3 ms·

> Do you know what the difference is between reality and a conspiracy theory is? Evidence is the difference. > if you had told any random person on the street

> Do you know what the difference is between reality and a conspiracy theory is? Evidence is the difference. > if you had told any random person on the street that the Tech and Security Industrial complex were secretly funding activists groups to try and be able to spy on all European data you would've been considered to be daft and people would look at you like your crazy This reasoning is hindsight. People come up with lots of conspiracy theories, 99% of which are false. The difference is evidence.

carlosjobim 3y ago
You can only have evidence for things that have already happened. So warnings from "conspiracy theorists" can all be dismissed with that reasoning. Life is not a court of law however, and we as humans can use our common sense and intuition to discern what is right and wrong and plan accordingly. When law enforcement publish a bulletin about how they've thwarted a terrorist plot, they act before there is complete evidence, instead judging the intentions of bad actors and the likelihood that they'll act on those intentions. We have to do the same with all bad actors, while realizing there will usually never be any evidence accessible.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  (It's pretty depressing to see so many people defending conspiracy theories as a reasonable source of information.) > You can only have evidence for things that have already happened. Logically true and yet irrelevant. Why work so hard to defend conspiracy theories? Why is it so important to you? > judging the intentions of bad actors and the likelihood that they'll act on those intentions Based on evidence. > Life is not a court of law however, and we as humans can use our common sense and intuition to discern what is right and wrong and plan accordingly. Common sense and intuition are awful without evidence. That's why courts, engineering (metrics!), science, and anyone serious about anything, require it. Common sense and intuition produce witches and inject every bias we have. Intuition is well-demonstrated to be awful without expertise and evidence.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    As an example of my last paragraph above, a random comment from a biologist: > I actually thought it proven that the microbiota was seeded during vaginal birth and may lead to more issues for caesarean section delivered kids. I guess it all just sounded so logical. I know I know, that’s the most dangerous thing. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37971625 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37971625
mcpackieh 3y ago
It's a trick question, reality and conspiracy theory are orthogonal. Some conspiracy theories are true and are backed by evidence. Some conspiracy theories are true but nobody can find the evidence. Some conspiracy theories are false and have no evidence. Some conspiracy theories are false but there is nevertheless some evidence that seems to support them. Explanatory examples: True conspiracy theory backed by evidence: Criminal prosecutors present a theory about a gang of bank robbers conspiring to rob a bank. They have a lot of phone records and surveillance footage as evidence. True conspiracy theories with no evidence: Crimes with two or more participants which have successfully evaded discovery. Somebody smells a rat but has nothing but their gut to go off of. Distinguishing these from false conspiracy theories is impossible (so no example), but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Sometimes people get away with it. False conspiracy theory with no evidence: wolverine876 is in league with Martians to take over Earth. False conspiracy theory with some evidence: To understand how this could happen, you must understand that evidence is not the same as proof. Circumstantial evidence and eye witness testimony can often point in the direction of something that isn't actually true. In the case of the Second Gulf of Tonkin incident, radar and sonar evidence lead the Navy to believe that it was under attack from the North Vietnamese. Turns out they were almost certainly shooting at shadows. They believed something that the evidence then available to them supported, but it turned out to be wrong.
- hackandthink 3y ago
  It is easy to believe something if you want to believe it. "The National Security Agency, a subsidiary of the US Defense Department, deliberately skewed intelligence to create the impression that an attack had been carried out" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    The NSA? Don't they do signals (and now electronic) intelligence?
crabbone 3y ago
That's a very bold claim. What if you didn't find any evidence of something that indeed happen? What category does it fall into? Even courts will sometimes forgo the need to present evidence if they can establish means, motive and opportunity. Also, of course parent didn't mean it literally. They were referring to a different aspect of how such evidence may be discovered... well, now I feel like I'm explaining a joke.
roenxi 3y ago
There is an appropriate level of suspicion to have from base rates and incentives. For example, almost literally every war the US has gotten into after WWII has ended in disaster, with no useful goals achieved and lots of money wasted. There is a consistent pattern where they start off optimistic with an obvious bad guy to get, then over 4-8 years the grey reality sets in and the costs become obvious. There has to be something I would recognise as a conspiracy going on there, hard evidence or no. It doesn't make sense to be that stupid unless there is a group of people making bank from the spending and organising to push the mad agenda. The decision makers have full visibility into the disasters they are pushing.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  This argument seems to say: I observe a pattern, therefore it is caused by a conspiracy. Every pattern isn't caused by conspiracy. The nature of knowledge is to first establish that there is a pattern (I've hypothesized the same one), and then look for what correlates with it. In this case, it's been well-known - or rather the leading issue - in international relations for generations, if not centuries: How do people get into dumb wars (all wars are awful, a very few are necesssary)?
thaumasiotes 3y ago
>> Do you know what the difference is between reality and a conspiracy theory is? > Evidence is the difference. Evidence is obviously not the difference between reality and a conspiracy theory. Were that the case, it would be impossible for a conspiracy theory to be correct. Evidence isn't even the difference between admitting that a conspiracy happened and not making that admission, but that's the best case.

