5 ms·

The problem with the flat earthers, and the more conspiratorial portion of the climate deniers, is it's not clear even the people making the claims believe it.

The problem with the flat earthers, and the more conspiratorial portion of the climate deniers, is it's not clear even the people making the claims believe it. They don't seem to mind ideas that contradict theirs, so long as the central belief that there is some sort of vast conspiracy is upheld. You can't really engage with people who aren't all that interested in what's actually true.

hammock 5y ago
Assuming your premise is true, is a strongly held belief a prerequisite to conduct a scientific inquiry? Or couldn't it just be any hypothesis, however crazy? It seems to me you are imposing a constraint that doesn't need to be there, and parent is arguing it doesn't deserve to be there, either.
- nitwit005 5y ago
  The assertion I was responding to was not about the general possibility of using science to test these ideas.
woolion 5y ago
>it's not clear even the people making the claims believe it. They don't seem to mind ideas that contradict theirs, so long as the central belief that there is some sort of vast conspiracy is upheld. That seems like a truly bizarre statement, how would that make sense? Some people would embrace ideas they would not believe in, to further the public's perception that there is an ongoing conspiracy? That seems perfectly lunatic. Wouldn't it make more sense for them to try to tie in that the conspiracy peddlers are incentivized to push completely insane theories in order to cover for other, true, conspiracy theories (e.g. the NSA's surveillance pre-Snowden leak). Some have mental issues, that is a given, but that is not generally seen as a valid way to discredit or validate a theory (e.g. cleaning OCD is not seen as proof that hygiene is bad).
- nitwit005 5y ago
  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235449075_Dead_and_Alive_Beliefs_in_Contradictory_Conspiracy_Theories https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235449075_Dead_and_...

hammock 5y ago

Assuming your premise is true, is a strongly held belief a prerequisite to conduct a scientific inquiry? Or couldn't it just be any hypothesis, however crazy? It seems to me you are imposing a constraint that doesn't need to be there, and parent is arguing it doesn't deserve to be there, either.

nitwit005 5y ago
The assertion I was responding to was not about the general possibility of using science to test these ideas.

woolion 5y ago

>it's not clear even the people making the claims believe it. They don't seem to mind ideas that contradict theirs, so long as the central belief that there is some sort of vast conspiracy is upheld. That seems like a truly bizarre statement, how would that make sense? Some people would embrace ideas they would not believe in, to further the public's perception that there is an ongoing conspiracy? That seems perfectly lunatic. Wouldn't it make more sense for them to try to tie in that the conspiracy peddlers are incentivized to push completely insane theories in order to cover for other, true, conspiracy theories (e.g. the NSA's surveillance pre-Snowden leak). Some have mental issues, that is a given, but that is not generally seen as a valid way to discredit or validate a theory (e.g. cleaning OCD is not seen as proof that hygiene is bad).

nitwit005 5y ago
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235449075_Dead_and_Alive_Beliefs_in_Contradictory_Conspiracy_Theories https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235449075_Dead_and_...