Breaking Conspiracy Theory Logic


#1

Interesting article from today

related:

https://briankoberlein.com/2014/05/20/evidence-demands-verdict/


#2

collectivist thought does not equal “science.” Most of this article is based on the premise that if you have a differing viewpoint with the “community” that you aren’t being scientific or that you your viewpoint is invalid. It’s more collectivist vs individualist tripe.

“he first is that most conspiracy theorists base their beliefs on values other than science, and sometimes on fear. They are motivated to believe what they do, and unless those motivations change, it is unlikely they will be swayed by rational argument.” This is complete and utter bullocks and a generlization to boot.

the “scientific community” does not equal science. The “scientific community” is a socio-economic body largely corrupted by needing to cater to various institutions for funding. It’s very hard to conduct real funding when producing the wrong answer from the results of your “science” means you don’t get your next research grant. Also only “scientific” projects that make money are backed, that doesn’t mean scientific projects that don’t make money aren’t beneficial or useful, they just wouldn’t make somebody rich. Therefore “the scientific community” isn’t really about hard science but rather about financial and idealogical politics. As I said, the scientific community does not equal science.


#3

I fully expected you to mis-represent the articles at the same time as ignoring where they deal with your conspiracy theory accusations…


#4

The term ‘Conspiracy Theory’ is used to very effectively shut down inquiry into a subject that does not want to bear scrutiny.

If something is being labelled as a conspiracy theory, I would counter with “where there is smoke, there is fire”

Two or more people have always conspired for a desired outcome, nothing illegal or nefarious about that.

When the conspiracy involves illegality, is when the law steps in and tries to prove an illegal conspiracy i.e very common stuff in the legal system.

Not sure who came up with the term ‘conspiracy theory’ to create a cognitive dissonance and shut down peoples ability to reason.

Maybe it stems from Hegel and his Hegellian Dialectic, the classic divide and conquer strategy that has so effectively kept humanity divided along political, race, sporting, cultural, religous lines.

If humanity ever breaks the spell and comes together, it’s game over for the status quo and whoever you believe is behind that.

I would not recommend the use of ‘Conspiracy theory’ on this forum…whomthever useth that term shalt be considered for ‘forum spy’ excommunication :zap:


#5

Just as ridicule is possible the most effective political tool to eliminate or discredit opponents, its also works to get rid of ideas that are threatening to status quo or established power. Its a tool of censorship


#6

Science is not a democracy. I’m skeptical about the consensus style “science” that seems to be creeping in from all directions.


#7

Hi Chris, I think language changes over time and “Conspiracy Theory” has come to mean a conspiracy idea put forward that does not stand up to scrutiny - “gay”, no longer means what it used to for example.What words would you prefer me to use for such ideas? Are you saying that such theories do not exist?
There may be certain incidences where dismissing legitimate ideas as “Conspiracy Theories” are used to create cognitive dissonance, but I would counter that the same can be said for proponents of bogus theories. I would also say that “no smoke without fire” is not a very reliable axiom.
My reasoning does not imply that I am a forum spy either - this would be a “Conspiracy Theory.”.
@Anders - Could you give me an example of the “consensus” style science that you are referring to as I’m not sure what you mean? The one thing that seems to be creeping in from all sides on this forum to my mind is all manner of conspiracy theories, pseudo-science and quackery to be honest.


#8

I think if you turned off TV for say 3 years, avoided rags and observed the symbolism all around you…you would come to recognize the mass dissonance that surrounds.

We live in a very unique age, bombarded by coordinated information worldwide.

I recognised the symptoms in myself and my friends. We would watch the first tv news service after work and then the next and the next…they all confirmed the narrative and the newspapers concurred…it’s almost like a release of pheromones that confirm one’s grip on reality…and we were all on the same page at work.

If you are watching television, reading newspapers …consuming syndicated news, then indeed:

“Conspiracy Theory” has come to mean a conspiracy idea put forward that does not stand up to scrutiny

Because that very scrutiny is coming from the warm glow of the TV, newspaper, official news source.

If you haven’t unplugged already? I can guarantee you will go through the classic ‘stages of grief’ …but boy, you come out the other side, taking no prisoners and prepared to come onto forums that you believe in as yourself…no hiding behind cute favicons and usernames.


