3 ms·

You have a strange definition of conspiracy theory, and your intended use of the phrase is stranger. My criticism of a non-literal use of the word still stands

You have a strange definition of conspiracy theory, and your intended use of the phrase is stranger. My criticism of a non-literal use of the word still stands - by your usage, anything that isn't proven yet is labeled conspiracy theory, which is also automatically crazytalk. Government surveilance, and even COVID-19 (as mentioned elsewhere on the thread) were both by your definition crazyperson conspiracy theories until someone went out and proved it. To me, it's unintellectual. New theories are dismissed out of hand, since they lack evidence and are considered tantamount to flat-earth theory; any investigation is therefore unwarrented. Edit: in your example, you're confusing 'belief that something could have happened' with 'belief that something did happen'. Is that all you're trying to say?

krapp 6y ago
>My criticism of a non-literal use of the word still stands - by your usage, anything that isn't proven yet is labeled conspiracy theory, which is also automatically crazytalk. I never claimed that any unproven theory is automatically crazy talk. I even provided two examples to show the difference between belief in the likelihood of an unproven conspiracy, and conspiracy theory, and nowhere did I use the word "crazy." >Government surveilance, and even COVID-19 (as mentioned elsewhere on the thread) were both by your definition crazyperson conspiracy theories until someone went out and proved it. Again, nothing in my definition implied "crazyperson." And none of those were conspiracy theories. People knew about government surveillance, and people knew about COVID. Conspiracy theories by definition don't have proof. And yes, until they are proven, they are conspiracy theories. >To me, it's unintellectual. New theories are dismissed out of hand, since they lack evidence and are considered tantamount to flat-earth theory; any investigation is therefore unwarrented. Let me explain the scientific process for you, basically. You come up with a hypothesis, you test that hypothesis, you judge the likely truth of that hypothesis based on the evidence. Yes, new theories without evidence are dismissed without of hand. They should be. Nothing about that implies that investigation is unwarranted, rather, it implies that investigation is necessary to provide evidence to validate the claim. Conspiracy theorists, however, do not attempt to validate their claims, or provide evidence, or consider evidence to the contrary. They simply believe as an article of faith. That is not intellectualism, that is the nonintellectual position. The intellectual position is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And if the best evidence you have for your claims are Youtube videos or Gematria, you deserve to be ridiculed. >Edit: in your example, you're confusing 'belief that something could have happened' with 'belief that something did happen'. Is that all you're trying to say? Sorry, you used up your opportunity to be taken on good faith, so good night.

krapp 6y ago

>My criticism of a non-literal use of the word still stands - by your usage, anything that isn't proven yet is labeled conspiracy theory, which is also automatically crazytalk. I never claimed that any unproven theory is automatically crazy talk. I even provided two examples to show the difference between belief in the likelihood of an unproven conspiracy, and conspiracy theory, and nowhere did I use the word "crazy." >Government surveilance, and even COVID-19 (as mentioned elsewhere on the thread) were both by your definition crazyperson conspiracy theories until someone went out and proved it. Again, nothing in my definition implied "crazyperson." And none of those were conspiracy theories. People knew about government surveillance, and people knew about COVID. Conspiracy theories by definition don't have proof. And yes, until they are proven, they are conspiracy theories. >To me, it's unintellectual. New theories are dismissed out of hand, since they lack evidence and are considered tantamount to flat-earth theory; any investigation is therefore unwarrented. Let me explain the scientific process for you, basically. You come up with a hypothesis, you test that hypothesis, you judge the likely truth of that hypothesis based on the evidence. Yes, new theories without evidence are dismissed without of hand. They should be. Nothing about that implies that investigation is unwarranted, rather, it implies that investigation is necessary to provide evidence to validate the claim. Conspiracy theorists, however, do not attempt to validate their claims, or provide evidence, or consider evidence to the contrary. They simply believe as an article of faith. That is not intellectualism, that is the nonintellectual position. The intellectual position is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And if the best evidence you have for your claims are Youtube videos or Gematria, you deserve to be ridiculed. >Edit: in your example, you're confusing 'belief that something could have happened' with 'belief that something did happen'. Is that all you're trying to say? Sorry, you used up your opportunity to be taken on good faith, so good night.