4 ms·

If anyone wants the list of "conspiracy theories" - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-51653-z/tables/2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-51653

If anyone wants the list of "conspiracy theories" - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-51653-z/tables/2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-51653-z/tables/2

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
Why the scare quotes?
- gadders 3y ago
  Some people might not agree they are conspiracy theories? They can decide for themselves if they qualify.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Some people might not agree they are conspiracy theories Some people believe in a flat earth, that doesn't mean we pander to them. The study presented the most extreme interpretation of each of trope. It didn't ask if one believes vaccines can cause harm. It asked if their harm is being "covered up by governments and pharmaceutical companies," and if "COVID-19 'vaccines' contain microchips to monitor and control people." That's chemtrail-calibre nonsense. (Which, of course, they include.)
    - anonymoushn 3y ago
      The basically undeniable lab leak hypothesis is included with a minor tweak that renders the claim incorrect. The thing about fluoride differs from reality only because it has incorrect claims about people's motives. If it said "Fluoride concentration is negatively correlated with IQ" it would just be a fact. "Vaccine harm coverup" is untrue but one could be forgiven for mistakenly believing in it after an endless stream of lies about vaccine efficacy and other sorts of covid misinformation from the CDC and WHO. For a specific example of this sort of thing, in April of 2022, at the height of big tech censorship of "covid misinformation," you could search for "is covid airborne" on Google and get a summary of this article[0] above all the search results, informing you that it's totally not airborne. [0]: https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/modes-of-transmission-of-virus-causing-covid-19-implications-for-ipc-precaution-recommendations https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/modes-of-t...
    - gadders 3y ago
      As a thought experiment, if it was discovered tomorrow that that Covid vaccines had some terrible side effects, do you think that information would be made public given that the people that developed the vaccine and pushed for its rollout are mostly still in post?
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > if it was discovered tomorrow that that Covid vaccines had some terrible side effects, do you think that information would be made public given that the people that developed the vaccine and pushed for its rollout are mostly still in post? Yes. There is an incredibly motivated political constituency putting tremendous political capital on the table for anyone who can show this. Secrets hide in banality. The stuff that gets covered up is more usually a chemical or treatment you and I have never heard of, because it's so, so, so fucking boring that even if you had terrible information about it, there is no ready constituency who would care.
        gadders 3y ago
        I should have added to my statement "by now". I think things tend towards disclosure. We had coverups in the UK of rape gangs operating in northern towns which was eventually came to light after many years. I think if there are significant vaccine harms they will come to light. I don't know that if those harms exist they would have come to light by now.
        orwin 3y ago
        The more people are involved, the most likely it is that it will be leaked shortly after. Intentionally harmful vaccines would incredibly hard to pull off.
        gadders 3y ago
        >>Intentionally harmful vaccines would incredibly hard to pull off. Oh, I don't think it was intentional. Just a (hypothetical, not confirmed) unintentional side effect.
- mr_mitm 3y ago
