I think the answer is no, it isn't a waste of time to examine CTs and engage the believers, depending on the uses of the theories and the motivation of those who promulgate them. Flat earth stuff is relatively benign, and only good for an eyeroll and a laugh, but a good many, especially in the USA, are politically motivated inventions with the purpose of garnering votes and raising money. They need to be combated severely, but I'm convinced that a good many who spread the stories are not honest about really believing them themselves, and just enjoy putting a foot in the anthill.
Flat earth debunking, though silly, is amusing, so of course he gets more views on them. I hope you're not leveling criticism at someone for making a bit of money with his videos. It's not a moral failure, you know.Not really. He's still doing flat earth and other silly stuff. Perhaps he's weaning himself off and trying to move into a new area - but many times less views on the goldfish and ostrich videos than on his "flat earth fail" stuff so it'll be interesting to see which direction he takes now he knows what earns the money.
I hope you're not leveling criticism at someone for making a bit of money with his videos. It's not a moral failure, you know.
ridicule just makes it look like you have no faith in your "facts". I guess if the bunk believer is really young, they might feel shame from ridicule and learn not share their thoughts outloud. but what does that accomplish? you can't slay the dragon if the dragon is invisible.
Though it often seems to be one of the "gateway drugs" that form the first steps down into the abode of rabbits. So even there, I think it is worth refuting as effectively as possible. I don't know how many minds can be changed, but I think some folks might be saved from falling for it, folks for whom that might not be the case if it were unchallenged.
i think alot of minds can be changed with that one. it's one of the 'easiest' ones because it's mostly physical based and people can do simple somewhat easily-accessible experiments themselves. (vs say understanding load distributions in engineering skyscrapers or just taking someone's word that contrails are formed when air is cool below its saturation point and the water vapor in the air condenses).
I disagree that ridicule has to make you look like you have no faith in your facts. Satire can combine both well, and even outside of satire the odd snarky comment can add entertainment value to a dry topic. You also have to consider the audience to your "debate". Not all criticism is aimed to sway the true believer. It can nudge people who are unfamiliar who might have fallen the other way, or be used reinforce existing positions. Not that the facts have to be true for this to be effective.
yup. except it can nudge them the opposite way you desire too.
you could, of course, be correct. although i dont think i'd personally go around advertising "i used to be a flat earther", once i realized i was wrong. but that's me.
those are the reasons i think its easier. it was easier to totally collapse the Twin Towers because they were ridiculously big and heavy. a smaller building (conspiracy theory) doesn't have all that xtra weight. ??
conspiracy belief will never be completely eliminated from the face of the earth. we are humans.As far as CTs go, though, can we agree that pretty much nothing has been shown to work?
And yet it happens all the time; people open doors for other people, people give money to the mostly ignored homeless guy, and people make anonymous donations to various charities. Yet i’ve never seen anyone accuse those people of conspiring to make the world a better place.
This kind of ties in to what I mentioned in post #5 ; a lot of the films i’ve seen and heard conspiracists reference mostly centre around the good guys fighting an insanely strong enemy.
Well, sure, but there’s no issue or anything to talk about really when it comes to ”positive conspiracies”, like people making anonymous donations to charity. The issue is whether or not rich and powerful people sometimes conspire to hurt the average person in order to benefit themselves.
Which other reliable means of acquiring knowledge would you suggest?
feel free to debunk me. i'm sure your explanation will be so much better.
they would if they could...we would if we could!
That's a joke - I'm assuming that's where your dots were heading - but there may be some out there that think that way.
"cohesive story" is a better description of what I termed "sense of security", it minimizes cognitive dissonance—and the pathologizing of the others is in service of that. ("this could happen to me" is not a comfortable thought to have). A group effort to build a cohesive story is made, and anything that goes against the cohesive story is dismissed. System 2 thinking is only used to construct sophistries to defend the core belief, or to originate schemes to harm someone who questions it.
the 9/11 commission report makes it clear they weren't (depending on the definition if "ragtag")
my take is different: if you accept that the school shooters or aircraft hijackers are intelligent people with reasons for their grudges, you can't uphold the belief that "innocent Americans" don't cause harm to others; but when "my attitudes don't cause harm" is a core belief, you have to
that's where evidence comes into play (like me referring to evidence that the official explanation does not depict the 9/11 terrorists as a "ragtag band")
I can't describe my take as "wishing away the bad guys".
how are they/we supposed to evidence what the mainstream idea is?
I'm someone who believes the mainstream view and i think it was just a group of ragtag jihadists and the US [military] went over there and kicked their asses.
In my experience, that is sadly not the case. My experince is, of course, limited.
And whether your goal is to convince your "opponent," or to prevent your opponent from convincing the crowd. If the later, humor can be useful if used carefully. I think the trick is to make ridiculous claims look ridiculous, while avoiding going after the person to the extent you can keep the two separate.
SciManDan "earns his money" by catering to a group that thinks of themselves as science-literate. That's why his channel shows science and also science denial. I think it is somewhat valuable to show what science denial is and how it operates, so that his audience knows not to trust it when it comes knocking at their door, in an "inoculation" kind of way, by defining science deniers as the outgroup.Not really. He's still doing flat earth and other silly stuff. Perhaps he's weaning himself off and trying to move into a new area - but many times less views on the goldfish and ostrich videos than on his "flat earth fail" stuff so it'll be interesting to see which direction he takes now he knows what earns the money.
Article: Bin Laden's global financial reach detailed
September 26, 2001
it's the lines I disagree with
Is that your answer? Are you maybe saying 'intuitions' are a reliable meaning of acquiring knowledge?
Why should I? I only asked to know which reliable means of acquiring knowledge, apart from science, you can suggest. The 'metaphysical' (whatever that may mean) underpinnings (or lack of) of science (or of any of the means you may suggest) are wholly irrelevant to the question.
Really? Intuition is reliable? Even more than that, it's as reliable as science? Some intuitions may be reliable, just as a stopped clock, the big problem being you then need a means to tell which among the innumerable intuitions are the reliable ones. That is to say, science.
