Why do people believe?

[Drrum]

Funny thing is that debunkers are believers too...
They believe there's no conspiracy...
To feel safe and secure...

This is the same kind of statement religious people make about atheists. The claim is made that atheists are believers because they believe without proof that there is no God. The problem with this kind of statement is that it's contradictory. As an atheist, I simply have no belief in deities. In other words, I do not believe. Despite the obvious and awkward limitations of the english language and syntax, these two statements do not mean the same thing:

"I believe God does not exist."

"I do not believe God exists."

Syntax is critical, in my opinion. Claiming debunkers are "believers" because they "believe there's no conspiracy" is not the same as the statement "debunkers do not believe there's a conspiracy". Altered syntax is usually a harmless slip, but it is also a not-so-clever manipulation tactic ("She was wearing the stolen ring." vs "The ring she was wearing was stolen."). While lawyers, politicians, etc. sometimes use this sort of tactic to dupe their audience, it's a long-standing joke in grammar-school english and debate classes.

Not all debunkers are of like mind. Most of us will concede that conspiracies do exist, just not to the extent that Conspiracy Theorists would like. Debunkers do not believe. This could be for a number of reasons, but usually it's just a matter of CTer's failure to provide convincing evidence that a conspiracy exists. Often, the CTer's evidence isn't even plausible, rational, or compelling.

 

[Cairenn]

There are folks that are driven by greed and even ego. Often times they will find lack minded folks and they will 'conspire' to further THEIR personal agendas, it is not always the same for all the members of the group. They will always exist in any group, business, government, churches, hobbies---heck I have seen them show in an on line game.

These tend to be small, they may attract a few supporters, and fairly limited in their scope. The grand conspiracies that out live the originators and that survive for many years, suspected but never confirmed are just fantasies. What I found ironic is that the band of CTers, themselves end being an conspiracy.

 

[Pete Tar]

Ha, "lack minded".

 

[Cairenn]

I should have been in bed hours ahead---

 

[merchantprocessor]

I thought it was to do with the fact we like to grumble and complain, but the belief seems to fill a need and they can seem blinkered to further investigation. I do wonder if as things get better they will drift away from the ideas. It is incredibly frustrating at times as most of the conspiracies are generated in the US and when put in the context of the UK they either don't stand up or are just not relevant. An example is Big Pharma or the Government hiding the cure for whatever or suppressing research on natural remedies, all to make more money. Often it sounds compelling until one realises that we have socialised health care, and the government has massive buying power and most our drugs are generics anyway.

 

[George B]

I thought it was to do with the fact we like to grumble and complain, but the belief seems to fill a need and they can seem blinkered to further investigation. I do wonder if as things get better they will drift away from the ideas. It is incredibly frustrating at times as most of the conspiracies are generated in the US and when put in the context of the UK they either don't stand up or are just not relevant. An example is Big Pharma or the Government hiding the cure for whatever or suppressing research on natural remedies, all to make more money. Often it sounds compelling until one realises that we have socialised health care, and the government has massive buying power and most our drugs are generics anyway.

Hmmmm . . . big pharma is not socialized . . . their desire to gain market share is their drive . . . follow the money . . . it is a world market . . .

 

[electrojet]

I believe that the term 'conspiracy' is often overused. Just insert the word greed.
Is manipulation of metal markets a conspiracy? Is the manipulation of interest rates a conspiracy?
Is the love of money a conspiracy ?

People's inner most motives and thoughts are often not ever going to be revealed. 'What will we tell him/her or them' ... -Is that a conspiracy?

'He took it to the grave'. (what 'it' is no one actually knows)

How admirable it is to say 'I don't know' or 'I may be wrong.'
Bryan

'One conspiracy is as good as the next.' -unknown

 

[electrojet]

Big pharma is a follow the money trail issue. It is not a conspiracy. It is all about money. Are there cheaper and less damaging treatments and in fact cures that are not promoted ? Absolutely! Specialization and interests are protected. A better attributation is human nature or conflict of interests.

The word 'conspiracy' works to effectively shut down the thinking process. You might find a powerful remedy when you examine motive and constructs of others and act as your own advocate.

