6 ms·

From a scientific point of view, the problem is that there are no definition of what a "conspiracy theory" is. Some theories are scientifically proved wrong (e

by bsaul 6y ago

From a scientific point of view, the problem is that there are no definition of what a "conspiracy theory" is. Some theories are scientifically proved wrong (earth is flat), other are partially wrong (climate has always changed... yes but not that fast), and others are just far fetched ( hydroxychloroquin has been fought against by big pharmas to try and sell their own expensive drugs). And then there are theories or rumors that happened to be correct after all ( watergate, contras, etc). This is not a black or white thing.

m0llusk 6y ago
The conspiracy label is not necessarily interesting or relevant. More to the point is the quality and directness of evidence and potential useful reactions. For example, where novel coronavirus comes from does not change what it takes to avoid the virus. And if Antifa were to make a sustained effort to dominate rural lands then the same kind of efforts that might be used for defense of liberty against any other threat are still the first and best option. Attempting to understand exactly who is involved and what their motivations are is the least effective way of handling modern life. It makes more sense to be measured and balanced with all information and to make use of best practices based on what is most likely.
rualca 6y ago
> From a scientific point of view, the problem is that there are no definition of what a "conspiracy theory" is. But there is, isn't it? I mean, it's a theory regarding conspiracies. And colloquially, the theory is supported by no rational basis or evidence, or it's basis is so twisted and convoluted that its main premise isn't even falsifiable. > And then there are theories or rumors that happened to be correct after all ( watergate, contras, etc). You're confusing hypothesis with conspiracy theories. Hypothesis are open questions that are falsifiable and verifiable. Conspiracy theories are illogical leaps of faith supported by barely any rationality. There was evidence supporting the theory that Nixon was engaged in shady tactics to steal the election. There is absolutely no evidence that "the masked singer" was produced to condition the public to believe that wearing a mask was cool. > This is not a black or white thing. It pretty much is. At most, the shade of grey between the blackest of blacks and the whitest of whites is very thin. If someone is presenting baseless assertions as facts supporting a conspiracy that is supported or hinted by no rational basis whatsoever then where's the doubt?
- purplecats 6y ago
  your bias is leaking pretty heavily
  - rualca 6y ago
    > your bias is leaking pretty heavily Please explain what you personally interpreted as bias.
- bsaul 6y ago
  There are indeed theories about a secret organisation plotting to take over the world, and if we were rigourous that's the only time we should be talking about "conspiracy theory". This is clearly not what people are doing. The "protocol of the elder of zion" conspiracy theory is this kind of example, but there aren't a lot of them. However, even with this definition it is still not clear-cut. If you were to say in the cold war that some US secret services were financing authoritarian regimes in south america to fight communism (or islamic extremists in afghanistan), this could easily qualify as a conspiracy theory today. Until you get the evidence that it is true. At the moment, it looks to me like the only purpose of this label is to prevent people from trying to investigate into it. It's a concept that prevents you from thinking rather than helps you think better.
  - rualca 6y ago
    > There are indeed theories about a secret organisation plotting to take over the world, and if we were rigourous that's the only time we should be talking about "conspiracy theory". No, not really. There is a constant stream of idiotic and entirely baseless and outright irrational conspiracy theories popping up all the time, which is proportional to the amount of stupidity and ignorance in the universe. Take for example the ridiculous conspiracy theory of how "the masked singer" is a psyops project designed to manipulate people into accepting mask usage. No one in their right mind would be pushing that gem of idiocy. But here we are, with lunatics selling that off as true. > (...) It's a concept that prevents you from thinking rather than helps you think better. It really isn't, and you are not helping your case by trying to shamelessly misrepresent your point and move the goal post. The key aspect that you are trying to disregard and avoid is the fact that conspiracy theories share a common trait: misrepresent baseless assumptions and unfalsifiable assertions as unquestionable facts, no matter how silly or ridiculous or crazy they are. That's what separates mere hypothesis or suspicions from the crazy train which are conspiracy theories: how they push baseless allegations and unverifiable brain farts as undisputable facts. To make matters worse, the loons pushing conspiracy theories use all sort of sociopath tricks to force their conspiracy theories onto others, including but not limited to attacking those who dare point out logic flaws in their craziness. That's the touchstone test that separates the conspiracy theory loons living in crazy town from those living in reality which recognize the fact that conspiracies do exist: how facts and hypothesis and proof are treated differently.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
