Defending theories

pretentiouslad

I've been reading some of the threads in this forum over the last few days out of procrastination, it's kind of interesting and entertaining... :rolleyes:

I'd like to point out that I have no real opinions on conpiracy theories, I read them, take them on board, and if they are absolutely ridiculous, i disregard them. I like to think that the only thing you can be sure of in life is that you will at some stage die, everything else can be manipulated. My actual interest here is on the posts, the way the arguments are put together, etc

what I'd like to get here in this thread, is a few opinions on a few things, mainly how when i was reading through posts I found it amusing and confusing when i began to see a few recurring themes...

1) people assuming things about posters (you probably got your information here...) everyone knows that assumption is a terrible way to attack someone's theory because the person will reply with "i never mentioned this, you brought this up, you're assuming that i've done something i didn't do"... (irony that i assumed everyone knew this and that i assumed what a general reply would entail) :rolleyes:

2) people not being able to handle legitimate criticism of their theories and responding with stuff like "you're just a conformist" or "the evidence is there, how can't you see it?" without actually explaining anything in a transparent way

3) before you make public a theory or idea surely you must test it in every way possible, if you expect it to stand on its own then you must try to disprove it yourself rather than prove it, if you try everything and still can't disprove your own theory then it looks like a solid theory... If you can pre-empt the criticisms then you're a lot closer to staking a conspiracy theory claim with genuine legitimacy

4) people relying on the cop out of "there is no real proof i can give you"... why post a theory without proof?

5) people bringing in their own hidden agendas into threads unrelated to said agenda... I saw a thread today where the OP tries to link Isreal to an attack on a South Korean submarine, the only link being that the weapon used was German in origin and that Isreal have German weapons... he also listed off the other countries with German weapons, but highlighted Isreal for some reason... (hidden agenda)... Now don't get me wrong, to be honest I'm not too fond of Isreal at all, free palestine and all that and I suppose this ties in with point 1, assuming that he had a hidden agenda, but what can ya do? :P

So, any opinions to share? this could be a very wide ranging thread hopefully!

bonkey

I suspect this is more suitable for the Feedback thread, but I'll leave it for now to see if it goes anywhere

bonkey

pretentiouslad wrote: »

4) people relying on the cop out of "there is no real proof i can give you"... why post a theory without proof?

Why not?

From any understanding of the term "theory" (from the strict scientific sense to any looser-defined common usage) I can think of, proof isn't needed.

If we want to use the term in a strict scientific sense, then we should also use "proof" in a strict sense...and accept that theories don't have proof. They have supporting evidence.

At the other end of the scale, a theory is just an idea....which (virtually by definition) doesn't require proof either.

I'd readily agree that people should have reason behind their theory (regardless of whether you, I, or anyone agrees with the reasoning) and it would be nice to have evidence (bearing in mind the wide variety of things that different people consider to be evidence) but proof is a step too far, surely?

constance tench

pretentiouslad wrote: »

I've been reading some of the threads in this forum over the last few days out of procrastination, it's kind of interesting and entertaining... :rolleyes:

I'd like to point out that I have no real opinions on conpiracy theories, I read them, take them on board, and if they are absolutely ridiculous, i disregard them. I like to think that the only thing you can be sure of in life is that you will at some stage die, everything else can be manipulated. My actual interest here is on the posts, the way the arguments are put together, etc

what I'd like to get here in this thread, is a few opinions on a few things, mainly how when i was reading through posts I found it amusing and confusing when i began to see a few recurring themes...

1) people assuming things about posters (you probably got your information here...) everyone knows that assumption is a terrible way to attack someone's theory because the person will reply with "i never mentioned this, you brought this up, you're assuming that i've done something i didn't do"... (irony that i assumed everyone knew this and that i assumed what a general reply would entail) :rolleyes:

2) people not being able to handle legitimate criticism of their theories and responding with stuff like "you're just a conformist" or "the evidence is there, how can't you see it?" without actually explaining anything in a transparent way

3) before you make public a theory or idea surely you must test it in every way possible, if you expect it to stand on its own then you must try to disprove it yourself rather than prove it, if you try everything and still can't disprove your own theory then it looks like a solid theory... If you can pre-empt the criticisms then you're a lot closer to staking a conspiracy theory claim with genuine legitimacy

4) people relying on the cop out of "there is no real proof i can give you"... why post a theory without proof?

