The Validity of Conspiracy Theories

[Bernie Gunther]

At some time during his "outlaw" period, possibly under the influence of William Burroughs, Leary came to see Aleister Crowley as someone who had also pioneered experimentation on his own nervous system and as a predecessor.

This seemed to result in a lot of telepathic communication with benevolent cosmic aliens and so on while he was in Vacaville prison. Again associated with the term "neuroscience" in the sense in which Leary latterly tended to use it.

Leary was a fascinating chap and the world is a better place for having him in it, I have no doubt. But his use of the word "neuroscience" is often non-standard.

 

[Azrael23]

I`ll read up on Leary i`ve never heard of him.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Leary's influence and this usage of the term has carried over into UK alternative culture via the work of various neo-Crowleyites. Especially Psychic TV who are big fans of this sort of stuff and also a prolific and entertaining bunch of acid-munching loons in the North of England in the 80's who tended to call themselves "chaos magicians" and sometimes "psychonauts".

 

[rocketman]

Nope. The fact that it lacks testable hypotheses, isn't based on evidence and makes no attempt to come up with objective evaluation methods means that it has no place in science _and_ that I think it's weird.
/snip

Hi there:
Materialistic scientific measurement has a certain amount to offer, I suppose. But as a basic tenet it holds that reality can actually be measured empirically, which it can to a certain extent, except that all empirical measurement is faulty because it relies on individual or collective perception, which cannot be totally proven.
It returns to the old debates about trees and forests - if a tree falls in a forest and there's no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?
Personally, I believe science is a faith system, just like religion.
And potentially equally relevant.

 

[phildwyer]

Leary was a fascinating chap and the world is a better place for having him in it, I have no doubt.

I always thought he was a bit of a wanker myself. Many moons ago, a few friends and I took loads of 'shrooms, dranks crates of beer, and went to see him speak at the Wetlands club in New York. I regret to say that we heckled him mercilessly throughout. By then (late '80's), he was trying to live down his druggie past and was going on about computers instead. He was burbling about how in 10 years every adult in the US would have one, and I yelled out "who's going to pay for it?" He came storming over to me, eyes burning with fury, and spat "they're cheaper than fucking water!" He was wrong and I was right, but its still quite a scray experience being shouted at by Leary when you're off your brain.

 

[gurrier]

I love the way you pick and choose which parts of a post you reply to, its sad.

Well done I told you WHY I was doing my course AFTER YOU ASKED ME. How is that using it to back up my arguments?

Once can be a mistake but repeatedly claiming that I asked you something that I didn't looks like dishonesty. Please stop making this _untrue_ claim or point to where I asked you. I didn't ask you. You volunteered the information and hence I asked you for details. I dug up the link to the thread to show you that you were wrong.

 

[phildwyer]

Once can be a mistake but repeatedly claiming that I asked you something that I didn't looks like dishonesty. Please stop making this _untrue_ claim or point to where I asked you. I didn't ask you. You volunteered the information and hence I asked you for details. I dug up the link to the thread to show you that you were wrong.

More lies from Gurrier. You asked him on another thread.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Is this thread still going? Couldn't we have it shot somewhere?

 

[Azrael23]

Gurrier your ranting....chill, you`ll give yourself heartstrain...seriously.

 

[gurrier]

Gurrier your ranting....chill, you`ll give yourself heartstrain...seriously.

That is the most pathetic response to somebody pointing out a malicious inaccuracy in your argument that I can imagine. You repeatedly make an untrue claim against me and respond by lecturing me for ranting when I point it out. You are a nasty piece of work for all your waffle about higher consciousness. Dude, you are drowning in a sea of self indulgence, carried aloft by a thick cushion of self-satisfied privilege and the only bit of your crap that you actually believe is the bit that puts you on a higher plane than everybody else.

 

[Azrael23]

I`ve already said I won`t be drawn into one of your playground spats so whats the point?

 

[phildwyer]

That is the most pathetic response to somebody pointing out a malicious inaccuracy in your argument that I can imagine. You repeatedly make an untrue claim against me and respond by lecturing me for ranting when I point it out. You are a nasty piece of work for all your waffle about higher consciousness. Dude, you are drowning in a sea of self indulgence, carried aloft by a thick cushion of self-satisfied privilege and the only bit of your crap that you actually believe is the bit that puts you on a higher plane than everybody else.

More abuse from Gurrier. Your attempt to cover your ignorance with a succession of ever-more hysterical tirades would be risible were it not so pathetic. Again and again you come on these threads, attempt to intimidate any who deviate from the ultra-Darwinist line, and then impotently storm and rage against any who defy your strong-arm tactics. You are a bully, a liar and a fool.

 

[gurrier]

I`ve already said I won`t be drawn into one of your playground spats so whats the point?

Incorrect attribution of ownership underlined. Obviously insulting description emboldened. The two between them clearly contradict your claim to be above the melee. The sentence is self-contradicting.

Azrael. You have been free and loose with your personal insults towards me throughout this thread. That I can take. However, I really, really don't like discussing things with people who will happily make things up about what I've said and refuse to take it back when they are shown to be wrong. I think that this fundamentally breaks the rules of any type of constructive dialogue and crosses an important line. I am waiting your retraction of the claim that you made that I showed to be wrong and until I get one, I will treat you with contempt.

