What is wrong with being a Conspiracy Theorist?

Aqueous Id,

Or that's the delusion he's operating under, being driven by at least mild mental imbalances.
Click to expand...

Or maybe you're operating under the delusion that he is operating under the delusion...
Can you see how that kind of analisys is a non starter?

Some of the ones I've noticed include a narcissistic sense of having outsmarted the conspirators (who tend to be smart people to begin with) coupled with a highly naive perception of inner workings of the issue itself, and particularly of the way the alleged conspirators acted.
Click to expand...

Can you give examples of this?

This is different I think to the legitimate forms of critical investigation into authority. The Karen Silkwood story is one that comes to mind. Silkwood was generally dismissed as a nut and conspiracy theorist, but was able get a little traction and of course the truth came out long after it was too late for her.

For a person who thinks they've outsmarted the smart people, their best hope is to be smart about bringing the evidence, so that they may more easily distinguish themselves from the nuts.
Click to expand...

Would you regard JFK, or Malcom X as conspriacy nuts?

jan.
 
if you do not agree with "accepted" physicist doctrine you are immediately labeled a "crackpot" not matter how glaring wrong their accepted beliefs are. No wonder we have been stuck where we are for so long.
 
ttown_okie said:
if you do not agree with "accepted" physicist doctrine you are immediately labeled a "crackpot" not matter how glaring wrong their accepted beliefs are. No wonder we have been stuck where we are for so long.
Click to expand...

At last! Someone who can express things
as they see them.

What are your views on conspiracy theorists?

jan.
 
ttown_okie said:
if you do not agree with "accepted" physicist doctrine you are immediately labeled a "crackpot" not matter how glaring wrong their accepted beliefs are. No wonder we have been stuck where we are for so long.
Click to expand...

This is nonsense, obviously. Can you actually give an example of what "physicist doctrine" that is "glaring wrong", or are you speaking in generalities because that's all you've got?

And what do you mean we've been stuck where we are? Stuck where?
 
Aqueous Id said:
For a person who thinks they've outsmarted the smart people, their best hope is to be smart about bringing the evidence, so that they may more easily distinguish themselves from the nuts.
Click to expand...

When large scale phenomenon are involved which defy the Laws of Physics then the problem is rather different.

If the majority of people believe things which are impossible then there is definitely a psychological factor involved. Of course when the physics profession cannot do something as simple as discuss the location of the "center of gravity" of the tilted top 30 stories of the south tower for 11 years, when we KNOW the tilted 22 degrees, then we have to wonder who is being smart.

psik
 
wynn said:
And you believe that this poster is expressing things in a way that he doesn't see them??

??
Click to expand...

It would appear that way.
Then again if could respond to the last question I asked him, there's a possibility
that I my mind could be changed.

That was only one example.
These forums are littered with preset expressions and to itemise them would be a pointless pursuit.

jan.
 
Jan Ardena said:
It would appear that way.
Then again if could respond to the last question I asked him, there's a possibility
that I my mind could be changed.

That was only one example.
These forums are littered with preset expressions and to itemise them would be a pointless pursuit.

jan.
Click to expand...

You are making no sense at all. You're claiming he's expressing things as he does not see them. No- you're entire claim is based on whether he is expressing things as you see them. He's supposed to agree with you. We all are.
When someone posted something you agreed with- you claimed he was expressing things as he sees them. No, he was expressing as you see them.

Saying he's expressing as he does not see them is absolute nonsense. The only way your mind will change is if he answers you in a way you agree with- as you see things.

You are not one to talk about 'preset expressions."
 
Neverfly said:
You are making no sense at all. You're claiming he's expressing things as he does not see them. No- you're entire claim is based on whether he is expressing things as you see them. He's supposed to agree with you. We all are.
When someone posted something you agreed with- you claimed he was expressing things as he sees them. No, he was expressing as you see them.

Saying he's expressing as he does not see them is absolute nonsense. The only way your mind will change is if he answers you in a way you agree with- as you see things.

You are not one to talk about 'preset expressions."
Click to expand...

It appears from his post that conspiracy theorists are delusional, and/or narcasistic?

How does he actually SEE it like that?

jan.
 
Neverfly said:
You are making no sense at all. You're claiming he's expressing things as he does not see them. No- you're entire claim is based on whether he is expressing things as you see them. He's supposed to agree with you. We all are.
When someone posted something you agreed with- you claimed he was expressing things as he sees them. No, he was expressing as you see them.

Saying he's expressing as he does not see them is absolute nonsense. The only way your mind will change is if he answers you in a way you agree with- as you see things.

You are not one to talk about 'preset expressions."
Click to expand...

