It just means I am doing the job that the jounalists no longer do. That's all.
Sure, e.g. I started a thread on one here
As mentioned before have just finished a book titled "conspiracy". It's about the conspiracy to take down the site Gawker.
Mmmmm.
Where conspiracy believers (they don't deserve the appellation of theoreticians) tend to go wrong is that they usually have a penchant for going big, as it were. Most of the silly conspiracies are of the incredible type (in the true sense of the word), like fake moon landings or 9/11 inside job stuff, and require a slavish devotion to mere contrary alternatives to propagate themselves.
Whereas, in comparison, the average real conspiracy is generally quite a small affair, like the DNC's machinations behind the scenes to oust Bernie Sanders from two Presidential runs, despite huge support for him. Or even MK-Ultra. Or if we go back to 9/11, the real conspiracy there was that the Neo-Cons used that attack to launch an illegal war in Middle East under a mask of propaganda lies about WMD's. That was something that America Inc. had been wanting to do for many years. Although that, in itself, wasn't really a small affair and had devastating worldwide consequences, most of which America didn't see. But it certainly isn't on the scale of the "inside job" narrative that was being put about in the wake of the attacks.
The problem for the conspiracy believers is that actual conspiratorial events usually aren't that amazing. So they have to invent the larger and more alluring picture.
It's also a touch ironic that we are now at the religious stage in the "discussion". Like believers in a religion, conspiracy believers can't have the beliefs questioned. Because under even the slightest investigation they find that what they believe in falls apart like wet tissue paper, and what they believe in is done so simply because they want to believe it.
Why arent they moved to CT forum then , if they exist ?
Do the usual crew go poo pooing the conspiracy being talked about there also ? 🤔
Go ahead - Give an example , Start a thread and we can discuss them.
Threads will already exist in politics for conspiracies about defrauding elections or PPE contracts, or maybe in motoring regarding conspiracy to fake emission tests for a couple of examples if there is anything to be discussed about the topics.
"This is not to say that conspiracies don't happen, they do, on an almost daily basis, just rarely the type that are discussed or hinted at here"
Might be better than the circle hyperbole going on in here now. 😫
It's actually a fascinating area to study, figuring out the evolution chain for each individual part of an organism, what the "prior art" was, what the missing fossil record looks like (given most of what we have are vertebrates which are a relatively small % of organisms).
It's also (unsuccessfully scientifically) being used by creationists to put doubt on evolution (if that bit doesn't have a full chain, therefore God) and it sounds like it could be true (our friend above is completely sucked in by it).
Also funny to see them try and use maths to prove the existence of an all powerful being.
I was wondering when we started hearing about holes in evolution. So the basis of this thread is Conspiracy theorists are proud they are uninformed religious zealots or is the person purporting creationism trying to portray conspiracy theorists in a poor light?
So all CTs mentioned have so far found to have some kernel of truth, as discussed. All debunkers have been ' debunked ' as credible rationalists.
Hmmm. A little too much "I decree that everyone is wrong but me because I baselessly say so".
Have been here for years, (so far) I haven't come across any user CT that turned out to be true. During the pandemic is was chock-full of Covid conspiracies, (so far) none of those happened.
Likewise haven't seen any evidence that "populist" conspiracy theories like Sandy hook, moon landing hoax, chem-trails, 911, one-world-government, etc have any truth to them whatsoever.
This is not to say that conspiracies don't happen, they do, on an almost daily basis, just rarely the type that are discussed or hinted at here.
Sopping wet with irony, down to the username.
Want to do a pool on the next beliefs to come out. I'll go with the end times and q
Yep. We have reached the defending creationism and it's proponents on the basis of the high IQ and quality education afforded by religious institutions stage.
Which raises questions as to what qualifies as a conspiracy and as to which religion holds the universal truth. If I subscribe to a non abrahamic religion? One that opines that the universe is 14billion years old? Does that mean my religion is wrong?
The nonsense of relying on faith as a "proof" and a shield against needing to substantiate a position.
That kernel of truth at the heart of every story, that CTs are now allegory and we should be comforted by that kernel of truth that set off the theory. Yet whenever anyone tries to actually query what that kernel is? We are bullies, book burners and god forbid... Iconoclasts.
Funnily enough, we are at least at the stage of this conversation where more than one on the CT side of the aisle are agreeing that CTs are in the main, stories.
So is it a space to tell unsubstantiated stories and criticism free safe spaces that they want? Which is quite ironic given the "anti-woke" stance really.
Catch me up..is someone trying to say that the earth is 6000 years old?
The earth wasn't "created" 6,000 years ago, we knew this in the 18th century.
