Urban Legend Why people believe conspiracy theories. Maybe.

[Pessimistic]

Bollocks yourself sanders, its not useful to go into individual conspiracies in this thread but theres plenty of hard evidence for both

 

[vealesy]

Bollocks. Neither is true in any meaningful sense.

**** knows where you get that info from

How do you know?

What proof do you have?

You understand what a theory is, don't you?

 

[Exe Gesis]

Guys, you're talking to a mentally-challenged person in Sanders, go easy.

 

[Sanders]

Guys, you're talking to a mentally-challenged person in Sanders, go easy.

I believe you are conspiring to deny my genius

 

[Exe Gesis]

I believe you are conspiring to deny my genius

But, no. Plain for all to see with the way you interact with others. Akin to a teenage girl lala'ing or shouting down opposition voices, when not getting her way.

 

[vealesy]

I believe you are conspiring to deny my genius

We don't need to hide to do that.

You do it all by yourself.

 

[stralia]

I would hold anyone who writes a book that's supposedly non fiction to the same standard.

That's just ridiculously tough standard (One thing wrong = it's all made up).

If any of the claims within said book are untrue why would you trust anything they say?

Wtf has trust got to do with it? If anyone believes anything on faith alone there are an idiot.

Do your own due diligence.

 

[betchsta]

C'mon guys we all know the media only tells the truth & it's not even remotely possible for a government to lie .

Just another way the doubters like to protect themselves by denying how evil society can be behind closed doors by believing everything the liberal media tells us when reality is they are just puppets who are told what to say.

The problem is Australia is such a great place to live with little unrest, Most of us are so sheltered by what we see & remain ignorant to the real truth of what happens outside of Australia.

The world is a messed up place, like it or not and the government will do things we think are incomprehensible.

 

[blackcat]

why people believe in conspiracies

1. confirmation bias (which is a product of point 2)
2. folks need to understand. and have answers. predisposed to believing. when this predisposition goes head to head with a disbelief of the State's explanation... bingo.

 

[stralia]

why people believe in conspiracies

1. confirmation bias (which is a product of point 2)
2. folks need to understand. and have answers. predisposed to believing. when this predisposition goes head to head with a disbelief of the State's explanation... bingo.

Why people believe what they're told by the government:

1. confirmation bias (which is a product of point 2)
2. folks need to understand, and have answers, predisposed to believing. when this predisposition goes head to head with a disbelief of the conspiracy-theorist's explanation... bingo.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

That's just ridiculously tough standard (One thing wrong = it's all made up).



Wtf has trust got to do with it? If anyone believes anything on faith alone there are an idiot.

Do your own due diligence.

Where not talking about a mistake this is a person whom is stating things as fact.

Now if the queen of England is not a lizard person cross breed Icke has clearly made it up it, not an error that was based in misunderstanding the information he was given.

You knew full well what I meant by the term trust its got nothing to do with faith, it is diligence is it of itself, once you confirm a source has made things up its discredited.....after all that is the basis for many conspiracy's theory's the government lies, gets caught so listen to anything they say?

Maybe your the sort of bloke who listens every time someone cry's wolf, me I'll ignore them once I find they are lying tough if they get eaten.

 

[blackcat]

Why people believe what they're told by the government:

1. confirmation bias (which is a product of point 2)
2. folks need to understand, and have answers, predisposed to believing. when this predisposition goes head to head with a disbelief of the conspiracy-theorist's explanation... bingo.

the most complimentary thing, actually, lets go with complementary thing i shall say with respect to this post, is jim henson would be proud

 

[MrCharisma]

A hypothesis is a statement whose truthfulness is not known, but which -- if it were true -- would explain some set of observations. The proof of that hypothesis would be some other observation (not the one being explained) which would would be seen if and only if that particular hypothesis were true, and not, say, some other hypothesis which also explains the first observations.

If you think this sounds a lot like the scientific method, you're right. The scientific method uses a carefully chosen experiment to test which of several hypotheses is the right one. The experiment tries to see by-products or effects that could only be caused by the hypothesis the scientists are testing.

But the problem comes when conspiracists want to test a hypothesis. You can't use the initial observation as proof of your hypothesis. This is a fallacy -- an example of erroneous thinking -- which logicians call a "circular argument". The notion of a circular argument can be best summed up in the following fanciful dialogue:

Sir Bedevere: Why are you trying to burn that woman?
Villagers: Because she is a witch!
Bedevere: How do you know she is a witch?
Villagers: Well, we wouldn't be trying to burn her if she weren't.

Let's say, for example, that I observed my car windshield was wet. I might hypothesize that it has recently rained. But how would I prove that? If I were like the villagers in the exchange above, I would consider it already proved: The wet windshield proves it rained. But the wet windshield was the observation I was trying to explain. To know whether or not it rained I would need to look for other signs of recent rain. For example, I could look at the sky and see if it's cloudy. Or I could see if the distant surroundings were also wet. Or I could ask somebody who may have witnessed the rain.

I have to do that because there are lots of other hypotheses. Perhaps some sort of moisture has leached out of the glass. Perhaps a nearby sprinkler doused the car. I have to find some way of choosing one hypothesis over the other. I can't just cite the wet windshield as evidence. I have to find evidence that doesn't have anything to do with the windshield itself, but has to do with the process I hypothesize.

With the circular argument I can put each of these hypotheses into a syllogism and say,

My windshield is wet, therefore it has rained.
My windshield is wet, therefore moisture has leached out of the glass.
My windshield is wet, therefore a sprinkler has sprayed my car.

