Skip to main content

View Diary: Conspiracy theories: they're all in your heads! (95 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Yes (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wee Mama, JosephK74, Eyesbright

    and the problem with CT is two-fold.  1. It has repeatedly been shown false, but idiots refuse to accept the evidence, or 2. it cannot be tested.  

    The latter case occurs with most of the alien stuff, where they have magic rays to hide all evidence of their actions.  its called a self-sealing argument...namely that the hypothesis itself denies the possibility of testing.

    Let's use anti-vaxers as an example of the 1st probelm.  Is there a vaccine conspiracy?  No.  The science is solid and the critics fucking morons.  The critics said it was mercury, the mercury was removed, no changes in authism rates, so they moved to new hypotheses.  Basic dumbfuck conspiracy shit.

    "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

    by Empty Vessel on Wed May 22, 2013 at 03:10:08 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Um... (4+ / 0-)
      the problem with CT is two-fold.  1. It has repeatedly been shown false, but idiots refuse to accept the evidence, or 2. it cannot be tested.  
      ...there are plenty of things which are called "conspiracy theory" that have neither of these two problems.

      "It takes great courage to see the world in all its tainted glory, and still to love it." Oscar Wilde

      by Cassiodorus on Wed May 22, 2013 at 03:13:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Eyesbright

        But here's the problem, we know many people do believe really stupid shit (that's a technical term).  We also know that people who believe on type of really stupid shit are more likely to believe other forms of really stupid shit.

        Nothing in the times article contradicts that.  

        "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

        by Empty Vessel on Wed May 22, 2013 at 03:18:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  there are entirely too many (4+ / 0-)

          assumptions here:

          we know many people do believe really stupid shit (that's a technical term).  We also know that people who believe on type of really stupid shit are more likely to believe other forms of really stupid shit
          Putting aside the sheer idiocy of calling something "stupid shit" and "a technical term" in the same sentence, no one with an ounce of common sense can--or should--discount something that can be tested that has not been tested.

          Calling said something "Conspiracy Theory" before it's tested is nothing more than a propaganda technique, and I weary of all the otherwise intelligent people who believe in it to the extent that they apply it willy-nilly, to shit it should never be applied to.

          "The “Left” is NOT divided on the need to oppose austerity and the Great Betrayal. The Third Way is not left or center or even right. It is Wall Street on the Potomac."--Bill Black

          by lunachickie on Wed May 22, 2013 at 03:24:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  You don't get to put the cart before the horse (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SamanthaCarter

      here. No way--not for the purpose of this particular discussion, because you can't.

      the problem with CT is two-fold.  1. It has repeatedly been shown false, but idiots refuse to accept the evidence or 2. it cannot be tested
      While I would absolutely concur that someone--anyone--is in fact an idiot for refusing to accept demonstrable evidence that has already been clearly put forth, what I mean by putting the cart before the horse is that most people who throw the words "conspiracy theory" around as some kind of epithet are making assumptions about either the falsity or the un-testability of any hypothesis before any tests take place.

      You can't do that. Otherwise, you're possibly discounting something which CAN be provable. You can't throw it out until you either determine it CANNOT be tested--which in and of itself is a pretty tall order, but I'll let it go for now--or until you DO test it and find it to be "incorrect hypothesis".

      "The “Left” is NOT divided on the need to oppose austerity and the Great Betrayal. The Third Way is not left or center or even right. It is Wall Street on the Potomac."--Bill Black

      by lunachickie on Wed May 22, 2013 at 03:19:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nope (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Eyesbright

        testing is the job of the person who presents the hypothesis.  Simply put, I'm not gonna waste my time doing your work, I've got enough of my own to more than fill my time.

        If all that's presented is a hypothesis, expect to be ridiculed, for being lazy if nothing else.

        "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

        by Empty Vessel on Wed May 22, 2013 at 03:21:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Right (3+ / 0-)

          where do I say otherwise?

          testing is the job of the person who presents the hypothesis.
          I'm not saying the scientist shouldn't do his/her own work. What I'm saying--clearly--is that no one else has the right to make the determination that the scientist cannot test, based on some arbitrary opinion, put forth before any tests actually take place.

          "The “Left” is NOT divided on the need to oppose austerity and the Great Betrayal. The Third Way is not left or center or even right. It is Wall Street on the Potomac."--Bill Black

          by lunachickie on Wed May 22, 2013 at 03:27:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site