If you are religious and want to believe something like that, that's fine, but it's scientifically false. These people are charlatans who use their unrelated degrees (many of my friends have comp sci degrees) to bamboozle followers into thinking they are "science-y" and have legitimate scientific criticism of current theories, when they have anything but.
As mentioned the whole thing walks, talks and quacks like a scam, a conspiracy. A right wing creationist think-tank setting up a false scientific front to lend credibility to it's woo and manipulate people into believing that woo. There just an extra level of hypocrisy to it, because they are religious and "thou shalt not lie" and all that.
If you genuinely think that a respected computer science and math PHD doesn't have the tools to critically evaluate other domains of knowledge
The Discovery Institute is creationist outfit with a religious agenda masquerading as a authentic scientific centre. They are trying hard to get the science of evolution out of the classroom, or at the very least have their rebranded version of creationism taught alongside it. Even if it's members were all evolutionary biologists or in related fields (clue, they aren't), the information they are producing is considered pseudo-science by respected palaeontologists, anthropologists, biologists and wider scientific community.
It's very devious of them, very unchristian too when you think about it.
Who is "yee lot"?
This thread is a binfire though yeah. The original post is one of the most cringy things Ive ever read.
Can any of yee lot post anything without some little insult included??
Dont think so...
Anyhoo , how many miles 'off thread' has this been driven ...............................
"the insufferable requests for evidence"
Its great banter. Claiming something incredible and then getting all snotty when asked for evidence to back it up.
Its bog standard garden variety conspiraloon behaviour.
Yep. And used in a zealous defense of their religious beliefs. It’s almost as if they want their beliefs to have some special privilege, a bit pc if you ask me.
So asking someone to back up their claims is now "wokeness".
Fuckin hell. 🙄
Never inferred that math was pseudoscience. These individuals from the institute are engaging in pseudo-science by promoting creationism as a legit science. There's a definite amount of deception involved in it. This kind of crankery happens, there are historians out there who e.g. deny the Holocaust, scholars who believe the world is flat, engineers and architects who believe 9/11 was an inside job. They all use similar (red flag) techniques, use technical jargon and word salad to bamboozle lay-people, logical fallacies, questionable methods, dodgy analysis, you name it.
Because they are experts, certain people trust them. Whilst ignoring or dismissing the thousands of experts who state otherwise (with overwhelming evidence)
A computer science or maths degree doesn't automatically make someone an authority on evolution biology.
If you are on the fence about this stuff, you can check on the science forum. If you've already made up your mind there's nothing I, or any links I post or millions of scientists can say which will change your mind, in which case these posts are just for the benefit of other posters who might be reading this stuff
So no discussion, ascribe to wokeness and smugness that which you don't like. The question of what I'm doing here?
Is engaging in discussion, trying to understand the evidence behind what are often at 1st glance outlandish claims. To see if any truth does underpin what many hold as unshakeable tenets of belief.
Yet despite that? In all the time I have frequented and engaged in the CT forum? I've yet to find that evidence.
Now if I was to go along with an earlier comment made here. I should really be approaching CTs as a folklorist or social historian. Although if that were the mode in which CTrs wish to post? Then surely, creative writing is the best place for such theories unless/until someone is willing to discuss the evidence on which their hypothesis hinges?
Why are you here? What brings you to the CT forum other than "anti-wokeness"?
Edit
I forgot to address your comment on your experience of the internet before it got all commercial.
I can only frame that response within the context of your 1 year old username. Unless of course you've had previous handles here? List them and let's see if we've spoken before, my own boards handle has been on use since 2007. So I'm not sure if you feel that is pre? Or post commercialisation?
Their central ideas are extensively rebutted and refuted and shown to be pseudo-science in the videos I linked. They are lengthy, you may not want to watch them, but for anyone else interested I recommend them.
Indeed, however conspiracies can also be harmful and have real world effects. Qanon, Sandy Hook, medical conspiracies, climate science denial, etc.
And it can be argued that could extend to religious and conservative groups creating deceptive scientific bodies to push religious agendas.
Why would you assume that anyone is "punching down"?
Interesting that now rather than defend the veracity or robustness of CTs?
That is now a case of certain posters are punching down on a cohort of posters who are seeking to enjoy "harmless stories, in the spirit of fun and interest, that allow people to discover the hidden truths and power hierarchies of the world."
Either they are stories? Or are you alluding to them being allegories if a truth hidden? A special and secret knowledge that boards own group of potential Nobel laureates are determined to silence?
To use a little of your abductive and wholly unevidenced reasoning...