13415 6y ago
That's not really true, most conspiracy theories do not withstand even the most basic scientific scrutiny and are not scientific theories.
MrBuddyCasino 6y ago
A conspiracy theory is something that the other political side believes in, but which your side rejects fully. This goes both ways. Right-Wing: - 5G causes Corona: clearly untrue - vaccines cause autism: clearly untrue - the state is controlled by a colluding elite cabal: hard to disprove Left-Wing: - there is a conspiracy by men to oppress women and make them earn less money, resulting in the Gender Pay Gap: clearly untrue - because capitalists exploit the working class, communism results in the best overall outcomes for everyone: clearly untrue - can't think of a hard-to-disprove one: anyone got ideas?
- thinkingemote 6y ago
  "people on the right wing give less to charity to the poor than people on the left wing." "Capitalism does not make the poor richer." Both could be disproved with stats, but as it's politics it will be argued and so it's not easy to disprove.
  - rbanffy 6y ago
    > "Capitalism does not make the poor richer." What capitalism does is to make the poor more efficient, by extracting ever increasing amounts of value while keeping wages mostly constant.
    - rbanffy 6y ago
      What's the point of having karma other than to let it burn?
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
- ianleeclark 6y ago
  > A conspiracy theory is something that the other political side believes in, but which your side rejects fully. Not all conspiracy theories have political stratification. In fact, what is often incorrectly considered the Ur-conspiracy theory--the JFK murder--has adherents of every political descriptor under the sun. You've got people thinking the once-communist Oswald was working on behalf of the USSR or Cuba. To which people would reply that the CIA would never allow a former Communist back in _unless he was willing to work for them_.
lumberingjack 6y ago
The label conspiracy theory itself was created to make people sound insane by organizations who have a hand in large propagating events
ProofMe5GIsSafe 6y ago
I encourage you to investigate the timeline of Hydroxychloroquine. From its scientific support for effective use in the 2003 SARS outbreak. From early tests in China showing positive results it also worked for SARS-CoV-2 when applied early on to mild cases (not to terribly sick pneumatics as a cure). From Trump stupidly talking about things he has no authority to speak on, carelessly misleading public. From how the media started attacking HCQ afterwards as a proxy for Trump bashing. From how a singly shoddy retracted study with possibly faked data, caused all WHO tests to cancel HCQ trials world-wide (when these very trials were designed to test adverse and positive effects, and not part of the shoddy study). HCQ. Like mask-wearing. Like sensible quarantine methods. Are all incredibly polarized, political, and vague regarding to truths. But any credible research on HCQ shows its effect or potential, still. And even for the vaccines, we see involvement of politics (Trump would definitely have abused a vaccine release to gain votes), and economic incentives of big pharmas and countries GDP/unemployment, to muddy what is factual and helpful, and what is ill-motivated and cause for suspicion.
- ProofMe5GIsSafe 6y ago
  For instance: I have no proof that there are PR departments of public health organizations and stock-market listed companies who are actively suppressing negative information on vaccines (contents, adverse effects, low-but-sufficient efficiency). I think it is highly likely that there are economic, panic-management or public health incentives to against dangerous, yet partly true, ideas, and that big pharma and CDC could be conspiring to manage and control this information and what opinions I form. That, well-intentioned, Google and Youtube and Facebook and Twitter and WHO and some other elites sat in a secret meeting room, and wrote the playbook on how to deal with people proposing multi-vatimins as a cure, or even as a help for improving immune system. That such people are banned (or even arrested if they have medical authority) for things that in a normal situation people would have a right not to mistreated as such. You have no proof that big pharma does not conspire to suppress half-measures and inconvenient situations (people refusing to mask up until vaccine is released). But what makes you think that? You looked at the history of big pharma, at the history of capitalism, at the history of public health controversies and attempts from the top to manage that and politicize it, and you see nothing of suspicion for extrapolating that to the uncertain future we live in? Or you trust them on their blue eyes or because believing it would make you feel bad?

