The Validity of Conspiracy Theories
- Thread starter ska invita
- Start date
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
Are you actually going to continue any of the arguments you've raised rather than waffle about DNA?
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Not me, no. What would be the point?
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
I've answered several of your questions and you seem to be either unwilling or incapable of responding to those answers.
Therefore I would be a bit of an idiot to continue doing so, wouldn't I?
Therefore I would be a bit of an idiot to continue doing so, wouldn't I?
The important part of this post is not the first three paragraphs.
Well it is a fact that there is a society called the freemasons. Some regard them as a kind of old boys network, others speculate that they have a darker purpose. But as their purposes and operations are secret, we don't really know the truth.
It is a fact that there is a group known as the Bilderberg group, who meet regularly in sessions closed to the general public, to deliberate we don't know what, and so on.
It is a fact that there used to be a society called the hermetic order of the golden dawn, who had the impression that they were a bunch of magicians who were performing a lot of arcane secret magic. But as they were a semi-secret society, we don't really know what their real purposes were.
But that's just by the way. It seems to me that in the theory/philosophy section, questions about the nature of evidence, the meaning of credibility, and the uncertainty of much of what passes as knowledge when it is based mainly on hearsay are quite a bit more relevant than questions about my bunch of ideas that to me make a plausible case that the history of the world is the history of the warfare of secret societies. When people won't answer questions of this sort, playing the man not the ball I wonder whether they're in good faith, or even open-minded. I just asked what you thought of this argument, clearly I didn't spell out the obvious inferences that I draw from them clearly enough. But I don't ask you to believe me on this. That "argument" is hardly important.. Personally though, I think it's blindingly obvious that quite apart from the societies of whose existence we know but whose operations and purpose we don't, there are also societies whose existence we don't know of, who are not only more secret but more powerful.
Yes it's an unfalsifiable non-scientific viewpoint.
There was a time when it was impossible to either verify or falsify the view that the earth went round the sun, but it was true even then...
But my questions..
What counts as evidence? What does credible mean, if anything? Do you only take as true things that you verify for yourself, or do you trust reliable sources? Is there such a thing as knowledge gained by inference in the absence of empirical evidence? How do you know which sources are reliable? Do you think that falsifiability is a necessary criterion for a theory that can be taken seriously?
Do you agree with Occam's razor? Is it sharp? Mind you don't get cut. How do you test for the simplest/most elegant theory?
What do you think of the collected yarns of Charles Fort?
.
Well it is a fact that there is a society called the freemasons. Some regard them as a kind of old boys network, others speculate that they have a darker purpose. But as their purposes and operations are secret, we don't really know the truth.
It is a fact that there is a group known as the Bilderberg group, who meet regularly in sessions closed to the general public, to deliberate we don't know what, and so on.
It is a fact that there used to be a society called the hermetic order of the golden dawn, who had the impression that they were a bunch of magicians who were performing a lot of arcane secret magic. But as they were a semi-secret society, we don't really know what their real purposes were.
But that's just by the way. It seems to me that in the theory/philosophy section, questions about the nature of evidence, the meaning of credibility, and the uncertainty of much of what passes as knowledge when it is based mainly on hearsay are quite a bit more relevant than questions about my bunch of ideas that to me make a plausible case that the history of the world is the history of the warfare of secret societies. When people won't answer questions of this sort, playing the man not the ball I wonder whether they're in good faith, or even open-minded. I just asked what you thought of this argument, clearly I didn't spell out the obvious inferences that I draw from them clearly enough. But I don't ask you to believe me on this. That "argument" is hardly important.. Personally though, I think it's blindingly obvious that quite apart from the societies of whose existence we know but whose operations and purpose we don't, there are also societies whose existence we don't know of, who are not only more secret but more powerful.
Yes it's an unfalsifiable non-scientific viewpoint.
There was a time when it was impossible to either verify or falsify the view that the earth went round the sun, but it was true even then...
But my questions..
What counts as evidence? What does credible mean, if anything? Do you only take as true things that you verify for yourself, or do you trust reliable sources? Is there such a thing as knowledge gained by inference in the absence of empirical evidence? How do you know which sources are reliable? Do you think that falsifiability is a necessary criterion for a theory that can be taken seriously?
