The Infantile Psychology of Conspiracy Deniers

#41
I can agree with that, but it has nothing to do with the question I asked you, or the claim that you made. That's just a guess at a base rate.



We only heard about Watergate because it was an investigation which happened to uncover a legitimate conspiracy. What about all the investigations into potential conspiracies which turned out to be nothing?

You said "if a conspiracy can be adequately hidden and achieve its aims, then it is very likely to be real". "If A, then B". You can prove that using "not B, then not A". That is, you can make up examples of conspiracies that weren't and see if you can also make up ways in which they could be hidden. If you can, your claim is false, if you can't, then your claim might be true (or you may not be sufficiently devious (or motivated)). But what you definitely can't use is "If B, then A" (Watergate was real and it would have been hidden without journalistic interest) to prove anything. Logic 101.
That was not quite my logic.

if a conspiracy can be adequately hidden and achieve its aims, then it is very likely to be real

This fact will be known to those contemplating such a conspiracy.

Therefore they are more likely to attempt it.

David
 
#42
It's a literary device called "hyperbole". If I exaggerate the characteristics, it makes it easier to see the difference between being suspicious of something until it is explained, and "uncovering" an ever enlarging Conspiracy.



I have no problem for people who try to think for themselves. I would encourage them to use reason when doing so, though.

However, this thread is about calling everyone who doesn't buy into the various popular Conspiracies - "Plandemic", "Climate Denial", HIV Denial", "911 Truthers", "2020 Election Fraud", etc. - infantile. The anger comes from the essay in the thread starter, not me. I'm just pointing out that I (and most others) can be skeptical of your Conspiracies and also be skeptical of major corporations, politicians, etc.
Most "conspiracies" are based on reason. Read what the "plandemic", "climate denial", "HIV denial", "911 false flag" and "2020 Election Fraud" supporters present, and investigate it with actual honesty and curiosity.
 
#44
That was not quite my logic.

if a conspiracy can be adequately hidden and achieve its aims, then it is very likely to be real

This fact will be known to those contemplating such a conspiracy.

Therefore they are more likely to attempt it.

David
Well, as we argued about in the COVID Mask Science thread, an increase in true positives tells you nothing about your false positive rate, if your "test" is crap in the first place. I asked you how you know your "test" isn't crap? Because it just seems like made up garbage, like Anselm's Ontological argument. "If I can think of the greatest possible conspiracy, it must exist, because existence is a characteristic of the greatest conspiracy".

Again, as far as I can tell, we all agree that conspiracies do exist. But based on the failure rate demonstrated so far, I have seen no indication that your way of identifying conspiracies actually works to discover any of those real conspiracies. By chance, you might get some overlap once in a while, I suppose.
 
#45
Most "conspiracies" are based on reason. Read what the "plandemic", "climate denial", "HIV denial", "911 false flag" and "2020 Election Fraud" supporters present, and investigate it with actual honesty and curiosity.
I have done so. I have spent a lot of time looking at the presented evidence, primary documents, and the fruits of my own investigations on all those topics. That's why I became skeptical about them.
 
#46
Well, as we argued about in the COVID Mask Science thread, an increase in true positives tells you nothing about your false positive rate, if your "test" is crap in the first place. I asked you how you know your "test" isn't crap? Because it just seems like made up garbage, like Anselm's Ontological argument. "If I can think of the greatest possible conspiracy, it must exist, because existence is a characteristic of the greatest conspiracy".

Again, as far as I can tell, we all agree that conspiracies do exist. But based on the failure rate demonstrated so far, I have seen no indication that your way of identifying conspiracies actually works to discover any of those real conspiracies. By chance, you might get some overlap once in a while, I suppose.
Now that I am no-longer moderating, I can ignore idiotic conversations and those who engage in them.

David
 
#47
Do they want everything to be a conspiracy, or is everything a conspiracy? I believe that, like in many other subjects, the actual problem is in the terminology. We call these things "conspiracies" because we're surprised that they happen, because they were (obviously) hidden. They're not conspiracies, they're actual history. Some people lose their minds investigating this type of thing, I don't deny it. But I too question if they actually lose their minds, or if they are portrayed by the media as losing their minds, because they got their hands onto something that endangers some particular interests, and calling them "conspiracy theorists" is an easy way to discredit them, ergo, getting rid of the hassle.

I've read many so-called "conspiracy theories", and I've investigated them by my own, and probably, out of ten I've read, two were kinda hilarious and paranoic. But the others made total sense, and were consistent with what I discovered through my own investigations. So I believe what they propose, until I'm showed contradictory evidence (which haven't happened yet).

(By the way, many "conspiracy theories" can be resumed into one big conspiracy. But that's another issue.)
When I read this, I feel that your soul is from the British isles.
 
#51
Huh? Who's? There's all kinds of contradictory "discernment" and "judgement" taking place here.
My own.

You just can't see that because you've obviously not judged or discerned the same way. I'm talking about our natural capacity to reason and come to conclusions that are based on how we see the world. Everyone has to do the same for themselves.
 
#52
My own.

You just can't see that because you've obviously not judged or discerned the same way. I'm talking about our natural capacity to reason and come to conclusions that are based on how we see the world. Everyone has to do the same for themselves.
I see. Sorry, I misunderstood what you were getting at.

I agree. People are making their own judgements in their own way. So it's a bit silly to call anybody who doesn't agree with you "infantile" (not saying you did). Unless you have an objective way of figuring out what is or isn't legitimate, I suppose.
 
#53
The essay was just a point of view, a topic of conversation that many can totally understand because they've seen it. I've seen it.

So I think it might be triggering because either it's false and it is stupid to people, because it actually is. Or it's triggering because perhaps it does indeed, reveal the psychology of people who aren't facing up to something that may be a truth in our world.

Whatever the answer, it sure does get a reaction out of people!
 
#56
Entertaining, but I'm not sure it's all that helpful. For one, it's also just a bunch of unproven assertions. And most of them are judgement calls anyways. When is connecting the dots justified, and when is it unjustified? Because all discovery involves connecting the dots. How many co-conspirators are too many? How grand the ambition is too grand? And most everybody suffers from confirmation bias, and ignores disconfirmation.
 
#57
Entertaining, but I'm not sure it's all that helpful. For one, it's also just a bunch of unproven assertions. And most of them are judgement calls anyways. When is connecting the dots justified, and when is it unjustified? Because all discovery involves connecting the dots. How many co-conspirators are too many? How grand the ambition is too grand? And most everybody suffers from confirmation bias, and ignores disconfirmation.
Yeah, fair enough. But a step up from the OP article...
 
Top