Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Most of modern science is based on facts which are impossible to varify 
> without some seriously expensive equipment. The scientists doing this 
> work can easily verify that the established theories are correct, but 
> it's a valid question as to whether the fact that laypeople believe it 
> counts as science or just a belief system...

  OTOH science is more trustworthy than layman hearsay because experiments
are usually corroborated by many independent parties (who would have all
the motivation in the world to report that the experiment doesn't work).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Most of modern science is based on facts which are impossible to varify 
>> without some seriously expensive equipment. The scientists doing this 
>> work can easily verify that the established theories are correct, but 
>> it's a valid question as to whether the fact that laypeople believe it 
>> counts as science or just a belief system...
> 
>   OTOH science is more trustworthy than layman hearsay because experiments
> are usually corroborated by many independent parties (who would have all
> the motivation in the world to report that the experiment doesn't work).

...and *that* is why I personally believe it. ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 20:00:38 +0200, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did  
spake thusly:

> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Most of modern science is based on facts which are impossible to varify
>> without some seriously expensive equipment. The scientists doing this
>> work can easily verify that the established theories are correct, but
>> it's a valid question as to whether the fact that laypeople believe it
>> counts as science or just a belief system...
>
>   OTOH science is more trustworthy than layman hearsay because  
> experiments
> are usually corroborated by many independent parties (who would have all
> the motivation in the world to report that the experiment doesn't work).

They're all in it together I tells ye, a vast conspiracy to let the  
reptile people take over and eat all our hamsters.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook v2 wrote:

> They're all in it together I tells ye, a vast conspiracy to let the 
> reptile people take over and eat all our hamsters.

That's worryingly good.

Some of these people must surely be suffering from a diagnosible mental 
condition...

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 13:21:32 +0200, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

> Phil Cook v2 wrote:
>
>> They're all in it together I tells ye, a vast conspiracy to let the  
>> reptile people take over and eat all our hamsters.
>
> That's worryingly good.
>
> Some of these people must surely be suffering from a diagnosible mental  
> condition...

I wonder sometimes if conspiracy theories start this way. Somebody makes a  
joke about something and some-one else takes it seriously... ;-)

-- 
-Nekar Xenos-

"The spoon is not real"

Post a reply to this message

Nekar Xenos wrote:
> I wonder sometimes if conspiracy theories start this way. Somebody makes 
> a joke about something and some-one else takes it seriously... ;-)

Loose change?

http://www.cracked.com/article_15740_was-911-inside-job.html

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Nekar Xenos wrote:
> > I wonder sometimes if conspiracy theories start this way. Somebody makes 
> > a joke about something and some-one else takes it seriously... ;-)

> Loose change?

> http://www.cracked.com/article_15740_was-911-inside-job.html

  Loose change didn't *start* the conspiracy theory, though.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Nekar Xenos wrote:
>>> I wonder sometimes if conspiracy theories start this way. Somebody makes 
>>> a joke about something and some-one else takes it seriously... ;-)
> 
>> Loose change?
> 
>> http://www.cracked.com/article_15740_was-911-inside-job.html
> 
>   Loose change didn't *start* the conspiracy theory, though.

True. But I think it was the main driving factor in making people take it 
seriously who aren't normally conspiracy theory nuts.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> True. But I think it was the main driving factor in making people take it 
> seriously who aren't normally conspiracy theory nuts.

  I like to compare conspiracy theorists with magicians:

  A magician shows you a trick, and you have *no idea whatsoever* how it
could possibly work. You think and think about it, and you can't come up
with anything. It seems miraculous. Yet you know it's just a trick. While
some tricks are truly quite contrived and require a lot of practice to be
performed convincingly, in many cases if someone explains the trick, it's
almost laughably simple. You are like "Doh! Why didn't I think of that?"
It's almost disappointing how simple the trick was. Yet you couldn't explain
it unless someone explained it to you.

  Likewise it often happens that a conspiracy theorists shows you a quite
cleverly posed argument, for example something in a photograph which seems
to indicate that it has been faked. Even if you are an experienced debunker,
if it's something new to you, you may be left dumbfounded, with no rational
explanation. You may struggle to come up with an explanation, but you just
can't think of anything.

  But it's just like a magic trick: The argument has been so cleverly posed
that it fools you completely, but once someone explains it to you (or you
come up with the correct explanation by studying the phenomenon), it becomes
laughably simple and straightforward. "Doh! Why didn't I think of that?"

  I have been baffled by new conspiracy theory arguments myself, even though
I'm pretty experienced at debunking them. I *know* that these new arguments
are not legit, but I just can't come up with any kind of answer. It's just
like a magic trick. Only afterwards, when I gather more information about
the subject, it becomes very easy to explain.

  The difference between magicians and conspiracy theorists is, however,
that magicians don't claim that the tricks are real, while the theorists
do claim that their arguments are valid and genuine. Well, not all magicians,
of course. There are always a few "Uri Gellers" who try to claim (sometimes
rather successfully) that their tricks are the real thing and not tricks at
all. These phony magicians and conspiracy theorists have a lot in common.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   The difference between magicians and conspiracy theorists is, however,
> that magicians don't claim that the tricks are real, while the theorists
> do claim that their arguments are valid and genuine. Well, not all magicians,
> of course. There are always a few "Uri Gellers" who try to claim (sometimes
> rather successfully) that their tricks are the real thing and not tricks at
> all. These phony magicians and conspiracy theorists have a lot in common.

One might argue that the difference between a magician and a conspiracy 
theorists is that few magicians believe that their tricks are real magic 
(regardless of what they tell everybody else). ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message