Peace,

Bryan

 

[Joe]

Big pharma is a follow the money trail issue. It is not a conspiracy. It is all about money. Are there cheaper and less damaging treatments and in fact cures that are not promoted ? Absolutely! Specialization and interests are protected. A better attributation is human nature or conflict of interests.

The word 'conspiracy' works to effectively shut down the thinking process. You might find a powerful remedy when you examine motive and constructs of others and act as your own advocate.

Peace,

Bryan

Stop It Bryan you making too much sense Its always about Money and greed

 

[David Fraser]

Hmmmm . . . big pharma is not socialized . . . their desire to gain market share is their drive . . . follow the money . . . it is a world market . . .

But there are so many socialised health care systems. In the UK the NHS negotiates price. If to high they don't pay. Once available most of the drugs are generics. Look at the issues in India over generics at the moment. Big pharma us not as obvious here ir has the hold.

 

[Dave]

Apologies if this has been posted but sort of relevant

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Debunking-Handbook-now-freely-available-download.html

Good read Stephan Lewandowsky is great

 

[Leifer]

....very interesting.

 

[cosmic]

In case anyone missed it, Stephan Lewandowsky was interviewed earlier in the month by Chris Mooney on Point of Inquiry (link). If you've got 47 minutes to spare, it's well worth a listen.

 

[Rroval]

Funny thing is that debunkers are believers too...
They believe there's no conspiracy...
To feel safe and secure...
As conspiracy theorists think there are conspiracies because they need to think there's some people in control, in order to feel secure...

lol
enough bullshit

Power is not all about luck and is not granted
You have to take it
And for that you need a plan and allies

There's no conspiracy...
Only comon interests

This isn't case though....

It's rather conspiracy theorists would rather bark up the wrong tree rather seeing the real problems with this world (i.e. Capitalism). Doesn't always mean we want to feel 'safe & secure' but rather conspiracy theories create a straw man to divert people's attention away from the real problems of this world with increased fear mongering rather than understanding (i.e. "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" which was a hoax created by the Tsarist government as a attempt to divert people's attention away from them to a strawman which were the "Jews" which ironically enough conspiracy theorists are simply repeating this history).

Not to mention that alot of conspiracy theorists usually have right wing agendas behind them as well which is something to be very careful about as well. Of course even more ultimately Conspiracy Theories are basically another form of the "Capitalism is good but there's a few bad apples we need pluck out" which is the exaggerated paranoid version of it. Or basically in short, Conspiracy theories are just a example of a strawman fallacy.

Of course onto the subject itself...why do people believe? It's because most people want easy answers to fill the void and want something to blame on rather than looking at the actual cause of things and also because they also want to feel like they're protagonists in a science fiction film where "Only one man knows" sort of thing which is rather ironically promoted by our capitalist society because everything revolves the "self made man" ideology.

 

[Svartbjørn]

Came across this article today on Scientific American.. couldnt find it anywhere, but its pretty interesting. I didnt see it anywhere here on the site so i thought id add it to the conversation.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-do-people-believe-in-conspiracy-theories

The idea that such beliefs are held only by a bunch of nerdy white guys living in their parents' basements is a myth. Surveys by Uscinski and Parent show that believers in conspiracies "cut across gender, age, race, income, political affiliation, educational level, and occupational status." People on both the political left and right, for example, believe in conspiracies roughly equally, although each finds different cabals. Liberals are more likely to suspect that media sources and political parties are pawns of rich capitalists and corporations, whereas conservatives tend to believe that academics and liberal elites control these same institutions. GMO conspiracy theories are embraced primarily by those on the left (who accuse, for example, Monsanto of conspiring to destroy small farmers), whereas climate change conspiracy theories are endorsed primarily by those on the right (who inculpate, for example, academic climate scientists for manipulating data to destroy the American economy).

Group identity is also a factor. African-Americans are more likely to believe that the CIA planted crack cocaine in inner-city neighborhoods. White Americans are more likely to believe that the government is conspiring to tax the rich to support welfare queens and turn the country into a socialist utopia.

Encouragingly, Uscinski and Parent found that education makes a difference in reducing conspiratorial thinking: 42 percent of those without a high school diploma are high in conspiratorial predispositions, compared with 23 percent with postgraduate degrees. Even so, that means more than one in five Americans with postgraduate degrees show a high predisposition for conspiratorial belief. As an educator, I find this disturbing.

