4 ms·

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 d

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

> 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.