by bsaul 6y ago

m0llusk 6y ago

The conspiracy label is not necessarily interesting or relevant. More to the point is the quality and directness of evidence and potential useful reactions. For example, where novel coronavirus comes from does not change what it takes to avoid the virus. And if Antifa were to make a sustained effort to dominate rural lands then the same kind of efforts that might be used for defense of liberty against any other threat are still the first and best option. Attempting to understand exactly who is involved and what their motivations are is the least effective way of handling modern life. It makes more sense to be measured and balanced with all information and to make use of best practices based on what is most likely.

rualca 6y ago

> From a scientific point of view, the problem is that there are no definition of what a "conspiracy theory" is. But there is, isn't it? I mean, it's a theory regarding conspiracies. And colloquially, the theory is supported by no rational basis or evidence, or it's basis is so twisted and convoluted that its main premise isn't even falsifiable. > And then there are theories or rumors that happened to be correct after all ( watergate, contras, etc). You're confusing hypothesis with conspiracy theories. Hypothesis are open questions that are falsifiable and verifiable. Conspiracy theories are illogical leaps of faith supported by barely any rationality. There was evidence supporting the theory that Nixon was engaged in shady tactics to steal the election. There is absolutely no evidence that "the masked singer" was produced to condition the public to believe that wearing a mask was cool. > This is not a black or white thing. It pretty much is. At most, the shade of grey between the blackest of blacks and the whitest of whites is very thin. If someone is presenting baseless assertions as facts supporting a conspiracy that is supported or hinted by no rational basis whatsoever then where's the doubt?

purplecats 6y ago
your bias is leaking pretty heavily
- rualca 6y ago
  > your bias is leaking pretty heavily Please explain what you personally interpreted as bias.
bsaul 6y ago
There are indeed theories about a secret organisation plotting to take over the world, and if we were rigourous that's the only time we should be talking about "conspiracy theory". This is clearly not what people are doing. The "protocol of the elder of zion" conspiracy theory is this kind of example, but there aren't a lot of them. However, even with this definition it is still not clear-cut. If you were to say in the cold war that some US secret services were financing authoritarian regimes in south america to fight communism (or islamic extremists in afghanistan), this could easily qualify as a conspiracy theory today. Until you get the evidence that it is true. At the moment, it looks to me like the only purpose of this label is to prevent people from trying to investigate into it. It's a concept that prevents you from thinking rather than helps you think better.
- rualca 6y ago
  > There are indeed theories about a secret organisation plotting to take over the world, and if we were rigourous that's the only time we should be talking about "conspiracy theory". No, not really. There is a constant stream of idiotic and entirely baseless and outright irrational conspiracy theories popping up all the time, which is proportional to the amount of stupidity and ignorance in the universe. Take for example the ridiculous conspiracy theory of how "the masked singer" is a psyops project designed to manipulate people into accepting mask usage. No one in their right mind would be pushing that gem of idiocy. But here we are, with lunatics selling that off as true. > (...) It's a concept that prevents you from thinking rather than helps you think better. It really isn't, and you are not helping your case by trying to shamelessly misrepresent your point and move the goal post. The key aspect that you are trying to disregard and avoid is the fact that conspiracy theories share a common trait: misrepresent baseless assumptions and unfalsifiable assertions as unquestionable facts, no matter how silly or ridiculous or crazy they are. That's what separates mere hypothesis or suspicions from the crazy train which are conspiracy theories: how they push baseless allegations and unverifiable brain farts as undisputable facts. To make matters worse, the loons pushing conspiracy theories use all sort of sociopath tricks to force their conspiracy theories onto others, including but not limited to attacking those who dare point out logic flaws in their craziness. That's the touchstone test that separates the conspiracy theory loons living in crazy town from those living in reality which recognize the fact that conspiracies do exist: how facts and hypothesis and proof are treated differently.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

13415 6y ago

That's not really true, most conspiracy theories do not withstand even the most basic scientific scrutiny and are not scientific theories.

