5 ms·

This is irresponsible journalism. >You can spot hallmarks of fake theories, such as internal contradictions in the “evidence” and contentions based on shaky as

This is irresponsible journalism. >You can spot hallmarks of fake theories, such as internal contradictions in the “evidence” and contentions based on shaky assumptions, psychologists say. Just look at the many legitimate sources of conflicting information regarding COVID. Hell, many of our medical practices are based on "shaky assumptions" and shoddy survey data, especially in psychology. Conspiracies happen, speculation is valid and arguably necessary for a healthy society. But this? This is just some kind of weird appeal to authority - recognizing the possibility of conspiracies and attempting to piece them together is not pathological and a society which believes it is it placing itself firmly under an unyielding authoritarian boot.

fzeroracer 6y ago
You started your account here by claiming that Twitter was engaging in a conspiracy to silence one political party over the others by fact checking Trump. It doesn't seem like to me you're engaging in good faith here at all and are in fact engaging in irresponsible posting.
colordrops 6y ago
In fact conspiracy by the ruling class has been the main mechanism of leveraging power since the dawn of civilization. One of their best conspiracies in modern times has been to convince the populace that those pointing them out are nuts.
- tempodox 6y ago
  “The best trick the devil ever pulled was to make people think he doesn't exist.” — The Usual Suspects
- krapp 6y ago
  > One of their best conspiracies in modern times has been to convince the populace that those pointing them out are nuts. Even if this is true, the fact remains that most conspiracy theories are nuts. No matter how many times conspiracy theorists shout "Snowden! Snowden!" at critics, that doesn't lend credibility by association to flat earth, anti-vaxxers, Pizzagate, etc.
  - colordrops 6y ago
    Not relevant. Most layman get science wrong. It doesn't mean science is bad.
    - krapp 6y ago
      It does mean that scientists who can't or won't differentiate between good and bad science are bad scientists. Conspiracy theorists who claim to merely be skeptical of the "status quo" but cannot or will not differentiate between a plausible conspiracy theory (say, Snowden or Epstein) and an implausble one (5g towers cause COVID) are bad skeptics.
      - im3w1l 6y ago
        There are lots of clicks to be gained nowadays from highlighting the very stupidest people you can find and poking fun at them. It's entertaining but it's dumbing down discourse when people are discussing positions that are essentially strawmen.
        krapp 6y ago
        >It's entertaining but it's dumbing down discourse when people are discussing positions that are essentially strawmen. One such strawman is one you'll find throughout this thread, that anyone skeptical of conspiracy theories is either an agent of the conspiracy, a useful idiot or a troll. That dumbs down discourse as well but no one seems to question it.
        im3w1l 6y ago
        I had to read your post many times and I'm still not entirely sure what you are saying. I think you may misunderstand what "strawman" is. It's a silly opinion you ascribe to the other side of a debate, so you can look good when you refute it.
        krapp 6y ago
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
troughway 6y ago
It’s a straw man against critical thinking. I don’t mind their example, global warming caused by people. What I do mind is them trying to dismiss conspiracy theorists because of it. I remember pre-Snowden everyone called you a headcase if you said NSA is monitoring everything and everyone. After Snowden, everyone mysteriously shut up about it.
- Avicebron 6y ago
  And then there was Epstein, even if the details were fuzzy...something nefarious was happening.
  - moj 6y ago
    And famously Martin Luther King Jr, even Hemingway. TL;DR: His friends were disturbed by his paranoia that the FBI was following him. But years later it turned out to be based on fact: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/02/opinion/02hotchner.html https://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/02/opinion/02hotchner.html
- ColanR 6y ago
  > a straw man against critical thinking I like your summary. It has seemed like calling something 'conspiracy theory' has been, for many people, a comfortable dismissal. It's so much easier to believe the conspiracy theorist "needs help" than to accept that the NSA is monitoring everyone.
Avicebron 6y ago
I agree that immediately diagnosing people's mental state if they are having questions about what they are being told seems way more dangerous than letting people explore new ideas. Maybe there are some truths that needs to be uncovered before the world can become better.
- uncomparable1 6y ago
  > 'Conspiracy theories are becoming more visible' One I wanted to share anecdotic (A: and B: texting); B: "The reason of every causality related to probability is 'action and reaction'." A: "'Not contentual' but reachable and alternative - Only in one direction. So it would became provable, that in the heart of each theory may be no veritable solution." B: "Even if combinations of the whole and something imaginary find together ?" Left me with a question... (-; x-Files for Computer (-:
austincheney 6y ago
Weak evidence is not the same as a shaky assumption, which is not evidence at all. > Conspiracies happen As do coincidences. This isn’t about conspiracies but about conspiracy theories. A provable conspiracy is two or more agents coming together, even without their awareness of alignment, to achieve a single specific secretive goal as qualified with evidence. Qualified evidence is any single or series of provable facts that directly links each participating agent to the secretive goal with intent. The most important part of that is proving intent. A conspiracy theory is a belief there should be a conspiracy but without the necessary qualified evidence. Coincidence - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coincidence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coincidence Conspiracy theory (nonsense) - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory Conspiracy - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy Intention - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention Given the terms I find it’s not at all far fetched to conclude there exists some common mental health defect that allows conspiracy theories to flourish amongst some people and not others.
- arminiusreturns 6y ago
  Like all those who spouted the evidence free Russia-gate conspiracy theory? Thats a lot of mental health defects. I'm obviously being hyperbolic but you should get the point. On a more serious note, it's important to remember the power of inductive logic in places where we lack evidence, such as in the conspiracy theory realm. Not everything has to be deductive, though of course it is preferred.
  - austincheney 6y ago
    > Thats a lot of mental health defects. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23329867 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23329867
- ColanR 6y ago
  Conspiracy theory often happens when coincidence becomes unbelievable. (I like the phrase someone else coined in this thread, 'coincidence theory', when we hold onto the coincidence explanation too long.) NSA spying was believed by many long before snowden, because the coincidences were piling up even though intent was not proven. I don't think it's fair to conclude there's a mental health defect in people more skeptical of the status quo (If we want to go that route, perhaps there is a similar mental health defect that allows belief in improbable coincidence to flourish among some people and not others?).