There are people (and they can be found both among theists as well as among atheists) who have no functional notion of "perspective," "subjectivity," "opinion."
To these people, whatever they think about how things really are, this is how things really are; these people don't have a functional notion of "this is my opinion (and not necessarily the absolute, objective truth)", and so this distinction between subjectivity and objectivity is impossible for them to understand, impossible for anyone to explain it to them.

Of course, when directly challenged, some of these people will make declarative statements of subjectivity (ie. they will clearly say that they are just presenting their opinions), but otherwise in conversation, they speak in an objective-sounding form as if they would be speaking from an omniscient perspective.
 
Jan Ardena said:
It would appear that way.
Then again if could respond to the last question I asked him, there's a possibility
that I my mind could be changed.

That was only one example.
These forums are littered with preset expressions and to itemise them would be a pointless pursuit.
Click to expand...

I have the impression that by saying this -

Jan Ardena said:
At last! Someone who can express things as they see them.
Click to expand...

you actually meant something like -

"At last! Someone who can express things as they really are!"
 
wynn said:
There are people (and they can be found both among theists as well as among atheists) who have no functional notion of "perspective," "subjectivity," "opinion."
To these people, whatever they think about how things really are, this is how things really are; these people don't have a functional notion of "this is my opinion (and not necessarily the absolute, objective truth)", and so this distinction between subjectivity and objectivity is impossible for them to understand, impossible for anyone to explain it to them.

Of course, when directly challenged, some of these people will make declarative statements of subjectivity (ie. they will clearly say that they are just presenting their opinions), but otherwise in conversation, they speak in an objective-sounding form as if they would be speaking from an omniscient perspective.
Click to expand...

Laser guided hammer. On sale now at Home Depot.

Way to hit the nail on the head.
 
wynn said:
There are people (and they can be found both among theists as well as among atheists) who have no functional notion of "perspective," "subjectivity," "opinion."
To these people, whatever they think about how things really are, this is how things really are; these people don't have a functional notion of "this is my opinion (and not necessarily the absolute, objective truth)", and so this distinction between subjectivity and objectivity is impossible for them to understand, impossible for anyone to explain it to them.

Of course, when directly challenged, some of these people will make declarative statements of subjectivity (ie. they will clearly say that they are just presenting their opinions), but otherwise in conversation, they speak in an objective-sounding form as if they would be speaking from an omniscient perspective.
Click to expand...

This is important because many here do not word their declarations in ways that would facilitate good, amiable, logical debate. And instead go down the this is true semantical route that flames and fans agitated discourse.

I think we could get a lot more info on each others beliefs, theories etc. if we just thought a little bit more deeply about how to present our respective sides to the present opposing debater; to get the most from them by respecting their positions and keeping the discussion flowing amicably. And actually being interested in peoples' specific personal positions to understand the crux of their arguments.

Maybe I am generalising too much?
 
wynn said:
There are people (and they can be found both among theists as well as among atheists) who have no functional notion of "perspective," "subjectivity," "opinion."
To these people, whatever they think about how things really are, this is how things really are; these people don't have a functional notion of "this is my opinion (and not necessarily the absolute, objective truth)", and so this distinction between subjectivity and objectivity is impossible for them to understand, impossible for anyone to explain it to them.

Of course, when directly challenged, some of these people will make declarative statements of subjectivity (ie. they will clearly say that they are just presenting their opinions), but otherwise in conversation, they speak in an objective-sounding form as if they would be speaking from an omniscient perspective.
Click to expand...

The irony here is that you do the same thing, except you don't pretend you're presenting subjective opinion. I suppose there's something to be said for dropping all pretense, but it's still ironic that you're making such a lucid comment about these kinds of people as if you aren't one of them.
 
Excerpt of an Article published recently [re: Chemtrails conspiracy]:

Spraying the skies to save the planet?

Interestingly, the United Nations (UN) and various Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation-backed groups have recently been forced to admit that such sprayings are taking place, and that the emitted particles are not normal contrails. But their excuse for why chemtrail sprayings are being done is that they will somehow save the planet from the devastating effects of so-called “global warming,” that ever-present, pseudoscientific environmental theory that is often used as justification for all sorts of outlandish policy proposals.
Click to expand...
and
Those long, white streams of persistent, cloudy haze commonly blasted into blue skies by unmarked airplanes are not your typical contrails, says Swedish Green Party leader Pernilla Hagberg. As reported by the Swedish paper Katrineholms Kuriren, Hagberg, the first major political leader to come forward on the issue, has openly admitted that these unusual cloud trails, which fail to dissipate like normal contrails do, are actually a toxic mix of chemicals, viruses, and metals that she has collectively referred to as “chemtrails.”
Click to expand...

believe it or not!:)

edit: Gosh, it reeks of relationship to that SF movie called "Serenity"

Atmospherical medication...
[video=youtube;7EcyhneTXiY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EcyhneTXiY[/video]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top