1. Marcus Mudd

    Marcus Mudd Member

    Fixed false beliefs can apply to larger, more accepted delusions as well. Such as religions or theories with no proof. thus the method should not rely so much on strict rigidity and adherence to theory, as opposed to applying logic and interpretation to many theories.
     
  2. David Fraser

    David Fraser Senior Member

    You raise a very interesting point Jay. I remember reading one of the blogs by Max and he mentioned problems as a young man in the army so is there a link between disgruntled employees and CT?

    On a personal note I am unsure. I hate my government and I hate the MOD. I am 45 and I took redundancy from the army a few years back on the assumption I would get a pension now. That has been moved to 54. Also last year I had a stroke as a direct result to bits of metal still in my head from a carbomb in Belfast. I am fighting for a war pension or payout through that (I had brain surgery thus Jan). Sufficed to say I hate the system and I would do anything to hurt it. But the one thing I hate more than the system, except my ex wife, is bull shit and fuckwits.
     
  3. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Maybe we should also have a thread on the psychology of debunkers.

    In some ways debunker and believers are quite similar.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  4. Gavriel

    Gavriel Member

    From my experience so far, the mind of the average CT believer is very similar to the mind of a religious person. Some points we can raise:

    - Tend to get very agressive when their beliefs are questioned;
    - They feel they're part of "something else", possessing a truth still not perceived by most people;
    - Usually their stories don't fit reality at all, and to support them anything is valid, even things such as "numerology";
    - Absolute absence of homogeneity in the CT community, just like its corresponding metaphysical;
    - General lack of knowledge in several areas;
    - Cannot understand how anyone would devote time do debunk their theories, just like religious people can't comprehend "militant" atheists;
    - Often are convinced through eloquence, not evidence.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  5. Marcus Mudd

    Marcus Mudd Member


    I agree. In a more broader sense you can extrapolate each of those answers and apply them also to debunkers, who think they have answers and lob half truth from theoretical mathematics they themselves struggle to understand. What is necessary is the assimilation of the two, as I was discussing with mick. Since the two belief structures are so similar, the human condition must be where these believe systems arise. Understanding that WE ARE ALL subject to various levels of misunderstanding and false interpretation is key, instead of singling out a certain group for such broad and encompassing failings.
     
  6. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I'm reading "The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind", by Gustave Le Bon. While it's rather dated, it's interesting that a lot of what he says about crowds resonates with my experience in dealing with conspiracy themed groups. Particularly in their general stifling of dissent, and the difference between talking to an individual, and talking to a group.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crowd:_A_Study_of_the_Popular_Mind
    And it's not entirely a new observation of course. The ancient Greeks studies on rhetoric are somewhat related here.
     
  7. Gavriel

    Gavriel Member

    That's the purpose of this forum, isn't? Fixing misunderstandings and erroneous interpretations, as well as exposing false information. :)
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2013
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Debunking focuses on claims of evidence, and sees if the evidence holds up. There are not two sides when it comes down to individual facts. Nor is it about thinking you have answers. It's about determining a mutually agreed truth about individual claims.

    For example. Some people claim that contrails cannot persist more than a few seconds. It can be demonstrated that this is false. That is debunking.
     
  9. Marcus Mudd

    Marcus Mudd Member

    lol you've examined a debunking and not a debunker. the psychology as to why a person sets out only to debunk like you said, deserves a similar thread.
     
  10. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Some misunderstandings are a bit hard to address though. For example some people think "science claims to have all the answers" - which you could just answer with "if it did, then it would stop". But the misunderstanding runs rather deeper than that - into science framed mostly as a dogmatic antagonist to open-minded new-age thinking.

    It's easy to fix misunderstandings like "statue rotates by magic". It's harder to fix misunderstandings that form the basis of an entire world view.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Only if you can first find such a person. Otherwise it's a straw man.

    An I think you misunderstand what debunking is. It's about finding things that are wrong. Not setting out to prove something is wrong.
     
  12. Marcus Mudd

    Marcus Mudd Member

    but that must be the goal, to derive broader understanding from debunking and acceptance.
     
  13. David Fraser

    David Fraser Senior Member

    I mentioned this a while past and some of the studies by Karen Douglas do look at the relationship.It does need a thread for itself but people tend not to be genuine when they introspect.
     
