4 ms·

> every time (conspiracy) comes up I ponder on the means by which it might be true Wrong. [1] Try to falsify. "Conspiracy theories resist falsification and a

> every time (conspiracy) comes up I ponder on the means by which it might be true Wrong. [1] Try to falsify. "Conspiracy theories resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and an absence of evidence for it are re-interpreted as evidence of its truth, whereby the conspiracy becomes a matter of faith rather than something that can be proved or disproved." [0] [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

jacquesm 7y ago
That is exactly the key. They are plugged into the belief systems of the gullible. Religions also do this, and to some extent our past history of belief has set us up to avoid skeptical thinking at all costs.
- downshun 7y ago
  Also wrong. Religious belief is disjoint from scientific discovery. [2] [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_and_rationality https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_and_rationality
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    Wikipedia pages make for poor arguments. Also [2]?
    - downshun 7y ago
      What website hosts the best arguments? And since an argument is always hosted on some kind of computer (be it a webpage in a server or your brain), can you answer if a computer can explain itself? [42]
      - jacquesm 7y ago
        > What website hosts the best arguments? It is not an argument at all. It can be evidence to support an argument but it is not an argument by itself. > And since an argument is always hosted on some kind of computer (be it a webpage in a server or your brain), can you answer if a computer can explain itself? [42] I don't think that has any bearing on the subject at hand, nor does it make any sense when taken seriously.
        downshun 7y ago
        You claimed that > religions plug into the belief systems of the gullible And > our history set us up to avoid skeptical thinking at all costs If I understand correctly The second claim is paradoxical. For the first, I argue that religions are not an entity outside us (preying on "the gullible") but inside our minds as a running process to make sense of our experience (as active skepticism). Just a well as the scientific method. However metaphysics answers different questions than science. I'm no authority on if either can be definitive. ... with thought as computational process, my question can perhaps make a little more sense. And only meant for pondering on the topic.
fit2rule 7y ago
Sure there are scientific ways to go about things. But the idea that there is 'safe thought' and 'dangerous thought' is just plain batshit lunacy. A lot of amazing stuff we take for granted today started off with "hmm.. I wonder if <x> is possible somehow" .. Nobody is being paid to conjecture "what if there were a way to do it.." unless, they actually are.
- downshun 7y ago
  > But the idea that there is 'safe thought' and 'dangerous thought' is just plain batshit lunacy. No one said that... And it would be clearly false: It can be dangerous to be wrong, such as thinking that drinking concentrated bleach will somehow cure you from a disease. Or, you know, destroying infrastructure based on unsubstantiated fears.

jacquesm 7y ago

That is exactly the key. They are plugged into the belief systems of the gullible. Religions also do this, and to some extent our past history of belief has set us up to avoid skeptical thinking at all costs.

downshun 7y ago
Also wrong. Religious belief is disjoint from scientific discovery. [2] [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_and_rationality https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_and_rationality
- jacquesm 7y ago
  Wikipedia pages make for poor arguments. Also [2]?
  - downshun 7y ago
    What website hosts the best arguments? And since an argument is always hosted on some kind of computer (be it a webpage in a server or your brain), can you answer if a computer can explain itself? [42]
    - jacquesm 7y ago
      > What website hosts the best arguments? It is not an argument at all. It can be evidence to support an argument but it is not an argument by itself. > And since an argument is always hosted on some kind of computer (be it a webpage in a server or your brain), can you answer if a computer can explain itself? [42] I don't think that has any bearing on the subject at hand, nor does it make any sense when taken seriously.
      - downshun 7y ago
        You claimed that > religions plug into the belief systems of the gullible And > our history set us up to avoid skeptical thinking at all costs If I understand correctly The second claim is paradoxical. For the first, I argue that religions are not an entity outside us (preying on "the gullible") but inside our minds as a running process to make sense of our experience (as active skepticism). Just a well as the scientific method. However metaphysics answers different questions than science. I'm no authority on if either can be definitive. ... with thought as computational process, my question can perhaps make a little more sense. And only meant for pondering on the topic.

fit2rule 7y ago

Sure there are scientific ways to go about things. But the idea that there is 'safe thought' and 'dangerous thought' is just plain batshit lunacy. A lot of amazing stuff we take for granted today started off with "hmm.. I wonder if <x> is possible somehow" .. Nobody is being paid to conjecture "what if there were a way to do it.." unless, they actually are.

downshun 7y ago
> But the idea that there is 'safe thought' and 'dangerous thought' is just plain batshit lunacy. No one said that... And it would be clearly false: It can be dangerous to be wrong, such as thinking that drinking concentrated bleach will somehow cure you from a disease. Or, you know, destroying infrastructure based on unsubstantiated fears.