Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
How to tell the difference between true and false conspiracy theories
Options
Comments
-
AhSureTisGrand wrote: »Does the word "skeptic" mean here that someone is sceptical of conspiracy theories or sceptical of what most accept as the true explanation?
The word Sceptic (skeptic in US English) would mean someone who questions accepted beliefs, facts or theories. They withold belief in any given situation in the absence of evidence. In my experience I've really only seen skeptics question ideas that are outside the status quo.
It's rather easy to call yourself a skeptic and wear it as a badge of honour without actually being a true skeptic. For example, you will rarely (if at all) see a skeptic differ on opinion or challenge another who claims to be a skeptic on any issue that outside the status quo. This group are more accurately called pseudoskeptics as they are not interested in the truth if it goes against their fixed positions.
Hope that helps.
0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
I guess Conspiracy Theories provide great “entertainment value” for some people. They connect the dots, sit around and high-five each other on what a great sinister plot they’ve uncovered which the dumb masses have swallowed whole.
Apparently, some people desperately want there to be an elaborate government conspiracy pulling strings, that if they can’t find anything sinister enough that’s plain for all to see, they’ll go one further and dream up something totally off-base, which not everyone is clued into (maybe because they think it’s ludicrous?).
It’s no secret that some people will twist whatever facts they have in front of them and make ‘em fit with what they already believe (creationists, anyone?). A bit like working backwards to find supporting evidence for a position you think, no wait, a position you just KNOW is true. Yet, when there’s no real supporting evidence to be found, they’ll make up ANYTHING in an attempt to uphold their belief.
What CT pushers like David Icke and Alex Jones benefit the most from, is all the attention they receive. They start a movement, and pretty soon they are sitting on what must be a very lucrative business where “spreading the word” becomes the MO while who knows what kinds of figures are being generated behind the scenes from ad revenue and donations. People donate to these causes not realising that all it’s really paying for is to give these delusional/paranoids a nice career as “informed speakers” and book sellers. The same goes for the Zeitgeist crowd.
I always wonder why the people (followers) who get caught up in this malarkey -- instead of spending so much time and effort “spreading the word”, posting blogs or links on their Facebook pages (even going so far as handing out flyers and trying to “enlighten” the rest of us mere mortals) -- why they don’t so something productive that would actually make a REAL difference to a human life. Such as getting involved in some local charity work; volunteer for the Samaritans or Childline or any of the many other organisations that actively help other human beings in the real world. Much better to do that than continue to indulge their egos in juvenile fantasies about secret societies and lizard people, no?0 -
Waking-Dreams wrote: »I guess Conspiracy Theories provide great “entertainment value” for some people. They connect the dots, sit around and high-five each other on what a great sinister plot they’ve uncovered which the dumb masses have swallowed whole.
Apparently, some people desperately want there to be an elaborate government conspiracy pulling strings, that if they can’t find anything sinister enough that’s plain for all to see, they’ll go one further and dream up something totally off-base, which not everyone is clued into (maybe because they think it’s ludicrous?).
It’s no secret that some people will twist whatever facts they have in front of them and make ‘em fit with what they already believe (creationists, anyone?). A bit like working backwards to find supporting evidence for a position you think, no wait, a position you just KNOW is true. Yet, when there’s no real supporting evidence to be found, they’ll make up ANYTHING in an attempt to uphold their belief.
What CT pushers like David Icke and Alex Jones benefit the most from, is all the attention they receive. They start a movement, and pretty soon they are sitting on what must be a very lucrative business where “spreading the word” becomes the MO while who knows what kinds of figures are being generated behind the scenes from ad revenue and donations. People donate to these causes not realising that all it’s really paying for is to give these delusional/paranoids a nice career as “informed speakers” and book sellers. The same goes for the Zeitgeist crowd.
I always wonder why the people (followers) who get caught up in this malarkey -- instead of spending so much time and effort “spreading the word”, posting blogs or links on their Facebook pages (even going so far as handing out flyers and trying to “enlighten” the rest of us mere mortals) -- why they don’t so something productive that would actually make a REAL difference to a human life. Such as getting involved in some local charity work; volunteer for the Samaritans or Childline or any of the many other organisations that actively help other human beings in the real world. Much better to do that than continue to indulge their egos in juvenile fantasies about secret societies and lizard people, no?
Nice speech man. Regarding the highlighted bit though, there's plenty of people who desperately DONT want there to be an elaborate government conspiracy pulling strings. You're missing the wood for the trees.
Edit: I'm not a Zeitgeist fan or the rest you mentioned.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
I fail to see the point you're making or how it counters mine.
Well your whole point was based on how pathetic "CTers" are and how wonderful you and your scientific buddies are . You might as well put your cards on the table, you don't even try anymore to hide it.