  14. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The goal is to remove bunk.
     
  15. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Timely article:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sharon-hill/judging-paranormal-claims_b_3792849.html?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  16. Marcus Mudd

    Marcus Mudd Member

    then by your goal you are my strawman lol
     
  17. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
    • Like Like x 2
  18. Marcus Mudd

    Marcus Mudd Member

    seems like your thread detailing your personal history of debunking is already a psychological study of a debunker. it seems that fear is the absolute root. I think this is where the divergence occurs, between the two belief structures.
     
  19. David Fraser

    David Fraser Senior Member

    But no it isn't. You are taking one persons view rather than a group
     
  20. Critical Thinker

    Critical Thinker Senior Member

    To me, the distinction between a conspiracy theorist and a debunker, is that a debunker seeks employ a cogent argument to make their case.

    Whereas the CT community rely on 'gut feelings and instincts' as a means of understanding the world around them. Based on the Briggs Myers typology I would guess that the CT'ers are mostly fall into the 'Feeling' classification, rather than the 'thinking' classification. Perhaps it would be revealing to have the Metabunk members take the test and share their results, in order to see if this is the case? I happen to be an INTJ.
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2013
    • Like Like x 1
  21. Marcus Mudd

    Marcus Mudd Member

    All of you fellas are English? but that's what the thread creator did, take one person and apply him to the whole. micks accent sounds like hes from bury st Edmond or tha area I cant remember what the name of the area is. I can imagine there being more DBs in England than CTs. I have no affinity for either, persay, because I cant stand when someone just believes something without looking into it, just like I hate people that try to use math or theory to not believe in something. I consider myself a DB that investigates when a theory cant be debunked, and if critical investigation is achieved and valid points are drawn, then comes incorporation and reevaluation.
     
  22. captfitch

    captfitch Active Member

    I can't speak for everyone here certainly but I can speak for a couple of us here who are full time pilots: this is a seemingly complex issue full of technical and scientific knowledge, a lot of which I don't understand. What I do know, however, is that my circumstance has provided me the knowledge to, without question, refute the main point or points. So the psychology of this debunker isn't too complex. I have an answer and I'm interested in telling everyone. The only possible area of discussion is why aren't more pilots spending time on this like I do? I can't say but it probably comes down to the fact that this theory is so far removed from reality that they don't bother spending time with it. As if someone is yelling the sky is pink.
     
  23. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Ahem.... [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
    • Like Like x 2
  24. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Debunkers don't debunk theories in the sense you mean. They "debunk" individual claims of evidence.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  25. captfitch

    captfitch Active Member

    Touché
     
  26. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    I am sure that my friends on FB get tired of me 'debunking' the urban legend/hoax that they just had to share. Yesterday's were "Russian men using selling books to find children", 'Dog dies after picking up poison filled nerf ball at dog park' and another older one. With some of these there is something that is a foundation for them. There is a company that employs college students to sell a set of children's books, door to door. At one time they hired a lot of American students, today it is European students that they hire. On the dog, there is a recent case of poisoned meatballs being scattered in San Francisco, that did kill at least one dog.
     
  27. Marcus Mudd

    Marcus Mudd Member

    lol the difference between a DB and an investigator. Thanks for the clarify!
     
  28. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    You don't seem to have got it though. You still seem to think a debunker is someone who just takes an opposing position on certain subjects, and tries to argue against it.

    Debunkers don't do that. They find bunk, and they expose and remove it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  29. Marcus Mudd

    Marcus Mudd Member

    Another delusion seemingly only suffered by DBs is the willingness to be limited by semantics
     
  30. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    So you feel the meaning of words should not constrain your interpretation of them? You think it's a good idea to arbitrarily assign personal meaning to words?

    Communication would suffer if that were so. Better to clearly explain what you mean, if semantics become an issue.

    But I'm not sure what your issue is exactly, could you clearly explain it?
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  31. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    And debunking often does require investigation. I really learned that out during the well blow out in the Gulf. First there was the story, that even showed up on 'Good Morning America' that most of the Exxon Valdez workers were dying or dead from their exposure to Corexit during the clean up. A friend's uncle was one of those workers and she wondered if he needed to be tested or followed up because of it. I had the time, so I went looking for more information on it.

