 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://www.cracked.com/funny-44-conspiracy-theories/
My favorite quote:
"Conspiracy theorists view logical argument as cheating."
Although the rest of the page is pretty good, too :)
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers <Ben### [at] gmail com_no_underscores> wrote:
> http://www.cracked.com/funny-44-conspiracy-theories/
I have to admit one thing, though: Some conspiracy theorists are quite
clever. They are real masters at presenting evidence in a way that fools
even an intelligent, educated person who has done his research on the
subject so that he has no idea what the real explanation is and is basically
bereft of counter-arguments without extensive additional research (which,
fortunately, as usually already been done and can be found with a google
search).
I, for example, have read quite a lot of material by both the conspiracy
theorists and the debunkers, and I am quite familiar with all the "classical"
conspiracy theory claims and the presented "evidence" supporting those claims,
as well as the true explanations (which are usually rather simple when you
know the facts). Yet even I, from time to time, stumble across some "evidence"
that I just have no answer to and can't give any explanation all by myself.
Basically this "evidence" presented by the conspiracy theorists consists
of really clever trick questions: By the way they are presented, they can be
quite convincing and it's difficult to come up with any other explanation.
(Yet usually when you read a competent debunking of the claim, the facts
become quite clear and obvious.)
This is also usually the reason why scientists and debunkers don't like
to go to eg. discussion panels eg. in live radio against conspiracy theorists.
The conspiracy theorists will usually have prepared a bunch of cleverly laid
out trick questions which the debunker has never thought of before, and in
a live situation the debunker has only a few seconds to come up with an
answer. Like with all clever trick questions, this can be really difficult,
even if the answer is really simple. While the conspiracy theorist is wrong,
it gives the impression that he wins the discussion because the debunker is
surprised by this kind of trick question and has only a few seconds to
respond.
(The situation would be very different if all the questions and arguments
were presented to the debunker well in advance, and the conspiracy theorist
would be prohibited from asking anything that wasn't presented in advance.
But of course this is seldom if ever done.)
If even I get tricked by such cleverly presented "evidence" ("tricked" in
the sense that I just can't come up with the correct answer on my own),
I don't find it at all surprising that so many people believe in the
conspiracy theory.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> http://www.cracked.com/funny-44-conspiracy-theories/
>
> My favorite quote:
> "Conspiracy theorists view logical argument as cheating."
>
> Although the rest of the page is pretty good, too :)
>
lol... Fun read :)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> http://www.cracked.com/funny-44-conspiracy-theories/
>
> My favorite quote:
> "Conspiracy theorists view logical argument as cheating."
>
> Although the rest of the page is pretty good, too :)
>
Almost everybody, at some time or other, views logical arguments against
his(or her) position as cheating. It *is* probably true that a master
logician can
pull the wool over most of our eyes. And of course there is no logical
counter
to pure nonsense. Conspiracy theories are addictive; they give the believer
such a feeling of superiority -- but so is debunking. :)
David
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> My favorite quote:
> "Conspiracy theorists view logical argument as cheating."
I was hoping for 44 funny conspiracy theories. I liked the Rambo quote
better, myself.
Altho it's funny. I've started seeing religion in these types of articles.
When people make fun of conspiracy theories, and then you read exactly the
same thing and put the word "religion" in there, it sounds the same to me.
Maybe that's just me, tho.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Altho it's funny. I've started seeing religion in these types of articles.
> When people make fun of conspiracy theories, and then you read exactly the
> same thing and put the word "religion" in there, it sounds the same to me.
> Maybe that's just me, tho.
There's a common pattern there indeed: A tendency of people to attribute
everything they observe to the very same root cause.
In christianity for instance, everything bad is a conspiracy by Satan and his
demons. People denying it are obviously influenced by Satan, too. If something
conforms to the belief in God, it's proof for His existance; if something
contradicts it, it is a deception by Satan (or, alternatively, a test of
faith).
In conspiracianism, everything bad is a conspiracy by The Powers That Be. People
denying it are obviously influenced by The Powers, too (be it through money or
mind control). If some evidence speaks in favor of the conspiracy, it's another
proof of course; it something contradicts it, it is a cover-up plot by The
Powers That Be.
Not much of a difference here I guss.
In science, everything inexplicable is just a flaw in the accepted theories.
People refusing to accept those theories are obviously blinded by superstition.
If some experiment confirms their predictions, it's proof that the theories are
correct; if some experiment contradicts them, the system of theories just needs
some more refinement and consolidation.