carlosjobim 3y ago

You can only have evidence for things that have already happened. So warnings from "conspiracy theorists" can all be dismissed with that reasoning. Life is not a court of law however, and we as humans can use our common sense and intuition to discern what is right and wrong and plan accordingly. When law enforcement publish a bulletin about how they've thwarted a terrorist plot, they act before there is complete evidence, instead judging the intentions of bad actors and the likelihood that they'll act on those intentions. We have to do the same with all bad actors, while realizing there will usually never be any evidence accessible.

wolverine876 3y ago
(It's pretty depressing to see so many people defending conspiracy theories as a reasonable source of information.) > You can only have evidence for things that have already happened. Logically true and yet irrelevant. Why work so hard to defend conspiracy theories? Why is it so important to you? > judging the intentions of bad actors and the likelihood that they'll act on those intentions Based on evidence. > Life is not a court of law however, and we as humans can use our common sense and intuition to discern what is right and wrong and plan accordingly. Common sense and intuition are awful without evidence. That's why courts, engineering (metrics!), science, and anyone serious about anything, require it. Common sense and intuition produce witches and inject every bias we have. Intuition is well-demonstrated to be awful without expertise and evidence.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  As an example of my last paragraph above, a random comment from a biologist: > I actually thought it proven that the microbiota was seeded during vaginal birth and may lead to more issues for caesarean section delivered kids. I guess it all just sounded so logical. I know I know, that’s the most dangerous thing. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37971625 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37971625

mcpackieh 3y ago

It's a trick question, reality and conspiracy theory are orthogonal. Some conspiracy theories are true and are backed by evidence. Some conspiracy theories are true but nobody can find the evidence. Some conspiracy theories are false and have no evidence. Some conspiracy theories are false but there is nevertheless some evidence that seems to support them. Explanatory examples: True conspiracy theory backed by evidence: Criminal prosecutors present a theory about a gang of bank robbers conspiring to rob a bank. They have a lot of phone records and surveillance footage as evidence. True conspiracy theories with no evidence: Crimes with two or more participants which have successfully evaded discovery. Somebody smells a rat but has nothing but their gut to go off of. Distinguishing these from false conspiracy theories is impossible (so no example), but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Sometimes people get away with it. False conspiracy theory with no evidence: wolverine876 is in league with Martians to take over Earth. False conspiracy theory with some evidence: To understand how this could happen, you must understand that evidence is not the same as proof. Circumstantial evidence and eye witness testimony can often point in the direction of something that isn't actually true. In the case of the Second Gulf of Tonkin incident, radar and sonar evidence lead the Navy to believe that it was under attack from the North Vietnamese. Turns out they were almost certainly shooting at shadows. They believed something that the evidence then available to them supported, but it turned out to be wrong.

hackandthink 3y ago
It is easy to believe something if you want to believe it. "The National Security Agency, a subsidiary of the US Defense Department, deliberately skewed intelligence to create the impression that an attack had been carried out" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident
- wolverine876 3y ago
  The NSA? Don't they do signals (and now electronic) intelligence?

crabbone 3y ago

That's a very bold claim. What if you didn't find any evidence of something that indeed happen? What category does it fall into? Even courts will sometimes forgo the need to present evidence if they can establish means, motive and opportunity. Also, of course parent didn't mean it literally. They were referring to a different aspect of how such evidence may be discovered... well, now I feel like I'm explaining a joke.

roenxi 3y ago

There is an appropriate level of suspicion to have from base rates and incentives. For example, almost literally every war the US has gotten into after WWII has ended in disaster, with no useful goals achieved and lots of money wasted. There is a consistent pattern where they start off optimistic with an obvious bad guy to get, then over 4-8 years the grey reality sets in and the costs become obvious. There has to be something I would recognise as a conspiracy going on there, hard evidence or no. It doesn't make sense to be that stupid unless there is a group of people making bank from the spending and organising to push the mad agenda. The decision makers have full visibility into the disasters they are pushing.

wolverine876 3y ago
This argument seems to say: I observe a pattern, therefore it is caused by a conspiracy. Every pattern isn't caused by conspiracy. The nature of knowledge is to first establish that there is a pattern (I've hypothesized the same one), and then look for what correlates with it. In this case, it's been well-known - or rather the leading issue - in international relations for generations, if not centuries: How do people get into dumb wars (all wars are awful, a very few are necesssary)?

thaumasiotes 3y ago

>> Do you know what the difference is between reality and a conspiracy theory is? > Evidence is the difference. Evidence is obviously not the difference between reality and a conspiracy theory. Were that the case, it would be impossible for a conspiracy theory to be correct. Evidence isn't even the difference between admitting that a conspiracy happened and not making that admission, but that's the best case.