All three of these seem reasonable, but they all can't be correct. I can be absurd and hypothesize that my windshield is wet because space aliens controlled by G. Gordon Liddy and Rosie O'Donnell are spying on me and put that moisture there to absorb my brainwave patterns. The resulting "proof" would be My windshield is wet, therefore G. Gordon Liddy and Rosie O'Donnell are spying on my brainwave patterns using alien technology.

It seems to me the crux of the argument coming from the conspiracy theorists is ; governments are not trustworthy , therefore conspiracies are true.


Anyone got any hard evidence for a specific conspiracy they consider to be true? I'd like to see that over mentioned flawed reasoning .

 

[vealesy]

It seems to me the crux of the argument coming from the conspiracy theorists is ; governments are not trustworthy , therefore conspiracies are true.


Anyone got any hard evidence for a specific conspiracy they consider to be true? I'd like to see that over mentioned flawed reasoning .

Those committing the conspiracy crimes are a lot smarter and better at hiding things than humanity is at exposing them.

If you want proof, go find it.

The truth is out there.

Stop being lazy.

 

[vealesy]

Where not talking about a mistake this is a person whom is stating things as fact.

Now if the queen of England is not a lizard person cross breed Icke has clearly made it up it, not an error that was based in misunderstanding the information he was given.

You knew full well what I meant by the term trust its got nothing to do with faith, it is diligence is it of itself, once you confirm a source has made things up its discredited.....after all that is the basis for many conspiracy's theory's the government lies, gets caught so listen to anything they say?

Maybe your the sort of bloke who listens every time someone cry's wolf, me I'll ignore them once I find they are lying tough if they get eaten.

He hasn't made anything up besides his theory that connects all the dots that he presents.

Your problem is you get stuck on the lizard dot and dismiss all other dots because of it.

If you choose to be ignorant, don't cry wolf to us when your next civil liberty is taken or another tax is introduced.

 

[MrCharisma]

Those committing the conspiracy crimes are a lot smarter and better at hiding things than humanity is at exposing them.

If you want proof, go find it.

The truth is out there.

Stop being lazy.

Proof for what?

And I hardly think asking for evidence is being lazy

 

[vealesy]

Proof for what?

And I hardly think asking for evidence is being lazy

Evidence. Proof.

All Law Society terms.

Funny that.

 

[MrCharisma]

Evidence. Proof.

All Law Society terms.

Funny that.

And what do you go by?

 

[Sydney Bloods]

He hasn't made anything up besides his theory that connects all the dots that he presents.

Your problem is you get stuck on the lizard dot and dismiss all other dots because of it.

If you choose to be ignorant, don't cry wolf to us when your next civil liberty is taken or another tax is introduced.

The nature of all governments is to acquire, expand and hold power.

Taxes will always increase, civil liberties will always be reduced and eventually all governments will fall as a result.

 

[stralia]

Where not talking about a mistake this is a person whom is stating things as fact.

Now if the queen of England is not a lizard person cross breed Icke has clearly made it up it, not an error that was based in misunderstanding the information he was given.

Like I said in an earlier post, I'm not here to defend Icke's work.

Plato believed in the Geocentric model of the Universe. Should I throw out my copy of The Republic because of it? According to your line in the sand (It's all the truth or it's all made up)- yes.

You knew full well what I meant by the term trust its got nothing to do with faith, it is diligence is it of itself, once you confirm a source has made things up its discredited.....after all that is the basis for many conspiracy's theory's the government lies, gets caught so listen to anything they say?

Can you clarify this for me.

Maybe your the sort of bloke who listens every time someone cry's wolf, me I'll ignore them once I find they are lying tough if they get eaten.

Yeah, nah. Hows about you don't start guessing about what sort of bloke I am.

 

[stralia]

It seems to me the crux of the argument coming from the conspiracy theorists is ; governments are not trustworthy , therefore conspiracies are true.


Anyone got any hard evidence for a specific conspiracy they consider to be true? I'd like to see that over mentioned flawed reasoning .

See post 42 ITT.

 

[stralia]

the most complimentary thing, actually, lets go with complementary thing i shall say with respect to this post, is jim henson would be proud

slowclap.gif

 

[DivideandMultiply]

It seems to me the crux of the argument coming from the conspiracy theorists is ; governments are not trustworthy , therefore conspiracies are true.


Anyone got any hard evidence for a specific conspiracy they consider to be true? I'd like to see that over mentioned flawed reasoning .

I gave a whole list. As a person with a strong scientific background, who often provides well reasoned arguments against many of the science or "conspiracy" related posts that I read, I would expect that someone should be able to individually debunk each of my examples rather than ignoring them, if they hold an opposing POV.

Or are you incapable of meeting the same standards you require of others.

Also, one may easily consider a given version of events to be untrue or potentially a so called "conspiracy", without being a conspiracy theorist.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Nearly all conspiracies conducted by governments and their agencies will never come to light. Anybody ever heard of a plot by Australia's black ops people to assassinate an Australian Deputy Prime Minister, during the 1970s?

Some have and some nearly have.

Human testing and abuse of children under state care. Plans for US chemical weapons tests on Australian soldiers (thankfully never eventuated).

But I agree, many won't despite nearly coming to light. For example how ASIS used to make up their budget shortfall (see "training" operation gone wrong) or organised pedophile rings operating within the Victorian police service (partly uncovered, then covered up).

I know of a certain WA elder, who claims to be in possession of recordings of detailed oral accounts and the confirmed locations of a number of mass graves, from previously unreported massacres of indigenous Australians in WA. Some might consider the man in question a formidable individual, but he has been cowed (perhaps wrongly) into not releasing the information to the public.

However, despite assurances as to the veracity of the mans claims, I fully admit it is important to maintain a state of suspended disbelief until such evidence is ever made available to the public.

 

[blackcat]

slowclap.gif

inferior to the golf clap.

and the clap at a thai brothel in bangkok or bangcock