of Europe's population at the time. Yet so far, we have not had anything worse. We came close with the Cuban Missile Crisis, which, had it developed into WW3, may have turned the Northern Hemisphere into a radioactive wasteland. But it didn't. And if we look at the numbers of wars we have nowadays and their deaths, they are proportionally small and quick. War is almost gone. 

Thirdly, a question arises with what one is meant to do with the alleged knowledge offered by the conspiracy theorist. How, psychologically speaking, does it help him, and more specifically, how does he think he is helping others by punting his wares? The conspiracy theorist may say that it is about surviving. We see this in the case of "preppers", who are a specific variety of theorist who prepare for the end of world scenario. These theorists collect canned goods, build bomb shelters in the wilderness, practice traditional hunting and gathering skills, etc., on the assumption that the end is nigh. (See e.g. https://aeon.co/essays/how-conspiracy-theories-evolved-from-our-drive-for-survival). Yet realistically, all the statistics and population indicators show that we are in the best time ever in the history of humanity. Never have we been at a point with such low odds of armageddon. Assuming, of course, America does not annoy China too much. But the prepper doesn't see that as an avoidable conflict; he sees it as inevitable, and himself as marginalised on the fringes of society in the woods, fantasising about doomsday, instead of simply voting the belligerent government out. The mechanism to do something exists — voting — but the conspiracy theorist prefers tor revel in fear, spread fear, and not do anything else about it. He offers the promise of merely staying alive, eating canned beans, fishing in a river, and staying in a bomb shelter.

In effect, the conspiracy theorist offers and markets fear of things he does not understand. And he does not understand them due to his limited scientific and historical knowledge. Hence, he assumes that because he cannot understand the thing he is facing (covid-19, 5G, the death of JFK, etc.), he assumes that something big, evil and powerful, must lie behind it, with malevolent intentions towards him too. Just as a caveman didn't understand lightning, tsunamis and earthquakes.

For me, I am more interested in flourishing than merely staying alive. Hence, I look at the world scenario and see how I can enjoy it. Prepper life sounds miserable, like a 10 000 year step backwards. I'll just vote against belligerent governments. That's my way of prepping.

But what if it is true?

I think it's highly unlikely that most conspiracy theories are true. Let's take the plandemic claim: that the "illuminati" want to take over the world and "they" have been "planning" this pandemic for years. Here are my comments:

The following would ALL have to be true:

1. That there is an uber-government or cabal controlling the whole world

2. That people can create viruses 

3. That the purpose of the virus is to kill off everyone to the 94% recommended by the Georgia Guidestones

4. OR, that there is no virus at all 

5. AND that it's just a plot to make us stay home while they install tracking devices or 5G genocide towers 

6. AND that the uber-government can coordinate millions of scientists, researchers, doctors, nurses and government officials toward ONE agreed goal

7. That the government is not in fact incompetent and incapable or organising a "party in a brewery" 

If you think about these seven pre-requisites, it seems to me that 

1. Given that many governments ignore the UN and blatantly ignore the WHO, and definitely do not cooperate, e.g. witness North and South Korea, Canada and USA and Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Palestine and Israel, etc, and certainly do not cooperate on anything except invading other countries;

2. Given that making a virus is non-trivial;

3. Given that so far, way below the conspiracy theorist levels of death (94%) have occurred (but still more than cancer!);

4. Given that there is a virus because we have 5 million deaths;

5. Given that there's zero reason to track your or eliminate you if you are in fact the source of government tax money and if you are in fact totally uninteresting and average;

6. Given that secrets always leak if there are more than 100-odd participants (https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35411684) 

7. Given that we know governments are so incompetent that they can't even fix potholes or sustain a democracy in a country when they have the full might of the world's largest military 

It seems to me that it's literally impossible for the "plandemic" theory to be true.

Is there a non-conspiracy theory to explain the world's chaos?

The conspiracy theorist sees the world as being in a state of increasing chaos. The idea is that once the world is in sufficient chaos, an autocratic cabal can use the chaos to justify taking control. But I might point to the Second Law of Thermodynamics and say that this is how it is. It has nothing to do with an agent of chaos. And so yes, the world is chaotic, but the evidence is clear that it is getting better.

What I will agree with is the following:

1. Generally, those in power are vulnerable to, but not ispo facto PRONE to, corruption. That being said, I don't accept the idea that everyone with power is corrupt. I did an analysis on past major leaders from 1000 AD onwards to check this. Of the 2000 or so people (presidents, generals, etc), only about 0,2 % were arrested, deposed, killed, etc. This suggests that the oft-cited dictum that power corrupts, is not in fact true. I think this is a refreshing thing to discover, and quite a relief. Maybe - dare we think it - maybe our leaders do want to help make a better world. Maybe the fact that they fail to do that, is due to sheer incompetence rather than malice. Vote them out, then.
2. I base my beliefs on evidence taken mostly from stats. So for example the claim that the world is in disarray is true, but not compared to previous eras. We are presently (well, prior to covid), in the most peaceful time in history with the longest lifespans, lowest teen pregnancies, lowest disease load, highest proportion of people not living in poverty, etc. Covid messed that up slightly, but we'll bounce back. If you want to check these statements: here's an article written in the covid scenario. https://mashable.com/article/best-time-in-history
3. Even if many politicians are corrupt, we have ADEQUATE explanations, using reference to normal political processes, and normal human psychology, to explain bad events. We do not need to add extra theories about aliens, illuminati, masons, etc. Just human malice, greed, stupidity and corruption is enough to explain everything from a traffic officer taking a bribe to genocide. And in fact, it is conspiracy theories (belief in them), like the protocols of the elders of zion - which CAUSE genocides.