    The first clue that there was something wrong with that story, showed up when I found out that Corexit was used on only one island, and in fact that dispersant were not used a lot there. Then I didn't find any evidence of a mention of the 'health issue' in the Alaskan state agency that is still dealing with it. I did find a comment from a researcher that doing followups on the health of the workers was impossible, since there was no master list of the cleanup workers kept. I found a lot of references to the story, all seemed to be quoting other sources, none seemed to lead directly to a study. It did seem that all the stories originated with Dr Riki Ott. So I then started looking for any transcripts of talks she had made, interviews with her, and such. After about 6 hours of this, I found where she mentioned that it came from a survey taken by a Yale grad student in 2004. Then to look for that, and it turned out that the survey was never published (huge RED flag there). The survey consisted of phone calls to 79 workers, the student managed to locate. No where was there any mention of what the question was other that it was about 'respiratory problems'. Nothing about if it was corrected for smoking and any pre existing condition.

    That sir, WAS an investigation. BTW, I sent a synopsis of what I had found to 'Good Morning America' and I did get a thank you from them and the interview where it was mentioned was edited to remove it.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  32. Marcus Mudd

    Marcus Mudd Member

    In the thread where you cross reference evolution with abiogenesis as two terms, I feel, is limiting the gradual perception that the same process that began evolution, also may be active and guiding evolution. this specific interpretation hinders research into a unifying concept, by artificial separation. Ive explained this concept before and I think it is applicable in several other situations but especially poignant in this one. It is illogical to search for a completely alternative method of creation aside from sustainment. This is the same conversation I was having with dan Wilson earlier, intuitive science vs irrational science.

    There of course is a scale and random interpretation cannot be arbitrarily assigned, but logical inference must be followed.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  33. Marcus Mudd

    Marcus Mudd Member

    What is most important to understand is that we don't know what began life, and we shouldn allow an interpretation to hinder research, which I feel the above is an example of.
     
  34. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    But it's not. You are just saying that it is. There's nothing at all that prevents concepts in evolutions from being used in abiogenesis and vice versa.

    There is a precise understanding of terms there. Nobody is trying to confuse matters, they are trying to describe them.

    But I think this discussion falls under the philosophy of language and deconstruction. Not debunking. Your feelings about the language scientist use are really not of import here.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  35. Marcus Mudd

    Marcus Mudd Member

    lol remember you asked me. we are discussing my opinion. But you are right this is way off topic!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  36. Marcus Mudd

    Marcus Mudd Member

    As a life long student of physics ive always looked at the construction of the universe in awe, and marveled upon discovering that it all could be described mathematically. Ive thought to myself, then if it can be described this way, then that's all it is. Is this far from the truth? Is there anyway to know? the search for these answers led me across many fields of study and into many theories and ive discovered that they are all flawed. And are all conspiracies, just some are better funded than others :)
     
  37. Gavriel

    Gavriel Member

    You should organize all your findings into papers and publish them, I'm sure you'll gain international fame. :)
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2013
    • Like Like x 1
  38. Marcus Mudd

    Marcus Mudd Member

    Lol I am writing a scientific novel, of sorts lol. Hell I figured if darwin could do it so can I. Im using this board to refine my ideas and gain some insight into them. I am also testing them against a debunking crowd, so far so good!
     
  39. Trigger Hippie

    Trigger Hippie Senior Member

    Ha. I'm an INTJ and so is my son. My wife is irrational.

    According to wiki INTJ make up only 1-4% of the population.
     
  40. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    ENTP
    Extravert(44%) iNtuitive(50%) Thinking(1%) Perceiving(44)%

    You have moderate preference of Extraversion over Introversion (44%)
    You have moderate preference of Intuition over Sensing (50%)
    You have marginal or no preference of Thinking over Feeling (1%)
    You have moderate preference of Perceiving over Judging (44%)


    I think it nailed me.

    Marcus, since you have admitted to being here for your own promoting instead of for the purpose of the forum, I am putting you on my ignore list. Go find your 'test subjects' elsewhere. I am too busy for that,