They use a really unfortunate definition of “conspiracy theory,” and dispense with a lot of nuance. This is a shame. Disclosure, I am a Fortean and also a believer that among the elite are groups...
They use a really unfortunate definition of “conspiracy theory,” and dispense with a lot of nuance. This is a shame.
Disclosure, I am a Fortean and also a believer that among the elite are groups of people who will, can, and, do create influence to benefit themselves at (often very great) public cost. An agreed upon example of this is Watergate. A mor controversial, and far less known example, is the CNP’s success in seating the current scotus. A thorough, sober, and critical look at the JFK facts and circumstances will raise grave and substantial doubts about the Warren Report’s conclusions.
I very much want to be distinguished from the likes of Qanon, or the guy who shot up Comet Pizza, or anyone who thinks the 2020 presidential election was stolen.
I have some narcissism, a lot of anger (primarily around my parents and ecological machinations of capitalism), but I am an intellectual, revere certain American institutions, value experts, and care deeply for others, including those who appear different than me.
Pleas consider me and the very many quite smart, serious, and community minded folks who are trying to shine a light on the stinky parts of the enfranchised when discussing “conspiracy theorists.”
This is honestly something that needs to be heard more, imo. There is a qualitative difference between the more grounded conspiracy theories and the swivel-eyed lunacy we've seen more commonly in...
This is honestly something that needs to be heard more, imo. There is a qualitative difference between the more grounded conspiracy theories and the swivel-eyed lunacy we've seen more commonly in the social media era. Both types have existed for a long time, but they seem like separate phenomena.
I would personally group say, "moon landing was fake" people with Qanon types - both of these require massively shifting goalposts and blind belief. Conversely, thinking that UAPs could be aliens or questioning other things where the official description is genuinely lacking doesn't seem so far out to me. Of course, it's very beneficial for people who are actually doing shady stuff to conflate the two.
I'm not sure there's a line there so much as there's a sliding scale. I don't see much of a difference between fake Moon landings and UAPs being aliens. They both require rejecting scientific...
I'm not sure there's a line there so much as there's a sliding scale. I don't see much of a difference between fake Moon landings and UAPs being aliens. They both require rejecting scientific consensus, shifting goal posts, suspending disbelief, believing that your small non-expert community is right, etc.
I don't mean to say all conspiracy theorists are crazy or evil or anything, but it seems to me that everyone thinks every conspiracy theory is crazy except their own pet one. That one's fine.
Another thing that can muddy the whole thing is that some conspiracy theories start out plausible, and I wouldn't necessarily think their believers are in any way unusual. It's when the conspiracy...
Another thing that can muddy the whole thing is that some conspiracy theories start out plausible, and I wouldn't necessarily think their believers are in any way unusual. It's when the conspiracy theory grows into something that defies evidence that the adherents largely become "crazy".
For example, in light of the political landscape at the time, I can see why a percentage of sensible people might have been skeptical that the US landed on the moon; it definitely seems like the sort of thing they might have faked, even if they didn't in this particular instance, in light of other manipulative and underhanded things that the US government (namely the CIA) was doing around that time. However, as time went on and the evidence confirming the moon landing became more accessible, maintaining that disbelief required increasingly disorganized thought processes.
It's unfortunate how often people use real life tragedies like MKULTRA to substantiate their conspiratorial beliefs. Basically the "if they did this then anything is possible" kind of mentality.
It's unfortunate how often people use real life tragedies like MKULTRA to substantiate their conspiratorial beliefs. Basically the "if they did this then anything is possible" kind of mentality.
I have noticed that moon landing deniers come in two categories. Group A defends the belief with more of a feeling but no evidence. Group B DOES provide evidence but as time goes on group B's...
However, as time went on and the evidence confirming the moon landing became more accessible, maintaining that disbelief required increasingly disorganized thought processes.
I have noticed that moon landing deniers come in two categories. Group A defends the belief with more of a feeling but no evidence. Group B DOES provide evidence but as time goes on group B's evidence is getting more and more ridiculous or even totally made up.
This is anecdotal of course... I just personally feel that 20 years ago it was kind of a fun debate, now there is no debate; its either incredulity or belief in nonsense.
One thing I noticed, and this is probably true of all conspiracy theorists, is that the evidence isn't actually important to them really. I remember having this debate with a denier, and be bright...
One thing I noticed, and this is probably true of all conspiracy theorists, is that the evidence isn't actually important to them really. I remember having this debate with a denier, and be bright up the old chestnut of why is the flag still waving. Well, that one's obvious; there's no friction, so the flag keeps moving, right? Then he just moved on to his next point, like nothing happened.
Wait, shouldn't that make you stop and think? Even if I'm wrong about the physics, isn't this a really important thing to consider? I've just undone your main piece of evidence. But the evidence isn't important, it merely exists to support their main belief. You can prove everything they say it's wrong, but it won't change their minds because they don't actually care about the supporting evidence. They just care about the conspiracy theory itself.
This is a common theme across conspiracy theories, religious apologetics, and bad science. It's a result of starting with your conclusion and working backwards to make the facts support it. And it...
This is a common theme across conspiracy theories, religious apologetics, and bad science. It's a result of starting with your conclusion and working backwards to make the facts support it. And it seems so blatant when people do as you described and blow off a seemingly devastating counterpoint until you realize that their arguments simply aren't for you. They're intended for listeners who already want to believe, who don't need a slam dunk case – just something plausible to cling to and parrot.
This most certainly is not true of all people labelled as “conspiracy theorists,” but the myth of it, formed around outlandish folks like Alex Jones, does a great job squelching the voices of...
and this is probably true of all conspiracy theorists
This most certainly is not true of all people labelled as “conspiracy theorists,” but the myth of it, formed around outlandish folks like Alex Jones, does a great job squelching the voices of those researchers speaking truth to power.
Please take a more mature view and broader perspective of the landscape.
I don't think the view that conspiracy theories of all stripes have commonalities is immature. Perhaps you could enlighten me. Conspiracies certainly exist. Conspiracy theories are,...
I don't think the view that conspiracy theories of all stripes have commonalities is immature. Perhaps you could enlighten me.
Conspiracies certainly exist. Conspiracy theories are, definitionally, hypotheses that reject the consensus of the experts of that field. Someone who believes that there was a conspiracy to assassinate Caesar isn't a conspiracy theorist, for example, because that doesn't require rejecting the consensus of historians. Someone who thinks UAPs are aliens is, because that requires rejecting the consensus of the experts of the field.
That’s an odd definition of “conspiracy theory” i have not run accross. Where did you find it? Regardless, if you are to persist with it and have credibility, it would also be necessary to define...
That’s an odd definition of “conspiracy theory” i have not run accross. Where did you find it?
Regardless, if you are to persist with it and have credibility, it would also be necessary to define expert, and provide a valid criteria for evaluation of any given expert.
There is also the problem of experts being wrong. This exists in at least two forms. The first, media manipulation. Think cancer “experts” and cigarettes in the 70’s and before.
Then there is the case where the “experts” are all wrong. Think, ether the substance between the planets and stars.
Believing inapposite to experts does not involve a conspiracy of any kind. The conspiracy, if one exists around the issue, would be that enfranchised actors are deceiving the public in concernt with (or through manipulation of) “experts.”
Even at this point, “theorists” differ widely. Skeptics, such as myself, promote careful examination of public narratives when we see weaknesses, fallacies, inconsistencies, etc. sometimes this means opposing the prevailing expert view. Often it means amplifying the opinions of experts as opposed to the “conventional wisdom,” “common sense” or other uncritical majority opinion.
Others, such Tucker Carlson, promote wild speculation and conjecture as explanatory facts. Sometimes these folks claim to be targeted by conspirators, but not always. And there many others beside.
Can you provide an example of a conspiracy theory where non experts were correct? As back as the 40s, we knew cigarettes caused cancer. Yes, there was a concerted attempt to flood the country with...
Can you provide an example of a conspiracy theory where non experts were correct? As back as the 40s, we knew cigarettes caused cancer. Yes, there was a concerted attempt to flood the country with disinformation, but this wasn't a case of experts vs non-experts. Doctors knew it had negative effects. There was peer reviewed research around it. It's just that corporations bought their own experts to lie. This wasn't a particularly complicated conspiracy, it was pretty one to one. Tobacco companies wanted people to keep buying tobacco.
I think might be conflating being a skeptic with bring a conspiracy theory. A skeptic might doubt official US statements in UAPs. A conspiracy theorist thinks it's aliens. Only one of these requires magic.
It has been taken for granted in many black american activist communities for decades that the US government was heavily involved in the introduction of crack to the underprivileged classes. There...
It has been taken for granted in many black american activist communities for decades that the US government was heavily involved in the introduction of crack to the underprivileged classes. There was no evidence for such a theory until many years later.
What was the consensus opinion of this by experts back then? Again, a conspiracy theory isn't just imagining the powerful are hurting you. It is rejecting the consensus of the experts.
What was the consensus opinion of this by experts back then? Again, a conspiracy theory isn't just imagining the powerful are hurting you. It is rejecting the consensus of the experts.
This brings up an issue with the way you're applying the definition. "The experts" were the US government and journalists who roundly decried such theories as conspiratorial thinking, while any...
This brings up an issue with the way you're applying the definition. "The experts" were the US government and journalists who roundly decried such theories as conspiratorial thinking, while any reasonable definition would recognize that the members of the Black Panther Party being targeted by COINTELPRO knew better, and so were actually the experts. And they were the ones being shut down.
Frankly, I don't appreciate the recent framing of "conspiracy theory", as, based just on the above dynamic, any conspiracy proven in hindsight could not have been "theorized" about, in that sense.
I mean, what I would say that that is that, if you consider the experts to be the US government, they have a pretty direct reason to lie. That's not much of a conspiracy, that's just a tyrannical...
I mean, what I would say that that is that, if you consider the experts to be the US government, they have a pretty direct reason to lie. That's not much of a conspiracy, that's just a tyrannical government hurting people it wants to hurt.
To take aliens again, there's no reason for physicists to be united around FTL being impossible on a fundamental level. That's just what comes out of relativity, which is experimentally confirmed to the nth degree. To believe aliens came here FTL, especially as a non physicist, you have to reject a lot of information that you don't even understand.
I'm taking two extremes here. In the world of a million conspiracy theories, I'm sure some of them are right, of only because of sheer statistics. But that doesn't actually change anything about the thinking behind them.
You are moving these goalposts constantly. Yes, there's no reason that physicists would lie about their current understanding of the universe. They could just be wrong. That's why people are...
You are moving these goalposts constantly. Yes, there's no reason that physicists would lie about their current understanding of the universe. They could just be wrong. That's why people are arguing that the "UAPs may be alien spacecraft" are not necessarily engaging in conspiracy theories.
mean, what I would say that that is that, if you consider the experts to be the US government, they have a pretty direct reason to lie. That's not much of a conspiracy, that's just a tyrannical government hurting people it wants to hurt.
By your reasoning, any successful conspiracy is not a conspiracy, because they have the capacity to do it? Many conspiracy theories are, in fact, about tyrannical governments doing tyrannical things, they aren't all antisemitism at the bottom. This is why many suspect that the more recent definition that you're referring to is a piece of countercounterintelligence. The CIA certainly appreciates the conflation.
COINTELPRO, MKULTRA, the CIA's and its predecessors' activities destabilizing democracies in South America were all discussed prior to being declassified, and the experts calling them baseless were a mix of conspirators and innocents who trusted the conspirators.
I mean, this is the core of a conspiracy theory. Yes, it's possible that the foundation of physics, one of the most experimentally verified theories in the history of science is wrong. As a...
They could just be wrong
I mean, this is the core of a conspiracy theory. Yes, it's possible that the foundation of physics, one of the most experimentally verified theories in the history of science is wrong. As a (presumably) non physicist, you are not in the position to state this.
Scientists can be wrong about things. In fact, it's kind of the defining aspect that separates science from dogma. It's the height of hubris to presume we know everything about the universe....
Scientists can be wrong about things. In fact, it's kind of the defining aspect that separates science from dogma. It's the height of hubris to presume we know everything about the universe.
Remind me, what did I state that was so unjustifiable? That humans can be wrong? I'm pretty sure everyone is allowed to say that.
Specifically on relativity, people have been trying to prove it wrong for like a century now. That's not to say that it's complete, but you'd be hard pressed to find a theory that has experimental...
Specifically on relativity, people have been trying to prove it wrong for like a century now. That's not to say that it's complete, but you'd be hard pressed to find a theory that has experimental evidence and has been so resilient.