MrBuddyCasino 6y ago

A conspiracy theory is something that the other political side believes in, but which your side rejects fully. This goes both ways. Right-Wing: - 5G causes Corona: clearly untrue - vaccines cause autism: clearly untrue - the state is controlled by a colluding elite cabal: hard to disprove Left-Wing: - there is a conspiracy by men to oppress women and make them earn less money, resulting in the Gender Pay Gap: clearly untrue - because capitalists exploit the working class, communism results in the best overall outcomes for everyone: clearly untrue - can't think of a hard-to-disprove one: anyone got ideas?

thinkingemote 6y ago
"people on the right wing give less to charity to the poor than people on the left wing." "Capitalism does not make the poor richer." Both could be disproved with stats, but as it's politics it will be argued and so it's not easy to disprove.
- rbanffy 6y ago
  > "Capitalism does not make the poor richer." What capitalism does is to make the poor more efficient, by extracting ever increasing amounts of value while keeping wages mostly constant.
  - rbanffy 6y ago
    What's the point of having karma other than to let it burn?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
ianleeclark 6y ago
> A conspiracy theory is something that the other political side believes in, but which your side rejects fully. Not all conspiracy theories have political stratification. In fact, what is often incorrectly considered the Ur-conspiracy theory--the JFK murder--has adherents of every political descriptor under the sun. You've got people thinking the once-communist Oswald was working on behalf of the USSR or Cuba. To which people would reply that the CIA would never allow a former Communist back in _unless he was willing to work for them_.

lumberingjack 6y ago

The label conspiracy theory itself was created to make people sound insane by organizations who have a hand in large propagating events

ProofMe5GIsSafe 6y ago

I encourage you to investigate the timeline of Hydroxychloroquine. From its scientific support for effective use in the 2003 SARS outbreak. From early tests in China showing positive results it also worked for SARS-CoV-2 when applied early on to mild cases (not to terribly sick pneumatics as a cure). From Trump stupidly talking about things he has no authority to speak on, carelessly misleading public. From how the media started attacking HCQ afterwards as a proxy for Trump bashing. From how a singly shoddy retracted study with possibly faked data, caused all WHO tests to cancel HCQ trials world-wide (when these very trials were designed to test adverse and positive effects, and not part of the shoddy study). HCQ. Like mask-wearing. Like sensible quarantine methods. Are all incredibly polarized, political, and vague regarding to truths. But any credible research on HCQ shows its effect or potential, still. And even for the vaccines, we see involvement of politics (Trump would definitely have abused a vaccine release to gain votes), and economic incentives of big pharmas and countries GDP/unemployment, to muddy what is factual and helpful, and what is ill-motivated and cause for suspicion.

ProofMe5GIsSafe 6y ago
For instance: I have no proof that there are PR departments of public health organizations and stock-market listed companies who are actively suppressing negative information on vaccines (contents, adverse effects, low-but-sufficient efficiency). I think it is highly likely that there are economic, panic-management or public health incentives to against dangerous, yet partly true, ideas, and that big pharma and CDC could be conspiring to manage and control this information and what opinions I form. That, well-intentioned, Google and Youtube and Facebook and Twitter and WHO and some other elites sat in a secret meeting room, and wrote the playbook on how to deal with people proposing multi-vatimins as a cure, or even as a help for improving immune system. That such people are banned (or even arrested if they have medical authority) for things that in a normal situation people would have a right not to mistreated as such. You have no proof that big pharma does not conspire to suppress half-measures and inconvenient situations (people refusing to mask up until vaccine is released). But what makes you think that? You looked at the history of big pharma, at the history of capitalism, at the history of public health controversies and attempts from the top to manage that and politicize it, and you see nothing of suspicion for extrapolating that to the uncertain future we live in? Or you trust them on their blue eyes or because believing it would make you feel bad?