Do you agree with Occam's razor? Is it sharp? Mind you don't get cut. How do you test for the simplest/most elegant theory?
What do you think of the collected yarns of Charles Fort?
.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Life, the universe and everything.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Nail, head.zed66 said:
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
...tell you what, why don't you go and read a few introductory philosophy pieces? There are lots of first-year reading lists out there that will give you a good grounding on what these terms you're using actually mean, and what the arguments the solutions to which aren't immediately obvious are. I'll wait. Well, when I say I'll wait, I mean that I imagine I'll still be here when you're done. Probably.
And you can stop waving the name Fort around as if nobody here has ever heard of him, too.
Well when it comes to unfalsifiable inference-based, evidence-free viewpoints, here's a good one.
"The original DNA from which life on this planet evolved came together by random concatenation of amino acids in what is known as the primordial soup."
Believe that and you'll believe anything.
"The original DNA from which life on this planet evolved came together by random concatenation of amino acids in what is known as the primordial soup."
Believe that and you'll believe anything.
FridgeMagnet said:
Oh now the arguments get really powerful..
Is there anything more to that last post than. "I have studied philosophy, you haven't and therefore I'm not going to deign to argue with you," Which as it happens quite apart from being irrelevant isn't even true.
Playing the man not the ball,
What do you think you know about my grounding in philosophy. ?
And how do you know it?
And by not answering any of my questions you only confirm my belief that you can't without laying yourself open to arguments that you don't want to deal with. And I imagine that readers with an open mind will draw the same conclusion.
And if I thought noone had heard of Fort why would I bother to ask what people think of his collected yarns. ?
ZWord said:
I have read the Authorised King James version of the Bible from cover to cover. Would it be possible to ask you to do me a small courtesy and read a
book by Richard Dawkins called "The Blind Watchmaker". Once you have read this we will be able to have cogent discussion on DNA theory taking in both sides of the arguement. Dawkins discusses the subject in non scientific terms and an understanding of his views would allow for a more balanced discussion.
I've read it.
Doesn't change the fact that the theory I put up is unfalsifiable (without a time machine) evidence-free and inference-based. - that is- the reason scientists believe it is not because they have any direct evidence for it, but because it fits with everything else they think they know,and so by inference they believe it to be true .
But all the same it's neither more nor less falsifiable than the theory that the DNA was manufactured by fifth-dimensional aliens in 5d testtubes, and dumped here as part of a big experiment they're completing. It just fits better with a bunch of other stuff that Dawkins likes.
Doesn't change the fact that the theory I put up is unfalsifiable (without a time machine) evidence-free and inference-based. - that is- the reason scientists believe it is not because they have any direct evidence for it, but because it fits with everything else they think they know,and so by inference they believe it to be true .
But all the same it's neither more nor less falsifiable than the theory that the DNA was manufactured by fifth-dimensional aliens in 5d testtubes, and dumped here as part of a big experiment they're completing. It just fits better with a bunch of other stuff that Dawkins likes.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
(a) I have quite explicitly answered several of your questions, as I've already pointed outZWord said:
(b) you have not responded to those answers and have just thrown up random further questions - my motivation for answering further questions is therefore somewhat sketchy, as I've already pointed out
(c) you are repeatedly using technical terms like "falsify" and "verify", and using them incorrectly, as well as throwing around a few names of people who I'd be very surprised if you'd read, which is a good sign of an internet piss-artist not worth bothering with. Perhaps you could also give us a nice garbled interpretation of what Occam's Razor is. No, I've got it - tell us about quantum physics, I bet you know lots about that. And don't forget to accuse somebody of using ad hominem.
(d) zzzzzzzzzzz
a) You haven't, not one, as far as I can see. show me.
b)I have responded to what you've said, and to the questions you've asked me.
c)I am using the terms correctly and you can't browbeat me into thinking that I'm not. In any case with philosophical jargon, the notion of correct use is pretty spurious as philosophers invent their jargon to justify their views, as you'd understand if you'd not only read some philosophy but understood what was going on.
d)Might as well argue with pbman for all the intellectual honesty you show.
going ad hominem as you put it, and failing to engage, and taking refuge in being high and mighty and not deigning to talk to someone who's obviously not ignorant or stupid, is pretty clearly the last refuge of someone with nothing to say. Me I've never once resorted to questioning someone's education or intelligence. I just take their arguments on their own merits.
