David
Member
No I just gave an opinion, that's not the same as trying to stop people using certain terms.
People don't think they are Conspiracy believers
- Thread starter Leifer
- Start date
No I just gave an opinion, that's not the same as trying to stop people using certain terms.
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
Opinions are fine....but, it is more helpful IF what your "opinion" is has some back-up, and possibly a bit of OUTSIDE references in order to support it.
We, as Humans, like to converse of course....but HERE, could we provide actual, verifiable evidence as "part" of the convo??
David
Member
Well my opinion doesn't need support of outside references, not in this case i think.
But this man says exactly what I mean. At least I'm not alone..
deirdre
Senior Member
Agreed. but that's a pretty good reference.
That's it exactly, the 'extremists' that latch onto ANYTHING (politics, religion, CTs, skeptics, etc etc) always ruin things for the 'legitimates'. it's just the way of the world. (kinda like Mick telling all of us latcher ons to be nice and no one listening and making him look bad
)
Hama Neggs
Senior Member
Why? What was the point? You apparently think it's wrong to use that descriptor. Again, why bother telling anybody that if you don't expect it to have any effect?
David
Member
Maybe it has some effect on somebody, who knows. But it is not the same as trying to stop somebody saying certain things. You said I was trying to do that.
Svartbjørn
Senior Member.
THIS.. 10^10^10^10^10^10 times. All it takes is ONE person taking it to the extreme to screw things up for everyone... like my mom used to say "This is why we cant have nice things."
@Hama Neggs @David Hey guys.. while you both have very valid points.. it might be better to take that part of the discussion into IMs, this sounds more like a difference of opinion than anything.. just a friendly suggestion, not a demand or anything.
Hama Neggs
Senior Member
I opined that seemed to be what you were suggesting. If I was wrong, but you're not going to tell me what your point actually was, I guess it's a moot point. Nevermind....
deirdre
Senior Member
I think we're all just throwing out 'points to ponder' here. so we can all learn to see different perspectives. besides look how cute his avatar is, he's obviously a sweetie.I opined that seemed to be what you were suggesting. If I was wrong, but you're not going to tell me what your point actually was, I guess it's a moot point. Nevermind....
Hama Neggs
Senior Member
Day-um... you're right. Obviously.... So, why was it that people don't think they are conspiracy believers again? I think it's like when people don't think they have a religion... they have the truth... right?
Leifer
Senior Member.
There are methods, to help debunk erroneous claims.....without becoming a person on the outward attack.
You could search-out erroneous claims, and confront the people that spread bunk. But there you will usually get the defensive reaction......they will usually take a defensive posture.
We all pretty much agree on this (from experience ?).
Instead of wording it as "this is how you should feel or think".......better wording is, "this is how I feel, and think".
Allow your thinking on the subject, to become separate from theirs.
State your belief, and why, with specific reasons and facts.
What this method does, is allow people (who may indeed disagree with you) is for them to consider your independent reasoning.
It doesn't always work ideally, but it better than being confrontative, or combative.
Stating your OWN ideas.....allows someone to step in your shoes, even for a moment.
Do I adhere to this method ?.....sometimes not, but I am trying.
You could search-out erroneous claims, and confront the people that spread bunk. But there you will usually get the defensive reaction......they will usually take a defensive posture.
We all pretty much agree on this (from experience ?).
Instead of wording it as "this is how you should feel or think".......better wording is, "this is how I feel, and think".
Allow your thinking on the subject, to become separate from theirs.
State your belief, and why, with specific reasons and facts.
What this method does, is allow people (who may indeed disagree with you) is for them to consider your independent reasoning.
It doesn't always work ideally, but it better than being confrontative, or combative.
Stating your OWN ideas.....allows someone to step in your shoes, even for a moment.
Do I adhere to this method ?.....sometimes not, but I am trying.
Last edited:
David
Member
I opined that seemed to be what you were suggesting. If I was wrong, but you're not going to tell me what your point actually was, I guess it's a moot point. Nevermind....
You confuse me, and I wonder if that's because of me
and yes I'm a sweetie, good observation.