 

[Libertarian]

There is a big difference in belief founded on sound science and facts and even reason and beliefs founded on a distrust of authority or on pseudo science and unfounded opinions.

What constitutes "fact" is often simply faith conflated with sound judgment.

The two groups' foundational beliefs are rooted in different places, and that in turn creates their respective facts. Each side self indulgently justifies that their own beliefs are correct by referring to their own foundational belief structure. It happens all the time here in a kind of self-reinforcing group think.

Where the conspiracy theorist believes that authorities are lying by default, and cites repeated historical example to justify that belief, the conspiracy denier believes that authorities are telling the truth by default, but often cites only the authority itself, as if the authorities' statement somehow carries more weight. The believer sees a lie, and the denier sees the truth.

When the believers and the deniers set of "facts" blend into each other with sufficient overlap, that's when you get an Iran Contra, etc. A good example of a similar cross-over of "facts" occurs between Atheists and Christians regarding "Natural Rights", which are of course the same thing as "God Given rights. The foundational beliefs of the proponents differ dramatically, and yet they are attempting to justify the same set of principles.

I would say that conspiracy deniers too often appeal to "science" as a throw away catch word to justify what isn't scientifically founded at all. And likewise the conspiracy believer too often goes to "evil people". But each are usually just fluffing their own feathers.

 

[Libertarian]

It's rather conspiracy theorists would rather bark up the wrong tree rather seeing the real problems with this world (i.e. Capitalism)....

Not to mention that alot of conspiracy theorists usually have right wing agendas behind them as well which is something to be very careful about as well. Of course even more ultimately Conspiracy Theories are basically another form of the "Capitalism is good but there's a few bad apples we need pluck out" which is the exaggerated paranoid version of it.

I don't think conspiracy theory has anything to do with "left" or "right". In fact I'm pretty sure that most conspiracy theorists believe that the left and right are the blue and red puppets being propped up by the same people.

I believe in capitalism. But it isn't because I think it is perfect, but rather because history has shown us repeatedly that the type of fascism espoused by National Socialists and the type of communism espoused by everyone that has ever tried it (Lenin, Stalin and Mao come to mind) resulted in so many millions of deaths. I'm pretty sure that between the National Socialists and the Communists we managed to exceeded 200,000,000 dead innocent civilians.

I would say we are living in a type neo-feudal fascism at present. Another word for it is "Crony Capitalism". So if by "Capitalism" you are referring to our current brand of fascism, we agree that it is very bad.

 

[WeedWhacker]

I think the gist of the thread here is about beliefs in "conspiracy theories"....not about the pluses or minuses of political arrangements and governance protocols.

 

[Whitebeard]

I don't think conspiracy theory has anything to do with "left" or "right". In fact I'm pretty sure that most conspiracy theorists believe that the left and right are the blue and red puppets being propped up by the same people.

The whole left / right thing seams to be a matter of stand point. If your a lefty then your bad guy conspirators are neo-facists, bankers, capitalists, royalty and all the other traditional enemies of the left. This seems to be the mindset of a lot of the CTs here in the UK

However when I read US right wing CT stuff, it appears 'it' is all the fault of neo-communist liberals, Zionists, and the left in general.

It's just a case of 'insert your pet hate figure here...-

 

[Efftup]

In my case I think everything is the fault of alien related Rock bands and people called Tony or Jeff.

 

[Whitebeard]

In my case I think everything is the fault of alien related Rock bands and people called Tony or Jeff.

you know too much....

 

[Efftup]

I was glad to hear that Jeff wasn't the one that made you end up coming here.

Back OT, I agree that while different people have their own leanings, and education CAN help to spot the bunk, believing goes across the whole spectrum of race, age, , religion, sexuality, education and political leanings. it does appear that some people feel a need for answers to fill a void, and will fill that void with whatever suits them, plausible or not.

 

[Whitebeard]

I was glad to hear that Jeff wasn't the one that made you end up coming here.

Nah Jeff is ok, It was our mutual friend Tony who had a bit to do with it, but also another couple of mates who have, in the past few years got deeper down the rabbit hole than old Tony ever has. Buying into the ideas of David Icke etc.

