5 ms·

A seemingly mysterious (but probably trivial) feature of our universe is that there's only one kind of reasoning. There's no special 'anti-conspiracy' method of

A seemingly mysterious (but probably trivial) feature of our universe is that there's only one kind of reasoning. There's no special 'anti-conspiracy' method of reasoning, nor any other special-puprose method. Likewise, there's only one way a theory can be wrong. No theory has ever been wrong because it was a conspiracy theory. What's actually being discussed here is how to make other people believe (or claim to believe) something. That's fine, as long as it's not muddled with how the truth is discerned.

Geminidog 6y ago
Another feature of the universe is that the truth can never actually be discerned. At any point in time a new observation can be found that actually invalidates a previous hypothesis. Every single hypothesis ever made by mankind has the potential to be invalidated this way and therefore no hypothesis has ever been proven to be definitively true. Thus nothing can be proved to be true in science and by extension nothing can be proved to be true in reality as we know it. The scientific method is based on two axiomatic foundations which we can only assume to be true: Logic and Probability. When you apply these axioms to an arena with an unverifiable amount of entities/primitives the result is a universe where nothing can be proven.
- Gupie 6y ago
  Perhaps no hypothesis has ever been proven to be definitively true, but it is possible to proof that at hypothesis is false, e.g. the moon is not made of cheese, the earth is not flat. Also you can estimate the likelihood that a hypothesis is true or false, e.g. hypothesis that Covid-19 is caused by a virus is extremely likely to be true, that is is caused by 5G signals extremely likely to be false.
  - galaxyLogic 6y ago
    The way to counter and shed light on conspiracy theories is to construct an alternative similar theory and then ask, why do you believe this instead of this? Say you believe that Hillary is a pedophile. Why don't you believe that Donald Trump is?
    - Geminidog 6y ago
      You're just questioning your own biases. Your own bias has nothing to do with whether or not someone is a pedophile. Wherever you bias lies, if someone obtained pictures of Hillary conducting pedophilic actions your bias will be irrelevant against the content of those pictures.
      - galaxyLogic 6y ago
        I'm thinking more of the case where there is clear evidence but there also are people who refuse to believe the evidence. I may produce some evidence but you say it is manufactured. In such case how can I convince you you should open your mind to the possibility that the evidence is real? I think one way might be to get the person to question their reasons for why they believe them, why not as well believe something else? In such a case an honest and open-minded person might say hey maybe I believe what I have believed so far because that is what I WANT to believe. Say I believe Trump won the election. Maybe I believe so because I want to believe it is true.
  - Geminidog 6y ago
    I'm not arguing for a flat earth or against global warming. Far from it. Why does everyone have to politicize everything? I am arguing for the true nature of reality. Don't read into this, I'm not saying anything about those topics or conspiracy theories. I am simply adding an addendum to the post above mine... that IS all. This isn't some philosophical conjecture either. There are many examples of my point in science. For example: Newtons laws of motion. Newtons laws of physics are now to our knowledge ultimately wrong. These laws were once fundamental to science and part of our common sense. We now know that these laws were never actually proven to be true. Subsequent observations have verified that Newton was in fact ultimately wrong and that relativity is ultimately the more accurate theory. Yet relativity has not yet been proven to be true. Nor can we ever prove it to be true. It will always be and shall always be open to disproof. Scientists are fully aware of this that's why a good number of theoretical physicists are trying to work out an alternative theory. This is literally what the scientific method is, I'm not pulling this out my ass. How facts like this applies to a conspiracy is not something I remarked about. "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." -Albert Einstien
galaxyLogic 6y ago
I agree that calling something a "Conspiracy Theory" is basically name-calling. Calling something conspiracy theory doesn't tell us much if anything about what is true or not.
- Benmcdonald__ 6y ago
  But many times it's justified name calling. Because it's not the conspiracy in the theory that is the issue but the lack of evidence in proportion to the strength of their beliefs. And in place of evidence their is paranoia. The problem is conspiracies by their nature are very hard to prove so your evidence for them will likely be weak
  - galaxyLogic 6y ago
    So you would say that a "conspiracy theory" is a theory of some alleged conspiracy but with little or very weak evidence? Not a bad definition in my mind just good to be clear about what we take as the definition of the term. BTW> Here's an article about how to approach the "conspiracy theorists": https://theconversation.com/how-to-talk-someone-out-of-a-damaging-cult-68930?fbclid=IwAR3_7WyELpY1TEqLEZ8BgycEAQKsrED15VnN0iC21R1UpMDtewmIp_fPVXc https://theconversation.com/how-to-talk-someone-out-of-a-dam...