But I'll ask again. What for you counts as evidence and what do you understand by credible. Because these are the key words by which you and others have repeatedly rubbished not only the specifics of fruitloopery, but also the whole field.
(the waiting post was an accident, while I read FM's last. same to you really zed66.)
b)I have responded to what you've said, and to the questions you've asked me.
c)I am using the terms correctly and you can't browbeat me into thinking that I'm not. In any case with philosophical jargon, the notion of correct use is pretty spurious as philosophers invent their jargon to justify their views, as you'd understand if you'd not only read some philosophy but understood what was going on.
d)Might as well argue with pbman for all the intellectual honesty you show.
going ad hominem as you put it, and failing to engage, and taking refuge in being high and mighty and not deigning to talk to someone who's obviously not ignorant or stupid, is pretty clearly the last refuge of someone with nothing to say. Me I've never once resorted to questioning someone's education or intelligence. I just take their arguments on their own merits.
But I'll ask again. What for you counts as evidence and what do you understand by credible. Because these are the key words by which you and others have repeatedly rubbished not only the specifics of fruitloopery, but also the whole field.
(the waiting post was an accident, while I read FM's last. same to you really zed66.)
What are you doing here then?
oh, I see, writing non-posts and then deleting them. Clever that. Well some advantages to being a mod at least.
Myself, though, if I was like FM exceptionally well-read in philosophy, and had a detailed understanding of philosophical jargon like verify and falsify, not shared by my opponent, rather than tell him to go away and read about it. I'd kindly explain how he was using the terms incorrectly.
Most people understand that most arguments are really about the meanings of words anyway, so in the end what it usually comes down to with intelligent people who disagree is two people explaining how they use a word, and deciding on the merits of using it the way they do and understanding why they use it differently.
oh, I see, writing non-posts and then deleting them. Clever that. Well some advantages to being a mod at least.
Myself, though, if I was like FM exceptionally well-read in philosophy, and had a detailed understanding of philosophical jargon like verify and falsify, not shared by my opponent, rather than tell him to go away and read about it. I'd kindly explain how he was using the terms incorrectly.
Most people understand that most arguments are really about the meanings of words anyway, so in the end what it usually comes down to with intelligent people who disagree is two people explaining how they use a word, and deciding on the merits of using it the way they do and understanding why they use it differently.
What do you think of this theory?
-The original molecules of DNA from which life on this planet evolved were formed by the random concatenation of amino acids in the primordial soup.-
Are you actually suggesting that because nobody can offer you empirical evidence relating to the origins of life on planet earth that any other theory you put forward is valid? I don't think you, me or anybody else on this planet has cracked that one yet. The only empirical facts at our disposal is the actual existence of DNA, an approximate timescale of life on earth and a series of theories (beginning with Darwin and his compatriots) to explain how life on earth has developed. Where has anybody either positively agreed or disagreed with the "theory" you have posted?
-The original molecules of DNA from which life on this planet evolved were formed by the random concatenation of amino acids in the primordial soup.-
Are you actually suggesting that because nobody can offer you empirical evidence relating to the origins of life on planet earth that any other theory you put forward is valid? I don't think you, me or anybody else on this planet has cracked that one yet. The only empirical facts at our disposal is the actual existence of DNA, an approximate timescale of life on earth and a series of theories (beginning with Darwin and his compatriots) to explain how life on earth has developed. Where has anybody either positively agreed or disagreed with the "theory" you have posted?
ZWord said:
That's where we differ I'm afraid.If no evidence is available then there is nothing to build an arguement on.I do not understand the significance of a person's worldview. Unless there is some standard of corroboration available for a given statement then what are the limits of debate.Eg: Using the example above, I suggested a hypothetical situation (the day glo polka dot woolly mammoth scenario). I have no evidence that this scenario exists. I have no point of reference to offer you to prove that this scenario exists, yet there is nothing to stop me choosing to believe that this is the truth,
This is where the analogy with belief systems arises. I may believe any number of things. I could in fact given an avid imagination believe an infinite number of things, but without some mutual acceptance of what forms the basis of a reasonable arguement there would be no boundaries and no way of
discriminating between the wilder reaches of my imagination andideas /arguements that are possible subject to some form of objective scrutiny. To me the thing that forms the basis of a reasonable arguement would be at very least the ability to offer evidence that the thing under discussion could be proved to exist and any claims made were backed up evidence, in a form subject to scrutiny. I can speculate about an infinite number of subjects, but unless I was taking the piss wouldn't dream of actually suggesting something had a basis in fact unless I could back this up.