I think we all have a need to believe, the above mentioned couple of mates both have been on a sort of religious search for something and have dabbled in stuff like Buddhism, and pentecostal Christianity in the past. Both also have been skeptical of political motives etc, and it seams like someone like Icke ticked all boxes for them.

They do treat it as a kind of fundamentalist religion. It has its gods (the aliens who are putting the thoughts in Ickes head), its prophets, (Icke himself and others Jessie Ventura, Alex Jones etc), it has its own dogma (everything that isn't from a CT source is a lie), Its scriptures that must never be challenged (how many book have Icke, Jones etc penned?), it's evil demons (alien lizard people / the Illuminati / NWO etc) and in Ickes case there's eve old hope of salvation thing going with the whole spiritual energy and kharmic evolution stuff he peddles.

I really do wonder if Conspiracy Theorist should be included on the religious belief section of the 2021 national census

 

[tadaaa]

recently I was involved in a forum discussion on the WTC etc (on another site) - obviously it widened!!! (as do CT)

a little later, I read this article on the BBC website - and it confirms the analysis in the OP, that a key element of CT is that they hate randomness - everything has to run to some sort of script.

the (short) article - linked below, is nothing to do with CT, it simply describes how "shuffle" algorithms in music players and music services sometimes have to be manually altered - to satisfy the perception of randomness, otherwise, if they are left to be truly random - people complain, people like to see patterns, people like to see "agency"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-31302312

indeed the human need to give "agency" to events, is simply explained by evolution - to our evolutionary predecessor the rustle in the bushes was a predator - not (sometimes) the simple act of air pressure, at least those that thought "agency" tended to survive - contrasted with the ancient proponents of "air pressure" as the main cause of bushes rustling, these guys never made it over the evolutionary hurdles

another very good (short) video is useful to explain the concept of open mindednees - something we are often accused of not being by CT



keep up the good work

 

[Whitebeard]

another very good (short) video is useful to explain the concept of open mindednees - something we are often accused of not being by CT

great video indeed...

I 'like' the way the CT crowd will tell you to open your mind and look at the facts, then when you do just that, and reach a different conclusion get all upset and in many cases see your different conclusion as a personal attack.

 

[WeedWhacker]

another very good (short) video

This is an excellent video to include in this discussion. Thank you! I enjoyed it immensely.

 

[tadaaa]

This is an excellent video to include in this discussion. Thank you! I enjoyed it immensely.

glad you both enjoyed it, it is very well done - simple but effective

great video indeed...

I 'like' the way the CT crowd will tell you to open your mind and look at the facts, then when you do just that, and reach a different conclusion get all upset and in many cases see your different conclusion as a personal attack.

yes - it is the whole mind-set, you soon come across the

"they are not telling us everything, they are keeping secrets"

to which the answer is obviously - YES, that's why "they" have a secret service, and in the UK at least an "official secrets act"

openness is always preferable - but there can be legitimate reason for keeping secrets, and is not in itself particularly sinister

 

[Marine0811]

Why do people believe media claims before testing evidence that the claims are based on?
Who is to say that non conspiracy theorist's are intellectually superior to conspiracy theorist's?
I think most conclusions are made on how evidence is viewed and preconceptions of what is or isn't possible. Some believe we live in a free world and some believe we are micromanaged. I think it's more than obvious that we are micromanaged, the question is to what extent.

 

[Svartbjørn]

I think most conclusions are made on how evidence is viewed and preconceptions of what is or isn't possible

This only applies when you force the evidence to fit your theory, vs forcing your theory to fit the evidence.

I think it's more than obvious that we are micromanaged, the question is to what extent.

This interests me.. whats your evidence to support that we are?

 

[Marine0811]

This only applies when you force the evidence to fit your theory, vs forcing your theory to fit the evidence.



This interests me.. whats your evidence to support that we are?

I believe we are obviously micromanaged through law, taxation, and conditioning. A majority of us spend more time at work than we do with our own families. We work to pay bills and get to retire at 65 if we aren't dead by then. Those not smart or willing enough to work for themselves are stuck being dependent on others for income. I don't think a large percentage of people would believe that all of their taxed income is spent in a productive manner.