Two important things, to me:
You said scientists can be wrong. Ok, you can say that about anything. You can say that about the Earth being round, you can say that about germ theory, you can say that about Pluto existing. Literally the only thing you can be sure about is that you exist, and everything else you can take or leave. Your GPS works, right? You believe we landed our Landers in Mars, and that the photos we took of Pluto are real? Then Einstein must be right, because we need his theories to do that. We need to account for relativity to do anything beyond going to the Moon. And I can't overemphasise how central the speed of light is to the theories. The relativistic nature of light is what makes the theory work. And it has nothing to do with light; the speed of light should be called the speed of causality, the fastest possible speed a cause and an effect can interact. When you say someone is FTL, you're mathematically saying that the effect is faster than the cause, which is nonsense. But you could say, maybe everyone and everything is wrong, we don't know everything, etc. Second problem, then.
Then why even talk about space? You can't believe in black holes, the age of the universe, neutron stars. Those observations all rely on incorporating Einstein's theories of relativity. No wormholes, no dark matter, no Big Bang, no inflation epoch. Absolutely everything is wrong. But that's often not what I find with people who believe in aliens. They still believe in black holes, they even believe in wormholes for some reason. None of these things make sense to believe in if you're going to reject Einstein's theories. You can't just take the results of the theories (black holes, which we've directly observed) and reject the central lynchpin of the theory (the invariablility of the speed of light).
My lord. This is not a science debate. This is a discussion about philosophy of science, epistemology, and politics. Not once have I made any remotely scientific claims, because I have no basis...
My lord. This is not a science debate. This is a discussion about philosophy of science, epistemology, and politics. Not once have I made any remotely scientific claims, because I have no basis to, as you keep pointing out like a gotcha. I'm done here, you keep arguing with an amalgam of assumptions rather than me.
It is a bit tiring to see someone make reply to specific claims ("FTL is forbidden by science", "scientists can be wrong), but then immediately retreat from the claim when challenged.
It is a bit tiring to see someone make reply to specific claims ("FTL is forbidden by science", "scientists can be wrong), but then immediately retreat from the claim when challenged.
I have not retreated from any claims I have made. Scientists can be wrong. Any statement to the contrary is simply appealing to authority. This context is in trying to draw a line between entirely...
I have not retreated from any claims I have made. Scientists can be wrong. Any statement to the contrary is simply appealing to authority. This context is in trying to draw a line between entirely baseless and socially toxic conspiratorial thinking and shaky but arguable matters. UAPs being alien craft is an example of extraordinary evidence justifying openmindedness. Nothing more, nothing less.
I mean, in science, people go against consensus all the time. That's normal. Relativity was controversial until experimentally verified. The Big Bang was controversial until observations matched...
I mean, in science, people go against consensus all the time. That's normal. Relativity was controversial until experimentally verified. The Big Bang was controversial until observations matched the theory. Then some observations made expected and observed size of the universe differ, and we came up with inflation theory.
Crucially, this is led by people who know what the hell they're talking about. And also crucially, after we came up with the scientific method.
A non physicist has no business talking about how unknown physics in UAPs work, because a non physicist doesn't actually know what the hell they're talking about. Whereas has a physicist has a method for getting heard; publish your findings, get them peer reviewed.
Part of the problem with this discussion is that 'conspiracy' can mean so many different things. Personally physics is way the hell out of my wheelhouse and I am not going to entertain a theory...
Part of the problem with this discussion is that 'conspiracy' can mean so many different things. Personally physics is way the hell out of my wheelhouse and I am not going to entertain a theory about aliens because I know what I don't know.
On the other hand as a student of history (amateur), it is plausible to me that assassinations happen sometimes and that coverups as to who was behind it can perhaps be implemented. Have I rejected the Warren Commission results, no. Am I certain they were correct, no. See also the 9 11 comission report and the case of Epstein's death in prison. but I might be not who you are talking about because I have not personally embraced a theory in these cases, just acknowledge that there may well be more than I have access to as a member of the public.
Look, I am not saying all conspiracy theories are born equal. I'm saying that there's no hard dividing line between reasonable conspiracy theory and bonkers conspiracy theory. I absolutely accept...
Look, I am not saying all conspiracy theories are born equal. I'm saying that there's no hard dividing line between reasonable conspiracy theory and bonkers conspiracy theory. I absolutely accept that believing there's more to the Kennedy assassination is different from believing Biden is a hologram. I'm saying that it's a scale, but the commonality is rejection of expert consensus. Occassionally (very occassionally), that ends up being correct, but that's besides the point. The only difference in these theories is how much you're rejecting. With the Kennedy assassination, you're rejecting some. With UAPs being aliens, you're rejecting a lot. With Q, you end up rejecting most of reality. They're not the same thing, but again, I don't think there's a clear line that divides these.
From Wikipedia: I'm not sure why you're fixated on this. It is the standard definition of a conspiracy theory.
From Wikipedia:
A conspiracy theory is distinct from a conspiracy; it refers to a hypothesized conspiracy with specific characteristics, including but not limited to opposition to the mainstream consensus among those who are qualified to evaluate its accuracy, such as scientists or historians.[9][10][11]
I'm not sure why you're fixated on this. It is the standard definition of a conspiracy theory.
Well, TIL. Thanks for your persistence in bringing this to my attention. This is a sad timeline. The last time I looked closely at this (probably over a decade ago), there was tension over the...
Well, TIL. Thanks for your persistence in bringing this to my attention.
This is a sad timeline. The last time I looked closely at this (probably over a decade ago), there was tension over the definition, with folks like me begging to be distinguished as conspiracy researchers, who were skeptical and critical of mainstream narratives and certain experts opinions. We were dismissed, but at least acknowledged sometimes.
The wikipedia article offers me some solace with the categories of "institutional analysis" and "shallow conspiracy." I'm not sure where the known examples, MKULTRA and the CNP to cite two of the most extreme, lie.
I also wonder where things like illegal FBI (and other) infiltration of activist groups fits. This is similar to the crack example above. In these cases, there is an alleged conspiracy, but no experts who hold a mainstream opinion. Of course the alleged conspirators denied it, but they were lying (and occasionally were forced to admit it), and there is indeed a conspiracy. It is these kinds conspiracies in which I am most interested; they do not seem to fit under "institutional analysis" or "conspiracy theory" definitions as described in the wikipedia article (and as promulgated by you). How should we label these?
And what of the Big Conspiracies, like the JFK assassination? There are plenty of well qualified experts on all sides of the question. And, undeniably, individuals and groups of individuals (and agencies) all work together to keep a lot of the evidence and documentation secret. I call that a conspiracy, but it doesn't fit under your and Wikipedia's definition.
Before anyone asks, I do not think the moon landings were faked, and that doesn't count as Big Conspiracy.
And sorry, I'm truly not meaning to come across like a dick. I saw 6 unread messages and kept my replies short, shorter perhaps than I should've. For what it's worth, for me, there's an inflection...
And sorry, I'm truly not meaning to come across like a dick. I saw 6 unread messages and kept my replies short, shorter perhaps than I should've.
For what it's worth, for me, there's an inflection point to every theory. Whether that's Loch Ness behind staged, or the 911 Truth Commission or what have you. If every single reputable astronomer tells you the Moon landings happened, and then you reject it, for me, that's when you become a conspiracy theorist. That's when you decide, I will ignore everything to protect my beliefs.
I think you're right in that there are things that are not settled yet, and I do have my biases (eg. It's never been aliens, people. It's never been aliens. Why do you keep doing this), but if I was going to demarcate the types of theories, that's where I would put it.
Conspiracies certainly exist. I'm Latin American, I'm well aware.kf the kind of shit the US government can do, and the people it will gleefully hurt. But I dunno, I see someone on Congress testifying about how many the crafts are interdimensional, and that's not what dimensions are and why are people even entertaining this, etc.
Hah. Ya, thats true of both groups I describe I guess. The first group is at least somewhat honest about not having any facts. Usually I kind of live for the debates where they bring up the flag,...
Hah. Ya, thats true of both groups I describe I guess. The first group is at least somewhat honest about not having any facts.
Usually I kind of live for the debates where they bring up the flag, the shadows, and other classics; because usually these bits of "evidence" are actually evidence of it being real.
You're right about none of this mattering to those people and maybe I should just avoid engaging.
I dunno, I think the UAP thing is a bit more of an open question. Nobody really knows what they are, and the US gov at this point admits they exist (as "unknown", not aliens) - there is an absence...
I dunno, I think the UAP thing is a bit more of an open question. Nobody really knows what they are, and the US gov at this point admits they exist (as "unknown", not aliens) - there is an absence of evidence and speculation there is kinda expected. Whereas the moon landing thing is pretty settled, has been observed independently by other missions from other countries, there are retroreflectors on the moon that Apollo 11 left behind, etc etc
I mean, by the same logic, I could posit they're actually interdimensional unicorns. But why would I start there? Why not start with, probably some secret military thing they're using their stupid...
I mean, by the same logic, I could posit they're actually interdimensional unicorns. But why would I start there? Why not start with, probably some secret military thing they're using their stupid trillion dollars for?
Science doesn't know why there's a discrepancy between the predicted behaviour of galaxy formation, and what actual galaxies look like. But it's not acceptable to take this unknown and say, it's probably wizards.
Again, it's not quite as bad as Q, but it's the same core feeling. Someone wants something to be true, so they look for evidence to support it
I should mention, in my original post, I did state it as "UAPs could be aliens". I didn't say that they are aliens, I didn't say that believing that they definitely are aliens is inherently...
I should mention, in my original post, I did state it as "UAPs could be aliens". I didn't say that they are aliens, I didn't say that believing that they definitely are aliens is inherently somehow valid, merely that being open to the possibility isn't the same as lapping up Qanon-tier garbage. I don't think that's a particularly wild stance to take.
But they also could be elves or goblins. I'm not trying to be an asshole, it's just that one of the possibilities you're picking might as well be elves or goblins, and I'm pointing that out. I...
But they also could be elves or goblins. I'm not trying to be an asshole, it's just that one of the possibilities you're picking might as well be elves or goblins, and I'm pointing that out. I mean, it's not the same as Q as in it's not inherently just racial grievance (although I still know people that don't think those dumb Egyptians built their own pyramids, must've been aliens), but the rejection of lived reality comes from the same place, doesn't it?
There's a huge leap in specificity, and therefore more evidence required to justify your unicorn hypothesis, versus "it may be some non-human intelligence of extraterrestrial origin". Claiming...
There's a huge leap in specificity, and therefore more evidence required to justify your unicorn hypothesis, versus "it may be some non-human intelligence of extraterrestrial origin". Claiming it's scientific to just shut down broad lines of inquiry like this is, at best, inaccurate. Currently, the public evidence says that there seem to be aircraft that are capable of maneuvers we don't have the physics models to account for. It's probably "just" incredibly advanced secret human technology, but... the evidentiary line of "beyond the limits of our understanding" is right about where it stops being absurd to acknowledge that our scientific understanding has limits and, from there, to look toward "the scientific consensus" for authority begins to become fallacious.
Except we haven't observed non human intelligences, ever. We're not even sure if they're in our galaxy. Moreover, we know faster than light travel is impossible, so we can discount that right off...
Except we haven't observed non human intelligences, ever. We're not even sure if they're in our galaxy. Moreover, we know faster than light travel is impossible, so we can discount that right off the gate. My unicorn theory is actually more plausible.
There is line between "I don't understand the aircraft" and "magic aliens".
Meteors? Whatever. Weather patterns? I'unno. Aliens? It's never been aliens. This keeps coming up, and whenever we find an answer, it's never been aliens. This is why this is a conspiracy theory, because it's never been aliens, yet we keep dancing this dance.
You seem to have missed @wervenyt's point. You're also misstating the facts. To the latter: we have not confirmed that anything we have observed is attributable to non-human intelligence. It may...
You seem to have missed @wervenyt's point. You're also misstating the facts.
To the latter: we have not confirmed that anything we have observed is attributable to non-human intelligence. It may be far-fetched and speculative, but the answer to any unexplainable phenomenon has some nonzero chance of being "aliens."
I will extend what we know a little further: we don't even know any observed phenomena are aircraft. All we have at this point is a set of unexplained observations. Common sense suggests earthbound explanations might one day arise, but common sense is anything but.
As an aside, a solid problem I have with the "foreign aircraft" hypotheses is that it serves no-one to deny it. If it were, the owners should say so. As in, "yes, that is our latest weapon system. Trust us, your confusion about its capabilities is warranted, best not find out what they're really capable of, nome sayin?"
FWIW I take the Air Force at its word: There's no clear reason to think extraterrestrial intelligence. But beyond that, we really have no idea.
But again, there is also a non zero chance that the crafts are being piloted by unicorns. I'm not trying to mock you, my point is that being able to imagine something doesn't mean it's worth...
But again, there is also a non zero chance that the crafts are being piloted by unicorns. I'm not trying to mock you, my point is that being able to imagine something doesn't mean it's worth considering.
This comment is not totally appropriate for tildes, but I’m going to make it anyway because I think it’s funny and I hope you take it in its silly intended spirit: My nonzero is bigger than your...
This comment is not totally appropriate for tildes, but I’m going to make it anyway because I think it’s funny and I hope you take it in its silly intended spirit:
Well, the unicorns I'm proposing would be a secret underground terrestrial society. That's more likely than extraterrestrials. That one is so close to zero that it might was we'll be zero.
