Hard News: Where the crazy comes from
183 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8 Newer→ Last
-
There is a great deal of similarity between the wacky fringe sciences and Conspiracy Theories; most fringe sciences invoke Conspiracy Theories to explain why the fringe science isn't mainstream. Usually this invocation shows that the fringe scientist does not understand peer review.
-
I know that Russell doesn't want this discussion going any further,
Totally up for discussion of conspiracy theories etc, just not for the thread to derail into relitigating certain actual claims. Definitely enjoying where it's going now.
-
Although dismissing someone outright as an idiot because of their accent or geographical location isn't my style.
Yeah, sorry. That wasn't really meant to be a swipe at you. Your post just allowed me a jumping-off point for aimless musing. :)
-
Although if someone presents an argument in a wacky accent claiming they come from the Moon, surely that's fair game?
-
But, wont speaking with a moonian accent lend credence to the claim?
-
Although if someone presents an argument in a wacky accent claiming they come from the Moon, surely that's fair game?
-
But while we have you -- is there anyone else in Act whose alarming anti-Semitic beliefs we should know about?
I hope we have none but we don't check members "credentials." And yes, we do check candidates credentials.
-
Be afraid, be very afraid
-
Gawd. I just finished reading that last week! I don't especially recommend it. Godwin's a classic "rogue professor," and he has a certain gift, both here and in the Theosophical Enlightenment ,for making the esoteric seem really, really dull.
Too late.
I had to read some Frances Yates to recover.
Then I read Patrick Wright's book on the history of tanks, called, funnily enough, Tank . The connections between Aleister Crowley and British Army armoured warfare expert J. F. C. Fuller are... interesting.
Then it was Theweleit's Male Fantasies and that's OD-ing on the bad craziness.
It all relates to my PhD, you see.
-
It all relates to my PhD, you see.
How excited are you about the new Erik Davis book, on a scale of one to ten?
-
A: There is one? Kewl! My submarine has clearly been cruising at too great a depth lately for me not to hear of it.
B: There is one? Shit! Just when I get my credit card account under control!
-
But the thing about conspiracy theories is that there really are a whole bunch of actually existing conspiracies: there's the conspiracy to invade Iraq, the conspiracy to overthrow Allende, the conspiracy to overthrow Castro, etc etc.
So believing that the US government is engaged in nefarious secret activities isn't at all daft; it is merely a question of which nefarious secret activities you think it is up to.
Which is to say, there's not a simple good conspiracy vs. bad conspiracy theory line, and yes, people get very epicyclic about some conspiracy theories, but that doesn't tell us very much about any given claim.
So I don't particularly like conspiracy theory language. (And by the way, how long after the war was the existence of Ultra first made public? It is possible to keep secrets in some cases.)
-
There is one? Kewl!
I give you Nomad Codes. (Well, not literally. You're going to have to buy it yourself.)
-
I hope we have none but we don't check members "credentials." And yes, we do check candidates credentials.
Thanks, Nick. I actually appreciate the good-faith answer to my snarky question.
-
No problem.
-
Nick, while you're here, do you understand how Rodney Hide's plans for local government fit together, long term? Seriously.
-
we do check candidates credentials.
Something like:
1. Are you engaged, or do you plan to engage, in large scale theft of public money?
-
@stephen walker
Please do tell me what was the ad hominem remark in my comments on your post. Because there wasn't one. But perhaps I have an Agenda to deny that I was making such an attack.
(Avoiding discussing the original issue, which was covered off in the article I linked)
-
Oh, and to return to the theme of Occam's Razor, since I brought it up, I totally agree that it's not an argument unto itself. I do think it's a useful principle to keep in mind as ONE way of weighing various arguments/theories.
I also like Holmes' theorem: "when one has eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the solution".
-
Also, Hanlon's Razor is another favourite: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
Much of what is ascribed to government/capitalist/you name it conspiracies can be put down to this particular principle, I feel.
Actually, I'm reminded of Naomi Klein's last opus, The Shock Doctrine, which seemed to get a bit conspiracy-theorist about "disaster capitalism", as she calls it. Is there a term that covers off opportunistic cashing-in? I don't think FEMA and their corporate buddy-buds concocted Katrina, but certainly some organisations made a ton of money from the fuck-up and the clean-up. They certainly didn't hold back from squeezing cash out of whatever agencies they could out of "charidee" - but it doesn't seem to be malice, just rapacious opportunism.
-
3410,
I'm a bit bemused by the vogue for rejecting, en masse, "conspiracy theories" as fringe lunacy. To disbelieve without evidence is no better than to believe without evidence.
-
Well, 3410, that's what I'm (kinda) writing my thesis on (I say 'kinda' because it's a thesis in Epistemology rather than Psychology, so some of the interesting material is outside the scope of my discipline). I think we do have a prima facie case to be suspicious of claims of Conspiracies, but working out why that is the case, and how we cope with verified cases of Conspiracies is something a lot of Conspiracy Skeptics don't seem to spend much time on.
-
3140, I honestly don't know why I should believe claims where no evidence is offered.
I think there is a problem in that while literally understood, a conspiracy theory is merely a theory which explains things by pointing to a conspiracy, the most common examples are wacky conspiracy theories. Wacky conspiracy theories are so very common that I feel quite justified in assuming a conspiracy theory is likely to be wacky until I see supporting evidence otherwise.
I will listen carefully to your theory if evidence is produced, but I don't think dismissing it if you fail to do so is really very unfair.
-
One of the things I find fascinating in re Conspiracy Theories is the difference between the standard of evidence offered by the Conspiracy Theorist for their theory and demanded of the Conspiracy Skeptic by the Conspiracy Theorist; Conspiracy Theorists often only have to vaguely hint at discrepancies to 'show' that their Conspiracy Theory must be true but usually demand that their opponents conclusively prove their case. Now, the why and wherefore of this really is in the domain of the Pyschologist (rather than in the domain of the Philosopher, who will offer trite folk psychology and try to get away with it), but I think this often explains why some people think Conspiracies are everywhere; if you just need the suggestion of malevolent plotting going on in secret to then make the move to assert that whatever is happening, it's due to a Conspiracy, then the world will look quite different to those who might cite Hanlon's Razor instead.
-
3410,
Stephen,
Yeah, I pretty much agree. It's just a bit sad that any conspiracy theory automatically gets a bad rap because of his crazy brothers.I wonder if anyone's ever suggested that all the really out-there conspiracy theories are part of huge plot by the international banking cartel to discredit, by association, the accurate conspiracy theories. ;)
Post your response…
This topic is closed.