5) people bringing in their own hidden agendas into threads unrelated to said agenda... I saw a thread today where the OP tries to link Isreal to an attack on a South Korean submarine, the only link being that the weapon used was German in origin and that Isreal have German weapons... he also listed off the other countries with German weapons, but highlighted Isreal for some reason... (hidden agenda)... Now don't get me wrong, to be honest I'm not too fond of Isreal at all, free palestine and all that and I suppose this ties in with point 1, assuming that he had a hidden agenda, but what can ya do? :P

So, any opinions to share? this could be a very wide ranging thread hopefully!

Thanks for your interesting post...Sometimes some will try to grasp Ideas from a physical perspective and find them alien...The theory of Forms are another dimension...although, I would agree there are a lot of 'trigger finger' Forms out there, and such Forms, unfortunately obscure the beauty and simplicity of the Form, this would apply to any theory (iMo)...rather like knowing about shadows as opposed to, trying to catch one...you know?:)

pretentiouslad

bonkey wrote: »

Why not?

From any understanding of the term "theory" (from the strict scientific sense to any looser-defined common usage) I can think of, proof isn't needed.

If we want to use the term in a strict scientific sense, then we should also use "proof" in a strict sense...and accept that theories don't have proof. They have supporting evidence.

At the other end of the scale, a theory is just an idea....which (virtually by definition) doesn't require proof either.

I'd readily agree that people should have reason behind their theory (regardless of whether you, I, or anyone agrees with the reasoning) and it would be nice to have evidence (bearing in mind the wide variety of things that different people consider to be evidence) but proof is a step too far, surely?

Yeah, sorry, proof was too strong a word, supporting evidence is a much better term!

pretentiouslad

constance tench wrote: »

Thanks for your interesting post...Sometimes some will try to grasp Ideas from a physical perspective and find them alien...The theory of Forms are another dimension...although, I would agree there are a lot of 'trigger finger' Forms out there, and such Forms, unfortunately obscure the beauty and simplicity of the Form, this would apply to any theory (iMo)...rather like knowing about shadows as opposed to, trying to catch one...you know?:)

To be honest I don't really understand what you're saying, my ignorance here, but could you try to dumb that down a bit? :rolleyes:

constance tench

pretentiouslad wrote: »

To be honest I don't really understand what you're saying, my ignorance here, but could you try to dumb that down a bit? :rolleyes:

The Theory of Forms typically refers to Plato's belief that the material world as it seems to us is not the real world, but only an image or copy of the real world.

Commonly called 'The Arts'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms

Brown Bomber

pretentiouslad wrote: »

I've been reading some of the threads in this forum over the last few days out of procrastination, it's kind of interesting and entertaining... :rolleyes:

I'd like to point out that I have no real opinions on conpiracy theories, I read them, take them on board, and if they are absolutely ridiculous, i disregard them. I like to think that the only thing you can be sure of in life is that you will at some stage die, everything else can be manipulated. My actual interest here is on the posts, the way the arguments are put together, etc

what I'd like to get here in this thread, is a few opinions on a few things, mainly how when i was reading through posts I found it amusing and confusing when i began to see a few recurring themes...

1) people assuming things about posters (you probably got your information here...) everyone knows that assumption is a terrible way to attack someone's theory because the person will reply with "i never mentioned this, you brought this up, you're assuming that i've done something i didn't do"... (irony that i assumed everyone knew this and that i assumed what a general reply would entail) :rolleyes:

2) people not being able to handle legitimate criticism of their theories and responding with stuff like "you're just a conformist" or "the evidence is there, how can't you see it?" without actually explaining anything in a transparent way

3) before you make public a theory or idea surely you must test it in every way possible, if you expect it to stand on its own then you must try to disprove it yourself rather than prove it, if you try everything and still can't disprove your own theory then it looks like a solid theory... If you can pre-empt the criticisms then you're a lot closer to staking a conspiracy theory claim with genuine legitimacy

4) people relying on the cop out of "there is no real proof i can give you"... why post a theory without proof?

