Philosophy bites podcast on conspiracy Theories

Reg'stoy

Interesting podcast from Philosophy Bites

For those who consider themselves CT'ers it's non judgmental(ish), rather it is a look at the mindset and reasons why an individual believes in Conspiracy Theories.
Considering this is the CT forum, I didn't deliberately go looking for this podcast. I had studied Philosophy and like to listen to Podcasts on the subject and this happened to be one of them.
The podcast is about 20mins long and should be of interest to all sides of the this forum. I will say that the interviewer and the interviewee talk in particular about the 9/11 CT but don't concentrate wholly on it.
I'd be interested to see if certain individuals on this forum view the Podcast as an good intellectual discussion on the subject or just another attempt to marginalise CT'ers

http://ec.libsyn.com/p/9/5/b/95b375ab76a173c8/Quassim_Cassam_on_Conspiracy_Theories.mp3?d13a76d516d9dec20c3d276ce028ed5089ab1ce3dae902ea1d06cb8e37d5cc5ef6b5&c_id=8965257

enno99

Reg'stoy wrote: »

Interesting podcast from Philosophy Bites

For those who consider themselves CT'ers it's non judgmental(ish), rather it is a look at the mindset and reasons why an individual believes in Conspiracy Theories.
Considering this is the CT forum, I didn't deliberately go looking for this podcast. I had studied Philosophy and like to listen to Podcasts on the subject and this happened to be one of them.
The podcast is about 20mins long and should be of interest to all sides of the this forum. I will say that the interviewer and the interviewee talk in particular about the 9/11 CT but don't concentrate wholly on it.
I'd be interested to see if certain individuals on this forum view the Podcast as an good intellectual discussion on the subject or just another attempt to marginalise CT'ers

http://ec.libsyn.com/p/9/5/b/95b375ab76a173c8/Quassim_Cassam_on_Conspiracy_Theories.mp3?d13a76d516d9dec20c3d276ce028ed5089ab1ce3dae902ea1d06cb8e37d5cc5ef6b5&c_id=8965257

I read an article somewhere it seemed like a transcript of this I will try find it

Anyway about 2min in he says 911 manifestly false but the evidence only seems to be there ?

Its either there or its not dont you think ? maybe hes not sure either ?

enno99

I think the same guy is getting funded by Cameron in 2016 to do a study to back up Camerons theory that CTres are potential terrorists

Reg'stoy

enno99 wrote: »

I think the same guy is getting funded by Cameron in 2016 to do a study to back up Camerons theory that CTres are potential terrorists

Would you have a link to your claim because he is been funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council to carry out a study.

I find it interesting that rather than comment on the podcast you attempt to discredit the person being interviewed in it; something which you accuse non CT'ers of doing all the time.

enno99

Reg'stoy wrote: »

Would you have a link to your claim because he is been funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council to carry out a study.

I find it interesting that rather than comment on the podcast you attempt to discredit the person being interviewed in it; something which you accuse non CT'ers of doing all the time.

Government run by Cameron

The Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) was established in April 2005 as successor to the Arts and Humanities Research Board and is a British Research Council; non-departmental public body that provides approximately £102 million from the government

Reg'stoy

enno99 wrote: »

Government run by Cameron

The Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) was established in April 2005 as successor to the Arts and Humanities Research Board and is a British Research Council; non-departmental public body that provides approximately £102 million from the government

I'm paraphrasing from the Podcast here "those when given irrefutable proof from a peer reviewed study, will simply state it was a government study and ignore it".

enno99

Reg'stoy wrote: »

I'm paraphrasing from the Podcast here "those when given irrefutable proof from a peer reviewed study, will simply state it was a government study and ignore it".

Irrefutable proof of what ?

enno99

Reg'stoy wrote: »

I
I'd be interested to see if certain individuals on this forum view the Podcast as an good intellectual discussion on the subject or just another attempt to marginalise CT'ers

Just another attempt to marginalise CT'ers I think

Joshua J

There's a skeptic forum for this.. You agree with this because it confirms your bias that all CT'ers think wrong which is what you accuse CT'ers of doing. Funny that. Second week in a row skeppies posting garbage looking for a rise.

Reg'stoy

enno99 wrote:

Irrefutable proof of what ?