Hama Neggs
Senior Member
It's true that people don't like being told what is true- they rather prefer to be told what someone "thinks", as if the two views have equal weight. That gets difficult and painful to do, though, when the other party believes absurd things, like that the sun is rising in the wrong place. It's hard to say something as non-pointed as: "Well, *I* feel that it's rising in the right place...", as if there is some remote possibility they are right.
deirdre
Senior Member
maybe people are just shy. not so sure of themselves yet. I personally don't have any problem embracing my 'labels' but I'm old and a bit narcissistic.
ultimately they are probably just embarrassed to be grouped with some of the really whack job CTs- which is Totally understandable. it's like comparing 'religious people' to the 'extreme religious people' - it IS embarrassing to be 'grouped' with the extremists.
Leifer
Senior Member.
......how about like this...."From the research I have read, the sun is rising in the correct place, because......"
Hama Neggs
Senior Member
People think you are "arrogant" if you just tell them facts you know. That reaction seems to come from people who haven't much academic background. They seem to think that no one can really "know stuff". They also like to extend that opinion to science, in general. They feel that science can't really know anything for sure and that the average person is capable of just using "common sense" to figure things out- like just looking up at the sky to know about chemtrails.
Hama Neggs
Senior Member
The religion thing is about people not wanting to have their beliefs referred to with the implied JUST a religion, as if what they believe could somehow be NOT the ultimate truth.
Jason
Senior Member
Or how about asking them to predict where the sun will rise tomorrow based on their "beliefs". Make a note of it, and say lets discuss this again after the sun rises to see if your prediction comes true. If it doesn't come true would you be open to looking at my research which predicts it will be here at such and such time...
Hama Neggs
Senior Member
Perhaps softening it like that would be effective. Maybe it would keep them from the usual reactionary response that sources showing them wrong are all part of the conspiracy.
Hama Neggs
Senior Member
I usually don't use that term except when I tell them that they should stop getting their information from internet conspiracy sites. I admit it... I'm a BAAAD man...
Hama Neggs
Senior Member
I think they don't like the term, in general, as if it shouldn't be used at all. I think they feel that NO ONE should be referred to as a conspiracy theorist, because it is demeaning at the outset.
Svartbjørn
Senior Member.
Thats the approach Mick takes 99.99% of the time, and we've seen how that goes. It all really depends on how deeply entrenched they are in their beliefs.
Jason
Senior Member
I agree, and alternate "plausible" theories should be just that, and alternate theory. No need to call someone a CT believer because they believe something might have gone down differently. It's like calling a scientist a CT believer because they propose another "plausible" theory. Now if the "alternate" theory involves secret government cover up, or secret plots, then that would be considered a CT. IMO, declaring there could have been 2 or 3 shooters in the JFK assassination doesn't mean you believe in a CT, but once you starting implying that the CIA or Mafia did it, then it becomes a CT. I also believe people who believe in these "fringe" theories are fully aware that they are in deed a CT and often aren't offended when be labeled a CT believer. It's the ones who believe in "plausible" alternate theories that don't involve government cover ups etc.etc.etc get offended by being labeled a CT believer..
sirtwentythree
Member
After all the time spent on this site debunking conspiracies theories. Has anyone come across any conspiracies they weren't able to debunk and are now suspicious of? I know if I'd ask any one of you out there if our government was corrupt at least to some degree, you'd all say yes. We've all stumbled across something at some point, right?
Mackdog
Active Member
Of course mankind in inherently imperfect..its always been that way and always will be. We all have politicians we don't like and maybe some we do..but the main thing is that it is counter-intuitive to be a part of a cult following of some politician or conspiracy theorist leader. It's best to just take information objectively and realize that not everything that happens in the world has to be related to something else that happens..however sometimes it is. And that's where Metabunk comes in, its our responsibility here to sort out fact from fiction, using solid evidence that can be proven. Think about it as being in a court of law, and having to prove your case to a jury. What kinds of evidence would you present about your theory? What kind of people would you bring in to testify as witnesses/experts?
I have come across a few that I can't FULLY debunk and I would be glad to discuss them with you in a private message or in the chit chat forum here..this thread would not be the right place to have a discussion like that because it is against the posting guidelines to do that.
Bruno D.
Senior Member.
Hey, Sir23
As you already realized, Metabunk is about debunking Claims of Evidence, and not complete theories.
I personally love discussing theories in a more general way, putting motivation, means, complexity, etc on the table, but Metabunk doesn't work like that.