Well, the unicorns I'm proposing would be a secret underground terrestrial society. That's more likely than extraterrestrials. That one is so close to zero that it might was we'll be zero.
We witness nonhuman intelligence all the time, including tool use and complicated social structure. We don't need proof of the existence of something for it to be theoretically possible. Nobody...
We witness nonhuman intelligence all the time, including tool use and complicated social structure. We don't need proof of the existence of something for it to be theoretically possible.
Nobody but you is saying magic aliens. Your interdimensional unicorn comparison is about as honest of an analog to "well, it technically could be nonhuman" as flat earth arguments. "It's never been aliens" is not an argument against the possible existence of them, nor are non sequitors about cosmology. At best, they're heuristics which diminish the likelihood of these things.
Please respect that I'm a thinking human and not some ikon of lunacy simply because you disagree with me. I won't be responding to this thread any further, because you're refusing to recognize basic logical principles and engaging in a manner that reads, to me, as extremely hostile and disingenuous.
I feel this is an ungenerous take. Let me restate: we have not observed non humans building advanced aircraft, ever. I am a bit frustrated that I have to specify this. Obviously gorillas are...
I feel this is an ungenerous take. Let me restate: we have not observed non humans building advanced aircraft, ever. I am a bit frustrated that I have to specify this. Obviously gorillas are capable of rudimentary sign language. That's not what any of us are talking about.
This is a classic example of "I'm just asking the questions". Yes, you're not technically betting your soul publicly, but that is what you're driving at, and I'm responding to the implication. If you're going to propose aliens as one of 1000 possibilities, the I'm going to say that one of your 1000 possible explanations is ridiculous. This is direct, not hostile. I am not mocking you, or your intelligence.
I never made any positive claims and have only criticized flawed lines of reasoning, and your responses are constantly arguing against things I have not said.
I never made any positive claims and have only criticized flawed lines of reasoning, and your responses are constantly arguing against things I have not said.
Look, this is like I lost my sandwich, and you say either I forgot it back home, someone took it accidentally, or goblins were behind it. Can we agree that it wasn't goblins? Even if we don't know...
Look, this is like I lost my sandwich, and you say either I forgot it back home, someone took it accidentally, or goblins were behind it. Can we agree that it wasn't goblins? Even if we don't know what happened, even if we never know what happened, we can dismiss goblins as a reasonable possibility. That's all I'm after.
And the evidence here is much more out of the ordinary than a missing sandwich. If I was about to bite down on a sandwich and it disappeared, then I might wonder who took it so quickly. Edit to...
And the evidence here is much more out of the ordinary than a missing sandwich. If I was about to bite down on a sandwich and it disappeared, then I might wonder who took it so quickly.
Edit to say thanks, by the way. Even if you don't think you were being actively hostile earlier, whatever the issue was has been much less so, hence my continued engagement.
There's thousands, if not millions, of people in the world that are convinced an angel saved their life or something like that. Touched it, talked to it, any number of things. If a sandwich...
There's thousands, if not millions, of people in the world that are convinced an angel saved their life or something like that. Touched it, talked to it, any number of things. If a sandwich disappeared from my hand, it means I've probably some sort of breakdown, or am misremembering. It's never going to be goblins. I'm not trying to compare you to this, and the analogy isn't perfect, I just want to make clear that I think that even if you never have an explanation for something, that's not a good reason to jump to extremely (and I mean, extremely) improbable explanations.
I got a bit overwhelmed with the amount of responses, and was probably shorter than I meant to be, sorry.
But it's not goblins. Come on, you know goblins didn't steal your lunch. Not every non zero possibility is worth entertaining. In fact, you don't. I'm reasonably confident you don't consider every...
But it's not goblins. Come on, you know goblins didn't steal your lunch. Not every non zero possibility is worth entertaining. In fact, you don't. I'm reasonably confident you don't consider every non zero possibility whenever anything happens in your personap life.
You are very fortunate to not understand exactly how wrong you are. Not everyone has the same brain as you. Addendum: Let me put it this way. I am one of those cultural relativists that philosophy...
You are very fortunate to not understand exactly how wrong you are. Not everyone has the same brain as you.
Addendum:
Let me put it this way. I am one of those cultural relativists that philosophy teachers warn their students about. I am also somebody who has experienced impossible things and yet recognizes they were not real. I am not a scientist, but I am qualified to discuss philosophy of science and epistemology, because I have had to study these subjects to hack it in life. Beyond that, these experiences of utter insanity have taught me the true value of being rigorous in your claims and investigations, because while I personally don't believe it's remotely likely that it's an goblin who took my lunch, or it's aliens in the sky, I also know that there's no way to prove either. These matters need to be handled sensitively and in ways that are based purely on demonstrable and reliable methods, or public conversations, where trust is out the window, will never go anywhere except into bickering.
I suspect this is going to end with both of us restating our points over and over with increasing rancour. I don't see the worth in entertaining goblins as a real option for the sandwich thief....
I suspect this is going to end with both of us restating our points over and over with increasing rancour. I don't see the worth in entertaining goblins as a real option for the sandwich thief. Your inability to prove that might be academically interesting, but we both know it wasn't goblins, and I don't see why either of us should bother pretending to keep it in reserve.
It reminds me of how eternal black holes go to other universes in the math. That's interesting for mathematicians, but eternal black holes don't exist. Real black holes are born from collapsing stars, and aren't book ended by a white hole in the past. It shows up in the math, but it's not actually real.
You might be able to come up with an interesting philosophical debate around how there's a higher than non zero chance that goblins sole your sandwich, and indeed under Many Worlds, this has happened an infinite amount of times. Ok, but beyond philosophy and in our Earth, goblins don't actually exist, and I don't consider it a good use of time to slot them in to any discussion.
But somebody may well believe it's a goblin, and it's still not productive to insist they're wrong based on the probability. My point of contention is with your methods, not conclusions. This...
But somebody may well believe it's a goblin, and it's still not productive to insist they're wrong based on the probability. My point of contention is with your methods, not conclusions. This entire subject of conspiracy theory...theory is philosophy. It isn't productive to engage along the lines you've chosen to, and it just comes across as inconsiderate when you insist on placing bounds around worthwhile beliefs for others.
Look, I don't want to imply you're wrong in what the correct psychological approach would me. You'd know more than me about this. But I'm not going to pretend goblins exist, or FTL is real, or...
Look, I don't want to imply you're wrong in what the correct psychological approach would me. You'd know more than me about this. But I'm not going to pretend goblins exist, or FTL is real, or that the Earth is flat. They're just not. I'm not trying to be a dick about this, I'm staying why these things are not real. I'm not calling anyone dumb or insulting anyone's intelligence. But I do have a bone to pick with someone making fun of Flat Earthers, but thinking aliens came to Earth, and pretending these two are somehow qualitatively different.
It smacks me if the same arrogance of Christians making fun of the Romans deciding on a battle depending on how the sacred chickens peck their corn. Or the nasty European habit of calling Christian practices as religious and pagan practices superstitious, language written in every history book you've ever heard of.
It's rank hypocrisy. They're the same damn things.
I don't think aliens came to earth. I just recognize that aliens are an idea that packages in an explanation for our ignorance of them in a way that is not inherently flawed. Someone can strongly...
I don't think aliens came to earth. I just recognize that aliens are an idea that packages in an explanation for our ignorance of them in a way that is not inherently flawed. Someone can strongly believe in alien existence and can make tentative gestures towards proof before they're downright saying "scientists are all a bunch of liars!", which is not so in the case of Flat-Earthers. If, theoretically, we could "have it all wrong" about the maximal rate of flux of information in the universe, which, while physicists would not allege, but would probably acknowledge as not truly earth-shattering, and we're already hypothesizing a species with greater understanding, then it's not as trivial as Russel's Teapot.
I just think it's in the same scale. Flat Earthers react basic physics, geography, historians, etc. FTL believers don't reject quite as much, but they still reject basic physics. It's not that...
I just think it's in the same scale. Flat Earthers react basic physics, geography, historians, etc. FTL believers don't reject quite as much, but they still reject basic physics. It's not that they're taking a mystery and giving it their own spin, which would probably still be unscientific. They're not alleging, for example, that dark matter is made up of microscopic black holes. They're rejecting the core of physics (the invariablility of the speed of light). They have no scientific reason to do this, it's just that this fact gets in the way of the thing they want to believe, so they discard it.
This is the same thing every conspiracy theory does. Not quite as detached from reality as some others, but it's the same exact phenomenon. The rejection of facts that don't comply with the belief.
That humility applies to the phycisist. It does not apply to the non expert because, by and large, the non expert doesn't understand why the invariablility of the speed of light is important. It...
That humility applies to the phycisist. It does not apply to the non expert because, by and large, the non expert doesn't understand why the invariablility of the speed of light is important. It is not humble for me to think we need to understand 14th century Mongolia better, because I don't know what the hell I'm talking about.
I don't see what would be arrogant about being curious about that period of Mongolian history. We can always learn more. Look, regardless of the state of social knowledge, every individual needs...
I don't see what would be arrogant about being curious about that period of Mongolian history. We can always learn more.
Look, regardless of the state of social knowledge, every individual needs to learn about things however they may. The first step to killing a love for science and knowledge is when a child is told that they're not qualified to wonder.
Someone curious enough to say "well, I don't see why it couldn't be aliens" is different from one arrogant enough to say "well, I know better than the physicists, who are probably wrong about FTL travel". That's the line in the sand that I think is important. We have this warped view of how these things work because we see, repeatedly, people saying "well, I don't see why it couldn't be aliens" and not growing. Plenty of them might be refusing to, but our sample is so skewed that it feels like they're all an amalgam of the ones we confidently know are [refusing to].
Beyond that, developing heuristics for judging the quality of character of an interlocutor is not the ultimate purpose of communication. The other person may well understand these subjects, and truly be saying these things from a place of humility, but no, by the position you've been arguing this whole time, they are as deplorable as Qanon diehards.
You misunderstand me. It is arrogant to state we don't know about something I don't know about. Humility involves putting yourself at a disadvantage. Someone who saves a family from a burning...
You misunderstand me. It is arrogant to state we don't know about something I don't know about. Humility involves putting yourself at a disadvantage. Someone who saves a family from a burning building that says it's what anyone would do is being humble. Someone who just observed someone do this act that says the same thing isn't. They didn't do it, saying "anyone would do it" is arrogant.
It's perfectly fine to say "why couldn't it be aliens". But then when you hear exactly why, and you dismiss that evidence, that's a different thing now.
I don't think they're as deplorable as Qanon people. And indeed, a lot of those people are victims. But the core of rejecting reality is there in both.
Since this whole discussion was rooted in determining a line of tolerance for certain scales of not well-founded beliefs, I don't see how this doesn't contradict most of what you've been arguing...
Since this whole discussion was rooted in determining a line of tolerance for certain scales of not well-founded beliefs, I don't see how this doesn't contradict most of what you've been arguing here, and would challenge that you're still presuming that your standard for conviction should be universalized. If someone doesn't find an explanation for why it couldn't be aliens satisfying, it's nobody's prerogative to deny that beyond further explanation.
I'm not sure I agree. I deny ghosts, elves, etc. I deny aliens too. I mean, I can't force anyone to agree, but it's my prerogative to... do that. Why wouldn't it be?
I'm not sure I agree. I deny ghosts, elves, etc. I deny aliens too. I mean, I can't force anyone to agree, but it's my prerogative to... do that. Why wouldn't it be?
I'm definitely not arguing against that, but the way these initial exchanges went, you said things much more strongly with regard to the acceptability of belief in dubious manners.
I'm definitely not arguing against that, but the way these initial exchanges went, you said things much more strongly with regard to the acceptability of belief in dubious manners.
Acceptability in what sense? What was I implying initially? My initial comment made the point that I didn't see a qualitative difference between believing in aliens and believing in Q, and that it...
Acceptability in what sense? What was I implying initially? My initial comment made the point that I didn't see a qualitative difference between believing in aliens and believing in Q, and that it was a matter of scale; quite how much reality a person is willing to reject.
It's possible I went off-message at some point, a lot of people replied, but that was my initial point.
I think where we got stuck is that some people are denying that they're rejecting reality, and resent having that belief compared to goblins. Even though, well, some people do believe in little people. It was a very common human belief not that long ago. But everyone thinks their beliefs are logical, their rejection of science or history or archeology is justified.
Yeah, and my argument has consistently been that there is a qualitative difference, and it rests on the motivations for and degree of doubting the expert opinion. In that sense, I reject that it's...
Yeah, and my argument has consistently been that there is a qualitative difference, and it rests on the motivations for and degree of doubting the expert opinion. In that sense, I reject that it's simply a matter of scale.
