Opinion Truth, science and a dash of religion

[Pappagallo]

I'd like to know if you can provide an example of something that was widely labelled a conspiracy theory and then turned out to be true.

Houston getting dropped for the Shanghai game because we didn’t have a No. 43 guernsey made up for him.

 

[tribey]

So it becomes a cyclical argument - science is ALWAYS right - until its not, and it's not when a consensus says its not...until it is. The frustration many free thinking individuals have is being told "you don't agree? you have a different point of view? You're skeptical? Shut-up, you're an idiot, the science is in, follow the science" (paraphrased). Similarly with conspiracy theories - they're always "crazy" until they're not. The label "conspiracy theory" has become a cudgel to bash those who are skeptical or hold a differing point of view and even possibly used to divert attention or muddy waters so that genuine conspiracies can be enacted with relative impunity.

Science not having all the answers on a given topic ≠ evidence for wacky alternative hypotheses

The most common one is the origin of the universe/intelligent life = ‘well then, god must’ve done it!’

 

[chiwigi]

No they don't..

Completely different thing but you guys always go back to that subject and its really boring.

Nah, what's boring is having to explain this to people on a daily basis because the keep getting conned by kooks and pseudoscience.

 

[tribey]

Nah, what's boring is having to explain this to people on a daily basis because the keep getting conned by kooks and pseudoscience.

The one that gets me is “science changes its mind all the time!”, as if that isn’t a crude summary of exactly what science is

More information and evidence comes to light, we update our knowledge.

 

[Tredz]

I'd like to know if you can provide an example of something that was widely labelled a conspiracy theory and then turned out to be true.

• The Phoebus Cartel (planned/programmed obsolescence)
• Project Sunshine (harvesting tissue from dead babies)
• MK-Ultra (US Government use of LSD for mind control experiments)
• Smoking causes cancer
• Woodrow Wilson stroke (First lady acted as president following Woodrow Wilson stroke)
• Ronald Reagan consulted astrologist while in white house

 

[Spadge]

* this thread has become a s**t read

Take your science and conspiracy theories to the nerds forum will you

 

[Tredz]

Science not having all the answers on a given topic ≠ evidence for wacky alternative hypotheses

The most common one is the origin of the universe/intelligent life = ‘well then, god must’ve done it!’

Agree - A lack of evidence does not equal evidence of absence. It also doesn't disprove that "God could have done it" which is what your "'wacky' alternative hypotheses" statement is attempting to imply. If not, then why not just use "alternative hypotheses"? By using the term 'wacky' you're simply attempting to use the term as a cudgel to suppress those with alternative views. It serves no other purpose.

 

[tribey]

fu** this thread has become a sh*t read

Take your science and conspiracy theories to the nerds forum will you

Exactly what someone from BigJock would say!

 

[tribey]

Agree - A lack of evidence does not equal evidence of absence. It also doesn't disprove that "God could have done it" which is what your "'wacky' alternative hypotheses" statement is attempting to imply. If not, then why not just use "alternative hypotheses"? By using the term 'wacky' you're simply attempting to use the term as a cudgel to suppress those with alternative views. It serves no other purpose.

Because they are wacky if there is zero evidence for the alternative, and serve no purpose other to forward this oh-so-modern social media-era lay groundswell for there being no ‘facts’ at all.

Believe what you want to believe! Lizard people. Bill Gates is the devil! You can’t prove otherwise!

It’s dark ages twaddle.

 

[backtozero]

Nah, what's boring is having to explain this to people on a daily basis because the keep getting conned by kooks and pseudoscience.

Keep up the legendary work.

 

[chiwigi]

Keep up the legendary work.

Literally my life's work.

So I shall.

 

[backtozero]

Literally my life's work.

So I shall.

What do you do?

 

[chiwigi]

What do you do?

Tell people how to think critically on the internet.

 

[backtozero]

Tell people how to think critically on the internet.

LOL

 

[Tibbs]

This thread should be renamed to "Posters - Shakes head"

I enter and ...

 

[Alberton Proud]

I'd like to know if you can provide an example of something that was widely labelled a conspiracy theory and then turned out to be true.