Like MackDog said, you are free to discuss theories by PM with anyone that also wants to. And I couldn't find any theory that passed the Occam Razor test so far, and I've been reading CT since 2001 (for obvious reasons ;-) )
Hama Neggs
Senior Member
mrfintoil
Active Member
Speaking of those who don't consider themselves "conspiracy thinkers" (and by "conspiracy thinker" I mean those who struggle with maintaining a conspiracy narrative by relying on bad evidence), there is this blog some of you might heard of - Illuminutti. It's a fairly good sceptic blog. http://illuminutti.com/
But one subject on that blog is ironically the opposite of what it should, namely 'climate change'.
http://illuminutti.com/global-warming/
It seems like the blog author is a firm believer that "global warming" doesn't really exist, or is mostly due to some natural variations. I've had some thorough discussion with the author via Facebook, and I asked if the author considered there was a conspiracy ruling climate science. In my mind the author clearly indicated that climate science is either completely incompetent and cannot change, or data is deliberately manipulated and predictions exaggerated to give the appearance of a looming disastrous climate change. Part of the conspiracy seem to be the carbon tax narrative, create taxes - make money.
But the answer was no, the author considered there to be no conspiracy involved, which to me sounded very strange considering the content of the links posted by the author as arguments. It is the usual pseudo scientific blogs such as WattsUpWithThat and Hockeyschtick which almost always maintain that climate science is ruled by a grand conspiracy. But I guess the blogger must feel a bit embarrassed to be labelled "conspiracy theorist" as that label is supposed to be reserved for subjects of his or hers own criticism.
I find it odd that when it comes to climate change it is the blogs, the laymen and corporate driven think tanks that provides the "truth", when every other subject on that blog relies on scientifically sound sources.
But according to this blog, to doubt climate change is the true sceptic attitude, and not a conspiracy theorist one.
But one subject on that blog is ironically the opposite of what it should, namely 'climate change'.
http://illuminutti.com/global-warming/
It seems like the blog author is a firm believer that "global warming" doesn't really exist, or is mostly due to some natural variations. I've had some thorough discussion with the author via Facebook, and I asked if the author considered there was a conspiracy ruling climate science. In my mind the author clearly indicated that climate science is either completely incompetent and cannot change, or data is deliberately manipulated and predictions exaggerated to give the appearance of a looming disastrous climate change. Part of the conspiracy seem to be the carbon tax narrative, create taxes - make money.
But the answer was no, the author considered there to be no conspiracy involved, which to me sounded very strange considering the content of the links posted by the author as arguments. It is the usual pseudo scientific blogs such as WattsUpWithThat and Hockeyschtick which almost always maintain that climate science is ruled by a grand conspiracy. But I guess the blogger must feel a bit embarrassed to be labelled "conspiracy theorist" as that label is supposed to be reserved for subjects of his or hers own criticism.
I find it odd that when it comes to climate change it is the blogs, the laymen and corporate driven think tanks that provides the "truth", when every other subject on that blog relies on scientifically sound sources.
But according to this blog, to doubt climate change is the true sceptic attitude, and not a conspiracy theorist one.
Firstly, let's not turn this into a Gish gallop thread going over every bit of global warming evidence. (It's not, but could very easily slip into it).
So, @mrtinfoil, you suggest that you consider Illuminutti is a conspiracy theorist about Global Warming, but he does not consider himself to be a conspiracy theorist? Or that he thinks there's no conspiring at all going on at all.
I frequently say that everyone is a conspiracy theorist to some degree. Conspiracies occur, and there's a grey area between what are obvious conspiracies (Iran–Contra), and obviously not (Tony Hawk being a crisis actor at Sandy Hook).
I think it's a bit of stretch to say nobody ever conspires to increase corporate profits. Very obviously they do. But then even the word "conspiracy" has been tainted (let alone the term "conspiracy theory", which some people view as a term of derision). So maybe he just thinks by "conspiracy" you mean "the elite ruling the world nutty conspiracy theory" and not "politicians using obfuscation of science as a PR strategy to benefit their backers and their personal interest".
Perhaps @PCWilliams could weigh in here? Is there really no conspiracy in climate science?
So, @mrtinfoil, you suggest that you consider Illuminutti is a conspiracy theorist about Global Warming, but he does not consider himself to be a conspiracy theorist? Or that he thinks there's no conspiring at all going on at all.