The only reason I'm being so pedantic is that the implied rationale of inhibiting public discourse (and I'm not assuming you are taking some strong stance here regarding censorship, but big conclusions rest on smaller ones) based on
everyone thinks their beliefs are logical, their rejection of science or history or archaeology is justified.
feels, very much, like a slippery slope into dogmatism. The basic tenets of scientific reasoning are designed to uphold the ability for society to seek truth despite these factors. In the 1800s, when science as really we know it first was being created, they were dealing with absolutely irrational baseline worldviews. Despite that, we were able to come to such great degrees of scientific understanding to justify the modern medical establishment! and the internal combustion engine! and genocide!
In the same way that everyone thinks their asterisks on expert opinions are justified, scientists become entrenched in their paradigms, and it's far from a novel concept that the establishments of science can become incentivised to diminish countertheoretical research. That's not even considering laypeople "educated" via science journalism, who take the predigested results of isolated studies as fact, because they "believe science".
Look, you're not wrong that things have to be questioned. Indeed, a big problem with a lot of science is replication; we reward big projects, but we should really be incentivising people to repeat...
Look, you're not wrong that things have to be questioned. Indeed, a big problem with a lot of science is replication; we reward big projects, but we should really be incentivising people to repeat experiments so the whole edifice doesn't collapse on faulty data. So when a team detects FTL particles in their experiments, they should report it. And they do, and they did. It turned out to be an error, because of course it did, but it's important to keep testing the core elements on our theories.
But I'm saying that's not what's happening here. When someone wants to believe aliens came here on a flying saucer from Andromeda, they are not having a think about the implications of going FTL. Often, they're not even aware of them. They are merely discarding that fact because it's in the way. When someone believes in a Flat Earth, they are not thinking about what people in say, NZ, think. This would have huge implications for their theory, but they discard these, if they think them at all. NZ is inconvenient.
And so on. If the word expert is too elitist, fine. But even the non experts who overturned conventional wisdom generally knew what the hell they were talking about, at least. They at least considered the implications of what they were proposing. In my experience, the conspiracy theorists that I've talked to (flat earth, fake moon, FTL) have not, and when confronted by then, dismiss it. Indeed, in this very thread, people have told me that we don't know everything. Which, while true, is not a particularly compelling argument to abandon the things we're pretty sure about. It reads (to me) as self-serving, an argument there solely for the purpose of saving someone's belief system.
I am not saying to censor these. I'm pretty sure I have my irrational beliefs too, as we all do. But no, I think the motivation is the exact same. I want to believe in something, and so I do. That's it.
I'm not particularly wedded to the whole UAP thing that deeply (it's a fun thought experiment to me) but I just felt like I needed to wade back in because one of the heuristics you're using (FTL)...
I'm not particularly wedded to the whole UAP thing that deeply (it's a fun thought experiment to me) but I just felt like I needed to wade back in because one of the heuristics you're using (FTL) is commonly used as an explanation for why it's impossible, but frankly is pretty close-minded imho.
There are a bunch of technologies that we have right now (cloning, 3d printing, looking for biosignatures in exoplanets and the like) that with a reasonably predictable level of advancement could be used to make probes that travel at sublight speeds and produce things on arrival with local materials (biological or technological). If thought experiment alien race detected biosignatures on Earth millions of years ago and shot out a casual probe, it's entirely possible that "they" could be here without needing to break universal constants. The only thing that's really missing is a propulsion method that gets you moving at a non-infinitesimal fraction of c.
I don't really mean to get into a huge argument about this, but I don't think FTL is the gotcha you seem to think it is.
If you discard FTL, then you've moved it from impossible to extremely, extremely improbable. Which is better, but not by a lot. A casual probe that functions (even in hibernation) for millions of...
If you discard FTL, then you've moved it from impossible to extremely, extremely improbable. Which is better, but not by a lot.
A casual probe that functions (even in hibernation) for millions of years? So we're talking about a civilisation that plans in terms of eons, can calculate trips of this scale (taking into account the rotation of the Sun, the Earth, others stare, etc). This civilisation, for some reason, has not colonised the galaxy already, even though they clearly can. And this civilisation, which can clearly detect anything it wants from Earth right now (given the dizzying technologies they have to have) elect to send a basic probe, which just crashed into the planet like it's Star Trek or something.
This series of events isn't impossible. It's just that you only make these assumptions when you already have your conclusion (aliens), and are desperately trying to come up with a story that makes sense. Again, the person doing this won't have anything to contribute to the field. This is not a conclusion you arrive into dispassionately.
It comes down to the arrogance to assume that this isn't the exact same spectrum that nearly every belief is built upon. Truly open-minded people, people who are happy to be wrong, to always look...
It comes down to the arrogance to assume that this isn't the exact same spectrum that nearly every belief is built upon. Truly open-minded people, people who are happy to be wrong, to always look for their own misapprehensions before confirmation of their correct ones, are incredibly rare, even, if not especially, in any realm of expertise. To draw the line there seems fairly pointless, since we all spend a lot of time caring a lot about very insubstantially proven things, as vain apes.
I mean, on a spectrum I agree, but in practice, I'm not going to pretend I know more than a bridge than a civil engineer. Could he be wrong? Sure, but I don't have the knowledge base to know that....
I mean, on a spectrum I agree, but in practice, I'm not going to pretend I know more than a bridge than a civil engineer. Could he be wrong? Sure, but I don't have the knowledge base to know that.
In my experience, people who believe in aliens (or ghosts, or angels) aren't actually happy to be wrong.
Look, based on the way this conversation went, I'm not overly inclined to trust your judgment of character in that regard, or at least that the way you engage on these issues would possibly lead...
Look, based on the way this conversation went, I'm not overly inclined to trust your judgment of character in that regard, or at least that the way you engage on these issues would possibly lead to some more obstinacy exhibited than people earnestly think. The fact is that every time you lean back on "pretend they know more than experts", what is being communicated is "I am qualified to ascertain that which is True, but you are not." And I don't mean to make statements on your character or style of conversation, especially not based on this sort of metadiscussion where we clearly were misinterpreting each other repeatedly, but my experience with even true believers in aliens is nowhere near as black-and-white as yours.
I've just given you an example of a place where you shouldn't trust my assessment; structural integrity of a bridge. And I've told you what I would do; defer to civil engineers. I'm not sure how...
I've just given you an example of a place where you shouldn't trust my assessment; structural integrity of a bridge. And I've told you what I would do; defer to civil engineers. I'm not sure how else to convey my views on this. People with expertise on a matter know their field, can have debates about that field, and should be open minded and humble about new developments. People are not experts on the matter (either via academia or some other sort of practical experience) don't really have anything to add. They're worth listening to if you're trying to study how people form and maintain belief systems. But the opinion of a non physicist on the invariability of the speed of light is, in short, worthless. Just like my opinion on the Early Achaemenid period is worthless, or at least, should not be taken seriously if an Achaemenid historian fact checks me.
I'm not saying that's what you meant, but what it comes across as. It removes yourself as a subject from the conversation and forces the other person to either wait for you to explain exactly why...
I'm not saying that's what you meant, but what it comes across as. It removes yourself as a subject from the conversation and forces the other person to either wait for you to explain exactly why there's no wiggle room here, or for them to do the opposite. It doesn't come across as sincere, unless you are an expert in the field. It also feels like we're conflating people casually chatting and someone storming a conference stage to declare their realizations.
Like, I'm not sure what I can do here. There's no wiggle room for a non expert to contradict consensus for no reason other than, well they might be wrong. That person is not arguing from a...
Like, I'm not sure what I can do here. There's no wiggle room for a non expert to contradict consensus for no reason other than, well they might be wrong. That person is not arguing from a defensible position. Random Tilderino #3 is not going to prove Einstein wrong. Someone might! Someone that knows his theories inside and out might improve them. We suspect they're incomplete (we can't reconcile them with the Standard Model). But the person that overturns the foundation of physics is not going to be a layman that doesn't know what a light cone is.
I'm not comfortable compromising on this. It feels like moral relativism. I don't want to pretend someone that isn't in a field as complicated and esoteric as physics (or civil engineering, or rocket science, or brain surgery) has anything to add simply because it might be received better. It very well might, but we really don't. I love Byzantine history, but I'm not to pretend that I know more than Kaldellis on the subject. If I read something he translated and disagree with it, I don't think it's appropriate for me to say "well, no one really knows how to translate Attic Greek, so I choose to believe it means this". I don't have the base of knowledge to dispute that.
I'm more than happy to use myself as a subject, and more than happy to defer to expert consensus on any field. And I'm sure I have bljnd spots too. Not only am I not perfect, I am not essentially different from the conspiracy theorists I'm talking about. We're all subject to the same pressures; we believe in what we want to believe. And indeed, I think most conspiracy theories can recognise other conspiracy theories as just that. Which is why they resist so strongly UAPs being conflated with Flat Earth. All I'm saying is that, they're not. It's the same damn thing.
Are you sure nobody knows what they are? How high do you think the chance is that these things are actually aliens? Would you say it's higher than it being secret military projects? Does it make...
Are you sure nobody knows what they are?
How high do you think the chance is that these things are actually aliens?
Would you say it's higher than it being secret military projects?
Does it make more sense to talk about it from a man made perspective until more evidence comes to light?
Maybe I should clarify, nobody that's talking about it knows what they are (and if they do they're keeping it pretty mum). I personally don't have a clue, and I wouldn't rag on anyone for...
Maybe I should clarify, nobody that's talking about it knows what they are (and if they do they're keeping it pretty mum).
I personally don't have a clue, and I wouldn't rag on anyone for speculating. If it came out that they were in fact secret military projects and someone was still insisting they were aliens, then I'd have a problem with it.
I think it makes the most sense to talk about it in a “we have no idea” sense. Presupposing a human cause is as biased and anti-scientific as presupposing an intelligent ET.
I think it makes the most sense to talk about it in a “we have no idea” sense. Presupposing a human cause is as biased and anti-scientific as presupposing an intelligent ET.
I assume by “alien” you mean “extraterrestrial nonhuman intelligence’l In which case probably, but discounting ne exclusion. More importantly, or perhaps more to my point, excluding...
I assume by “alien” you mean “extraterrestrial nonhuman intelligence’l
In which case probably, but discounting ne exclusion. More importantly, or perhaps more to my point, excluding extraterrestrial beings does not mean these phenomena are human originated. They could be the old intelligence standby “weather phenomena.” They could be meteors, which would be extraterrestrial. They could be some previous unknown terrestrial phenomena. Which is why I say the best approach is to study the phenomena directly without any bias.
If the answer is that these are government weapons programs, then there really is a conspiracy: to deceive the people. That’s a problem to me.
Maybe, but I would argue that the prior probability of aliens ever visiting Earth is so low that almost any other explanation, including no explanation at all, should essentially always be...
but discounting ne exclusion
Maybe, but I would argue that the prior probability of aliens ever visiting Earth is so low that almost any other explanation, including no explanation at all, should essentially always be preferred.
As to the rest: sure, there clearly is something causing these phenomena. Or, rather, each singular incident has a cause. As far as I can tell, there's no reason to believe in some overarching explanation that ties everything together, and no reason to think that they are anything out of the ordinary. Weird, unexplained stuff happens all the time; we just tend to ignore it unless it directly effects us.
The only reason that anyone cares about UAPs right now is because there's, like, a few guys who are going around saying or heavily implying that they're aliens. Sorry, that's not enough for me to think it's anything worth caring about.
First, I'd invite you to speak only for yourself about who cares and why. But it's a shame that more people don't care. Explaining unexplained phenomena is the way we progress scientifically.
First, I'd invite you to speak only for yourself about who cares and why.
But it's a shame that more people don't care. Explaining unexplained phenomena is the way we progress scientifically.
Could you elaborate or link to a source regarding doubts surrounding the Warren reports conclusions? The last time I studied the subject was awhile ago, but what I remember is that there wasn't...
Could you elaborate or link to a source regarding doubts surrounding the Warren reports conclusions? The last time I studied the subject was awhile ago, but what I remember is that there wasn't any doubt around Lee Harvey Oswalds involvement but most of the doubt surrounds Jack Ruby.
I doubt this the right venue to discuss such a controversial and detailed subject. I will say we studied the facts in law school, and none of us walked away thinking the Warren Report met any...
I doubt this the right venue to discuss such a controversial and detailed subject.
I will say we studied the facts in law school, and none of us walked away thinking the Warren Report met any legal standard of proof.
While the “sobriety” of the committee’s members is questionable, the house select committee on assassinations and the church committee are good starting points. Some of the members and and staffers made some interesting comments more recently as well.
This reply feels like the bad parts of reddit to me. But i’m going to set aside my judgment for now. I’m sorry it appears the second half of my comment didn’t load for you, where I cited te...
This reply feels like the bad parts of reddit to me. But i’m going to set aside my judgment for now.
I’m sorry it appears the second half of my comment didn’t load for you, where I cited te factual-official even-sources:
While the “sobriety” of the committee’s members is questionable, the house select committee on assassinations and the church committee are good starting points. Some of the members and and staffers made some interesting comments more recently as well.
