|
December 21st 2012... (pg. 17)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| batemanscott |
| Actually now i think about it guys this thread has gone on for 16 pages - i think we all need to start kissing each others arses and pumping up our night/gig/demo mix. :p |
|
|
| Light The Fuse |
theres mine!
[[ LINK REMOVED ]]
sorry :/ |
|
|
| batemanscott |
| :stongue: :stongue: LMAO, had to be u jules hehe :tongue2 |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
here's a useful guide that i love to paste and re-paste when combatting the, shall we say, more alternative viewpoints one encounters on this here internet.
10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.
2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.
3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.
4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.
5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.
6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.
7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.
8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.
9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.
10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question. |
|
|
| batemanscott |
| can not the same be said for those who don't believe in 'conspiracy theories' desipte strong evidence suggesting a conspiracy? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by batemanscott
can not the same be said for those who don't believe in 'conspiracy theories' desipte strong evidence suggesting a conspiracy? |
no.
which conspiracies have strong evidence to support them? |
|
|
| tathi |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
and the mayans foresaw this hundreds of years ago? ;) |
i was just defending peak oil. not the mayans
btw, you are going to hate me but i saw Zeitgeist recently and loved it :p |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by tathi
btw, you are going to hate me but i saw Zeitgeist recently and loved it :p |
wow. you have no idea how disappointed in you i am :( :( :( |
|
|
| tathi |
| BUT, i watched it with a grain of salt, i really liked the bits where they compare christianity with pagan religions, i have done alot of research and that rings true. i think if the documentary makes people a little more critical of the social constructs around us thats a great thing, but to believe in it as religiously as everyone else believes in the norm in the exact same way is just as bad. When you couple Zeitgeist with far superior docos like The Corporation (have you seen it?) i think you can come to your own conclusions and find the middle ground between the two |
|
|
| batemanscott |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
no.
which conspiracies have strong evidence to support them? |
More of a general comment mang, my point is that pretty much eevrything you posted can be put the other way regarding people who argue so trongly that no conspiracy exists.
1 arrogance- They are always fact-knowers, there are no questions that should be asked, 'conspiracy theorists' are crazy, paranoid and/or naive.
2 relentlessness - they always go on and on denying any such conspiracy could exist.
3 inability to answer questions - For people who loudly advertise their determination to there being no conspiracy they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from 'conspricay theorists' about the claims that they make.
4 Fondness for certain stock phrases - cant say i have ever heard anything like any of this.
5 Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor - see above
6 Inability to tell good evidence from bad - Conspriracy denialists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to deny it and demand that the questions it raises has been answered or there is no question at all.
7 Inability to withdraw - pretty sure this is human nature when you truly believe in what you feel to be the truth. Both side of any argument are guilty of this.
8 Leaping to conclusions - Conspiracy denialists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally true without having remotely enough cause so to do irrespective of many inconsistencies in the account of an event, unanswered questions, problems in timing
9 Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims: if it has happened before what is to say it will not happen again, oh thats right - this is not possible.
10 It's always a conspiracy: there is clearly no such thing as a conspiracy. we are always informed of the truth 100% of the time and in it's entirety. Nobody has ever or will ever gain from any major even that is worth denying.
see what i mean?
Im not saying either side is right or wrong, just that the rubbish you just posted can apply to the extremist side of either argument. ;) |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by batemanscott
Im not saying either side is right or wrong, just that the rubbish you just posted can apply to the extremist side of either argument. ;) |
well, scotty too hotty can cut and paste his own ideas over the top of what i posted, but that's not the same thing as behaving in the same way as conspiracy theorists.
so i must respectfully disagree - the wider scientific/historical/academic etc community do not behave the same way as the conspiracy theorist. i see the difference everyday in the political forums on TA or the JREF forums
the difference is quite stark. |
|
|
| EgosXII |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fledz
Yes, a degree makes you a scientist. I'm not saying people's points aren't valid, I'd just like to know how many actual proper scientists are here as people are making it seem like everyone is a proper scientist here. |
pretty sure that was one of my main points. that people who aren't scientists shouldn't talk about science, since they know nothing about it...
fact was that it's a very knowledge-based field, and yet you get 90% of people in the west who would say they believe in science... |
|
|
|
|