YES, was thinking the exact same thing when I read that post

 

[chiwigi]

• The Phoebus Cartel (planned/programmed obsolescence)
• Project Sunshine (harvesting tissue from dead babies)
• MK-Ultra (US Government use of LSD for mind control experiments)
• Smoking causes cancer
• Woodrow Wilson stroke (First lady acted as president following Woodrow Wilson stroke)
• Ronald Reagan consulted astrologist while in white house

None of these are 'Conspiracy Theories' (which applies to grand conspiracies). Nobody is claiming that regular conspiracies don't exist (or at least they shouldn't be).
The Conspiracy Theories people are ridiculing are those with the closed loop logic, basically because if you believe on you need to believe them all as they follow the same logic line.

Confirmation bias: People's willingness to accept explanations that fit what they already believe.

• Proportionality bias: The inclination to believe that big events must have big causes.
• Illusory pattern perception: The tendency to see causal relations where there may not be any.

When conspiracy theories are used as a coping mechanism they become an issue, particularly when they create major negative effects such as anti vaxxers.
Conspiracies that are patently untrue (such as the moon landing, chemtrails etc.) fall into these categories.

They fall down very quickly when queried (eg. the ridiculous number of people who would need to be involved and never say a word).

 

[VineValerian]

You guys!
This is too intellectual for Big Footy.
We are basic plebs, and jus' wanna talk 'bout goals 'n marks 'n bumps and maggots in lime green tops with whistles.

So tone it down - or me and my other flat earth true believers are gunna come for youse with pitchforks and flaming torches.

And, for the record, the moon landing was a hoax too. The nano-sized radio receivers we planted in Armstrong's and Aldrin's brains when we vaxxed 'em for whooping cough made them believe that they weren't in a mocked up warehouse in Des Moines, but in outer space.

Just so yas know!

 

[raman]

• The Phoebus Cartel (planned/programmed obsolescence)
• Project Sunshine (harvesting tissue from dead babies)
• MK-Ultra (US Government use of LSD for mind control experiments)
• Smoking causes cancer
• Woodrow Wilson stroke (First lady acted as president following Woodrow Wilson stroke)
• Ronald Reagan consulted astrologist while in white house

Chiwigi has already given the lengthy reply but what I’m interested in is this:

In any of these cases was there a heroic whistleblower or group thereof who were vilified as crackpots over a long period of time by the mainstream media (or social discourse) but later vindicated?

 

[jakey]

Agree - A lack of evidence does not equal evidence of absence. It also doesn't disprove that "God could have done it" which is what your "'wacky' alternative hypotheses" statement is attempting to imply. If not, then why not just use "alternative hypotheses"? By using the term 'wacky' you're simply attempting to use the term as a cudgel to suppress those with alternative views. It serves no other purpose.

A hypothesis is of no value until tested. How could anyone with a modicum of edumacation disagree with that?

 

[raman]

A hypothesis is of no value until tested.

And particularly of no value if it was designed to be untestable.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

Agree - A lack of evidence does not equal evidence of absence. It also doesn't disprove that "God could have done it" which is what your "'wacky' alternative hypotheses" statement is attempting to imply. If not, then why not just use "alternative hypotheses"? By using the term 'wacky' you're simply attempting to use the term as a cudgel to suppress those with alternative views. It serves no other purpose.

Its a "wacky alternative hypotheses" because there is no evidence that supports it. As there is no evidence as at all that supports it, then the hypothesis itself servers no purpose.

 

[Tredz]

A hypothesis is of no value until tested. How could anyone with a modicum of edumacation disagree with that?

Of course it has value. It becomes the starting point for further investigation of discovery.

And particularly of no value if it was designed to be untestable.

That which is 'untestable' today may be 'testable' tomorrow. There was no way to test for the Higgs Boson in the 1960's.

 

[raman]

That which is 'untestable' today may be 'testable' tomorrow. There was no way to test for the Higgs Boson in the 1960's.

Yes there was. It was testable (and more importantly falsifiable) mathematically before technology made it testable and falsifiable experimentally.

 

[NoddyHolder]

came here for the 'can't believe Crowie said...'

stayed for the 'learning things'