Who swallows crap (metaphorically)? Gullible Idiots. Therefore you are saying "CTers" are idiots.CTer crowd have been swallowing his crap
Who didn't "swallow his crap"? Those who are superior. You imply that you didn't. Therefore you are superior (to "CTers").
Which guys? The idiots?those guys
:pac:Now a favourite source of evidence for CTers is patent records
Yeah these fictional "CTers" just can't get enough of onlinepatents.com, :rolleyes:. Where did you get that from? Another 3 people posted a patent in the history of this forum was it?
Ah now it makes sense. You were setting up the implication that this mystical group of "Cters" are lazy and dishonest. Got it.being both publicly available but also technical and confusing.
"They"... who?... 3 people again!..............A great example of this was during the scaremongering they were doing over the swine flu.
. Darn these "CTers" and their scaremongering.:mad:
Just checked and found the thread
>>> http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=61202406
A grand total of 1 "CTers" posted in it. :pac: Didn't you say it was a "great" example
And I'm getting bored but the rest of your post is antagonistic, patronising shyte. It's no wonder so many people get banned from dealing with you.
But not here? Except of course the "3's a crowd" crowd.The CTer I refer to includes the wider community out there on the internet.
How are you so familiar with what the rest of the world is thinking and for example that these "CTers" "favourite source" is the "patent". ? Bizarre stuffOf the few conspiracy theorist posters from here you've quoted you've quoted ones that support Andrew Wakefield.
Yeah I know, that was the point. The "few" were the only 3. It's interesting that you tar all"the wider community out there on the internet." with the same brush on the basis of 5 comments from 3 different people because that is exactly what that snake Shermer does. with his "Some people who who think there was a second JFK shooter also deny the holocaust. Therefore the 2nd shooter theorists are anti-semites" nonsense.
What sides are you talking about? This is supposed to be a discussion not a battle.So what does it matter how many times one side actually mentioned his name? How does this counter my point?
Of course it the frequency matters if you are presenting something as the norm. I've shown he has been mentioned by 3 "Cters" in 3 years. That is not the norm. Your generalisation is without any substance.0 -
-
Unfortunately your rant doesn't hold much water BB.
You know as well as I do there's many conspiracy theorists here who both believe that Andrew Wakefield's conclusion is valid even if they don't mention his name. Yeah they have so much respect for him it is blasphemous to mention his name. It's W_kefield or a stoning from these lads.
Serioulsy King Mob listen to yourself. I've shown you that he was mentioned by "CTers" A TOTAL OF 5 times. The forum is 6 years old. That's less than once a year FFS.
And what of it........?
You can't just blanket prejoratively label everyone who disagrees with you. It's ignorant. You'd call me a "CTer" for thinking the US will invade Pakistan, I'd refute that. Now I don't trust Wakefield, three others do apparently (THREE OTHERS WHO I HAVE NEVER MET IN MY LIFE; DON*T KNOW THEIR REAL NAMES OR ANYTHING ABOUT THEM i.e. THEY HAVE ZERO CONNECTION TO ME) yet according to you for example someone who thinks the US will invade Pakistan is in exactly the same (CTer) bracket as someone who thinks that vaccines can cause autism in children (and thinks that the queen is a lizard, and the holocaust never happened and so on).
That is ****ing ridiculous to be frank, and completely dishonest.But lets take a well known conspiracy theorist who often writes on health matters.
So here's Mike Adams of Natural News writing a glowing piece about Wakefield:
http://www.naturalnews.com/028109_Andrew_Wakefield_Jenny_McCarthy.html
And here's an article on his site reproducing the same claim about the patent for the swine flu vaccine:
http://www.naturalnews.com/026735_health_vaccination_CODEX.html
Never heard of Mike Adams. He's not even on Wiki so he can't be that famous-
Nope.Now BB do you think that Andrew Wakefield is trustworthy?
Of course I can't. Not to your satisfaction at least. Think about it, by your logic a conspiracy theorist is no longer a conspiracy theorist if they think like you in your ivory tower so it's an impossible request.Can you point to a single instance to a conspiracy theorist here dismissing his claims based on the same logic they use to dismiss the claims of Big Pharma?0 -
Hilariously factious.Brown Bomber wrote: » Yeah they have so much respect for him it is blasphemous to mention his name. It's W_kefield or a stoning from these lads.
I love how you're bitching to me about my "dishonesty" and are now playing dumb.
Now aside form the fact that he's the source of the vaccine-autism link which plenty of CTers here clearly believe, his work as well as sites that actively support him are frequently posted.Brown Bomber wrote: »Serioulsy King Mob listen to yourself. I've shown you that he was mentioned by "CTers" A TOTAL OF 5 times. The forum is 6 years old. That's less than once a year FFS.
And what of it........?