If suppressing a truth could win anyone on boards a Nobel? Imagine the kudos that would accrue to anyone within the CT community who could present the evidence to overturn that pervasive consensus? That creationism is true? That Mossad wired WTC to explode or that Sandyhook or a.n other school shooting is fake.
Surely the same incredulity you apply to what are "accepted" theories or consensus should also apply to those theories the mainstream deems incredulous? Or is your aim solely one of contrarianism?
Fixed "novel" to Nobel in 2nd paragraph.
If you read, I would suggest Gelentners essay:
It's Gelernter, and it's simply an unsourced book review of Meyer's pseudo-scientific book. The Claremont Review of Books is a right-wing think-tank (note the trend)
Interesting observations here of Gelernter's views from another computer scientist.
Also Gelernter leans towards climate change denial, doesn't like women working in jobs and all the usual red flags.
Berlinski.
David Berlinksi is an anti-evolution member of the Discovery Institute
Their ideas are supported by the math.
Pity they aren't supported by evolutionary biologists and anthropologists
The common denominator appears to be religion and the Discovery Institute
Put forward something as true, get shot down by groupthinkers and then later be proven correct.
Anyone, anywhere can claim anything as true. Putting forward a "Truth" requires it's being evidenced as so by evidence.
The issue with many in the CT forum, is that there is a belief that saying something makes it true.
Veracity is not a matter of trust or faith. It is a matter of evidence. Be it physical, testamentary or experimental. That evidence is subject to test, review and scrutiny.
Without evidence?
There's no theory, there is someone telling a story and rounding it off with "trust me bro".
Much like your continue stance that the scientific method depends upon abductive reasoning. Were the scientific method wholly reliant upon philosophical reasoning? You would have a point. It isn't though, the practical sciences are wholly dependant upon practical proofs and repeatability of experiments and their verification by others.
There is no greater joy in scientific circles than disproving an axiom. It's a quicker path to fame and scientific noteriett than nodding along because someone made a good argument.
Science isn't based upon good philosophical points. It's based upon repeatable and provable and verifiable points. Theories aren't absolutes, they are the very best understanding of the evidence available. New evidence? Can and has disproven widely held theories, across a range of fields from linguistics, to archaeology and into the physical sciences.
It's a fair point. The source of funding and the purpose of any endowment body should be considered in any balanced review of a study.
I once encountered a poster who seemed oblivious to the idea that the findings of FUNDED research could possibly be at odds with the associated scientists' personal opinions.
Think expert witnesses in a court case - the opinions of the prosecution's expert witnesses tend to sit, all nice and cosy, with the prosecution's contention.
Ditto, the defence.
Ya gotta independently sniff each case.
I missed most of yesterday's discussion seems it was a doozy.
I see Stephen Meyer has been trotted out as the anti-thesis to Darwin's theory of evolution on the basis that there are holes in Darwin's theory.
The primary issue here, is that rather than shape a theory to fit the evidence that Meyer et al, feels contradicts Darwin. That they focus on fitting the evidence to the scaffold of creationism/intelligent design and then try and promulgate it as science.
It's fundamentally unscientific to approach evidence with a conclusion already determined and that's precisely what the Discovery Institute and its affiliates do.
There is nothing at all wrong with poking holes in Darwin. Where the problem arises is in rather than developing a theory that addresses any flaw in Darwin with a proposition supported by rigourous research? That the "new" theory is deliberately fitted to a creationist scaffold. That's deliberately contriving their research to fit their ethos. It's dishonest and at odds with the scientific method.
You put his name into a Google search and then quoted from the first few search results.
Nope, unfortunately already heard about him (and his cohorts) before.
One of the sources I provided is themselves, an internal document. Outlining their own religious and anti-science agenda.
Probably the most entertaining debunk on the group is the scientist I linked previously, in his videos he dismantles their "science" and exposes the grift. Below are links to his expose's of the other Discovery Institute figureheads
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRxq1Vrf_Js - Casey Luskin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVQGQz-0Xeo - Michael Behe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFPHvvJWVAk - Gunter Bechley
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SixyZ7DkSjA - the first of several on James Tour, an utter crank
If anyone has time, I highly recommend any of those videos
As for the conspiracy angle, as mentioned this has all the unmistakeable hallmarks of a conspiracy, a conservative religious think-tank basically posing as a "scientific institute" with an agenda to attack evolution using pseudo-science and get it out of US schools.
Nearly a full house for reddit bingo.
Are you saying the parents need for comfort outweighs the health needs of the child, and the health system’s responsibility to provide the correct medical treatment?
Would you be comfortable with parents dictating to Doctors what treatment they feel is better for their sick kids? Do you not think there is a knowledge imbalance?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a46418388544fe9f8f6352b57fb2f921.svg)