#9

I think you assume too much about how I inform myself and with which sources. You don’t appear to have answered my questions, only told me to turn off the telly and observe the symbolism. I don’t know what you mean and there is no nefarious intent in using a pseudonym on a forum.
Could you advise me where you get your information?


#10

I often see academic texts like “it’s generally agreed among scientist that…” Here is a classical example:

Most scientists agree that humans are contributing to observed climate change.[86][212] A meta study of academic papers concerning global warming, published between 1991 and 2011 and accessible from Web of Knowledge, found that among those whose abstracts expressed a position on the cause of global warming, 97.2% supported the consensus view that it is man made.[213]” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Science by voting?!


#11

I don’t see the problem, they are climate scientists who have researched and formed their opinions based on the scientific method. If 97.2% of scientists with relevant expertise in the field form a consensus, then it is legitimate in my view. The scientific method has been used first, evidence collated and opinions formed based on that. It is not consensus in lieu of relevant information, it is consensus among the relevant experts in the field. If you choose to ignore the consensus opinion, then what is your reasoning ? If 97% of doctors say smoking is bad for your health, then what reason do you have to ignore the advice of the relevant professionals?


#12

I think science should focus more on building on certainty. Otherwise the uncertainties risk to compound over time spinning science off into unstable foundations.


#13

Some areas of research cannot give certainty as there are too many variables. This is not a failure of the scientific method, just the nature of climate change.


#14

It’s an observation formulated from the hindsight of prior addiction to ‘current affairs’, political commentary, sports rivalry, peer approval…etc

Yes, I banished TV, radio, newspapers etc and it’s great. Not saying the internet is a bed of roses, but I have control over the information I consume.

So…I’m not assuming anything about your persona, I’m just suggesting that if your wanting to ‘break’ conspiracy theory logic, then you have to consider why a conspiracy is a bad thing to begin with.

I’m actually part of a SAFEconspiracy


#15

Well, however you define a “Conspiracy Theory” a conspiracy infers criminal intent. I don’t really see why I have to consider why conspiracy is a bad thing in order to break conspiracy theory logic - they are different things.
I am able to discern what is evidenced as opposed to mere assertion or dis-information whatever the source really - facts can be checked etc.
I don’t really fancy chucking my telly away as I use it for entertainment as well as news etc, however I am aware of different bias and agendas and make my own mind up about things. Both TV and the internet are full of dis-information, the latter being a hotbed for cranks, so one has to be careful to check sources and avoid the rabbit holes.
So, what is the criminal intent behind your Safe conspiracy?


#16

I was under the impression that conspiracy was

a secret plan to do something, or is the action of creating a secret plot.

i.e not necessarily illegal in it’self…but it does seem that a majority of definitions seem to infer it as criminal intent.

Not criminal…or even secret, just me being silly


So if conspiracy infers criminal intent, does it seem stupid to use it as a blanket term to describe what might be better described as wild stories, tall tales, snake oil, quackery, lies, misrepresentations etc situations that involve no criminality whatsoever.

I stand by the view that “Conspiracy Theory” is used as a tool to shut down debate…a lazy mans tool at that.

‘Criminal intent theory’ …it’s nonsensical


#17

Now now, come on Chris, you really can’t accuse me of shutting down debate. I just gave a dictionary definition of conspiracy and clearly stated it was different to what has come to be known in common parlance as a “conspiracy theory” - which would be a belief that a conspiracy or plot existed contrary to or lacking evidence to substantiate the claim - let’s not argue the semantic toss…
I totally accept that the term conspiracy theory can be used to shut down debate when in fact a conspiracy is occuring, but I think you must admit that conspiracy theories also exist with no foundation? I am talking about things like the moon landing didn’t happen and the like.


#18

Not many of us have ''facts" we have something closer to odds. Every assertion of ‘fact,’ to me rings of snow job as it implies coercion in thinking and a usurpation of authority, an arrogation, an insult. People who make such assertions are usually not apologetic when the ‘facts’ crumble as the point was power not understanding.

MaidSafe symbol is dual intertwined Mobius triangles tri-color. Dimensional (color, twisting) complexity (net and its conflicts) made safe by interlocking (crypto locks) and stability of structure (transparent, open source code, non hook-in-the-ass-financing of organization, passionate advocate designers)


#19

I’m weeding out off topic I can’t take anymore


#20