Difference Between 'Conspiracy Theory' & 'Factual Evidence'

Become a part of the TranceAddict community!

Frequently Asked Questions - Please read this if you haven't

TranceAddict Forums > Other > Political Discussion / Debate > Difference Between 'Conspiracy Theory' & 'Factual Evidence'

Last Thread Next Thread

Author

Thread

stevieboy32808
==============

Registered: Mar 2005
Location: United States

Difference Between 'Conspiracy Theory' & 'Factual Evidence'

I've noticed a pattern in certain TAs who keep calling certain current events conspiracies. Let's define what a consipiracy theory is, shall we:

"A conspiracy theory attempts to explain the cause of an event as a secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert alliance rather than as an overt activity or natural occurrence...The term is also used pejoratively to dismiss allegedly misconceived, paranoid or outlandish rumors"

In other words, pure speculation. Some good examples are bigfoot, aliens, loch-ness monster, etc. There have been no proof of any those creatures in existence. I, for one, hate conspiracies and will not consider any theory unless there is some sort of solid evidence, which brings me to my next topic: Factual Evidence.

Let's say if I was to call the Whitewater Scandal just a silly old conspiracy theory. A lot of people on these boards would counteract that by displaying a list of events proving that such a crime is on record and did exist. Such evidence cannot be ignored and that's when I realize that Whitewater was never a conspiracy to begin with.

Therefore why when people present facts on these boards do they get ignored? I recall many current events which are heavily supported with sources, but the only thing that they fire back with is conspiracy theory. With this conflict, I write this thread today as a declaration to all you fact-haters and evidence-dismissers out there to stop calling proven occurences as conspiracies. Certain situations do not fit under that term and confuse the less informed public. To sum up I'd like to leave you with a little message from a fellow member from another forum:

"These pages are devoted to understanding and promoting truth. Not creating fabrications to further discredit what small pitiful remains there are of the left overs of the real conspiracy theorist communities."

Feb-10-2006 09:34

Click here to Send stevieboy32808 a Private Message

Fir3start3r
Armin Acolyte

Registered: Oct 2001
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada

Lets not forget though that for those current events that are under investigation, without concentual agreement from those that be, will also be subject to theory.

Theory is not necessarily a bad thing in a current investigation; it encourages the truth.
However, unless the facts of a case are absoultely concrete and 100% agreed upon, there will always be theorists who either refuse to believe or still convinced otherwise.

I myself, agree that facts will always trump theory, however I don't subscribe to blind allegeance to a single source or when all possiblities haven't been totally flushed out.
If the facts are mutual between several different sources, I'm more apt to subscribe to it.

Therefore, I don't mind theory as long as it isn't trying to knock on the door of a case that is obviously closed, otherwise it's just entertainment...

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

Feb-11-2006 16:50 Canada

Click here to Send Fir3start3r a Private Message

stevieboy32808
==============

Registered: Mar 2005
Location: United States

quote:
Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Lets not forget though that for those current events that are under investigation, without concentual agreement from those that be, will also be subject to theory.

Theory is not necessarily a bad thing in a current investigation; it encourages the truth.

That's what I'm after, the truth.

quote:
Originally posted by Fir3start3r
However, unless the facts of a case are absoultely concrete and 100% agreed upon, there will always be theorists who either refuse to believe or still convinced otherwise.....Therefore, I don't mind theory as long as it isn't trying to knock on the door of a case that is obviously closed, otherwise it's just entertainment...

Some people, though, treat open issues as 'closed cases' and focus on technicalities rather than sticking to the point. I'm not saying we shouldn't argue detail, just don't try to bring in something irrelevant to the conversation in an attempt to discredit or mock the situation.

Feb-12-2006 19:12

ogvh5150
Formula 1 Addict

Registered: Aug 2003
Location: F1 2008 Red Bull Racing/BMW Sauber

Re: Difference Between 'Conspiracy Theory' & 'Factual Evidence'

quote:
Originally posted by stevieboy32808
Some good examples are bigfoot, aliens, loch-ness monster, etc. There have been no proof of any those creatures in existence.

There was the theory that giant squid might exist. Of all the squid to wash ashore none of course have been found alive. But one live specimen had it's kodak moment about a year ago.

The jury is still out on Nessie though.

Cryptozoology

___________________