Proof that some people are so close minded that even before a study had made a finding they will ignore it because they are so frightened it will show them to be the idiots they actually are.
At least those who debunk nonsense CT's do so based on the evidence or lack of it offered. They don't ignore genuine evidence or indeed PROPER studies because they will not like the outcome.
But I suppose having all of your craziness exposed to natural sunlight rather than the shadows of the idiot forums like Icke's and jone's, would be a pretty terrifying prospect.

Reg'stoy

Joshua J wrote:

There's a skeptic forum for this.. You agree with this because it confirms your bias that all CT'ers think wrong which is what you accuse CT'ers of doing. Funny that. Second week in a row skeppies posting garbage looking for a rise.

Apologies, I just happened to assume that this was a discussion forum where people put forward their opinions in the expectation that other posters would either agree or disagree or indeed enter into an adult discourse based on the post.
I would have assumed that someone would actually have listened to the Podcast before commenting.
So how exactly is it garbage, was he wrong in his accretion that some CT'ers become radicalised, look at the states and anti-government groups. But I suppose they are government plants in your tin foil hat wearing eyes.
What's wrong with some CT'ers is that they are so far down the rabbit hole when they realise that they were wrong, but rather than admit to being wrong and appear stupid, they prefer to be the village idiot because they think the village idiot God love him, is pityed rather than mocked.
I'll admit that I first started posting here in Ct because I genuinely thought that they can't be that f**king dumb, they're just saying that for comedic value. Then much like when I first ventured onto those scary forums of icke and jones and thought woah these fruitcakes actually believe they put cancer in vaccines to kill us all or what ever Jones and icke are attempting to sell them.
Horrible thing is, there are genuine people out there myself included who like to make up their own minds based on their own opinions and not feed at the trough of lunacy.
Do governments tell us the truth; no. Are they trying to kill us off; ffs who even thinks that and why. But the problem is that the loons prevent actual proper discourse on what is actually going on. One real CT I'd like to put forward is this; Governments and big Business actually prey on the bewildered CT'ers feeding them more and more outrageous unbelievable nonsense, knowing full well that they will swallow it hook line and sinker and so hide the truth from a genuinely curious public who fear the taint of idiocy that now attaches to any one who might question their actions. Well played Governments and Big Businesses, well played indeed.

Joshua J

You're here cause you hate CT'ers and your posts drip of it so don't give me any other bull or reasons for being here. This is a forum for the discussion of conspiracy theories which you have zero interest in only having a go at people you consider "idiots". I listened to five minutes. They mentioned a guy called Russo and how he believed people were out to get him as an example of a conspiracy theorist. Then they admit people WERE ACTUALLY OUT TO GET HIM. Skeppy dead brain at its best.

You're interest is conspiracy theorists so go to the skeptic forum or psychology forum if you wanna have a girly gossip about them and leave this forum for people to discuss CT's without having to deal with people like you.

Saipanne

So 'skeppy'... is that a derogatory term?

Overheal

This forum is as much open for theorists as skeptics to contribute to, and there is nothing inherently wrong with a meta-convo about theorists/skeptics. Less of the sweeping generalizations on both sides - Reg you opened this thread under the guise "non-judgemental(ish)" and then started going on about idiots and fruitcakes and f**cking dumb village idiots. Josh J rather than report posts that are substandard, you engaged them.

Lets bring the tone of this conversation back up please. Thanks for your attention.

Reg'stoy

Joshua J wrote: »

only having a go at people you consider "idiots". I listened to five minutes. They mentioned a guy called Russo and how he believed people were out to get him as an example of a conspiracy theorist. Then they admit people WERE ACTUALLY OUT TO GET HIM. Skeppy dead brain at its best.

The gentleman they mentioned was Jean Jacques Rousseau, his written work "The Social Contract" among others were considered 'political' and subversive. As mentioned in the Podcast, some people were indeed out to get him because of his theories on Government or state control. His correct and justified fear that people were out to get him, led him to believe that 'everyone' was out to get him. A perfect example of how someone has allowed a truth to expand beyond its boundaries.

Personally I believe someone who passes comment on something they haven't even bothered to view or read in its entirety, to be close minded and see the highlighted word above. In fairness you have proven one of the points made in the podcast about CT'ers being as I said, close minded and ignoring everything bar the 'truth' they believe.