 

[Svartbjørn]

I believe we are obviously micromanaged through law, taxation, and conditioning.

Isnt this more opinion than evidence though? Dictionary.com defines micromanage as the following:

verb (used with object), micromanaged, micromanaging.
1.
to manage or control with excessive attention to minor details.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/micromanage?s=t

I would agree that people are managed to an extent.. but we arent micromanaged by any stretch. We arent non-organic machines.. we arent programmed and forced to follow out that program. We do have choices, they may not be the choices we LIKE but we DO have them. Choosing to live, being the biggest choice. Each of us has the choice to end our lives at any time we want.. if we were truly micromanaged we wouldnt have THAT option either.

A majority of us spend more time at work than we do with our own families.

On this we agree, but why does it happen? Its not because we're being taxed to the point that every single waking moment we have MUST be spent working just to feed our families.. its because we're spoiled and we put a greater emphasis on obtaining STUFF than we do anything else.. This TOO is a choice. We could CHOOSE not to have million dollar homes, or $2000 televisions, two or three or four cars worth 30 to 50 thousand dollars each, vehicles that drink gas like we drink water.

Those not smart or willing enough to work for themselves are stuck being dependent on others for income.

Again though, most of this is choice. Personally, I dont mind working for other people.. in a lot of ways I enjoy it, but this isnt evidence of micromanaging.

I don't think a large percentage of people would believe that all of their taxed income is spent in a productive manner.

This is also true.. but its also a choice.. we CHOOSE to put the people in charge who spend our taxed income the way its spent. If you start thinking conspiratorially them maybe we dont, but I havent seen any evidence to support that assertion.

What it all boils down to @Marine0811 (Semper Fi btw) is that we have choices.. we just dont agree with them, or like them. I spent nearly a decade as a Marine myself.. and THAT life is micromanaged to a large extent, but even then you have choices.. the consequences of those choices can be, and usually are, much more harsh than outside the Corps, but the choices DO still exist.

 

[NoParty]

Why do people believe media claims before testing evidence that the claims are based on?

This is a peculiar question.

I certainly wouldn't presume to have an answer that would fit all people...endlessly gullible and discerning alike.

I think that intelligent people look at it rationally. CNN, for instance, is a multi-billion dollar brand.
Ownership could lose a ton of money if their brand is significantly damaged, and a rational person takes that
into the equation when evaluating something CNN says, if there's any reason at all to question whether
they are misrepresenting reality. That doesn't mean that--because they're huge--they're right or virtuous...
but merely that their self interest compels them to protect the cash flow. The overwhelming majority
of things said on CNN will be just a lazy passing on of current events. If however, something seems questionable
about how they are reporting something--especially if there's a rational reason that they'd have incentive
to bend the truth--then yes, those claims of evidence should be tested...

By contrast, "Jewsdunit666" on YouTube has little credibility (or cash) to lose. He can make the most
ridiculous claims, and, if they are clearly nonsense, so what? He loses nothing.
NBC sent Brian Williams packing almost immediately because his exaggeration hurt their reputation as a
conveyor of news. When O'Reilly's countless untruths ("war zones" in the Falklands, hearing de Mohrenschildt off himself, witnessing nuns murdered, under siege at L.A. riots, and on and on) began to pile up, it became clear that nothing
would happen to Bill because, well, accuracy isn't what he's paid for, and no one says
"Gee, I just can't believe a guy like O'Reilly would so torture the facts."

In short, if you just "follow the money," it's clear that getting things wrong damages some people much more than
others. If CNN says their was a 75-car crash in Maine, I have little incentive to "test evidence" instead of doing something
more productive. If it was only 45 cars, I'm pretty sure that CBS, Fox News, NBC, etc. will correct CNN before I can...

 

[deirdre]

Why do people believe media claims before testing evidence that the claims are based on?

Most people do not blindly believe MSM. But for those that do, probably the same reason CTers blindly believe 'alternative media" without testing the "evidence" the claims are based on.