  Interestingly, in the German-speaking scientific literature and science communicators, there is a movement to call it "conspiracy ideologies", "conspiracy myth" or "conspiracy narratives" (they have not found a consensus yet), because they're not theories according to Karl Popper and generally lack any properties that we would usually expect a scientific theory to have. Personally, I disagree. No one feels flattered being called a "conspiracy theorist" and I don't really see the need to differentiate, especially if a general audience is being addressed.
  - nonrandomstring 3y ago
    Indeed, a theory must be testable. If it cannot be falsified then it doesn't count. Not all such have to be "conspiracies", so the existence of gods or flying spaghetti monsters also don't count. The perfect "conspiracy theory" is unfalsifiable. They survive by evolution, since lesser (falsifiable) conspiracies get debunked.
    - mr_mitm 3y ago
      You could argue that conspiracy theories are falsifiable, and it's just that conspiracy theorists won't accept any proof. The flat earth theory for instance is easily debunkable: just take a flight from Auckland to Santiago de Chile.
      - nonrandomstring 3y ago
        You're absolutely right of course, about flat-earthers. Those sorts of people delight in dismissing incontrovertible physical evidence. Compare that with "Who really shot JFK?". Let's say that tomorrow we read a deathbed confession by the highest ranking CIA or KGB officer, setting out exactly how it all went down. At least half the people would just not believe it. Especially in the age of "deep-fakes". The narrative would just "slip sideways" into "how the whole fake confession was engineered". It's like chasing that last pea around the plate with a fork. The sharper the instrument, the less use it is. With time it's essentially become an unknowable thing. So that's what a I mean my "perfect conspiracy theory". JFK is a much more perfect "conspiracy" than flat-earth or faked moon landings which have elements of timeless physical evidence.
anonzzzies 3y ago
I know a few nutcases that believe in all of these but there are far more ; notably flat earth and the moon landing are missing for instance. But many more.
- CraigJPerry 3y ago
  Is “flat earth” not in the same camp as “the birds aren’t real”? I.e. never ever accept any possible hint that it’s satire, but it is satire. It’s a bunch of folks who don’t believe but want you to believe that they do believe.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Is “flat earth” not in the same camp as “the birds aren’t real”? I.e. never ever accept any possible hint that it’s satire, but it is satire It probably started that way. But I've met people who seriously believe it. Combination of preferring a force that has its hands on the reins, even if in the shadows, to the anarchic reality human civilisation exists in, and longing for a sense of belonging, with the exercise of actually believing the ridiculous almost serving as a pledge of loyalty.
  - anonzzzies 3y ago
    I know people who believe and try to convert others. Also they get aggressive when you find it nonsense. They believe that the govs of the world band together to patrol the ice wall, that education hides the real shape of our world, that all nasa materials are fake and made of deceive us etc. And flat earthers are well known to believe all other conspiracy theories as well and usually fit them in their flat view easily by making up theories that make no sense but spread like wildfire.
  - throwawayqqq11 3y ago
    Unfortunately it is real for some. It ties into the fundamentalist christian sphere, which is a strong ground. I lost a childhood friend over this.
  - mr_mitm 3y ago
    There is a Netflix documentary on it. They're real, they're having real conventions and everything. They sometimes even try to prove the earth is flat, but fail every time, which somehow does nothing to their convictions.