Fair enough up to a point.
But as far as the dayglo interplanetary mammoth is concerned. I was trying to point out that the weakness of the scenario apart from rhetorical purposes, is that the mammoth doesn't have any explanatory value.
My fifth-dimensional aliens do have some explanatory value, they purport to explain the mysterious arrival of the remarkable molecule DNA, so they're not exactly parallel cases.
I'm well aware that the 5d aliens leave plenty if not more to be explained. But they don't do nothing. And as it happens lots of people do believe that or something like that, and precisely because it coheres with their experience and worldview better than the "scientific" account.
But the reason I put the point was not to argue the relative merits of dawkinian fundamentalism over alien experimentation as explanations of life, but because I wanted to point out that people do believe the most unlikely things, without evidence, when their theory is not falsifiable, and is based only on coherence with the rest of their worldview, and they have no evidence for it, it just must be so. And yet, falsifiability is supposed by many to be a criterion for a scientific theory.
( at least when you're investigating physical reality it's a reasonable assumption that it won't deliberately deceive you, which isn't such a good assumption when investigating the human world.)
But it's a poor situation we're in when you can't have any theory at all about events for which you can't get direct empirical evidence. What are we supposed to do, just say that wherever we can't get empirical evidence, there is no truth... ? That leads straight to solipsism.
The fact is that most of what we call knowledge is based on hearsay from sources we consider reliable, and on inference. It also seems to me that we decide which sources we consider reliable intuitively by seeing how well they cohere with the rest of our worldview.
From a philosophical point of view, as far as I can see, this means that when you're discussing competing worldviews, "not credible" has little more meaning than -I can't believe it-" so it's not much of an argument. It's actually an objectification of a feeling.
Did you know this, there was an astronomer, a scientist, who checked out Galileo's observations and finding them to be correct, concluded that while telescopes tell the truth about terrestrial bodies, they are inaccurate about celestial bodies. Just shows, almost any evidence can be tainted when the worldview it conflicts with is sufficiently entrenched.
But on the other hand, there is such a thing as incredible. The dayglo interplanetary mammoth is incredible. I know you don't believe it. you know etc. So we draw the line somewhere. I haven't figured this out entirely. But at the moment it seems to me that contrary to what you said in your post, you can't choose any beliefs you fancy.. Your beliefs aren't subject to choice. But in another sense you do choose your beliefs, by deciding what kind of sources you consider reliable, and what kind of worldview you have which in a way is like choosing what tribe you want to be part of..
But as far as the dayglo interplanetary mammoth is concerned. I was trying to point out that the weakness of the scenario apart from rhetorical purposes, is that the mammoth doesn't have any explanatory value.
My fifth-dimensional aliens do have some explanatory value, they purport to explain the mysterious arrival of the remarkable molecule DNA, so they're not exactly parallel cases.
I'm well aware that the 5d aliens leave plenty if not more to be explained. But they don't do nothing. And as it happens lots of people do believe that or something like that, and precisely because it coheres with their experience and worldview better than the "scientific" account.
But the reason I put the point was not to argue the relative merits of dawkinian fundamentalism over alien experimentation as explanations of life, but because I wanted to point out that people do believe the most unlikely things, without evidence, when their theory is not falsifiable, and is based only on coherence with the rest of their worldview, and they have no evidence for it, it just must be so. And yet, falsifiability is supposed by many to be a criterion for a scientific theory.
( at least when you're investigating physical reality it's a reasonable assumption that it won't deliberately deceive you, which isn't such a good assumption when investigating the human world.)
But it's a poor situation we're in when you can't have any theory at all about events for which you can't get direct empirical evidence. What are we supposed to do, just say that wherever we can't get empirical evidence, there is no truth... ? That leads straight to solipsism.