fzeroracer 6y ago

You started your account here by claiming that Twitter was engaging in a conspiracy to silence one political party over the others by fact checking Trump. It doesn't seem like to me you're engaging in good faith here at all and are in fact engaging in irresponsible posting.

colordrops 6y ago

In fact conspiracy by the ruling class has been the main mechanism of leveraging power since the dawn of civilization. One of their best conspiracies in modern times has been to convince the populace that those pointing them out are nuts.

tempodox 6y ago
“The best trick the devil ever pulled was to make people think he doesn't exist.” — The Usual Suspects
krapp 6y ago
> One of their best conspiracies in modern times has been to convince the populace that those pointing them out are nuts. Even if this is true, the fact remains that most conspiracy theories are nuts. No matter how many times conspiracy theorists shout "Snowden! Snowden!" at critics, that doesn't lend credibility by association to flat earth, anti-vaxxers, Pizzagate, etc.
- colordrops 6y ago
  Not relevant. Most layman get science wrong. It doesn't mean science is bad.
  - krapp 6y ago
    It does mean that scientists who can't or won't differentiate between good and bad science are bad scientists. Conspiracy theorists who claim to merely be skeptical of the "status quo" but cannot or will not differentiate between a plausible conspiracy theory (say, Snowden or Epstein) and an implausble one (5g towers cause COVID) are bad skeptics.
    - im3w1l 6y ago
      There are lots of clicks to be gained nowadays from highlighting the very stupidest people you can find and poking fun at them. It's entertaining but it's dumbing down discourse when people are discussing positions that are essentially strawmen.
      - krapp 6y ago
        >It's entertaining but it's dumbing down discourse when people are discussing positions that are essentially strawmen. One such strawman is one you'll find throughout this thread, that anyone skeptical of conspiracy theories is either an agent of the conspiracy, a useful idiot or a troll. That dumbs down discourse as well but no one seems to question it.
        im3w1l 6y ago
        I had to read your post many times and I'm still not entirely sure what you are saying. I think you may misunderstand what "strawman" is. It's a silly opinion you ascribe to the other side of a debate, so you can look good when you refute it.
        krapp 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