I would instead recommend Case Closed by Gerald Posner. It absolutely is a conspiracy theory to believe that JFK and the evidence that the "official story" is reality is insurmountable. The...
I would instead recommend Case Closed by Gerald Posner. It absolutely is a conspiracy theory to believe that JFK and the evidence that the "official story" is reality is insurmountable. The evidence is not even slightly "questionable" and the Warren report did an good job.
There is a diversity of qualified and informed opinions on the matter here. In fact, the person you're talking to has made a claim about their own interpretation of the matter, and to dismiss it...
There is a diversity of qualified and informed opinions on the matter here. In fact, the person you're talking to has made a claim about their own interpretation of the matter, and to dismiss it out of hand is simply rude. Believe whatever you want, I personally don't doubt the big picture of the "official story", but you don't get to decide others' worldviews.
I'm sorry, but it's not rude to dismiss things presented without evidence. There is no good evidence for any of the conspiracy theories around JFK. There is not a "qualified and informed opinions...
I'm sorry, but it's not rude to dismiss things presented without evidence. There is no good evidence for any of the conspiracy theories around JFK. There is not a "qualified and informed opinions ", there is an illusion of one. There is one side with facts and evidence and one side with 50 different competing theories, all with no good evidence.
If you have to be just accept everyone's beliefs on everything, that's exactly how you let pseudoscience into society. There is a reality underlying all this and it's not rude to point to reality and say "hey that's reality".
Yeah, it really is a shame how there is no such thing as that mythical reality, though. Not practically. Pseudoscience is woven into the fabric of every society that has ever existed, and humans...
Yeah, it really is a shame how there is no such thing as that mythical reality, though. Not practically. Pseudoscience is woven into the fabric of every society that has ever existed, and humans are fundamentally irrational, and we kind of just have to live with that. Doesn't really matter how strongly anyone with a specific assertion feels their worldview should be universal.
That's not exactly a belief, or is it? I mean, that's like saying you believe in breathing as a concept for aerobic species, or that the sun is bright or that... the earth... is... round... ah...
a believer that among the elite are groups of people who will, can, and, do create influence to benefit themselves at (often very great) public cost
That's not exactly a belief, or is it? I mean, that's like saying you believe in breathing as a concept for aerobic species, or that the sun is bright or that... the earth... is... round... ah nevermind my train of thought, I concede defeat.
But yeah, that's partially just in the nature of human behavior: If you were in a position to amass a lot of power (and wealth) but you're not inherently an asshole, a narcissist, a lunatic or any combination thereof + a healthy dose of ruthless, you'd not stay with all that power/wealth. You'd inherently bleed it off by helping others, you'd never end up in the really-fucking-rich lists.
On the flipside, this means that by definition, a billionaire is someone who exploits others. They'd not be billionaires if they didn't.
And in turn, this also means this isn't a conspiracy theory. There's nothing to conspire about, it's just wealthy using their wealth to amass more wealth, to the detriment of everyone around them (which for a billionaire is usually a lot of people). And it's also not a theory, as with the ultra-rich, they are usually all too happy to openly share how much they love fucking things over for everybody else. See Musk, Rush, Trump and so on. They can't help themselves, it's the narcissistic element of being a person who can get into and stay in such a position.
I think it's important to distinguish between institutional analysis which focuses mostly on the public, long-term behavior of publicly known institutions, as recorded in, for example, scholarly...
I think it's important to distinguish between institutional analysis which focuses mostly on the public, long-term behavior of publicly known institutions, as recorded in, for example, scholarly documents or mainstream media reports, and conspiracy theories which posits the existence of secretive coalitions of individuals and speculates on their alleged activities.
The problem is that sometimes powerful people do wish you harm, or at least are callously indifferent to our wellbeing. But most of us know that we personally are not all that important to anyone and that powerful people act from a combination of selfishness/self interest, laziness, ignorance and to achieve their own desired purposes, most of which have nothing to do with us. The level of malicious intent most conspiracy theorists believe in is rare. (although Martin luther King was targeted by someone, quite possibly not someone random).
I thought this article was interesting not just for the things the researchers found were correlated with conspiratorial ideation but also those things that were not. In particular, the lack of...
I thought this article was interesting not just for the things the researchers found were correlated with conspiratorial ideation but also those things that were not. In particular, the lack of any association with any of the Big 5 personality traits was a little surprising to me. (The description in the article of the sort of hostility conspiracy theorists have sounds like it would have a negative correlation with agreeableness.)
I'm going to drop a link to Skeptoid for anyone invested in trying to (key word trying) sway people away from conspiracy theories. Brian does a good job explaining why these theories exist, how...
I'm going to drop a link to Skeptoid for anyone invested in trying to (key word trying) sway people away from conspiracy theories. Brian does a good job explaining why these theories exist, how they originated, and how to counter those arguments without passing judgment on the person holding the theory.
Thanks for this article! It's really interesting and I'd never heard of Skeptoid before. There's one quote that really spoke to me that I'd like to talk about: I've never, to my knowledge, been...
Thanks for this article! It's really interesting and I'd never heard of Skeptoid before.
There's one quote that really spoke to me that I'd like to talk about:
That advice is to not play them an episode that directly challenges the belief in question. Instead, play them an episode about something where you already know that you both agree. Or an episode about something that's not an emotional hotspot in today's divided culture. Play them the episode where we evaluate the competing claims for who was the first to climb Mt. Everest. ... Every one of those episodes — and hundreds more like them — convey (I hope) the joy of solving a mystery by rationally weighing the evidence. It's the process that's important, not the conclusion.
I've never, to my knowledge, been part of a conspiracy theory, but I did used to be a fundamentalist Christian who believed being gay was a sin that would get you sent to hell. The biggest thing that broke me out of that was having a friend come out as gay, but the second biggest was having people whom I trusted and respected for their other content be visibly and vocally supportive of queer people.
I think this may also be part of the effect here -- it's not just teaching them the joy of unraveling a mystery, but also getting them hooked on the personalities presenting the content and giving them a sense of camraderie and respect with the hosts and fellow fans. This is something that is a big factor in how conspiracy theories spread too, and I think it can also be a factor in getting someone to "leave" if they're not too far gone.
The podcast has been around since 2006, and tries to debunk stuff in a respectful manner, explaining why people believe it and what the real, known evidence/science on the topic is. I try to plug...
The podcast has been around since 2006, and tries to debunk stuff in a respectful manner, explaining why people believe it and what the real, known evidence/science on the topic is. I try to plug it when I can because it's an invaluable resource when it comes to finding a concise but thoroughly researched explanation.
They use a really unfortunate definition of “conspiracy theory,” and dispense with a lot of nuance. This is a shame.
Disclosure, I am a Fortean and also a believer that among the elite are groups of people who will, can, and, do create influence to benefit themselves at (often very great) public cost. An agreed upon example of this is Watergate. A mor controversial, and far less known example, is the CNP’s success in seating the current scotus. A thorough, sober, and critical look at the JFK facts and circumstances will raise grave and substantial doubts about the Warren Report’s conclusions.
I very much want to be distinguished from the likes of Qanon, or the guy who shot up Comet Pizza, or anyone who thinks the 2020 presidential election was stolen.
I have some narcissism, a lot of anger (primarily around my parents and ecological machinations of capitalism), but I am an intellectual, revere certain American institutions, value experts, and care deeply for others, including those who appear different than me.
Pleas consider me and the very many quite smart, serious, and community minded folks who are trying to shine a light on the stinky parts of the enfranchised when discussing “conspiracy theorists.”
This is honestly something that needs to be heard more, imo. There is a qualitative difference between the more grounded conspiracy theories and the swivel-eyed lunacy we've seen more commonly in the social media era. Both types have existed for a long time, but they seem like separate phenomena.
I would personally group say, "moon landing was fake" people with Qanon types - both of these require massively shifting goalposts and blind belief. Conversely, thinking that UAPs could be aliens or questioning other things where the official description is genuinely lacking doesn't seem so far out to me. Of course, it's very beneficial for people who are actually doing shady stuff to conflate the two.
I'm not sure there's a line there so much as there's a sliding scale. I don't see much of a difference between fake Moon landings and UAPs being aliens. They both require rejecting scientific consensus, shifting goal posts, suspending disbelief, believing that your small non-expert community is right, etc.
I don't mean to say all conspiracy theorists are crazy or evil or anything, but it seems to me that everyone thinks every conspiracy theory is crazy except their own pet one. That one's fine.
Another thing that can muddy the whole thing is that some conspiracy theories start out plausible, and I wouldn't necessarily think their believers are in any way unusual. It's when the conspiracy theory grows into something that defies evidence that the adherents largely become "crazy".
For example, in light of the political landscape at the time, I can see why a percentage of sensible people might have been skeptical that the US landed on the moon; it definitely seems like the sort of thing they might have faked, even if they didn't in this particular instance, in light of other manipulative and underhanded things that the US government (namely the CIA) was doing around that time. However, as time went on and the evidence confirming the moon landing became more accessible, maintaining that disbelief required increasingly disorganized thought processes.
It's unfortunate how often people use real life tragedies like MKULTRA to substantiate their conspiratorial beliefs. Basically the "if they did this then anything is possible" kind of mentality.
I have noticed that moon landing deniers come in two categories. Group A defends the belief with more of a feeling but no evidence. Group B DOES provide evidence but as time goes on group B's evidence is getting more and more ridiculous or even totally made up.
This is anecdotal of course... I just personally feel that 20 years ago it was kind of a fun debate, now there is no debate; its either incredulity or belief in nonsense.
One thing I noticed, and this is probably true of all conspiracy theorists, is that the evidence isn't actually important to them really. I remember having this debate with a denier, and be bright up the old chestnut of why is the flag still waving. Well, that one's obvious; there's no friction, so the flag keeps moving, right? Then he just moved on to his next point, like nothing happened.
Wait, shouldn't that make you stop and think? Even if I'm wrong about the physics, isn't this a really important thing to consider? I've just undone your main piece of evidence. But the evidence isn't important, it merely exists to support their main belief. You can prove everything they say it's wrong, but it won't change their minds because they don't actually care about the supporting evidence. They just care about the conspiracy theory itself.
This is a common theme across conspiracy theories, religious apologetics, and bad science. It's a result of starting with your conclusion and working backwards to make the facts support it. And it seems so blatant when people do as you described and blow off a seemingly devastating counterpoint until you realize that their arguments simply aren't for you. They're intended for listeners who already want to believe, who don't need a slam dunk case – just something plausible to cling to and parrot.
There's usually a bit of The Card Says Moops going on as well.
This most certainly is not true of all people labelled as “conspiracy theorists,” but the myth of it, formed around outlandish folks like Alex Jones, does a great job squelching the voices of those researchers speaking truth to power.
Please take a more mature view and broader perspective of the landscape.
I don't think the view that conspiracy theories of all stripes have commonalities is immature. Perhaps you could enlighten me.
Conspiracies certainly exist. Conspiracy theories are, definitionally, hypotheses that reject the consensus of the experts of that field. Someone who believes that there was a conspiracy to assassinate Caesar isn't a conspiracy theorist, for example, because that doesn't require rejecting the consensus of historians. Someone who thinks UAPs are aliens is, because that requires rejecting the consensus of the experts of the field.
That’s an odd definition of “conspiracy theory” i have not run accross. Where did you find it?
Regardless, if you are to persist with it and have credibility, it would also be necessary to define expert, and provide a valid criteria for evaluation of any given expert.
There is also the problem of experts being wrong. This exists in at least two forms. The first, media manipulation. Think cancer “experts” and cigarettes in the 70’s and before.
Then there is the case where the “experts” are all wrong. Think, ether the substance between the planets and stars.
Believing inapposite to experts does not involve a conspiracy of any kind. The conspiracy, if one exists around the issue, would be that enfranchised actors are deceiving the public in concernt with (or through manipulation of) “experts.”
Even at this point, “theorists” differ widely. Skeptics, such as myself, promote careful examination of public narratives when we see weaknesses, fallacies, inconsistencies, etc. sometimes this means opposing the prevailing expert view. Often it means amplifying the opinions of experts as opposed to the “conventional wisdom,” “common sense” or other uncritical majority opinion.
Others, such Tucker Carlson, promote wild speculation and conjecture as explanatory facts. Sometimes these folks claim to be targeted by conspirators, but not always. And there many others beside.
Can you provide an example of a conspiracy theory where non experts were correct? As back as the 40s, we knew cigarettes caused cancer. Yes, there was a concerted attempt to flood the country with disinformation, but this wasn't a case of experts vs non-experts. Doctors knew it had negative effects. There was peer reviewed research around it. It's just that corporations bought their own experts to lie. This wasn't a particularly complicated conspiracy, it was pretty one to one. Tobacco companies wanted people to keep buying tobacco.