Geminidog 6y ago

Another feature of the universe is that the truth can never actually be discerned. At any point in time a new observation can be found that actually invalidates a previous hypothesis. Every single hypothesis ever made by mankind has the potential to be invalidated this way and therefore no hypothesis has ever been proven to be definitively true. Thus nothing can be proved to be true in science and by extension nothing can be proved to be true in reality as we know it. The scientific method is based on two axiomatic foundations which we can only assume to be true: Logic and Probability. When you apply these axioms to an arena with an unverifiable amount of entities/primitives the result is a universe where nothing can be proven.

Gupie 6y ago
Perhaps no hypothesis has ever been proven to be definitively true, but it is possible to proof that at hypothesis is false, e.g. the moon is not made of cheese, the earth is not flat. Also you can estimate the likelihood that a hypothesis is true or false, e.g. hypothesis that Covid-19 is caused by a virus is extremely likely to be true, that is is caused by 5G signals extremely likely to be false.
- galaxyLogic 6y ago
  The way to counter and shed light on conspiracy theories is to construct an alternative similar theory and then ask, why do you believe this instead of this? Say you believe that Hillary is a pedophile. Why don't you believe that Donald Trump is?
  - Geminidog 6y ago
    You're just questioning your own biases. Your own bias has nothing to do with whether or not someone is a pedophile. Wherever you bias lies, if someone obtained pictures of Hillary conducting pedophilic actions your bias will be irrelevant against the content of those pictures.
    - galaxyLogic 6y ago
      I'm thinking more of the case where there is clear evidence but there also are people who refuse to believe the evidence. I may produce some evidence but you say it is manufactured. In such case how can I convince you you should open your mind to the possibility that the evidence is real? I think one way might be to get the person to question their reasons for why they believe them, why not as well believe something else? In such a case an honest and open-minded person might say hey maybe I believe what I have believed so far because that is what I WANT to believe. Say I believe Trump won the election. Maybe I believe so because I want to believe it is true.
- Geminidog 6y ago
  I'm not arguing for a flat earth or against global warming. Far from it. Why does everyone have to politicize everything? I am arguing for the true nature of reality. Don't read into this, I'm not saying anything about those topics or conspiracy theories. I am simply adding an addendum to the post above mine... that IS all. This isn't some philosophical conjecture either. There are many examples of my point in science. For example: Newtons laws of motion. Newtons laws of physics are now to our knowledge ultimately wrong. These laws were once fundamental to science and part of our common sense. We now know that these laws were never actually proven to be true. Subsequent observations have verified that Newton was in fact ultimately wrong and that relativity is ultimately the more accurate theory. Yet relativity has not yet been proven to be true. Nor can we ever prove it to be true. It will always be and shall always be open to disproof. Scientists are fully aware of this that's why a good number of theoretical physicists are trying to work out an alternative theory. This is literally what the scientific method is, I'm not pulling this out my ass. How facts like this applies to a conspiracy is not something I remarked about. "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." -Albert Einstien

galaxyLogic 6y ago

I agree that calling something a "Conspiracy Theory" is basically name-calling. Calling something conspiracy theory doesn't tell us much if anything about what is true or not.

Benmcdonald__ 6y ago
But many times it's justified name calling. Because it's not the conspiracy in the theory that is the issue but the lack of evidence in proportion to the strength of their beliefs. And in place of evidence their is paranoia. The problem is conspiracies by their nature are very hard to prove so your evidence for them will likely be weak
- galaxyLogic 6y ago
  So you would say that a "conspiracy theory" is a theory of some alleged conspiracy but with little or very weak evidence? Not a bad definition in my mind just good to be clear about what we take as the definition of the term. BTW> Here's an article about how to approach the "conspiracy theorists": https://theconversation.com/how-to-talk-someone-out-of-a-damaging-cult-68930?fbclid=IwAR3_7WyELpY1TEqLEZ8BgycEAQKsrED15VnN0iC21R1UpMDtewmIp_fPVXc https://theconversation.com/how-to-talk-someone-out-of-a-dam...