I will read or view any post or video put forward by someone and wait to pass judgement. In another thread someone had posted a video and it had the david icke name on it, I still watched it, but alarm bells went off. I watched the entire video and researched the person mentioned in it, only to find out he had been jailed for making hoax calls. Based on this evidence I am I believe correct, in discounting the nonsense claims of a known hoax.

Am I wrong to doubt the structural integrity of a house built on sand?

Joshua J wrote: »

You're interest is conspiracy theorists so go to the skeptic forum or psychology forum if you wanna have a girly gossip about them and leave this forum for people to discuss CT's without having to deal with people like you.

I think there may be a wee hint in the title of the forum "theories". Theories are unproven and so up for debunking or not. It would be a very boring forum if every thread was a single post of a CT and everyone was to take it as Gospel.

My original post was made because I thought it would be of interest to some contributors, I knew some would not like it, because it would maybe shine a light on their beliefs. To pass comment on it without having even listened to it in its entirety, well shows you for what you are.

Someone who believes in idiotic theories is an.... nonsensical theories are..... I'm intrigued as to what you mean by girly gossip. Does this show your attitude to the female gender, are arguments won by the person with their fingers in the ears, shouting the loudest.

Overheal

Joshua J wrote: »

I think there may be a wee hint in the title of the forum "theories". Theories are unproven and so up for debunking or not. It would be a very boring forum if every thread was a single post of a CT and everyone was to take it as Gospel.

Actually I had wondered about pushing to rename the forum "Conspiracies" owing to the fact that Conspiracies start as theories and later can be proven or disproven, even if that is not always the case. An example would be CTs about wiretapping which turned out to be very true.

endacl

Saipanne wrote: »

So 'skeppy'... is that a derogatory term?

A skeppy is a sheeple with an opinion.

Saipanne

endacl wrote: »

A skeppy is a sheeple with an opinion.

Double derogatory!

Overheal

So lets not use that again.

Joshua J

Reg'stoy wrote: »

The gentleman they mentioned was Jean Jacques Rousseau, his written work "The Social Contract" among others were considered 'political' and subversive. As mentioned in the Podcast, some people were indeed out to get him because of his theories on Government or state control. His correct and justified fear that people were out to get him, led him to believe that 'everyone' was out to get him. A perfect example of how someone has allowed a truth to expand beyond its boundaries.

Personally I believe someone who passes comment on something they haven't even bothered to view or read in its entirety, to be close minded and see the highlighted word above. In fairness you have proven one of the points made in the podcast about CT'ers being as I said, close minded and ignoring everything bar the 'truth' they believe.

I will read or view any post or video put forward by someone and wait to pass judgement. In another thread someone had posted a video and it had the david icke name on it, I still watched it, but alarm bells went off. I watched the entire video and researched the person mentioned in it, only to find out he had been jailed for making hoax calls. Based on this evidence I am I believe correct, in discounting the nonsense claims of a known hoax.

Am I wrong to doubt the structural integrity of a house built on sand?



I think there may be a wee hint in the title of the forum "theories". Theories are unproven and so up for debunking or not. It would be a very boring forum if every thread was a single post of a CT and everyone was to take it as Gospel.

My original post was made because I thought it would be of interest to some contributors, I knew some would not like it, because it would maybe shine a light on their beliefs. To pass comment on it without having even listened to it in its entirety, well shows you for what you are.

Someone who believes in idiotic theories is an.... nonsensical theories are..... I'm intrigued as to what you mean by girly gossip. Does this show your attitude to the female gender, are arguments won by the person with their fingers in the ears, shouting the loudest.

You seem to be very interested in the motivations of CT'ers I bet you haven't for one minute considered your own motivations. You won't and I can guarantee it cause you won't like what you find just like allthe other dead brains. You have no opinion you didnt read from a book or a podcast and are a one dimensional thinker whose never had an origional thought in there lives and comes in here to act superior and as an ego boost. You don't even know what YOU are yet you try and look down on people who hold different views from yourself. I've never been able to abide bullies. Never.

So you can spout your bull all day cause I don't play your games.