 

[tadaaa]

this is a very good article - I remember reading it when it came out in the paper several years ago

it is by a journalist who was actually (unwittingly) involved in the 7/7 London bombings and the subsequent (sadly inevitable) conspiracy theory that followed

a good read with a nice twist at the end

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/jun/27/july7.uksecurity

 

[JDubyah]

One way I look at CT belief is that it's an excellent way of protecting yourself, at least psychologically, from being taken advantage of, tricked, or betrayed. If you look at in from a box-chart in terms of gain/loss, it pairs up well with the argument of why it pays to believe in god:

////////////// You Believe / You Don't Believe
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
God exists ////// Heaven /////////// Hell
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
God doesn't //// Nothing ////////// Nothing
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

The above is based on the idea of 'what happens after you die?'. But the notion that you cannot prove the non-existence of something fits with CT belief. We can disprove facts or claims, but rarely ever the overriding belief.

The fact that CTs tend to morph to adapt and encompass changes in evidence makes the whole bottom-left portion malleable.. if evidence comes up that a CT doesn't exist, and you believe, then you just adapt both the CT and the Belief to keep it rolling.

Or for CTs, the simpler match may be with the idea of "Better to be prepared and have no need than to be unprepared and have a need". Which I adhere to at all times when packing for a trip with my toddler aboard.

I think, for many, at the core of needing to believe in a CT is the feeling that you are protecting yourself from a breach of trust, or a betrayal of faith. The specifics are less important than the need for belief I see it often as a matter of 'fool me once, shame on you, twice on me", where some earlier, traumatic upheaval and violation of something you hold sacred and secure leaves a scar that you will do anything to avoid re-opening. A CT belief is a great bandaid for that.

I wish I could find the page, but I remember even reading somewhere in Dane's bio on GeoengineeringWatch a piece where he talks about some vague, earlier event in his life that taught him to never be caught off guard again.

Or the person who started sending me all the Chemtrail stuff that got me here - I found out he started on the CT trail in the 90's and once I got to know him better, it seems likely that as a teenager, his family broke up at about the same time as his foray into the conspiracy world started.

 

[BEDUNKINGONYOU]

I think that the reason most people believe something for the first time has more to do with that individuals previous knowledge on the subject and the trusted source they obtained it from. Maybe of you dont realize you are just as much of a CT'er than those who actually believe in the theories and fundamental knowledge that is very much available in nonfiction versions, and the fact that you spend all this time trying to "prove the lack of proof" of things you dont believe (probably because someone who believed something you don't told you it in the first place) actually proves you are no different from those who choose to believe alternative options in comparison to your individual opinion.

 

[Svartbjørn]

I think that the reason most people believe something for the first time has more to do with that individuals previous knowledge on the subject and the trusted source they obtained it from. Maybe of you dont realize you are just as much of a CT'er than those who actually believe in the theories and fundamental knowledge that is very much available in nonfiction versions, and the fact that you spend all this time trying to "prove the lack of proof" of things you dont believe (probably because someone who believed something you don't told you it in the first place) actually proves you are no different from those who choose to believe alternative options in comparison to your individual opinion.

You're trying to use circular logic to dismiss rather than discuss. The difference is that what we do here, has nothing to do with belief. Science doesnt rely on belief but evidence and experiment. Science is also fallible and can change over time, belief (for the most part) doesnt.

Discussion, observation, experimentation, co-operation, and the sharing of knowledge are the cornerstones of science and scientific research. There are scientists in the world, (Like Krauss) who try to cram their ideas down people's throats and insult them because they're "not as smart" as he is, or insults them because they believe in a higher power while he's an atheist. What youll find here, are people who use their own experience and their ability to research to remove errors in specific claims and do so with the utmost respect for the people they're talking to. We're human.. we slip up and let emotion slip through now and then.. especially when you have someone come in and post IN ALL GIGANTIC CAPS THAT WE'RE A BUNCH OF F'N ASSHOLES THAT ARE JUST SLAVES DOING WHAT THEIR MASTERS TELL THEM TO DO... and relying on the same old rhetoric, memes and videos that have been debunked hundreds of times.

We're different from conspiracy theorists for one major reason.. or at least I am, I cant and wont speak for everyone here... Im willing to admit when Im wrong. If I make a statement based on knowledge Ive gained in the past, and upon further research discover that what I knew was a) wrong to begin with, or b) has changed because of new research, then I'll admit I made a mistake. I dont like it, its a bruise to the old ego, but being a man of logic and reason I have to admit my faults as a human and learn from them. The vast majority of die hard conspiratorial types refuse to budge and move the goal posts when presented with evidence that can not be refuted.

