4 ms·

> If you were to attempt to compile a substantial list of their beliefs and their correctness that is consistent with measurable reality, I propose that you wou

> If you were to attempt to compile a substantial list of their beliefs and their correctness that is consistent with measurable reality, I propose that you would immediately notice a problem - a severe lack of specific content. Why don't you list them for us then and give us your opinion on whether something is Provably True, Not provable but probably true, not provable but probably false, and provably false. Let's say top 5 beliefs to keep it simple.

mistermann 6y ago
> Why don't you list them for us then and give us your opinion on whether something is Provably True, Not provable but probably true, not provable but probably false, and provably false. Here's why: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy) When two parties are in a discussion and one [makes a claim] [that the other disputes], [the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim] especially when it challenges a perceived status quo. This is also stated in Hitchens's razor, which declares that "what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence." The claim in question: "...most conspiracy theorists are genuinely suffering from a degree of paranoia and extreme distrust. They believe that others are lying to them, and affirmation of that belief is appealing. But they're still terribly incorrect." The context: >> If you want to claim that there's isn't a firm consensus around Qanon supporters about the exact definitions of this conspiracy theory, I'm still going to go ahead and say anyone in this vague ballpark is missing a few marbles. Qualifying that Conspiracy Theory != False is not a valid argument to deny that this theory, and many others, are obviously false. Debating the semantics of what a theory is or isn't to each subjective viewer is tiring and false and not a real debate. >> I say missing a few marbles, and that's rude, because most conspiracy theorists are genuinely suffering from a degree of paranoia and extreme distrust. They believe that others are lying to them, and affirmation of that belief is appealing. But they're still terribly incorrect. So my questions to you are: 1. How is it that you know(!) the mental state and epistemic quality of the beliefs held by not only one person, but most conspiracy theorists? (Note: you are the one who made the claim, my inability to disprove it does not constitute a proof of your assertion.) 2. Are you averse to touching upon the abstract idea I have mentioned many times: What is actually true? These conversations are always rather ironic: right-thinking critical thinkers can regularly be observed opining at length about the intellectual inferiority of their out-groups, how they believe things without the need for evidence, how they refuse to listen to logic, how their beliefs do not stand up to scrutiny, and so forth and so on. All of this is very often true, and perfectly reasonable criticism. But what people seem to not realize is that this behavior is not derived from <out-group membership>, but rather from a more universal place: the human mind. Challenge any individual's axioms (a self-evident truth that requires no proof), and they will exhibit the very same behavior, if perhaps with more sophistication and a better vocabulary. If anyone was actually curious why <group x> believes what they do, or was truly concerned about the alleged "danger" they and their ideas impose upon society, you'd think they might perhaps have a little genuine curiosity about what is actually going on. However, as can be seen in this thread, there is not only no interest, but extreme aversion to touching the topic in a serious, non-rhetorical way. Something to maybe keep in mind for the next time you find yourself criticizing those who you do not actually know much about.
- klmadfejno 6y ago
  You are claiming that because something cannot be proven false, it cannot be assumed false. That's fine, but just because something can't be proven false, one doesn't need to assume it has merit beyond a random statement. My statement about mental health of conspiracy theorists is based on a journalist who interviewed dozens of conspiracy theorists and found that almost all of them had suffered an incident where they were betrayed in their personal lives and believed that most people were lying about them. I found that compelling. He wasn't god though. Maybe he was wrong.
  - mistermann 6y ago
    > You are claiming that because something cannot be proven false, it cannot be assumed false. Not quite - it can easily be assumed false - I offer this thread as evidence. And I am certainly not making that claim - it is being inferred that I am making that claim, but if you read the text I have written, you will find no sign of it. Isn't that interesting...what might be going on here? What I am complaining about is that everything that has had a "conspiracy theory" label attached to it, is asserted as being(!) False. > That's fine, but just because something can't be proven false, one doesn't need to assume it has merit beyond a random statement. No one here has done that. But plenty of people have done essentially the opposite: if something hasn't been proven True (regardless of any actual effort), then therefore it --is-- False. This is such comically flawed logic, it is near impossible to believe that it is being simultaneously followed by so many people who rely upon strict logic for their daily job. I would say that this paradox hints at the potency of the power that is in play. > My statement about mental health of conspiracy theorists is based on a journalist who interviewed dozens of conspiracy theorists and found that almost all of them had suffered an incident where they were betrayed in their personal lives and believed that most people were lying about them. I found that compelling. He wasn't god though. Maybe he was wrong. Maybe his report didn't quite line up with reality. Are journalists ever wrong? Do stories ever appear in the newspaper that are "a little" sensationalized? What matters, is what is true. Or, at least, that's what should matter, and what used to matter. But it seems like a new post-truth culture is developing, and that culture can be found in very high concentrations right here on HN.