If anyone wants the list of "conspiracy theories" - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-51653-z/tables/2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-51653-z/tables/2

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

Why the scare quotes?

gadders 3y ago
Some people might not agree they are conspiracy theories? They can decide for themselves if they qualify.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Some people might not agree they are conspiracy theories Some people believe in a flat earth, that doesn't mean we pander to them. The study presented the most extreme interpretation of each of trope. It didn't ask if one believes vaccines can cause harm. It asked if their harm is being "covered up by governments and pharmaceutical companies," and if "COVID-19 'vaccines' contain microchips to monitor and control people." That's chemtrail-calibre nonsense. (Which, of course, they include.)
  - anonymoushn 3y ago
    The basically undeniable lab leak hypothesis is included with a minor tweak that renders the claim incorrect. The thing about fluoride differs from reality only because it has incorrect claims about people's motives. If it said "Fluoride concentration is negatively correlated with IQ" it would just be a fact. "Vaccine harm coverup" is untrue but one could be forgiven for mistakenly believing in it after an endless stream of lies about vaccine efficacy and other sorts of covid misinformation from the CDC and WHO. For a specific example of this sort of thing, in April of 2022, at the height of big tech censorship of "covid misinformation," you could search for "is covid airborne" on Google and get a summary of this article[0] above all the search results, informing you that it's totally not airborne. [0]: https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/modes-of-transmission-of-virus-causing-covid-19-implications-for-ipc-precaution-recommendations https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/modes-of-t...
  - gadders 3y ago
    As a thought experiment, if it was discovered tomorrow that that Covid vaccines had some terrible side effects, do you think that information would be made public given that the people that developed the vaccine and pushed for its rollout are mostly still in post?
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > if it was discovered tomorrow that that Covid vaccines had some terrible side effects, do you think that information would be made public given that the people that developed the vaccine and pushed for its rollout are mostly still in post? Yes. There is an incredibly motivated political constituency putting tremendous political capital on the table for anyone who can show this. Secrets hide in banality. The stuff that gets covered up is more usually a chemical or treatment you and I have never heard of, because it's so, so, so fucking boring that even if you had terrible information about it, there is no ready constituency who would care.
      - gadders 3y ago
        I should have added to my statement "by now". I think things tend towards disclosure. We had coverups in the UK of rape gangs operating in northern towns which was eventually came to light after many years. I think if there are significant vaccine harms they will come to light. I don't know that if those harms exist they would have come to light by now.
        orwin 3y ago
        The more people are involved, the most likely it is that it will be leaked shortly after. Intentionally harmful vaccines would incredibly hard to pull off.
        gadders 3y ago
        >>Intentionally harmful vaccines would incredibly hard to pull off. Oh, I don't think it was intentional. Just a (hypothetical, not confirmed) unintentional side effect.
mr_mitm 3y ago
Interestingly, in the German-speaking scientific literature and science communicators, there is a movement to call it "conspiracy ideologies", "conspiracy myth" or "conspiracy narratives" (they have not found a consensus yet), because they're not theories according to Karl Popper and generally lack any properties that we would usually expect a scientific theory to have. Personally, I disagree. No one feels flattered being called a "conspiracy theorist" and I don't really see the need to differentiate, especially if a general audience is being addressed.
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  Indeed, a theory must be testable. If it cannot be falsified then it doesn't count. Not all such have to be "conspiracies", so the existence of gods or flying spaghetti monsters also don't count. The perfect "conspiracy theory" is unfalsifiable. They survive by evolution, since lesser (falsifiable) conspiracies get debunked.
  - mr_mitm 3y ago
    You could argue that conspiracy theories are falsifiable, and it's just that conspiracy theorists won't accept any proof. The flat earth theory for instance is easily debunkable: just take a flight from Auckland to Santiago de Chile.
    - nonrandomstring 3y ago
      You're absolutely right of course, about flat-earthers. Those sorts of people delight in dismissing incontrovertible physical evidence. Compare that with "Who really shot JFK?". Let's say that tomorrow we read a deathbed confession by the highest ranking CIA or KGB officer, setting out exactly how it all went down. At least half the people would just not believe it. Especially in the age of "deep-fakes". The narrative would just "slip sideways" into "how the whole fake confession was engineered". It's like chasing that last pea around the plate with a fork. The sharper the instrument, the less use it is. With time it's essentially become an unknowable thing. So that's what a I mean my "perfect conspiracy theory". JFK is a much more perfect "conspiracy" than flat-earth or faked moon landings which have elements of timeless physical evidence.

anonzzzies 3y ago

I know a few nutcases that believe in all of these but there are far more ; notably flat earth and the moon landing are missing for instance. But many more.

CraigJPerry 3y ago
Is “flat earth” not in the same camp as “the birds aren’t real”? I.e. never ever accept any possible hint that it’s satire, but it is satire. It’s a bunch of folks who don’t believe but want you to believe that they do believe.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Is “flat earth” not in the same camp as “the birds aren’t real”? I.e. never ever accept any possible hint that it’s satire, but it is satire It probably started that way. But I've met people who seriously believe it. Combination of preferring a force that has its hands on the reins, even if in the shadows, to the anarchic reality human civilisation exists in, and longing for a sense of belonging, with the exercise of actually believing the ridiculous almost serving as a pledge of loyalty.
- anonzzzies 3y ago
  I know people who believe and try to convert others. Also they get aggressive when you find it nonsense. They believe that the govs of the world band together to patrol the ice wall, that education hides the real shape of our world, that all nasa materials are fake and made of deceive us etc. And flat earthers are well known to believe all other conspiracy theories as well and usually fit them in their flat view easily by making up theories that make no sense but spread like wildfire.
- throwawayqqq11 3y ago
  Unfortunately it is real for some. It ties into the fundamentalist christian sphere, which is a strong ground. I lost a childhood friend over this.
- mr_mitm 3y ago
  There is a Netflix documentary on it. They're real, they're having real conventions and everything. They sometimes even try to prove the earth is flat, but fail every time, which somehow does nothing to their convictions.