Now honest question, if there was a poll here of the people who believe in conspiracies theories about whether Andrew Wakefield was right or not, which way do you think the poll would go?
But I didn't blanket all people who hold different opinions to me.Brown Bomber wrote: »You can't just blanket prejoratively label everyone who disagrees with you. It's ignorant. You'd call me a "CTer" for thinking the US will invade Pakistan, I'd refute that. Now I don't trust Wakefield, three others do apparently (THREE OTHERS WHO I HAVE NEVER MET IN MY LIFE; DON*T KNOW THEIR REAL NAMES OR ANYTHING ABOUT THEM i.e. THEY HAVE ZERO CONNECTION TO ME) yet according to you for example someone who thinks the US will invade Pakistan is in exactly the same (CTer) bracket as someone who thinks that vaccines can cause autism in children (and thinks that the queen is a lizard, and the holocaust never happened and so on).
That is ****ing ridiculous to be frank, and completely dishonest.
I understand that conspiracy theorists believe different often conflicting things to each other.
However we both understand that you and others can be grouped together into certain groups, as you evidenced by identifying conspiracy theorists in your first post.
Now when I referred to what the CTer crowd say I was clearly referring to a common opinion held and put forward by members of that same identifiable group. Anyone who is not looking for something to bitch at me for can see that this doesn't every single last person in the group.
Now I've shown plenty examples of CTers holding the exact opinions I was referring to.
He writes the vast majority of the articles on Natural News and is often reposted here.Brown Bomber wrote: »Never heard of Mike Adams. He's not even on Wiki so he can't be that famous-
But since he doesn't count apparently, lets take David Icke.
We can see that in the previous link that the patent story comes from Icke and a quick search give plenty of articles supporting Wakefield.
And why is that?Brown Bomber wrote: »Nope.
Do you think it's consistent to trust him over Big Pharma?
Why do you think people do think he's trustworthy?
And while bitching about my generalisations and assumptions you're doing exactly what you're accusing me of doing.Brown Bomber wrote: »Of course I can't. Not to your satisfaction at least. Think about it, by your logic a conspiracy theorist is no longer a conspiracy theorist if they think like you in your ivory tower so it's an impossible request.
Even in your strawman the reason breaks down as I'm looking for a conspiracy theorist who uses the same logic he does to dismiss Big Pharma to dismiss Wakefield. So I am specifically not looking for someone who thinks like me in my ivory tower.
Depending how you answer the previous question I ask, you could possibly be the exact example you're looking for.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Waking-Dreams wrote: »FYI Brown Bomber, the populace of the boards.ie CT forum is hardly going to be an accurate representative example (I can think of 5 people I know who live and breath CT’s but don’t post on boards.ie, at least to my knowledge anyway).
I mean, there was absolutely no posts here of the aforementioned event in which Wakefield, Corr et al. spoke at last weekend. Can we therefore assume that from the lack of posts here in the CT forum there must have been no interest in the event and subsequently nobody turned up? I think you’d agree that would be a ludicrous assessment, but that’s exactly what you’ve tried to imply here regarding the visible lack of support for Wakefield from the CT community.
It sounds like your frustration lies in being tarnished with a brush that gets applied to other people. This is understandable but unfortunately it’s a game of evasion that can go on forever. When someone makes a generalisation about Conspiracy Theorists and what many of them share in common (a tendency towards pattern-seeking, cognitive biases, etc.) a lot of individuals will take offense and retort, “but that’s not me!”
However, this is a bit like asking people to rate their own driving ability. We all think we are above average drivers yet this is mathematically impossible. Obviously, there has to people who fall below average but will they tell us so? I doubt it. In general, people tend to think highly of themselves.
I appreciate that CTers will take extreme personal offense at being labelled as swallowers of crap but clearly, what with the mountain of pseudoscience stories, movements and public speaking events, SOMEBODY is paying a helluva lot of attention to it all. While many CTers will hold contrasting views and disagree with one another, the point still stands that many of them do share lots of the same beliefs (though not necessarily personal qualities).
But the problem in trying to point this out is that any CTer can always state, “that’s not my kind of Conspiracy Theory” in the same way that when you point out some of the contemptible edicts of the Catholic Church and the actions of some of its followers, many believers will say, “that’s not me or my kind of Catholicism”.
The sceptic can’t really win here when the goalposts are always on the move and the CTer refuses to be pinned down.
Toodles.
(Another reference to Wakefield:))Not sure what you're really trying to impart in this post, and i wont be getting involved in this, but it seems like you are also attempting to corral some people who post here into one enclosure, then to observe their "cognitive bias" as you put it and comment on their "tendency towards pattern-seeking". Doesn't sit well with them i'd say, to be psuedo-psycoanalysed in this condescending manner. 0
Advertisement