I think might be conflating being a skeptic with bring a conspiracy theory. A skeptic might doubt official US statements in UAPs. A conspiracy theorist thinks it's aliens. Only one of these requires magic.
It has been taken for granted in many black american activist communities for decades that the US government was heavily involved in the introduction of crack to the underprivileged classes. There was no evidence for such a theory until many years later.
What was the consensus opinion of this by experts back then? Again, a conspiracy theory isn't just imagining the powerful are hurting you. It is rejecting the consensus of the experts.
This brings up an issue with the way you're applying the definition. "The experts" were the US government and journalists who roundly decried such theories as conspiratorial thinking, while any reasonable definition would recognize that the members of the Black Panther Party being targeted by COINTELPRO knew better, and so were actually the experts. And they were the ones being shut down.
Frankly, I don't appreciate the recent framing of "conspiracy theory", as, based just on the above dynamic, any conspiracy proven in hindsight could not have been "theorized" about, in that sense.
I mean, what I would say that that is that, if you consider the experts to be the US government, they have a pretty direct reason to lie. That's not much of a conspiracy, that's just a tyrannical government hurting people it wants to hurt.
To take aliens again, there's no reason for physicists to be united around FTL being impossible on a fundamental level. That's just what comes out of relativity, which is experimentally confirmed to the nth degree. To believe aliens came here FTL, especially as a non physicist, you have to reject a lot of information that you don't even understand.
I'm taking two extremes here. In the world of a million conspiracy theories, I'm sure some of them are right, of only because of sheer statistics. But that doesn't actually change anything about the thinking behind them.
You are moving these goalposts constantly. Yes, there's no reason that physicists would lie about their current understanding of the universe. They could just be wrong. That's why people are arguing that the "UAPs may be alien spacecraft" are not necessarily engaging in conspiracy theories.
By your reasoning, any successful conspiracy is not a conspiracy, because they have the capacity to do it? Many conspiracy theories are, in fact, about tyrannical governments doing tyrannical things, they aren't all antisemitism at the bottom. This is why many suspect that the more recent definition that you're referring to is a piece of countercounterintelligence. The CIA certainly appreciates the conflation.
COINTELPRO, MKULTRA, the CIA's and its predecessors' activities destabilizing democracies in South America were all discussed prior to being declassified, and the experts calling them baseless were a mix of conspirators and innocents who trusted the conspirators.
I mean, this is the core of a conspiracy theory. Yes, it's possible that the foundation of physics, one of the most experimentally verified theories in the history of science is wrong. As a (presumably) non physicist, you are not in the position to state this.
Scientists can be wrong about things. In fact, it's kind of the defining aspect that separates science from dogma. It's the height of hubris to presume we know everything about the universe.
Remind me, what did I state that was so unjustifiable? That humans can be wrong? I'm pretty sure everyone is allowed to say that.
Specifically on relativity, people have been trying to prove it wrong for like a century now. That's not to say that it's complete, but you'd be hard pressed to find a theory that has experimental evidence and has been so resilient.
Two important things, to me:
You said scientists can be wrong. Ok, you can say that about anything. You can say that about the Earth being round, you can say that about germ theory, you can say that about Pluto existing. Literally the only thing you can be sure about is that you exist, and everything else you can take or leave. Your GPS works, right? You believe we landed our Landers in Mars, and that the photos we took of Pluto are real? Then Einstein must be right, because we need his theories to do that. We need to account for relativity to do anything beyond going to the Moon. And I can't overemphasise how central the speed of light is to the theories. The relativistic nature of light is what makes the theory work. And it has nothing to do with light; the speed of light should be called the speed of causality, the fastest possible speed a cause and an effect can interact. When you say someone is FTL, you're mathematically saying that the effect is faster than the cause, which is nonsense. But you could say, maybe everyone and everything is wrong, we don't know everything, etc. Second problem, then.
Then why even talk about space? You can't believe in black holes, the age of the universe, neutron stars. Those observations all rely on incorporating Einstein's theories of relativity. No wormholes, no dark matter, no Big Bang, no inflation epoch. Absolutely everything is wrong. But that's often not what I find with people who believe in aliens. They still believe in black holes, they even believe in wormholes for some reason. None of these things make sense to believe in if you're going to reject Einstein's theories. You can't just take the results of the theories (black holes, which we've directly observed) and reject the central lynchpin of the theory (the invariablility of the speed of light).
My lord. This is not a science debate. This is a discussion about philosophy of science, epistemology, and politics. Not once have I made any remotely scientific claims, because I have no basis to, as you keep pointing out like a gotcha. I'm done here, you keep arguing with an amalgam of assumptions rather than me.
It is a bit tiring to see someone make reply to specific claims ("FTL is forbidden by science", "scientists can be wrong), but then immediately retreat from the claim when challenged.
I have not retreated from any claims I have made. Scientists can be wrong. Any statement to the contrary is simply appealing to authority. This context is in trying to draw a line between entirely baseless and socially toxic conspiratorial thinking and shaky but arguable matters. UAPs being alien craft is an example of extraordinary evidence justifying openmindedness. Nothing more, nothing less.
Semmelweis is one example where a rebel thinker predicted the truth against expert opinion
Semmelweis was an expert.
This was only determined after his death. He was highly trained and skilled but the experts at the time rejected him and his findings.
I mean, in science, people go against consensus all the time. That's normal. Relativity was controversial until experimentally verified. The Big Bang was controversial until observations matched the theory. Then some observations made expected and observed size of the universe differ, and we came up with inflation theory.
Crucially, this is led by people who know what the hell they're talking about. And also crucially, after we came up with the scientific method.
A non physicist has no business talking about how unknown physics in UAPs work, because a non physicist doesn't actually know what the hell they're talking about. Whereas has a physicist has a method for getting heard; publish your findings, get them peer reviewed.
Part of the problem with this discussion is that 'conspiracy' can mean so many different things. Personally physics is way the hell out of my wheelhouse and I am not going to entertain a theory about aliens because I know what I don't know.
On the other hand as a student of history (amateur), it is plausible to me that assassinations happen sometimes and that coverups as to who was behind it can perhaps be implemented. Have I rejected the Warren Commission results, no. Am I certain they were correct, no. See also the 9 11 comission report and the case of Epstein's death in prison. but I might be not who you are talking about because I have not personally embraced a theory in these cases, just acknowledge that there may well be more than I have access to as a member of the public.
Look, I am not saying all conspiracy theories are born equal. I'm saying that there's no hard dividing line between reasonable conspiracy theory and bonkers conspiracy theory. I absolutely accept that believing there's more to the Kennedy assassination is different from believing Biden is a hologram. I'm saying that it's a scale, but the commonality is rejection of expert consensus. Occassionally (very occassionally), that ends up being correct, but that's besides the point. The only difference in these theories is how much you're rejecting. With the Kennedy assassination, you're rejecting some. With UAPs being aliens, you're rejecting a lot. With Q, you end up rejecting most of reality. They're not the same thing, but again, I don't think there's a clear line that divides these.
Not under your unique definition of conspiracy theory.
From Wikipedia:
I'm not sure why you're fixated on this. It is the standard definition of a conspiracy theory.
Well, TIL. Thanks for your persistence in bringing this to my attention.
This is a sad timeline. The last time I looked closely at this (probably over a decade ago), there was tension over the definition, with folks like me begging to be distinguished as conspiracy researchers, who were skeptical and critical of mainstream narratives and certain experts opinions. We were dismissed, but at least acknowledged sometimes.
The wikipedia article offers me some solace with the categories of "institutional analysis" and "shallow conspiracy." I'm not sure where the known examples, MKULTRA and the CNP to cite two of the most extreme, lie.
I also wonder where things like illegal FBI (and other) infiltration of activist groups fits. This is similar to the crack example above. In these cases, there is an alleged conspiracy, but no experts who hold a mainstream opinion. Of course the alleged conspirators denied it, but they were lying (and occasionally were forced to admit it), and there is indeed a conspiracy. It is these kinds conspiracies in which I am most interested; they do not seem to fit under "institutional analysis" or "conspiracy theory" definitions as described in the wikipedia article (and as promulgated by you). How should we label these?
And what of the Big Conspiracies, like the JFK assassination? There are plenty of well qualified experts on all sides of the question. And, undeniably, individuals and groups of individuals (and agencies) all work together to keep a lot of the evidence and documentation secret. I call that a conspiracy, but it doesn't fit under your and Wikipedia's definition.
Before anyone asks, I do not think the moon landings were faked, and that doesn't count as Big Conspiracy.
And sorry, I'm truly not meaning to come across like a dick. I saw 6 unread messages and kept my replies short, shorter perhaps than I should've.
For what it's worth, for me, there's an inflection point to every theory. Whether that's Loch Ness behind staged, or the 911 Truth Commission or what have you. If every single reputable astronomer tells you the Moon landings happened, and then you reject it, for me, that's when you become a conspiracy theorist. That's when you decide, I will ignore everything to protect my beliefs.
I think you're right in that there are things that are not settled yet, and I do have my biases (eg. It's never been aliens, people. It's never been aliens. Why do you keep doing this), but if I was going to demarcate the types of theories, that's where I would put it.
Conspiracies certainly exist. I'm Latin American, I'm well aware.kf the kind of shit the US government can do, and the people it will gleefully hurt. But I dunno, I see someone on Congress testifying about how many the crafts are interdimensional, and that's not what dimensions are and why are people even entertaining this, etc.
Hah. Ya, thats true of both groups I describe I guess. The first group is at least somewhat honest about not having any facts.
Usually I kind of live for the debates where they bring up the flag, the shadows, and other classics; because usually these bits of "evidence" are actually evidence of it being real.
You're right about none of this mattering to those people and maybe I should just avoid engaging.
I dunno, I think the UAP thing is a bit more of an open question. Nobody really knows what they are, and the US gov at this point admits they exist (as "unknown", not aliens) - there is an absence of evidence and speculation there is kinda expected. Whereas the moon landing thing is pretty settled, has been observed independently by other missions from other countries, there are retroreflectors on the moon that Apollo 11 left behind, etc etc
I mean, by the same logic, I could posit they're actually interdimensional unicorns. But why would I start there? Why not start with, probably some secret military thing they're using their stupid trillion dollars for?
Science doesn't know why there's a discrepancy between the predicted behaviour of galaxy formation, and what actual galaxies look like. But it's not acceptable to take this unknown and say, it's probably wizards.
Again, it's not quite as bad as Q, but it's the same core feeling. Someone wants something to be true, so they look for evidence to support it
I should mention, in my original post, I did state it as "UAPs could be aliens". I didn't say that they are aliens, I didn't say that believing that they definitely are aliens is inherently somehow valid, merely that being open to the possibility isn't the same as lapping up Qanon-tier garbage. I don't think that's a particularly wild stance to take.
But they also could be elves or goblins. I'm not trying to be an asshole, it's just that one of the possibilities you're picking might as well be elves or goblins, and I'm pointing that out. I mean, it's not the same as Q as in it's not inherently just racial grievance (although I still know people that don't think those dumb Egyptians built their own pyramids, must've been aliens), but the rejection of lived reality comes from the same place, doesn't it?
There's a huge leap in specificity, and therefore more evidence required to justify your unicorn hypothesis, versus "it may be some non-human intelligence of extraterrestrial origin". Claiming it's scientific to just shut down broad lines of inquiry like this is, at best, inaccurate. Currently, the public evidence says that there seem to be aircraft that are capable of maneuvers we don't have the physics models to account for. It's probably "just" incredibly advanced secret human technology, but... the evidentiary line of "beyond the limits of our understanding" is right about where it stops being absurd to acknowledge that our scientific understanding has limits and, from there, to look toward "the scientific consensus" for authority begins to become fallacious.
Except we haven't observed non human intelligences, ever. We're not even sure if they're in our galaxy. Moreover, we know faster than light travel is impossible, so we can discount that right off the gate. My unicorn theory is actually more plausible.
There is line between "I don't understand the aircraft" and "magic aliens".
Meteors? Whatever. Weather patterns? I'unno. Aliens? It's never been aliens. This keeps coming up, and whenever we find an answer, it's never been aliens. This is why this is a conspiracy theory, because it's never been aliens, yet we keep dancing this dance.
You seem to have missed @wervenyt's point. You're also misstating the facts.
To the latter: we have not confirmed that anything we have observed is attributable to non-human intelligence. It may be far-fetched and speculative, but the answer to any unexplainable phenomenon has some nonzero chance of being "aliens."
I will extend what we know a little further: we don't even know any observed phenomena are aircraft. All we have at this point is a set of unexplained observations. Common sense suggests earthbound explanations might one day arise, but common sense is anything but.
As an aside, a solid problem I have with the "foreign aircraft" hypotheses is that it serves no-one to deny it. If it were, the owners should say so. As in, "yes, that is our latest weapon system. Trust us, your confusion about its capabilities is warranted, best not find out what they're really capable of, nome sayin?"