Joshua J

Saipanne wrote: »

Double derogatory!

Sent you packing in the last thread so coming in for a little dig. On your bike.

Reg'stoy

Joshua J wrote:

You seem to be very interested in the motivations of CT'ers I bet you haven't for one minute considered your own motivations. You won't and I can guarantee it cause you won't like what you find just like allthe other dead brains. You have no opinion you didnt read from a book or a podcast and are a one dimensional thinker whose never had an origional thought in there lives and comes in here to act superior and as an ego boost. You don't even know what YOU are yet you try and look down on people who hold different views from yourself. I've never been able to abide bullies. Never.

I'm genuinely at a loss as to what you mean.

What do you mean by an original thought, if by using all available resources as in the Internet, books and God forbid podcasts that I am not giving an informed opinion, as opposed to someone who plucks a theory from the sky without any outside influences in that choice, then yes I will concede, that that is indeed an original thought.

As for bullying, questioning another's opinion is not bullying. If I were to state as a theory, that the premier league is a creation of say the NWO to quieten the great unwashed and you were to argue otherwise would you be bullying me. I could show studies that the IQ's of soccer fans is lower than say rugby fans and that the premier league is a deliberate ploy by government to dull the masses. Personally I do think soccer fans are slightly dim I went to Liverpool to see a Derby match and wow miss world contestants could out debate them, but I digress.

degrassinoel

Erm, what did you think about the podcast Reg? I've not had a chance to see it yet

Joshua J

Reg'stoy wrote: »

I'm genuinely at a loss as to what you mean.

What do you mean by an original thought, if by using all available resources as in the Internet, books and God forbid podcasts that I am not giving an informed opinion, as opposed to someone who plucks a theory from the sky without any outside influences in that choice, then yes I will concede, that that is indeed an original thought.

As for bullying, questioning another's opinion is not bullying. If I were to state as a theory, that the premier league is a creation of say the NWO to quieten the great unwashed and you were to argue otherwise would you be bullying me. I could show studies that the IQ's of soccer fans is lower than say rugby fans and that the premier league is a deliberate ploy by government to dull the masses. Personally I do think soccer fans are slightly dim I went to Liverpool to see a Derby match and wow miss world contestants could out debate them, but I digress.

Posting an inflammatory podcast and following it up calling the users of this forum "idiots" etc is bullying. I'm starting to believe you have some sort of social condition cause if someone IRL called me over and said "Yo idiot I wanna ask you something" I'm not gonna be all like "Why hello good fellow is there something I can help you with"?. No I'm gonna tell him to go f**k himself yet you think you can get away with it here?. Are you deficient in some way?. Were you an only child or too long on the tit?. What makes you think anyone has to dance to your tune the way you went about this thread?.

Like other dead brains I've dealt with before you have no, ZERO, idea what you are. Spend some time doing some self analysis and looking at your own flaws before you look at other peoples. But as I said I don't think you'll like what you see so you compensate by looking down on others. You're only fooling yourself.

Reg'stoy

degrassinoel wrote:

Erm, what did you think about the podcast Reg? I've not had a chance to see it yet

It's only 20mins long and an interesting insight into the mindset of someone who would advocate CT's. As I said not really judgemental just observations on the subject. I did find it interesting that they described them as close minded in that once an opinion is formed, even if new evidence might change their minds they discount it. One opinion offered that the very questioning of a CT would feed it rather than debunk it which seems to hold true here.

Saipanne

Joshua J wrote: »

Sent you packing in the last thread so coming in for a little dig. On your bike.

How childish!

degrassinoel

Reg'stoy wrote: »

It's only 20mins long and an interesting insight into the mindset of someone who would advocate CT's. As I said not really judgemental just observations on the subject. I did find it interesting that they described them as close minded in that once an opinion is formed, even if new evidence might change their minds they discount it. One opinion offered that the very questioning of a CT would feed it rather than debunk it which seems to hold true here.