I frequently say that everyone is a conspiracy theorist to some degree. Conspiracies occur, and there's a grey area between what are obvious conspiracies (Iran–Contra), and obviously not (Tony Hawk being a crisis actor at Sandy Hook).
I think it's a bit of stretch to say nobody ever conspires to increase corporate profits. Very obviously they do. But then even the word "conspiracy" has been tainted (let alone the term "conspiracy theory", which some people view as a term of derision). So maybe he just thinks by "conspiracy" you mean "the elite ruling the world nutty conspiracy theory" and not "politicians using obfuscation of science as a PR strategy to benefit their backers and their personal interest".
Perhaps @PCWilliams could weigh in here? Is there really no conspiracy in climate science?
mrfintoil
Active Member
No, I'm not going to turn this thread into an argument about global warming.
I think a quote by Illuminutti would be a good thing just to give you an example of what I mean.
One part of Illuminutti says there is no conspiracy. That there is only a case "not enough evidence" to make "alarmist" claims.
But the other part is quite keen on posting links to the blogs mentioned in my earlier post, with claims that both NOAA and IPCC deliberately produce fraudulent data to dupe the big masses into thinking climate change is more serious than it is. Illuminutti has frequently referred to the leak at UEACRU (also known as "Climategate") as evidence of fraud in climate science. The many studies on "consensus" in climate science is also fraudulent according to Illuminiutti, especially John Cook's.
So in my mind, if someone claims there are people out there who deliberately deceive the masses by presenting fraudulent manipulations for whatever reason, that can be considered claiming a conspiracy is taking place, right?
This isn't a case of conflicting neutral data, as suggested by Illuminutti's quote above. The blog author seem to support the notion that one side is manipulating the output to make things look more severe than things actually are. That is the only conclusion I have reached through out very lengthy discussions.
But I don't deny there are those exploiting climate change by resorting to "alarmism" as Illuminutti like to call it. These are almost always non-scientific sources, such as when Illuminutti seem to confuse media interpretations and sensationalism with actual climate science. Media, especially tabloids, survives by making exaggerations, that's why it's a bad thing to look in tabloids for science for example.
Now don't get me wrong, I can say it again, I really like Illuminutti's blog in general. But the climate thing is a sad story of the usual misconceptions and bad facts. Seems like the blogger entered the discussion at the wrong end.
deirdre
Senior Member
maybe? the Illuminati blogger only linked to those ct sources for the 'science' in them, not for the assertion that its a deliberate conspiracy. I'd have to read it all myself to determine, which I don't want to do.
Personally, (I lost interest in trying to figure it out once I got into natural causes...too complicated) even IF the scientists and TPTB are 'tweaking' the man made aspect of 'climate change', I wouldn't consider that a conspiracy. But I don't consider most political stuff or corporations doing things on the hush hush a 'conspiracy'. So it may, in your example, just come down to personal definitions of 'conspiracy'.
mrfintoil
Active Member
Well, the blogger use catchphrases like "Mann-made global warming", referring to climatologist Michael Mann and his alleged fraudulent "hockey stick graph". I've tried to get to a closure with Illuminutti about if there is a conspiracy and who is doing it but have failed to get an good answer. One part saying there is none, but the information provided tells otherwise.
Yeah, the political aspects are often mentioned by the blogger in the form of Al Gore. The conspiracy angle is that Gore is raising power and wealth by exaggerating global warming scenarios with the help of a network of crooked climate scientists. For example, when criticizing the Cook "consensus" study (or rather, John Cook himself), it is often mentioned that Cook's organisation has been offered partnership with Al Gore's Climate Reality Project, and because Gore "is a crooked politician" that means Cook must be crooked too. (example: http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/09/skeptical-science-partnership-with-al.html)
So it's just not independent climate scientists manipulating or failing to accurately reflect the climate development, it is these "connections" made between actors within climate science that creates what can best be described as a network of conspirators, ie. a conspiracy.
Sorry if this got a bit too in-depth, I don't intend to discuss climate science in this thread. I just wanted to give an example of how some individuals see connections between alleged crooked agents, and implies a grand conspiracy, without admitting talking about a conspiracy.
