5 ms·

I think there's a nuance between healthy skepticism and conspiracy theory. A skeptic, when faced with incomplete evidence, concludes they don't know. Maybe the

I think there's a nuance between healthy skepticism and conspiracy theory. A skeptic, when faced with incomplete evidence, concludes they don't know. Maybe they would like to know more, who knows. A conspiracy theorist, when faced with incomplete evidence starts speculating about what could really be going on, and takes the absent evidence as a sort of soft proof they are right. Why else would evidence be missing, after all, if lizard bigfoot wasn't secretly running the shadow government. So for example, strictly speaking, very few of us have solid proof Epstein even existed, let alone died. We haven't seen him in person, haven't been to a lot of the places, only seen pictures and documents and 3rd hand accounts. This is reason to have some level of doubt about this, but does not elevate any other hypothesis to credibility, they're also just as doubtful if not more so. That's the difference between skepticism and conspiracy theory: staying at "I don't know". There are a great deal of things we have no cause to say we know for certain. That's just how it is.

type0 4y ago
> very few of us have solid proof Epstein even existed that's not scepticism
- marginalia_nu 4y ago
  It absolutely is. Arguably closer to Capital S Skepticism (e.g. pyrrhonism), but it's still a case of lower case s skepticism. Starting from a position of not knowing, I have not seen empirical proof of Epstein's existence. I have not met him, I haven't met anyone who has met him, I've only seen things written about him, and regarding things written when I read about things written about the sort of things I know well myself, they're often wrong or incomplete. I don't judge the evidence for his having existed as incontrovertible. I'd say it's probably likely he existed, but I can't prove it. And as a skeptic, I would say of the things I can not prove, that I never left my starting point: I don't know.
- beezlewax 4y ago
  Yep this was making sense until they started to get all philosophical. I mean can you prove anyone exists or anything?
  - marginalia_nu 4y ago
    Well, I mean, no? The point is that there's a sliding scale of certainty. I've seen my mother with my own eyes, but not the Eiffel tower, only been told about it and been shown pictures. I have far more reason to believe the former exists than the latter. I could of course probably go to Paris and check if for some reason I wanted to be certain, bringing them up to parity, but until I have, they're not, and I have at least some reason to be doubtful about its existence. I could check is not the same as I have checked.
    - catchnear4321 4y ago
      Getting deeply philosophical on the nature of reality when dealing with a situation of uncertainty is at best an accidental diversion. Unfortunately at worst it is a tool of control, as it makes discussing any original points nigh impossible. Once conversation has been sufficiently inundated with terminology and theory, where were we again? Given just how verbose you have been, I must say I don’t know which it would be, but either seems quite possible. Perhaps you could say I am skeptical of your intent. Based upon your own words, I struggle to see how you could possibly prove, without a doubt, that you had positive intent. This slippery slope feels like a water slide.
      - marginalia_nu 4y ago
        Well the entire point is that there is a great deal of things we will never know for certain. We can ignore this fact, and only apply the tool of skepticism toward the things that don't align with our preexisting assumptions and world view, as seems very popular. If we do that, we'll consequently find a reason to doubt everything except what we think is true, which is very convenient but also just an engine for fooling yourself. I'll argue this is a misapplication of skepticism. Where it needs to most urgently be applied is toward the things we think are definitely true. It will eat away at your assumptions and reveal they're actually mostly things that seem true. > Perhaps you could say I am skeptical of your intent. Based upon your own words, I struggle to see how you could possibly prove, without a doubt, that you had positive intent. Given the minds of others are unknowable, you will never know. I will also never know your intent with regard to any action. But I also don't think intent matters. The true nature of things doesn't require faith or believers. The sun is still shining even when a cloud obscures it.
likeabbas 4y ago
The issue is people will label conspiracy theorists to anyone who doesn’t reach the same probability distribution. For example, IMO it’s more likely that Epstein was murdered than he committed suicide. My basis comes from a doctor’s analysis of the bruises of Epstein’s neck that show the force applied was more than what could be applied from hanging himself as described in the report. Also, it seems highly unlikely that the guards would be asleep the same day the cameras went out, and they removed his room mate from his cell (which the court ordered him to have a room mate at all times). There’s too many unlikely variables that occurred. Many will label me a conspiracy theorist, but I’m just stating what I think is the most likely outcome. I’m not saying I definitively know

type0 4y ago

> very few of us have solid proof Epstein even existed that's not scepticism

marginalia_nu 4y ago
It absolutely is. Arguably closer to Capital S Skepticism (e.g. pyrrhonism), but it's still a case of lower case s skepticism. Starting from a position of not knowing, I have not seen empirical proof of Epstein's existence. I have not met him, I haven't met anyone who has met him, I've only seen things written about him, and regarding things written when I read about things written about the sort of things I know well myself, they're often wrong or incomplete. I don't judge the evidence for his having existed as incontrovertible. I'd say it's probably likely he existed, but I can't prove it. And as a skeptic, I would say of the things I can not prove, that I never left my starting point: I don't know.
beezlewax 4y ago
Yep this was making sense until they started to get all philosophical. I mean can you prove anyone exists or anything?
- marginalia_nu 4y ago
  Well, I mean, no? The point is that there's a sliding scale of certainty. I've seen my mother with my own eyes, but not the Eiffel tower, only been told about it and been shown pictures. I have far more reason to believe the former exists than the latter. I could of course probably go to Paris and check if for some reason I wanted to be certain, bringing them up to parity, but until I have, they're not, and I have at least some reason to be doubtful about its existence. I could check is not the same as I have checked.
  - catchnear4321 4y ago
    Getting deeply philosophical on the nature of reality when dealing with a situation of uncertainty is at best an accidental diversion. Unfortunately at worst it is a tool of control, as it makes discussing any original points nigh impossible. Once conversation has been sufficiently inundated with terminology and theory, where were we again? Given just how verbose you have been, I must say I don’t know which it would be, but either seems quite possible. Perhaps you could say I am skeptical of your intent. Based upon your own words, I struggle to see how you could possibly prove, without a doubt, that you had positive intent. This slippery slope feels like a water slide.
    - marginalia_nu 4y ago
      Well the entire point is that there is a great deal of things we will never know for certain. We can ignore this fact, and only apply the tool of skepticism toward the things that don't align with our preexisting assumptions and world view, as seems very popular. If we do that, we'll consequently find a reason to doubt everything except what we think is true, which is very convenient but also just an engine for fooling yourself. I'll argue this is a misapplication of skepticism. Where it needs to most urgently be applied is toward the things we think are definitely true. It will eat away at your assumptions and reveal they're actually mostly things that seem true. > Perhaps you could say I am skeptical of your intent. Based upon your own words, I struggle to see how you could possibly prove, without a doubt, that you had positive intent. Given the minds of others are unknowable, you will never know. I will also never know your intent with regard to any action. But I also don't think intent matters. The true nature of things doesn't require faith or believers. The sun is still shining even when a cloud obscures it.

likeabbas 4y ago

The issue is people will label conspiracy theorists to anyone who doesn’t reach the same probability distribution. For example, IMO it’s more likely that Epstein was murdered than he committed suicide. My basis comes from a doctor’s analysis of the bruises of Epstein’s neck that show the force applied was more than what could be applied from hanging himself as described in the report. Also, it seems highly unlikely that the guards would be asleep the same day the cameras went out, and they removed his room mate from his cell (which the court ordered him to have a room mate at all times). There’s too many unlikely variables that occurred. Many will label me a conspiracy theorist, but I’m just stating what I think is the most likely outcome. I’m not saying I definitively know