I'll give it a shot this evening so ta

weisses

Reg'stoy wrote: »

Interesting podcast from Philosophy Bites

For those who consider themselves CT'ers it's non judgmental(ish), rather it is a look at the mindset and reasons why an individual believes in Conspiracy Theories.
Considering this is the CT forum, I didn't deliberately go looking for this podcast. I had studied Philosophy and like to listen to Podcasts on the subject and this happened to be one of them.
The podcast is about 20mins long and should be of interest to all sides of the this forum. I will say that the interviewer and the interviewee talk in particular about the 9/11 CT but don't concentrate wholly on it.
I'd be interested to see if certain individuals on this forum view the Podcast as an good intellectual discussion on the subject or just another attempt to marginalise CT'ers

http://ec.libsyn.com/p/9/5/b/95b375ab76a173c8/Quassim_Cassam_on_Conspiracy_Theories.mp3?d13a76d516d9dec20c3d276ce028ed5089ab1ce3dae902ea1d06cb8e37d5cc5ef6b5&c_id=8965257

I think its a load of waffle ... considering 9/11 they haven't got a f*ckin clue

All the signs of a conspiracy are there

Evidence of dodgy science as well (NIST)

etc .. etc ...

Overheal

Joshua J, do not post in this thread again.

Reg'stoy

weisses wrote:

I think its a load of waffle ... considering 9/11 they haven't got a f*ckin clue

Thanks for the reply Weisses. Just a thought on your post, did the very mention by them, that 9/11 was not a CT and considering the shear scope of those CT's warranting its very own forum, automatically discount in your mind any further listening.
I'm not going to get into another 9/11 circle but can I ask you a question. As mentioned in the podcast, when confronted with strong valid evidence that might debunk some of the CT's that you personally believe to be true, is that evidence automatically false because it comes from a government source/study.
As one poster mentioned earlier, the very person being interviewed was a government plant into studying CT's with the hinted purpose to expose all believers of CT's as possible terrorists. Straight away he discounted the podcast. He neglected to look at what the study was about or indeed what they meant by their claim. It is not that all CT'ers are potential terrorists but that those who were easily radicalised and turned toward terrorism were of a similar mindset as the person who believes in CT's. That mindset being fixated on their truth while ignoring perfectly valid counter evidence, been anti government or believing that their government was 'out to get them'. How nothing can change their path because having formed their opinion, anything attempting to deviate from that truth only increases their belief in the CT. Indeed any contrary evidence is proof positive of the CT, why are they attempting to change my mind; "because I am right".
I posted the podcast because I genuinely thought it might be interesting and that those of us on both sides of the divide might learn something. Sadly I've realised that they are right in one regard, opposition to any CT is considered an insult by some. That in real life opinions are fluid and ever changing based on new information or insight but for some their opinion once formed is set in concrete. To reply to some posters is therefore pointless as every reply is an insult to their very person rather than simply the CT.

Saipanne

Reg'stoy wrote: »

Thanks for the reply Weisses. Just a thought on your post, did the very mention by them, that 9/11 was not a CT and considering the shear scope of those CT's warranting its very own forum, automatically discount in your mind any further listening.
I'm not going to get into another 9/11 circle but can I ask you a question. As mentioned in the podcast, when confronted with strong valid evidence that might debunk some of the CT's that you personally believe to be true, is that evidence automatically false because it comes from a government source/study.
As one poster mentioned earlier, the very person being interviewed was a government plant into studying CT's with the hinted purpose to expose all believers of CT's as possible terrorists. Straight away he discounted the podcast. He neglected to look at what the study was about or indeed what they meant by their claim. It is not that all CT'ers are potential terrorists but that those who were easily radicalised and turned toward terrorism were of a similar mindset as the person who believes in CT's. That mindset being fixated on their truth while ignoring perfectly valid counter evidence, been anti government or believing that their government was 'out to get them'. How nothing can change their path because having formed their opinion, anything attempting to deviate from that truth only increases their belief in the CT. Indeed any contrary evidence is proof positive of the CT, why are they attempting to change my mind; "because I am right".
I posted the podcast because I genuinely thought it might be interesting and that those of us on both sides of the divide might learn something. Sadly I've realised that they are right in one regard, opposition to any CT is considered an insult by some. That in real life opinions are fluid and ever changing based on new information or insight but for some their opinion once formed is set in concrete. To reply to some posters is therefore pointless as every reply is an insult to their very person rather than simply the CT.

You're right, you'll never change their mind once set. That's not unique to CTers, I think. But perhaps close to its most potent here.