FWIW I take the Air Force at its word: There's no clear reason to think extraterrestrial intelligence. But beyond that, we really have no idea.
But again, there is also a non zero chance that the crafts are being piloted by unicorns. I'm not trying to mock you, my point is that being able to imagine something doesn't mean it's worth considering.
This comment is not totally appropriate for tildes, but I’m going to make it anyway because I think it’s funny and I hope you take it in its silly intended spirit:
My nonzero is bigger than your nonzero!
Nyah nyah :-p
Well, the unicorns I'm proposing would be a secret underground terrestrial society. That's more likely than extraterrestrials. That one is so close to zero that it might was we'll be zero.
Well in that case, I suggest we join nonzero forces. Then together we can confuse the theorists from every direction at once!
We witness nonhuman intelligence all the time, including tool use and complicated social structure. We don't need proof of the existence of something for it to be theoretically possible.
Nobody but you is saying magic aliens. Your interdimensional unicorn comparison is about as honest of an analog to "well, it technically could be nonhuman" as flat earth arguments. "It's never been aliens" is not an argument against the possible existence of them, nor are non sequitors about cosmology. At best, they're heuristics which diminish the likelihood of these things.
Please respect that I'm a thinking human and not some ikon of lunacy simply because you disagree with me. I won't be responding to this thread any further, because you're refusing to recognize basic logical principles and engaging in a manner that reads, to me, as extremely hostile and disingenuous.
I feel this is an ungenerous take. Let me restate: we have not observed non humans building advanced aircraft, ever. I am a bit frustrated that I have to specify this. Obviously gorillas are capable of rudimentary sign language. That's not what any of us are talking about.
This is a classic example of "I'm just asking the questions". Yes, you're not technically betting your soul publicly, but that is what you're driving at, and I'm responding to the implication. If you're going to propose aliens as one of 1000 possibilities, the I'm going to say that one of your 1000 possible explanations is ridiculous. This is direct, not hostile. I am not mocking you, or your intelligence.
I never made any positive claims and have only criticized flawed lines of reasoning, and your responses are constantly arguing against things I have not said.
Look, this is like I lost my sandwich, and you say either I forgot it back home, someone took it accidentally, or goblins were behind it. Can we agree that it wasn't goblins? Even if we don't know what happened, even if we never know what happened, we can dismiss goblins as a reasonable possibility. That's all I'm after.
And the evidence here is much more out of the ordinary than a missing sandwich. If I was about to bite down on a sandwich and it disappeared, then I might wonder who took it so quickly.
Edit to say thanks, by the way. Even if you don't think you were being actively hostile earlier, whatever the issue was has been much less so, hence my continued engagement.
There's thousands, if not millions, of people in the world that are convinced an angel saved their life or something like that. Touched it, talked to it, any number of things. If a sandwich disappeared from my hand, it means I've probably some sort of breakdown, or am misremembering. It's never going to be goblins. I'm not trying to compare you to this, and the analogy isn't perfect, I just want to make clear that I think that even if you never have an explanation for something, that's not a good reason to jump to extremely (and I mean, extremely) improbable explanations.
I got a bit overwhelmed with the amount of responses, and was probably shorter than I meant to be, sorry.
Yeah, but it could be goblins. Or whatever. That's the point. It doesn't matter the size of the probability, it's nonzero.
But it's not goblins. Come on, you know goblins didn't steal your lunch. Not every non zero possibility is worth entertaining. In fact, you don't. I'm reasonably confident you don't consider every non zero possibility whenever anything happens in your personap life.
You are very fortunate to not understand exactly how wrong you are. Not everyone has the same brain as you.
Addendum:
Let me put it this way. I am one of those cultural relativists that philosophy teachers warn their students about. I am also somebody who has experienced impossible things and yet recognizes they were not real. I am not a scientist, but I am qualified to discuss philosophy of science and epistemology, because I have had to study these subjects to hack it in life. Beyond that, these experiences of utter insanity have taught me the true value of being rigorous in your claims and investigations, because while I personally don't believe it's remotely likely that it's an goblin who took my lunch, or it's aliens in the sky, I also know that there's no way to prove either. These matters need to be handled sensitively and in ways that are based purely on demonstrable and reliable methods, or public conversations, where trust is out the window, will never go anywhere except into bickering.
I suspect this is going to end with both of us restating our points over and over with increasing rancour. I don't see the worth in entertaining goblins as a real option for the sandwich thief. Your inability to prove that might be academically interesting, but we both know it wasn't goblins, and I don't see why either of us should bother pretending to keep it in reserve.
It reminds me of how eternal black holes go to other universes in the math. That's interesting for mathematicians, but eternal black holes don't exist. Real black holes are born from collapsing stars, and aren't book ended by a white hole in the past. It shows up in the math, but it's not actually real.
You might be able to come up with an interesting philosophical debate around how there's a higher than non zero chance that goblins sole your sandwich, and indeed under Many Worlds, this has happened an infinite amount of times. Ok, but beyond philosophy and in our Earth, goblins don't actually exist, and I don't consider it a good use of time to slot them in to any discussion.
But somebody may well believe it's a goblin, and it's still not productive to insist they're wrong based on the probability. My point of contention is with your methods, not conclusions. This entire subject of conspiracy theory...theory is philosophy. It isn't productive to engage along the lines you've chosen to, and it just comes across as inconsiderate when you insist on placing bounds around worthwhile beliefs for others.
Look, I don't want to imply you're wrong in what the correct psychological approach would me. You'd know more than me about this. But I'm not going to pretend goblins exist, or FTL is real, or that the Earth is flat. They're just not. I'm not trying to be a dick about this, I'm staying why these things are not real. I'm not calling anyone dumb or insulting anyone's intelligence. But I do have a bone to pick with someone making fun of Flat Earthers, but thinking aliens came to Earth, and pretending these two are somehow qualitatively different.
It smacks me if the same arrogance of Christians making fun of the Romans deciding on a battle depending on how the sacred chickens peck their corn. Or the nasty European habit of calling Christian practices as religious and pagan practices superstitious, language written in every history book you've ever heard of.
It's rank hypocrisy. They're the same damn things.
I don't think aliens came to earth. I just recognize that aliens are an idea that packages in an explanation for our ignorance of them in a way that is not inherently flawed. Someone can strongly believe in alien existence and can make tentative gestures towards proof before they're downright saying "scientists are all a bunch of liars!", which is not so in the case of Flat-Earthers. If, theoretically, we could "have it all wrong" about the maximal rate of flux of information in the universe, which, while physicists would not allege, but would probably acknowledge as not truly earth-shattering, and we're already hypothesizing a species with greater understanding, then it's not as trivial as Russel's Teapot.
I just think it's in the same scale. Flat Earthers react basic physics, geography, historians, etc. FTL believers don't reject quite as much, but they still reject basic physics. It's not that they're taking a mystery and giving it their own spin, which would probably still be unscientific. They're not alleging, for example, that dark matter is made up of microscopic black holes. They're rejecting the core of physics (the invariablility of the speed of light). They have no scientific reason to do this, it's just that this fact gets in the way of the thing they want to believe, so they discard it.
This is the same thing every conspiracy theory does. Not quite as detached from reality as some others, but it's the same exact phenomenon. The rejection of facts that don't comply with the belief.
But it is not. Humility and assertion of certainty are about as opposite as you can get.
It is not humble, as a non physicist, to reject the basis of modern physics.
It is humble, as any person, to recognise that we could all be wrong about something that seems obvious.
That humility applies to the phycisist. It does not apply to the non expert because, by and large, the non expert doesn't understand why the invariablility of the speed of light is important. It is not humble for me to think we need to understand 14th century Mongolia better, because I don't know what the hell I'm talking about.
I don't see what would be arrogant about being curious about that period of Mongolian history. We can always learn more.
Look, regardless of the state of social knowledge, every individual needs to learn about things however they may. The first step to killing a love for science and knowledge is when a child is told that they're not qualified to wonder.
Someone curious enough to say "well, I don't see why it couldn't be aliens" is different from one arrogant enough to say "well, I know better than the physicists, who are probably wrong about FTL travel". That's the line in the sand that I think is important. We have this warped view of how these things work because we see, repeatedly, people saying "well, I don't see why it couldn't be aliens" and not growing. Plenty of them might be refusing to, but our sample is so skewed that it feels like they're all an amalgam of the ones we confidently know are [refusing to].
Beyond that, developing heuristics for judging the quality of character of an interlocutor is not the ultimate purpose of communication. The other person may well understand these subjects, and truly be saying these things from a place of humility, but no, by the position you've been arguing this whole time, they are as deplorable as Qanon diehards.
You misunderstand me. It is arrogant to state we don't know about something I don't know about. Humility involves putting yourself at a disadvantage. Someone who saves a family from a burning building that says it's what anyone would do is being humble. Someone who just observed someone do this act that says the same thing isn't. They didn't do it, saying "anyone would do it" is arrogant.
It's perfectly fine to say "why couldn't it be aliens". But then when you hear exactly why, and you dismiss that evidence, that's a different thing now.
I don't think they're as deplorable as Qanon people. And indeed, a lot of those people are victims. But the core of rejecting reality is there in both.
Since this whole discussion was rooted in determining a line of tolerance for certain scales of not well-founded beliefs, I don't see how this doesn't contradict most of what you've been arguing here, and would challenge that you're still presuming that your standard for conviction should be universalized. If someone doesn't find an explanation for why it couldn't be aliens satisfying, it's nobody's prerogative to deny that beyond further explanation.
I'm not sure I agree. I deny ghosts, elves, etc. I deny aliens too. I mean, I can't force anyone to agree, but it's my prerogative to... do that. Why wouldn't it be?
I'm definitely not arguing against that, but the way these initial exchanges went, you said things much more strongly with regard to the acceptability of belief in dubious manners.
Acceptability in what sense? What was I implying initially? My initial comment made the point that I didn't see a qualitative difference between believing in aliens and believing in Q, and that it was a matter of scale; quite how much reality a person is willing to reject.
It's possible I went off-message at some point, a lot of people replied, but that was my initial point.
I think where we got stuck is that some people are denying that they're rejecting reality, and resent having that belief compared to goblins. Even though, well, some people do believe in little people. It was a very common human belief not that long ago. But everyone thinks their beliefs are logical, their rejection of science or history or archeology is justified.
Yeah, and my argument has consistently been that there is a qualitative difference, and it rests on the motivations for and degree of doubting the expert opinion. In that sense, I reject that it's simply a matter of scale.
The only reason I'm being so pedantic is that the implied rationale of inhibiting public discourse (and I'm not assuming you are taking some strong stance here regarding censorship, but big conclusions rest on smaller ones) based on
feels, very much, like a slippery slope into dogmatism. The basic tenets of scientific reasoning are designed to uphold the ability for society to seek truth despite these factors. In the 1800s, when science as really we know it first was being created, they were dealing with absolutely irrational baseline worldviews. Despite that, we were able to come to such great degrees of scientific understanding to justify the modern medical establishment! and the internal combustion engine! and genocide!
In the same way that everyone thinks their asterisks on expert opinions are justified, scientists become entrenched in their paradigms, and it's far from a novel concept that the establishments of science can become incentivised to diminish countertheoretical research. That's not even considering laypeople "educated" via science journalism, who take the predigested results of isolated studies as fact, because they "believe science".
Look, you're not wrong that things have to be questioned. Indeed, a big problem with a lot of science is replication; we reward big projects, but we should really be incentivising people to repeat experiments so the whole edifice doesn't collapse on faulty data. So when a team detects FTL particles in their experiments, they should report it. And they do, and they did. It turned out to be an error, because of course it did, but it's important to keep testing the core elements on our theories.
But I'm saying that's not what's happening here. When someone wants to believe aliens came here on a flying saucer from Andromeda, they are not having a think about the implications of going FTL. Often, they're not even aware of them. They are merely discarding that fact because it's in the way. When someone believes in a Flat Earth, they are not thinking about what people in say, NZ, think. This would have huge implications for their theory, but they discard these, if they think them at all. NZ is inconvenient.
And so on. If the word expert is too elitist, fine. But even the non experts who overturned conventional wisdom generally knew what the hell they were talking about, at least. They at least considered the implications of what they were proposing. In my experience, the conspiracy theorists that I've talked to (flat earth, fake moon, FTL) have not, and when confronted by then, dismiss it. Indeed, in this very thread, people have told me that we don't know everything. Which, while true, is not a particularly compelling argument to abandon the things we're pretty sure about. It reads (to me) as self-serving, an argument there solely for the purpose of saving someone's belief system.
I am not saying to censor these. I'm pretty sure I have my irrational beliefs too, as we all do. But no, I think the motivation is the exact same. I want to believe in something, and so I do. That's it.
I'm not particularly wedded to the whole UAP thing that deeply (it's a fun thought experiment to me) but I just felt like I needed to wade back in because one of the heuristics you're using (FTL) is commonly used as an explanation for why it's impossible, but frankly is pretty close-minded imho.