troughway 6y ago

It’s a straw man against critical thinking. I don’t mind their example, global warming caused by people. What I do mind is them trying to dismiss conspiracy theorists because of it. I remember pre-Snowden everyone called you a headcase if you said NSA is monitoring everything and everyone. After Snowden, everyone mysteriously shut up about it.

Avicebron 6y ago
And then there was Epstein, even if the details were fuzzy...something nefarious was happening.
- moj 6y ago
  And famously Martin Luther King Jr, even Hemingway. TL;DR: His friends were disturbed by his paranoia that the FBI was following him. But years later it turned out to be based on fact: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/02/opinion/02hotchner.html https://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/02/opinion/02hotchner.html
ColanR 6y ago
> a straw man against critical thinking I like your summary. It has seemed like calling something 'conspiracy theory' has been, for many people, a comfortable dismissal. It's so much easier to believe the conspiracy theorist "needs help" than to accept that the NSA is monitoring everyone.

Avicebron 6y ago

I agree that immediately diagnosing people's mental state if they are having questions about what they are being told seems way more dangerous than letting people explore new ideas. Maybe there are some truths that needs to be uncovered before the world can become better.

uncomparable1 6y ago
> 'Conspiracy theories are becoming more visible' One I wanted to share anecdotic (A: and B: texting); B: "The reason of every causality related to probability is 'action and reaction'." A: "'Not contentual' but reachable and alternative - Only in one direction. So it would became provable, that in the heart of each theory may be no veritable solution." B: "Even if combinations of the whole and something imaginary find together ?" Left me with a question... (-; x-Files for Computer (-:

austincheney 6y ago

Weak evidence is not the same as a shaky assumption, which is not evidence at all. > Conspiracies happen As do coincidences. This isn’t about conspiracies but about conspiracy theories. A provable conspiracy is two or more agents coming together, even without their awareness of alignment, to achieve a single specific secretive goal as qualified with evidence. Qualified evidence is any single or series of provable facts that directly links each participating agent to the secretive goal with intent. The most important part of that is proving intent. A conspiracy theory is a belief there should be a conspiracy but without the necessary qualified evidence. Coincidence - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coincidence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coincidence Conspiracy theory (nonsense) - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory Conspiracy - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy Intention - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention Given the terms I find it’s not at all far fetched to conclude there exists some common mental health defect that allows conspiracy theories to flourish amongst some people and not others.

arminiusreturns 6y ago
Like all those who spouted the evidence free Russia-gate conspiracy theory? Thats a lot of mental health defects. I'm obviously being hyperbolic but you should get the point. On a more serious note, it's important to remember the power of inductive logic in places where we lack evidence, such as in the conspiracy theory realm. Not everything has to be deductive, though of course it is preferred.
- austincheney 6y ago
  > Thats a lot of mental health defects. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23329867 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23329867
ColanR 6y ago
Conspiracy theory often happens when coincidence becomes unbelievable. (I like the phrase someone else coined in this thread, 'coincidence theory', when we hold onto the coincidence explanation too long.) NSA spying was believed by many long before snowden, because the coincidences were piling up even though intent was not proven. I don't think it's fair to conclude there's a mental health defect in people more skeptical of the status quo (If we want to go that route, perhaps there is a similar mental health defect that allows belief in improbable coincidence to flourish among some people and not others?).