If we take Illuminutti's quote about "not nearly enough evidence" and paste it onto any other controversial subject, such as controlled demolitions on 9/11, it would be like saying there isn't enough evidence to support the official story, but at the same time claim the government silenced witnesses and faked investigations - but it is not a conspiracy! It's just a matter of legitimate difference of opinion.
That really doesn't make sense, does it.
In my opinion, the blog is falling for typical conspiracy thinking when it comes to climate science, but doesn't want to admit it because the blog is supposed to bash conspiracy thinkers. I don't think it can be any more obvious than this: http://illuminutti.com/global-warming/al-gores-global-warming-and-climate-change-game/ Al Gore is using distorted climate science to get rich, just like "big pharma" is using distorted science to get rich.
It's almost like when conspiracy thinkers avoid the "conspiracy theorist" label by saying they are conspiracy realists. You can go there, but without the stigma of the label. I think that is what this thread is about party.
Last edited:
deirdre
Senior Member
yea but is that a conspiracy? or is that just marketing? When I order a burger it never looks like the (distortedly scrumptious looking) burger in the commercials.
I don't know much about the (science behind) climate debate or 911 but IMO, 911 is nothing like the climate change thing...but that may just be because the 911 science is easier for me to understand.
mrfintoil
Active Member
According to Oxford dictionary, a "conspiracy" is:
But I guess if there was a large collaboration of people who secretly made the burgers in commercials overly perfect compared to reality, I actually think it could count as a conspiracy, albeit a very small one (depending on how seriously you take your burgers.)
I didn't however compare climatology with engineering (climate science versus 9/11), I was referring to Illuminutti's quote if we applied the same kind of reasoning on any other controversial subject. The point was, if we claim that there is a group trying to cover up a fact (global warming is not happening, or the towers fell due to controlled demolitions) we automatically claim there is a conspiracy going on, even if we don't want to use the word "conspiracy".
For example, here is another take on the alleged "climate change scam" (source unrelated to Illuminutti btw):
So the arguments of climate change "sceptics" is often more than just a case of "different opinions". A lot of the debate is infected by them considering that the other side isn't playing fair game, that they are plotting and conspiring for whatever purpose.
- External Quote:
- External Quote:
But I guess if there was a large collaboration of people who secretly made the burgers in commercials overly perfect compared to reality, I actually think it could count as a conspiracy, albeit a very small one (depending on how seriously you take your burgers.)
I didn't however compare climatology with engineering (climate science versus 9/11), I was referring to Illuminutti's quote if we applied the same kind of reasoning on any other controversial subject. The point was, if we claim that there is a group trying to cover up a fact (global warming is not happening, or the towers fell due to controlled demolitions) we automatically claim there is a conspiracy going on, even if we don't want to use the word "conspiracy".
For example, here is another take on the alleged "climate change scam" (source unrelated to Illuminutti btw):
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/about/External Quote:
So the arguments of climate change "sceptics" is often more than just a case of "different opinions". A lot of the debate is infected by them considering that the other side isn't playing fair game, that they are plotting and conspiring for whatever purpose.
MikeC
Closed Account
I think the word "conspiracy" has some bad press - there are good legal definitions of what constitutes a conspiracy, and I think the dictionary quote you gave hits the nail on the head - among many other things the conspiracy has to be engaging in something that is SECERT and ALSO illegal/fraudulent - so you cannot have a secret conspiracy to purify water for example - because purifying water is not illegal or fraudulent.
So if Al Gore IS deliberately gathering false data to make himself rich that would indeed be fraudulent - and that is a matter you could take to court.
some people have tried to take climate warming science to court - the one I am somewhat familiar with was tossed out and costs awarded against the plaintiffs!! Note the judge's comments about the "experts" - they are a familiar picture to many debunkers -
So if Al Gore IS deliberately gathering false data to make himself rich that would indeed be fraudulent - and that is a matter you could take to court.
some people have tried to take climate warming science to court - the one I am somewhat familiar with was tossed out and costs awarded against the plaintiffs!! Note the judge's comments about the "experts" - they are a familiar picture to many debunkers -
External Quote:
Last edited:
Bill
Senior Member
For some one that doesn't want to turn this into a discussion on climate change you seem awfully willing to keep the topic going.
Hama Neggs
Senior Member
Unless he somehow thinks they are all coming to the same false conclusions independently? Like I showed above, and Mick said, I think a lot of people have a skewed definition of the word "conspiracy".
Similar threads