5) people bringing in their own hidden agendas into threads unrelated to said agenda... I saw a thread today where the OP tries to link Isreal to an attack on a South Korean submarine, the only link being that the weapon used was German in origin and that Isreal have German weapons... he also listed off the other countries with German weapons, but highlighted Isreal for some reason... (hidden agenda)... Now don't get me wrong, to be honest I'm not too fond of Isreal at all, free palestine and all that and I suppose this ties in with point 1, assuming that he had a hidden agenda, but what can ya do? :P

So, any opinions to share? this could be a very wide ranging thread hopefully!

Hi. I'm the one with the hidden agenda but you have made your points civilly overall so I can live with that.

The point I want to make is that you and many others appear to think that this forum is purely about winning arguments and getting one over on someone who thinks differently.

I personally don¨t see it that way at all. Why can't you have a civil conversation with some with similar interests here?

That was a hypothethical question but there is an answer, if you make a point you can be damn sure that someone will barge in with a counter-point, which is then returned, and returned animosity levels raising all the time until it fizzles out.

It is a public board, such is the nature of the beast probably. Don't get me wrong - I'm all for Socratic debate, I mean yesterday I knew feck all about German Submarine exports, and now I know quite a bit because of this site. Maybe I am alone on this but I just wish people wouldn't take it so seriously, I'm no different tbh I get too emotional here too. Waffling big time here, but my main point is I am not trying to prove anything to anybody or change anyones opinion. Can I not discuss "what if?" scenarios with someone who also wants to explore the "what if" scenario without having to justify it?

pretentiouslad

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Hi. I'm the one with the hidden agenda but you have made your points civilly overall so I can live with that.

The point I want to make is that you and many others appear to think that this forum is purely about winning arguments and getting one over on someone who thinks differently.

I personally don¨t see it that way at all. Why can't you have a civil conversation with some with similar interests here?

That was a hypothethical question but there is an answer, if you make a point you can be damn sure that someone will barge in with a counter-point, which is then returned, and returned animosity levels raising all the time until it fizzles out.

It is a public board, such is the nature of the beast probably. Don't get me wrong - I'm all for Socratic debate, I mean yesterday I knew feck all about German Submarine exports, and now I know quite a bit because of this site. Maybe I am alone on this but I just wish people wouldn't take it so seriously, I'm no different tbh I get too emotional here too. Waffling big time here, but my main point is I am not trying to prove anything to anybody or change anyones opinion. Can I not discuss "what if?" scenarios with someone who also wants to explore the "what if" scenario without having to justify it?

Ah, your reply is kind of funny because it directly plays into number one on my original post... assuming things about posters... I don't see this forum as a place to win arguments, I see it as a place where a theory is put forward and then generally an argument follows

I'm not saying you can't have a civil conversation at all, in fact that's the whole point of boards.ie is it not?

I see it regularly here when people take things too seriously, it's usually entertaining to say the least... :rolleyes:

I think what happens a lot of the time is that a "what if" thread is treated like the OP believes fully that the contents of his/her post is/will be happening... Maybe if people clarify better that it's purely a speculative thing there wouldn't be such arguments! But, maybe some people just enjoy the arguments :P

To be honest though, I'm not really referring to "what if" threads, I'm referring to 2012 type threads where people can't handle legitimate criticisms of their proposed theories!

Thanks for the reply though!

Torakx

I am pretty sure that alot of peoples respones are formed based on the criticism given of their theories.
If i am to criticise someones theory and not want an arguement i might state how i can empathise or see it from their point of view and then go on to state why i feel this reason orthat reason migth not make it so clear.
This type of passive questioning i think works better than outright telling the poster that they are wrong.
But as BrownBomer says some of us enjoy speculation and what ifs.That was the bases for the Edward Norton thread i made a while back.You will see there probably the same process of interaction between nay sayers and people who are open to discussing the possiblities of what ifs and their likelyhood.
Im sure in alot of posts i was more defensive of that theory because of the way some people responded.We all have our ticks and for me i think one of them is blind ignorance or refusal to even look at the thing that scares you but still post your views based on the assumptions of memories and beliefs instead.
i think you do touch on a good point but it is more social studies than conspiracy theories.Im interested in both so this thread is kinda cool.
I certainly dont take too much offence from generalisations and stereo types as i dont see myself as anything in particular