mistermann 6y ago

> Why don't you list them for us then and give us your opinion on whether something is Provably True, Not provable but probably true, not provable but probably false, and provably false. Here's why: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy) When two parties are in a discussion and one [makes a claim] [that the other disputes], [the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim] especially when it challenges a perceived status quo. This is also stated in Hitchens's razor, which declares that "what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence." The claim in question: "...most conspiracy theorists are genuinely suffering from a degree of paranoia and extreme distrust. They believe that others are lying to them, and affirmation of that belief is appealing. But they're still terribly incorrect." The context: >> If you want to claim that there's isn't a firm consensus around Qanon supporters about the exact definitions of this conspiracy theory, I'm still going to go ahead and say anyone in this vague ballpark is missing a few marbles. Qualifying that Conspiracy Theory != False is not a valid argument to deny that this theory, and many others, are obviously false. Debating the semantics of what a theory is or isn't to each subjective viewer is tiring and false and not a real debate. >> I say missing a few marbles, and that's rude, because most conspiracy theorists are genuinely suffering from a degree of paranoia and extreme distrust. They believe that others are lying to them, and affirmation of that belief is appealing. But they're still terribly incorrect. So my questions to you are: 1. How is it that you know(!) the mental state and epistemic quality of the beliefs held by not only one person, but most conspiracy theorists? (Note: you are the one who made the claim, my inability to disprove it does not constitute a proof of your assertion.) 2. Are you averse to touching upon the abstract idea I have mentioned many times: What is actually true? These conversations are always rather ironic: right-thinking critical thinkers can regularly be observed opining at length about the intellectual inferiority of their out-groups, how they believe things without the need for evidence, how they refuse to listen to logic, how their beliefs do not stand up to scrutiny, and so forth and so on. All of this is very often true, and perfectly reasonable criticism. But what people seem to not realize is that this behavior is not derived from <out-group membership>, but rather from a more universal place: the human mind. Challenge any individual's axioms (a self-evident truth that requires no proof), and they will exhibit the very same behavior, if perhaps with more sophistication and a better vocabulary. If anyone was actually curious why <group x> believes what they do, or was truly concerned about the alleged "danger" they and their ideas impose upon society, you'd think they might perhaps have a little genuine curiosity about what is actually going on. However, as can be seen in this thread, there is not only no interest, but extreme aversion to touching the topic in a serious, non-rhetorical way. Something to maybe keep in mind for the next time you find yourself criticizing those who you do not actually know much about.

klmadfejno 6y ago
You are claiming that because something cannot be proven false, it cannot be assumed false. That's fine, but just because something can't be proven false, one doesn't need to assume it has merit beyond a random statement. My statement about mental health of conspiracy theorists is based on a journalist who interviewed dozens of conspiracy theorists and found that almost all of them had suffered an incident where they were betrayed in their personal lives and believed that most people were lying about them. I found that compelling. He wasn't god though. Maybe he was wrong.
- mistermann 6y ago
  > You are claiming that because something cannot be proven false, it cannot be assumed false. Not quite - it can easily be assumed false - I offer this thread as evidence. And I am certainly not making that claim - it is being inferred that I am making that claim, but if you read the text I have written, you will find no sign of it. Isn't that interesting...what might be going on here? What I am complaining about is that everything that has had a "conspiracy theory" label attached to it, is asserted as being(!) False. > That's fine, but just because something can't be proven false, one doesn't need to assume it has merit beyond a random statement. No one here has done that. But plenty of people have done essentially the opposite: if something hasn't been proven True (regardless of any actual effort), then therefore it --is-- False. This is such comically flawed logic, it is near impossible to believe that it is being simultaneously followed by so many people who rely upon strict logic for their daily job. I would say that this paradox hints at the potency of the power that is in play. > My statement about mental health of conspiracy theorists is based on a journalist who interviewed dozens of conspiracy theorists and found that almost all of them had suffered an incident where they were betrayed in their personal lives and believed that most people were lying about them. I found that compelling. He wasn't god though. Maybe he was wrong. Maybe his report didn't quite line up with reality. Are journalists ever wrong? Do stories ever appear in the newspaper that are "a little" sensationalized? What matters, is what is true. Or, at least, that's what should matter, and what used to matter. But it seems like a new post-truth culture is developing, and that culture can be found in very high concentrations right here on HN.