The fact is that most of what we call knowledge is based on hearsay from sources we consider reliable, and on inference. It also seems to me that we decide which sources we consider reliable intuitively by seeing how well they cohere with the rest of our worldview.
From a philosophical point of view, as far as I can see, this means that when you're discussing competing worldviews, "not credible" has little more meaning than -I can't believe it-" so it's not much of an argument. It's actually an objectification of a feeling.
Did you know this, there was an astronomer, a scientist, who checked out Galileo's observations and finding them to be correct, concluded that while telescopes tell the truth about terrestrial bodies, they are inaccurate about celestial bodies. Just shows, almost any evidence can be tainted when the worldview it conflicts with is sufficiently entrenched.
But on the other hand, there is such a thing as incredible. The dayglo interplanetary mammoth is incredible. I know you don't believe it. you know etc. So we draw the line somewhere. I haven't figured this out entirely. But at the moment it seems to me that contrary to what you said in your post, you can't choose any beliefs you fancy.. Your beliefs aren't subject to choice. But in another sense you do choose your beliefs, by deciding what kind of sources you consider reliable, and what kind of worldview you have which in a way is like choosing what tribe you want to be part of..
Believe anything you want.I don't have any problems with anybody's beliefs as long as they don't hold opinions that are hurtful to other people. I've even mellowed to the point where my stance on Christianity (basically the same as Christopher Lee in the Wicker Man) has now reached the Gandhi type viewpoint of believe it if you must but spare me any evangelical views. I think the original point of the thread was the validity of conspiracy theories. The point I'm making is that it very rarely possible to have any constructive discussion on any subject relating to conspiracy theories due to the points listed specifically on point 29 and elsewhere on the thread.The majority of conspiracy threads tend to follow a very predictable pattern...
1)Somebody posts a conspiracy theory. This invariably falls into a limited number of themes (The Illuminati/911/Bilderberg/Aliens did me with a strap-on etc).The more extreme or implausible the hypothesis the better. If there is a vaguely anti-semitic undertone to the theory so much the better (Protocols of the Elders of Zion anybody?)
2)At no point is any evidence offered by the person who started the thread that can be used to verify the original claims made.
3)With no evidence or supporting documentation for the claims made, frankly there is nothing to discuss. With no concrete information to work with the substance of the thread will never be anything more than idle speculation about whatever the subject may be.
4)Thread spirals bin bound.
There are an infinite number of sites on the interweb that deal specifically with conspiracy theories and welcome and thrive on such discussions. I have only been here a very short time,and the majority of that as a lurker but to me one of the attractions of this site is that it does not.That's just a personal opinion.
1)Somebody posts a conspiracy theory. This invariably falls into a limited number of themes (The Illuminati/911/Bilderberg/Aliens did me with a strap-on etc).The more extreme or implausible the hypothesis the better. If there is a vaguely anti-semitic undertone to the theory so much the better (Protocols of the Elders of Zion anybody?)
2)At no point is any evidence offered by the person who started the thread that can be used to verify the original claims made.
3)With no evidence or supporting documentation for the claims made, frankly there is nothing to discuss. With no concrete information to work with the substance of the thread will never be anything more than idle speculation about whatever the subject may be.
4)Thread spirals bin bound.
There are an infinite number of sites on the interweb that deal specifically with conspiracy theories and welcome and thrive on such discussions. I have only been here a very short time,and the majority of that as a lurker but to me one of the attractions of this site is that it does not.That's just a personal opinion.
Most advances in human understanding have come about as a result of people speculating without evidence, (thinking, what if.. or maybe, seeing if they can invent a theory that might be better than the received wisdom.) either privately and then maybe publicly, and then maybe looking for some evidence to back up their speculations. I don't see any harm in speculation without evidence, and I don't really see why such speculation should be binned. I find fruitloops versus rubbishers threads quite interesting to read, whether or not I find the particular fruitloopery on offer plausible.
ZWord said:
You're missing the point, the advances haven't come about purely on the basis of speculation, they have come about on the basis of the speculation/theory being tested and proved and found to be correct/incorrect.With science this process involves the publication of the results including the methodology for examination by peer review.If somebody proffers a conspiracy theory ask yourself....what evidence are they offering me that this actually happened? If they can offer no evidence then what is to differentiate their theory from the fuckspud ramblings of a demented loon?
Similar threads