There are a bunch of technologies that we have right now (cloning, 3d printing, looking for biosignatures in exoplanets and the like) that with a reasonably predictable level of advancement could be used to make probes that travel at sublight speeds and produce things on arrival with local materials (biological or technological). If thought experiment alien race detected biosignatures on Earth millions of years ago and shot out a casual probe, it's entirely possible that "they" could be here without needing to break universal constants. The only thing that's really missing is a propulsion method that gets you moving at a non-infinitesimal fraction of c.
I don't really mean to get into a huge argument about this, but I don't think FTL is the gotcha you seem to think it is.
If you discard FTL, then you've moved it from impossible to extremely, extremely improbable. Which is better, but not by a lot.
A casual probe that functions (even in hibernation) for millions of years? So we're talking about a civilisation that plans in terms of eons, can calculate trips of this scale (taking into account the rotation of the Sun, the Earth, others stare, etc). This civilisation, for some reason, has not colonised the galaxy already, even though they clearly can. And this civilisation, which can clearly detect anything it wants from Earth right now (given the dizzying technologies they have to have) elect to send a basic probe, which just crashed into the planet like it's Star Trek or something.
This series of events isn't impossible. It's just that you only make these assumptions when you already have your conclusion (aliens), and are desperately trying to come up with a story that makes sense. Again, the person doing this won't have anything to contribute to the field. This is not a conclusion you arrive into dispassionately.
It comes down to the arrogance to assume that this isn't the exact same spectrum that nearly every belief is built upon. Truly open-minded people, people who are happy to be wrong, to always look for their own misapprehensions before confirmation of their correct ones, are incredibly rare, even, if not especially, in any realm of expertise. To draw the line there seems fairly pointless, since we all spend a lot of time caring a lot about very insubstantially proven things, as vain apes.
I mean, on a spectrum I agree, but in practice, I'm not going to pretend I know more than a bridge than a civil engineer. Could he be wrong? Sure, but I don't have the knowledge base to know that.
In my experience, people who believe in aliens (or ghosts, or angels) aren't actually happy to be wrong.
Look, based on the way this conversation went, I'm not overly inclined to trust your judgment of character in that regard, or at least that the way you engage on these issues would possibly lead to some more obstinacy exhibited than people earnestly think. The fact is that every time you lean back on "pretend they know more than experts", what is being communicated is "I am qualified to ascertain that which is True, but you are not." And I don't mean to make statements on your character or style of conversation, especially not based on this sort of metadiscussion where we clearly were misinterpreting each other repeatedly, but my experience with even true believers in aliens is nowhere near as black-and-white as yours.
I've just given you an example of a place where you shouldn't trust my assessment; structural integrity of a bridge. And I've told you what I would do; defer to civil engineers. I'm not sure how else to convey my views on this. People with expertise on a matter know their field, can have debates about that field, and should be open minded and humble about new developments. People are not experts on the matter (either via academia or some other sort of practical experience) don't really have anything to add. They're worth listening to if you're trying to study how people form and maintain belief systems. But the opinion of a non physicist on the invariability of the speed of light is, in short, worthless. Just like my opinion on the Early Achaemenid period is worthless, or at least, should not be taken seriously if an Achaemenid historian fact checks me.
I'm not saying that's what you meant, but what it comes across as. It removes yourself as a subject from the conversation and forces the other person to either wait for you to explain exactly why there's no wiggle room here, or for them to do the opposite. It doesn't come across as sincere, unless you are an expert in the field. It also feels like we're conflating people casually chatting and someone storming a conference stage to declare their realizations.
Like, I'm not sure what I can do here. There's no wiggle room for a non expert to contradict consensus for no reason other than, well they might be wrong. That person is not arguing from a defensible position. Random Tilderino #3 is not going to prove Einstein wrong. Someone might! Someone that knows his theories inside and out might improve them. We suspect they're incomplete (we can't reconcile them with the Standard Model). But the person that overturns the foundation of physics is not going to be a layman that doesn't know what a light cone is.
I'm not comfortable compromising on this. It feels like moral relativism. I don't want to pretend someone that isn't in a field as complicated and esoteric as physics (or civil engineering, or rocket science, or brain surgery) has anything to add simply because it might be received better. It very well might, but we really don't. I love Byzantine history, but I'm not to pretend that I know more than Kaldellis on the subject. If I read something he translated and disagree with it, I don't think it's appropriate for me to say "well, no one really knows how to translate Attic Greek, so I choose to believe it means this". I don't have the base of knowledge to dispute that.
I'm more than happy to use myself as a subject, and more than happy to defer to expert consensus on any field. And I'm sure I have bljnd spots too. Not only am I not perfect, I am not essentially different from the conspiracy theorists I'm talking about. We're all subject to the same pressures; we believe in what we want to believe. And indeed, I think most conspiracy theories can recognise other conspiracy theories as just that. Which is why they resist so strongly UAPs being conflated with Flat Earth. All I'm saying is that, they're not. It's the same damn thing.
Are you sure nobody knows what they are?
How high do you think the chance is that these things are actually aliens?
Would you say it's higher than it being secret military projects?
Does it make more sense to talk about it from a man made perspective until more evidence comes to light?
Maybe I should clarify, nobody that's talking about it knows what they are (and if they do they're keeping it pretty mum).
I personally don't have a clue, and I wouldn't rag on anyone for speculating. If it came out that they were in fact secret military projects and someone was still insisting they were aliens, then I'd have a problem with it.
I think it makes the most sense to talk about it in a “we have no idea” sense. Presupposing a human cause is as biased and anti-scientific as presupposing an intelligent ET.
There are good a priori reasons to strongly discount the possibility of aliens.
I assume by “alien” you mean “extraterrestrial nonhuman intelligence’l
In which case probably, but discounting ne exclusion. More importantly, or perhaps more to my point, excluding extraterrestrial beings does not mean these phenomena are human originated. They could be the old intelligence standby “weather phenomena.” They could be meteors, which would be extraterrestrial. They could be some previous unknown terrestrial phenomena. Which is why I say the best approach is to study the phenomena directly without any bias.
If the answer is that these are government weapons programs, then there really is a conspiracy: to deceive the people. That’s a problem to me.
Maybe, but I would argue that the prior probability of aliens ever visiting Earth is so low that almost any other explanation, including no explanation at all, should essentially always be preferred.
As to the rest: sure, there clearly is something causing these phenomena. Or, rather, each singular incident has a cause. As far as I can tell, there's no reason to believe in some overarching explanation that ties everything together, and no reason to think that they are anything out of the ordinary. Weird, unexplained stuff happens all the time; we just tend to ignore it unless it directly effects us.
The only reason that anyone cares about UAPs right now is because there's, like, a few guys who are going around saying or heavily implying that they're aliens. Sorry, that's not enough for me to think it's anything worth caring about.
First, I'd invite you to speak only for yourself about who cares and why.
But it's a shame that more people don't care. Explaining unexplained phenomena is the way we progress scientifically.
Could you elaborate or link to a source regarding doubts surrounding the Warren reports conclusions? The last time I studied the subject was awhile ago, but what I remember is that there wasn't any doubt around Lee Harvey Oswalds involvement but most of the doubt surrounds Jack Ruby.
I doubt this the right venue to discuss such a controversial and detailed subject.
I will say we studied the facts in law school, and none of us walked away thinking the Warren Report met any legal standard of proof.
While the “sobriety” of the committee’s members is questionable, the house select committee on assassinations and the church committee are good starting points. Some of the members and and staffers made some interesting comments more recently as well.
This reply feels like the bad parts of reddit to me. But i’m going to set aside my judgment for now.
I’m sorry it appears the second half of my comment didn’t load for you, where I cited te factual-official even-sources:
I would instead recommend Case Closed by Gerald Posner. It absolutely is a conspiracy theory to believe that JFK and the evidence that the "official story" is reality is insurmountable. The evidence is not even slightly "questionable" and the Warren report did an good job.
There is a diversity of qualified and informed opinions on the matter here. In fact, the person you're talking to has made a claim about their own interpretation of the matter, and to dismiss it out of hand is simply rude. Believe whatever you want, I personally don't doubt the big picture of the "official story", but you don't get to decide others' worldviews.
I'm sorry, but it's not rude to dismiss things presented without evidence. There is no good evidence for any of the conspiracy theories around JFK. There is not a "qualified and informed opinions ", there is an illusion of one. There is one side with facts and evidence and one side with 50 different competing theories, all with no good evidence.
If you have to be just accept everyone's beliefs on everything, that's exactly how you let pseudoscience into society. There is a reality underlying all this and it's not rude to point to reality and say "hey that's reality".
Yeah, it really is a shame how there is no such thing as that mythical reality, though. Not practically. Pseudoscience is woven into the fabric of every society that has ever existed, and humans are fundamentally irrational, and we kind of just have to live with that. Doesn't really matter how strongly anyone with a specific assertion feels their worldview should be universal.
That's not exactly a belief, or is it? I mean, that's like saying you believe in breathing as a concept for aerobic species, or that the sun is bright or that... the earth... is... round... ah nevermind my train of thought, I concede defeat.
But yeah, that's partially just in the nature of human behavior: If you were in a position to amass a lot of power (and wealth) but you're not inherently an asshole, a narcissist, a lunatic or any combination thereof + a healthy dose of ruthless, you'd not stay with all that power/wealth. You'd inherently bleed it off by helping others, you'd never end up in the really-fucking-rich lists.
On the flipside, this means that by definition, a billionaire is someone who exploits others. They'd not be billionaires if they didn't.
And in turn, this also means this isn't a conspiracy theory. There's nothing to conspire about, it's just wealthy using their wealth to amass more wealth, to the detriment of everyone around them (which for a billionaire is usually a lot of people). And it's also not a theory, as with the ultra-rich, they are usually all too happy to openly share how much they love fucking things over for everybody else. See Musk, Rush, Trump and so on. They can't help themselves, it's the narcissistic element of being a person who can get into and stay in such a position.
I think it's important to distinguish between institutional analysis which focuses mostly on the public, long-term behavior of publicly known institutions, as recorded in, for example, scholarly documents or mainstream media reports, and conspiracy theories which posits the existence of secretive coalitions of individuals and speculates on their alleged activities.
I think most of what you're talking about aren't conspiracies, they are well documented and in line with historically factual behavior. I think you can make the distinction between the two, particularly because there isn't a general consensus within a scientific body refuting the theory with evidence. For example the overthrow of freely elected presidents/prime ministers by the United State throughout South America during the cold war was rejected by politicians not an oversight or scientific community.
Fascinating article. Thank you. I also appreciated this article which was linked from the first one. https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/critical-thinking-pseudoscience/zen-and-art-talking-conspiracy-theorists
The problem is that sometimes powerful people do wish you harm, or at least are callously indifferent to our wellbeing. But most of us know that we personally are not all that important to anyone and that powerful people act from a combination of selfishness/self interest, laziness, ignorance and to achieve their own desired purposes, most of which have nothing to do with us. The level of malicious intent most conspiracy theorists believe in is rare. (although Martin luther King was targeted by someone, quite possibly not someone random).
I thought this article was interesting not just for the things the researchers found were correlated with conspiratorial ideation but also those things that were not. In particular, the lack of any association with any of the Big 5 personality traits was a little surprising to me. (The description in the article of the sort of hostility conspiracy theorists have sounds like it would have a negative correlation with agreeableness.)
I'm going to drop a link to Skeptoid for anyone invested in trying to (key word trying) sway people away from conspiracy theories. Brian does a good job explaining why these theories exist, how they originated, and how to counter those arguments without passing judgment on the person holding the theory.
Skeptoid #891: How to Change a Conspiracy Theorist's Mind
Thanks for this article! It's really interesting and I'd never heard of Skeptoid before.
There's one quote that really spoke to me that I'd like to talk about:
I've never, to my knowledge, been part of a conspiracy theory, but I did used to be a fundamentalist Christian who believed being gay was a sin that would get you sent to hell. The biggest thing that broke me out of that was having a friend come out as gay, but the second biggest was having people whom I trusted and respected for their other content be visibly and vocally supportive of queer people.
I think this may also be part of the effect here -- it's not just teaching them the joy of unraveling a mystery, but also getting them hooked on the personalities presenting the content and giving them a sense of camraderie and respect with the hosts and fellow fans. This is something that is a big factor in how conspiracy theories spread too, and I think it can also be a factor in getting someone to "leave" if they're not too far gone.
The podcast has been around since 2006, and tries to debunk stuff in a respectful manner, explaining why people believe it and what the real, known evidence/science on the topic is. I try to plug it when I can because it's an invaluable resource when it comes to finding a concise but thoroughly researched explanation.
yeah I've started following them now! I like how bite-sized the content is.
You get a bit more if you're a financial supporter, but yeah.
In my personal, anecdotal life experience the conspiracy theorists I met have tended to be lonely and angry people.
Paranoid, anti-intellectual narcissists.