Occam's Razor

So for me, this leads to the punchline of this article. The main objection to conspiracy theories is Occam's Razor. Non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem. Do not multiply entities beyond necessary.

Let's give an example of Occam.

Which is more believable?

1. Disease is caused by a demon called Bob.  Bob has a big moustache. He is invisible. He makes people sick. He also likes hockey, and smoking cheroots.
2. Disease is caused by tiny parts of matter in containers, called bacteria or viruses. They contain a bit of DNA or RNA which your body replicates by mistake, or, they multiply in your bloodstream by consuming some of the nutrients and undergoing mitosis.

The problem with (a) is that there's no reason to suppose it should be Demon Bob who causes disease rather than Demon Sue, who by the way, happens to like pink lipstick and drinking pina coladas. There's no mechanism provided. 

The problem with (b) is it requires prior scientific research and observation, such as seeing bacteria under a microscope. So, to prescientific people, (a) might be more plausible, and to we who know about microscopes, (b) is more plausible.

So how do we decide between two hypotheses if we totally lack knowledge, e.g. in the 9/11 case? Well, again, on Occam's razor. Just as we disregarded Bob because all the specific additional details of him seem otiose, so we discard the "malevolent Bush family cabal" theory, because it seems excessively evil and unnecessary to explain the facts. In short, whichever explanation requires the greater number of explananda or assumptions, and things to be further explained, is the one that we disregard.

Of course, Occam's Razor is not perfect. We might use it to for example discard Heisenberg (Quantum mechanics) over Bohr (planetary atom model). AND, unfortunately for Occam in this case, observation supports Heisenberg - the more complex theory. BUT that doesn't mean a scientific approach fails; it means we need more observations or data or evidence. 

That being the case, nonetheless, in the case of any conspiracy, I ask this simple question:

1. Does the official narrative adequately explain this event?
2. OR, would the addition of further theoretical entities, e.g. additional shooters shooting JFK, better explain it?

If the answer is (a), then I accept the official narrative. If the answer is (b), I accept the conspiracy theory. 

That is why most people (I hope) find conspiracy theories implausible - they are too fanciful. You can even acknowledge that some theories are more plausible than others. For example, as given above, it's quite plausible to accept a multi-shooter hypothesis for JFK. Somewhat less plausible is the Princess Di theory, because it assumes that the Royal Family are evil, and we'd need more evidence of that. And significantly less plausible is the 9/11 theory, because it seems exceptionally evil, and would require even more evidence to support that level of evil. Hence

The amount of evidence required to support a theory militates against it. 

Disproof by counterexample

In mathematics, and in Popperian philosophy of science, we take it that a hypothesis is disproven if you find one counter-example or contradiction. Any theory which cannot be disproven in principle, and, which does not get accepted as disproven when counter-evidence is found, is unscientific, and therefore merely a conspiracy theory, superstition, or religion. So, why are conspiracy theories unscientific? Because every time you find a counter-example or counter-evidence, the conspiracy theorist posits that that counter-evidence is just evidence of a coverup by the 'cabal'. In effect, all conspiracy theories are unscientific because they are irrefutable. Let's take an example. Edward Snowden was persecuted for his beliefs. That shows that what he said was true, because the 'cabal' (in this case, the US government), persecuted him. If what he said was false, they'd ignore him. Same for the oddly-named Reality Winner. She leaked Russian election interference and got jailed.

So, we use the same model, on David Icke. Icke was ignored for a long time. Suddenly, he was 'deplatformed' from Youtube. While, de facto, this seems to be that he is being persecuted, it is not, because he was not threatened with arrest and a treason trial. He was merely deplatformed. So why was he deplatformed? For spreading fake news which was creating social panic (about covid). If he had really discovered that there is a "fact" about lizard aliens, which I believe he started marketing in 1998, Diana would have eaten him by now. MOU-SEY!!! So how does a conspiracy theorist respond? Well, clearly they're censoring Icke now so he is telling the truth. Obviously. (Sarcasm). Pity it took them 22 years to do it. The illuminati can't be very good at tracking leaks if it takes them 22 years to identify the culprit who appears in every single one of his videos on the public internet and who puts his books publicly on Amazon.

Summary

Conspiracy theories are in effect modern cults or religions, and have almost identical properties, they differ only in semantic content.

Conspiracy theorists are marginalised people who are suffering from a large amount of anxiety, fear and insecurity. Kindness to them can help, but it may also encourage them to proselytise. Ostracism doesn't work, because that aggravates the condition and makes them more likely to perpetuate violence. They need to be handled carefully.

The best way to manage conspiracy theorists is to kindly explain why you reject their theory - on the grounds that it requires too many additional assumptions, and, that it causes one to live in perpetual fear with no long-term solution in sight. It's better to enjoy life than live in fear. 

The character, Cypher, in the film, the Matrix, points out to Agent Smith: how would a computer know what steak tastes like? This, then, is evidence that the steak is real. It's simpler to assume the steak is real, than the alternative: there is a global supercomputer that uses humans as batteries and feeds us illusions like Descartes' evil demon. As Cypher avers, it's simpler to assume the steak is real. There is really a spoon. Take the blue pill. PS. For my philosopher friends. This solves Descartes' problem as best we can.