The rhetorical tactic of claiming that your opponent is getting irrationally over excited when one is caught out peddling falsehoods is just a rhetorical trick and a fairly transparent one too. Your happiness to resort to such tried and tested rhetorical maneouvres is how I can be so sure that you don't really believe any of the stuff that you spout. If you really believed that we should all be nice to each other, you'd start at home by declining to employ underhand tactics in debate and deciding not to make false claims about your opponents. It's now quite clear that you don't believe any of that guff and that you use it as a rhetorical ploy to do two things
1) make yourself appear to hold the moral high ground while leaving you free to be as nasty as you want to be in practice.
2) fend off any rational criticism in advance of your self-indulgent nonsensical ramblings about the world.

Now I'm not at all upset about this and don't really care a whit what you say about anything (I don't exactly hold your intelligence, insight or self-awareness in high regard). However, I make it a point of principle that when people get dishonest and underhand with me, I pull them up on it as bluntly as possible. Society (especially its internet expression) needs a certain percentage of people who do not suffer fools gladly in order to keep the fools in check (have a read of the bits about survival strategies and game theory in the selfish gene to get the idea) and I have selflessly volunteered myself for the job

 

[phildwyer]

However, I make it a point of principle that when people get dishonest and underhand with me, I pull them up on it as bluntly as possible. Society (especially its internet expression) needs a certain percentage of people who do not suffer fools gladly in order to keep the fools in check (have a read of the bits about survival strategies and game theory in the selfish gene to get the idea) and I have selflessly volunteered myself for the job

Until, that is, they get the better of you in the argument, at which point you scurry off and put them on "ignore." Or do you?

 

[Loki]

Is this thread still going? Couldn't we have it shot somewhere?

Takes thread down a dark empty alley and...

 

[Azrael23]

Incorrect attribution of ownership underlined. Obviously insulting description emboldened. The two between them clearly contradict your claim to be above the melee. The sentence is self-contradicting.

Azrael. You have been free and loose with your personal insults towards me throughout this thread. That I can take. However, I really, really don't like discussing things with people who will happily make things up about what I've said and refuse to take it back when they are shown to be wrong. I think that this fundamentally breaks the rules of any type of constructive dialogue and crosses an important line. I am waiting your retraction of the claim that you made that I showed to be wrong and until I get one, I will treat you with contempt.

The rhetorical tactic of claiming that your opponent is getting irrationally over excited when one is caught out peddling falsehoods is just a rhetorical trick and a fairly transparent one too. Your happiness to resort to such tried and tested rhetorical maneouvres is how I can be so sure that you don't really believe any of the stuff that you spout. If you really believed that we should all be nice to each other, you'd start at home by declining to employ underhand tactics in debate and deciding not to make false claims about your opponents. It's now quite clear that you don't believe any of that guff and that you use it as a rhetorical ploy to do two things
1) make yourself appear to hold the moral high ground while leaving you free to be as nasty as you want to be in practice.
2) fend off any rational criticism in advance of your self-indulgent nonsensical ramblings about the world.

Now I'm not at all upset about this and don't really care a whit what you say about anything (I don't exactly hold your intelligence, insight or self-awareness in high regard). However, I make it a point of principle that when people get dishonest and underhand with me, I pull them up on it as bluntly as possible. Society (especially its internet expression) needs a certain percentage of people who do not suffer fools gladly in order to keep the fools in check (have a read of the bits about survival strategies and game theory in the selfish gene to get the idea) and I have selflessly volunteered myself for the job

You do realise how ever much time you spent writing that was wasted?

BTW I never used the course I`m doing as some kind of justification for my opinion, I said:

I`m studying Neuroscience in the hope of finding some answers to a lot of the questions raised here.

(t`other darwinist thread)

ooohhh Aren`t I just showing off there, oh the arrogance!

Now can you please get back in your cage?

 

[ZWord]

Is this thread still going? Couldn't we have it shot somewhere?

A wonderful post,

Shit, the bastard just won't fucking shut up and die.

He who burns a book murders a man.

(I did assume that you meant it in good humor. btw.)

 

[ska invita]

Diana was murdered.

 

[editor]

Diana was murdered.

The moon is made of cheese.

 

[ZWord]

On the other side of the moon, it says,

"Rumours of my death have been greatly exaggerated."

 

[Azrael23]

I keep an openmind on diana.

There was certainly a motive to have her removed. Afterall who wants some wannabe blonde messiah interfering in the palestine/israeli crisis? Theres weapons money to be made damnit!

 

[fela fan]

Everything happens for a reason, even accidents...

 

[888]

Diana was murdered.

Impossible to murder a royal. The only correct words are "put to sleep" or "destroyed".

 

[ZWord]

Why's that?

 

[ZWord]

So, a bit of shameless bumping.

Another thought, with respect to the world we're much the same as we are with respect to the boards, we can see that things wouldn't work out the way we do without a lot of private messages being passed around, and we imagine that this goes on. But of course there's no evidence for it.

 

[nosos]

So a bit more shameless bumping.

 

[nosos]

I've not read the thread yet but I'm very interested in the history of conspiracy theories that understood themselves and were understood as conspiracy theories. An idea I want to explore is the degree to which their growth can be linked to a decline in adversarial politics and participatory democracy: conspiracy theories grow more appealing as people become more alientated and insulated from the sense of collectivity that political participation brings. Likewise internet based political participation (online conspiracy theorists) is substituted for face-to-face political participation. Consequently the narratives are simplified (also impacted on by the complexity and ambiguity of the 'post-modern' world) and group polarisation ensues.

<goes off to read thread>