Alex Jones is a good example. He could believe that the government has trained us to think that the sky is purple, and if you showed him every last piece of scientific evidence that showed that the sky was INDEED purple, that it has ALWAYS been purple, he'd come back with something like all the scientists in the world are colluding with the government to brainwash people into thinking that it was purple, and that all the historians had gone back and changed paintings/pictures to show the sky was always purple.

Thats the difference between what people do in this forum compared to elsewhere. I wouldnt go after the governmental conspiracy thing, because there's no way to prove that one way or the other.. however.. proving that the sky is purple is testable and retestable. Data can be obtained through experimentation to show that the sky is purple and there would be enough evidence to show that it had most likely always been purple. Does that explain things a bit better?

 

[Spectrar Ghost]

How often do CTers change their mind in the face of new evidence, particularly that which does not confirm their beliefs? How often do you hear a CTer answer with "I don't know" or "that's complicated" or any other answer that acknowledges nuance exists? These are things which any well-informed person must invariably do.

I almost never see these behaviors from our more hardline CT-minded members. I often see it from the debunkers. We constantly converse about the accuracy of the evidence we use, or even why exactly a specific piece of evidence is not. The more accurate the evidence, the stronger the case for or against a claim.

We do not attempt to prove the absence of evidence here, as such is impossible. We simply examine specific claims to see if they deserve to be part of a body of evidence.

 

[tadaaa]

How often do CTers change their mind in the face of new evidence, particularly that which does not confirm their beliefs? How often do you hear a CTer answer with "I don't know" or "that's complicated" or any other answer that acknowledges nuance exists? These are things which any well-informed person must invariably do. .

yes, this essentially defines a true sceptic

here is a nice article from a former sceptic on AGW

https://www.buzzfeed.com/danvergano/my-global-warming-epiphany?utm_term=.efXKqBk2w#.ptONMV1KY

(5 min read)

it details quite nicely his conversion from a "sceptic" to someone who evaluated his position on AGW based on the evidence

and he explains his handy technique to quickly evaluate some of the evidence

 

[Keith Beachy]

I think that the reason most people believe something for the first time has more to do with that individuals previous knowledge on the subject and the trusted source they obtained it from. Maybe of you dont realize you are just as much of a CT'er than those who actually believe in the theories and fundamental knowledge that is very much available in nonfiction versions, and the fact that you spend all this time trying to "prove the lack of proof" of things you dont believe (probably because someone who believed something you don't told you it in the first place) actually proves you are no different from those who choose to believe alternative options in comparison to your individual opinion.

? Someone tells me a plane can't break the WTC shell, and they offer no facts, no evidence for the claim. I look up the strenth of the connections of the WTC shell sections and find they they will break and not stop a plane if the plane is going 280 mph and weighs 265,000 pounds. It is not that I don't believe the opinion based on nothing, it is that I can do the math/physics/engineering to know the claim is false. No better? When some one says 2 plus 2 is apple pie, I use math and come up with 4. Four is not a CT answer, it is a fact based on math.
If you have a claim, do you have evidence? There is no bunk in some opinions... If we are deciding what to put in the cooler for the picnic, I want cokes, an opinion, it is not right or wrong, no bunk, it is a valid opinion, I want coke. To claim there were no planes used on 9/11, they were holographs is a fantasy based on nonsense; how do I know, because I took the time to gather the radar summaries for 9/11 which we can ask for from our government which we "own". The Radar shows there were planes, and by checking FAA records, and documents we know exactly who was on each plane and where they took off and where they impacted. Thus people with evidence are not the same as people fooled by fake opinions, when opinions don't count for evidence, and never did.

Not sure what the point is, but opinions are not used to expose bunk. In an event, we may have opinions, but opinions are not evidence of what happened. Evidence is required, opinions are not evidence.

Why do people believe fantasy claims of conspiracies? Because it matches their opinions, and they don't take the time to be skeptical, to question their beliefs. Why do people believe, are they gullible? Who took my car keys... what do I believe. Where are my matching socks?