Duh...
Maybe it's just that Man was designed (by means of Evolution of course) to
analyze, categorize, search for common patterns, etc.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> In christianity for instance, everything bad is a conspiracy by Satan and his
> demons.
>
While far to many christians do hold this view, it is not fundamental to
christianity as
I see it; and is dead wrong). It's always comforting to have someone,
other than ourselves,
to blame for our own follies and mistakes. But you might wish to argue
that the belief and
behavior of christians is what christianity is.
> In science, everything inexplicable is just a flaw in the accepted theories.
> People refusing to accept those theories are obviously blinded by superstition.
> If some experiment confirms their predictions, it's proof that the theories are
> correct; if some experiment contradicts them, the system of theories just needs
> some more refinement and consolidation.
>
> Duh...
Duh? This seems to be a pretty good description of the "scientific
method", which
I guess we could say is bothe the power and the weakness of science. :)
David
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"David H. Burns" <dhb### [at] cherokeetelnet> wrote:
>
> > In christianity for instance, everything bad is a conspiracy by Satan and his
> > demons.
> >
> While far to many christians do hold this view, it is not fundamental to
> christianity as
> I see it; and is dead wrong). It's always comforting to have someone,
> other than ourselves,
> to blame for our own follies and mistakes. But you might wish to argue
> that the belief and
> behavior of christians is what christianity is.
Of course the picture I painted is somewhat exaggerated to the respective
fundamentalists' perspective.
Further, I'd question the definition of a christian by his behavior, as behavior
may be founded on a much different basis than christian belief.
It's also a question what actually constitutes "christian" belief; if you're
trying to separate it from concepts such as God, Satan, heaven, angels, saints,
the Bible, or any some such, then you don't leave much that christians can
exclusively claim their own, and "ethical person" may turn out a more fitting
term.
> > In science, everything inexplicable is just a flaw in the accepted theories.
> > People refusing to accept those theories are obviously blinded by superstition.
> > If some experiment confirms their predictions, it's proof that the theories are
> > correct; if some experiment contradicts them, the system of theories just needs
> > some more refinement and consolidation.
> >
> > Duh...
> Duh? This seems to be a pretty good description of the "scientific
> method", which
> I guess we could say is bothe the power and the weakness of science. :)
"Duh" because seen this way, I don't think there's much of a difference between
religion and "fundamentalist" science either.
If a scientist claims that *everything* is (or will eventually become)
explicable by science and anyone not acknowledging this is mislead by
superstition, then he's just as fundamentalist as a christian claiming that
*everything* is explained in the Bible and anyone not acknowledging this is
mislead by Satan, or a conspirationist claiming that *everything* is the work
of The Powers That Be and anyone not acknowledging this is mislead by the very
same.
So the only point of view that seems somewhat different in this respect is that
of the agnostic who claims he simply doesn't know - but even those may come in
a fundamentalist flavor, claiming that we *cannot* know and anyone not
acknowledging this is mislead by pride.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> This is also usually the reason why scientists and debunkers don't like
> to go to eg. discussion panels eg. in live radio against conspiracy theorists.
> The conspiracy theorists will usually have prepared a bunch of cleverly laid
> out trick questions which the debunker has never thought of before, and in
> a live situation the debunker has only a few seconds to come up with an
> answer.
Another reason is that, usually, the deck is stacked in such venues, and
its usually far easier to spout out 10 minutes of conspiracy laden
misinformation, logical fallacies and made up BS, than it is to spend
the same 10 minutes debunking any of it. In some case, it could take 30
minutes per "issue" raised by the wacko, to explain properly. Woo wins
where there are time limits and the audience is already thinking they
should have gone down the street to watch the strippers, than sit and
listen to two people debate about the hollow earth theory of reptile
world domination. There is no way in hell those people are going to sit
through 6 hours or rebuttals, even if the hosts of the kangaroo debate
where willing to give a scientist the time to do so.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> My favorite quote:
>> "Conspiracy theorists view logical argument as cheating."
>
> I was hoping for 44 funny conspiracy theories. I liked the Rambo quote
> better, myself.
>
> Altho it's funny. I've started seeing religion in these types of
> articles. When people make fun of conspiracy theories, and then you read
> exactly the same thing and put the word "religion" in there, it sounds
> the same to me. Maybe that's just me, tho.
>
Nope. The exact same tactics are used by those trying to defend the idea
of "faith" against the real world, every time the two conflict (which in
this century is just about every time someone says, "But the Bible says...")
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
