3 ms·

I think when you call certain people conspiracists it’s unproductive. Who are you referring to? Sure Alex Jones is a nutty conspiracy theorist. But highly crede

I think when you call certain people conspiracists it’s unproductive. Who are you referring to? Sure Alex Jones is a nutty conspiracy theorist. But highly credentialed physicians and academics who simply have opinions that deviate from the established consensus? No, that’s unfair. Did you watch the posted ten minute video? Have you watched any of his podcasts in full? He explains why he has those guests on and concedes with some gratitude the idea that he ought to have more guests on that can communicate the opposing views, especially soon after a controversial guest. The alleged harm he’s perpetrating in having conversations is way less dangerous than a full-steam-ahead into uncritical, contrived, and corrupt thought control from established institutions and governments.

feoren 5y ago
> But highly credentialed physicians and academics who simply have opinions that deviate from the established consensus? This is called the Halo effect: someone who is good in one way is surely good in all ways. If Terence Tao posted on his blog tomorrow that he has video proof that Hillary Clinton is a secret lizard person, I would certainly be shocked, and I might even read what he has to say, but I would still immediately classify him as a nutty conspiracy theorist (one who espouses a nutty conspiracy theory). It wouldn't really diminish everything else he's done, and I would view it as an incredibly sad case of an otherwise amazing brain getting infected by a particularly virulent mind-virus. Say Joe Rogan split his segment into two halves, and the first half was devoted to someone arguing that the 14th century was invented by the Illuminati in order to hide the fact that Finland doesn't really exist and is just a cover to hide the fact that Russian fishermen discovered aliens there, who took their bodies and are now infiltrating society, etc. etc. The second half was devoted to an actual historian saying "um, no, that's really ridiculous for many reasons". Would you call that fair and balanced? Is that a good point-counterpoint? Hell no. It's the classic false equivalency, fake-centrist B.S. that is used so often to promote crazy and dangerous ideas.
- jorgesborges 5y ago
  Are you saying that lizard theory is fairly analogous to physicians questioning the efficacy of health protocols during an unprecedented global pandemic?
  - Kranar 5y ago
    Arguing that Clinton is a lizard is not only analogous to claiming that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine does not work and is actually harmful, it's leaps and bounds worse. At least the lizard position can be viewed as a kind of satire or metaphorically. The claims of Dr. Robert Malone (who was the guest on JRE) about the mRNA vaccines are not a form of questioning or scientific skepticism, his position is categorical.
- MockObject 5y ago
  You just wrote that debunking a crazy idea with facts is "false equivalency", and that it promotes crazy ideas.
  - feoren 5y ago
    Would you watch a boxing match between Mike Tyson and some rando pulled out of a grocery store? By setting up the match, with equal time and equal terms between these two opposing ideas, the host is implicitly saying that these ideas are starting on near-equal footing. If you try to give every random crazy idea equal time with the truth, the truth gets drowned out. The truth is subtle, nuanced, and complex. It takes long, in-depth study to understand. It's not always obvious to a layperson who is "debunking" whom. Just as we don't automatically expect a beautiful or useful crop to outcompete noxious weeds just because we like them better, we should not expect the truth to outcompete crazy in 20-minute podcast segments. Crazy is much better at spreading into brains than the truth, because that's exactly the selection pressure that led the crazy to evolve in the first place. True ideas don't evolve by being extremely good at sticking in your brain; they evolve when humans sit down and realize that that's not the appropriate arena for them.

feoren 5y ago

> But highly credentialed physicians and academics who simply have opinions that deviate from the established consensus? This is called the Halo effect: someone who is good in one way is surely good in all ways. If Terence Tao posted on his blog tomorrow that he has video proof that Hillary Clinton is a secret lizard person, I would certainly be shocked, and I might even read what he has to say, but I would still immediately classify him as a nutty conspiracy theorist (one who espouses a nutty conspiracy theory). It wouldn't really diminish everything else he's done, and I would view it as an incredibly sad case of an otherwise amazing brain getting infected by a particularly virulent mind-virus. Say Joe Rogan split his segment into two halves, and the first half was devoted to someone arguing that the 14th century was invented by the Illuminati in order to hide the fact that Finland doesn't really exist and is just a cover to hide the fact that Russian fishermen discovered aliens there, who took their bodies and are now infiltrating society, etc. etc. The second half was devoted to an actual historian saying "um, no, that's really ridiculous for many reasons". Would you call that fair and balanced? Is that a good point-counterpoint? Hell no. It's the classic false equivalency, fake-centrist B.S. that is used so often to promote crazy and dangerous ideas.

jorgesborges 5y ago
Are you saying that lizard theory is fairly analogous to physicians questioning the efficacy of health protocols during an unprecedented global pandemic?
- Kranar 5y ago
  Arguing that Clinton is a lizard is not only analogous to claiming that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine does not work and is actually harmful, it's leaps and bounds worse. At least the lizard position can be viewed as a kind of satire or metaphorically. The claims of Dr. Robert Malone (who was the guest on JRE) about the mRNA vaccines are not a form of questioning or scientific skepticism, his position is categorical.
MockObject 5y ago
You just wrote that debunking a crazy idea with facts is "false equivalency", and that it promotes crazy ideas.
- feoren 5y ago
  Would you watch a boxing match between Mike Tyson and some rando pulled out of a grocery store? By setting up the match, with equal time and equal terms between these two opposing ideas, the host is implicitly saying that these ideas are starting on near-equal footing. If you try to give every random crazy idea equal time with the truth, the truth gets drowned out. The truth is subtle, nuanced, and complex. It takes long, in-depth study to understand. It's not always obvious to a layperson who is "debunking" whom. Just as we don't automatically expect a beautiful or useful crop to outcompete noxious weeds just because we like them better, we should not expect the truth to outcompete crazy in 20-minute podcast segments. Crazy is much better at spreading into brains than the truth, because that's exactly the selection pressure that led the crazy to evolve in the first place. True ideas don't evolve by being extremely good at sticking in your brain; they evolve when humans sit down and realize that that's not the appropriate arena for them.