Why Don't CT Believers Do Their Own Research?

[F4Jock]

I have a question for debate: People come to this forum believing in certain theories. They ask (Or challenge!) us to debunk them. We research on line and come up with facts in an attempt to do so. The questioners haven't seen most of these. We debate the findings and while some accept them others do not. Fair enough.

Now to my question. If we can find these facts why can't you? In other words, instead of asking us to do your homework and present alternate theories why don't you do some research on both sides of the arguement before you ask? Who knows - you may just answer the question yourself and this may be the only way you'll change your opinion!

 

[MikeC]

Because they think their theory cannot be debunked.

They think this precisely BECAUSE they do not research it - if they did they either would not believe, or would still believe but not want to face the inevitable (which they know damned well!), and so would not post in the first place!

 

[lotek]

you presume an understanding of what evidence is, what proof is, what the a scientific method is, and what an argument is.

this presumption is bold. :\

Which is why we often fail, as there is no way for us to teach k-12 subject material to someone against their will over a forum.

 

[OddFuture]

Most CT'ers already think they know it all.

They thrive off the idea that they hold special knowledge so they can call everyone else "sheeple". This is why, even when presented with evidence they will not believe it. It's much less exciting to know the truth.

Chem-trails are much more exciting than well......clouds.

 

[Cairenn]

A friend that was a policeman, was once talking about gangs, not just street gangs, but the other gangs that many other folks belong to. He even included jobs like policeman, in the concept 'gangs'. Gangs have a slang they use, they distrust outsiders, then tend to feel superior to NON gang members. The gang becomes a 'family'.

Is there an element of that in the CT movement and even in extreme religious and political movements.

 

[pseacraft]

Most CT'ers already think they know it all...

This sums up my experience here in Cyprus literally word for word "I know everything" is what I have been told. I am also accused of doing it which is funny since I never even heard of it until they did so. So I ask them if Alexander was Greek to which they say of course, then I point out he was actually Macedonian and not Greek hence why his father conquered the Greek city states because they refused to consider Macedon as Greek. Ah, reality. I am waiting for the perfect opportunity to use Aristotle's work 'Meteorology' on them.

I have found its a waste of time to try to get them to understand even the basics of science that most of the rest of the world received in primary school. Education here leaves so much to be desired, even the Cypriots themselves complain about it.

 

[Critical Thinker]

I think that they would tell you that they are doing research by reading all the conspiracy websites. What they refuse to do is to research/credit anything that might challenge their beliefs.

"Nothing is more intolerable than to have to admit to yourself your own errors"
- Ludwig van Beethoven

 

[George B]

Most Chemtrail and other Conspiracy Advocates do not even know where to begin . . . most have little or no formal scientific exposure or if they do it is very narrow . . . they have to rely and trust scientists who have the expertise to help them while they do not trust the very experts they must to increase their understanding . . .

They generally have a distrust of authority and see the academic and scientific community controlled and influenced through undue influence by the people suspected of for example chemtrailing . . . to many, research of the scientific explanations is akin to consuming propaganda . . .

 

[MyMatesBrainwashed]

I think a lot of questions can be answered by turning them round and asking them of yourself.

Like, instead of asking why CTers don't do research, why not ask why debunkers don't do research? Or why don't I do any research.

I could argue I have done research. I've read stuff on the internet. But is that really research? CTers have read stuff on the internet too. Is that research?

But why haven't I done more than read stuff on the internet? It's because I believe that I have the answers.

I dunno, but I think "us" and "them" are very very similar. We just believe different things. I'm not sure if it's nothing more than we are all just people who are far too concerned with other peoples' opinion. You know, if you're happy with your own opinion and not concerned about others then you don't post about it and read about it on the internet all the time. You just get on with things.

 

[George B]

I think a lot of questions can be answered by turning them round and asking them of yourself.

Like, instead of asking why CTers don't do research, why not ask why debunkers don't do research? Or why don't I do any research.

I could argue I have done research. I've read stuff on the internet. But is that really research? CTers have read stuff on the internet too. Is that research?

But why haven't I done more than read stuff on the internet? It's because I believe that I have the answers.

I dunno, but I think "us" and "them" are very very similar. We just believe different things. I'm not sure if it's nothing more than we are all just people who are far too concerned with other peoples' opinion. You know, if you're happy with your own opinion and not concerned about others then you don't post about it and read about it on the internet all the time. You just get on with things.

People usually seek validation for what they believe. . . human nature. . . we are social animals. . .

 

[F4Jock]

Both of the above two responses are well put. The problem in the case of research is that most of us don't have the resources or the education to conduct independent investigations. We must thus depend on others.

I still contend that what we believe goes to why we think as we do: Social? Validation? Mistrust of authority?

Does believing in conspiracies harm anything? Does it help anything? What is the point of trying to convince one another that we / they are right / wrong? Is that even generally possible?

To me the study of the psychology of belief is a fascinating, albeit generally fruitless, one.

 

[George B]

Both of the above two responses are well put. The problem in the case of research is that most of us don't have the resources or the education to conduct independent investigations. We must thus depend on others.

I still contend that what we believe goes to why we think as we do: Social? Validation? Mistrust of authority?

Does believing in conspiracies harm anything? Does it help anything? What is the point of trying to convince one another that we / they are right / wrong? Is that even generally possible?

To me the study of the psychology of belief is a fascinating, albeit generally fruitless, one.

It may be fruitless . . . we have been trying to understand such things since we could use language. . . we have also been unable to stop war, murder, rape, theft, arguments, etc. . . it comes with the territory. . .

 

[solrey]

Here's an example of a chemtrail believer doing their own "research" in the form of an "experiment". I was blocked for simply asking what properties distinguish a "chemweb" from an ordinary spider web, her reply (after blocking me) was that she could just tell the difference. Alrighty then. She thinks anything that grows in a jar of rainwater is from "chemtrails". She also dropped out of school with something like an 8th grade "education", surprise, surprise. I'm curious as to what her response would be if somebody told her that there are all kinds of bacteria, algae, mold, fungi, etc. that naturally occur in rainwater and sitting a jar of rainwater in sunlight with a nutrient like a drop of blood is going to encourage something to grow. I mean, she did ask.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDlyg9Erqfs

Please read all of this in order to know exactly what is going on with this experiment. This is the test with rain water in a sterile jar & lid. There is only 1 drop of my blood & a sterilized nail clipping from me. What ever is in this rain water isn't good. This stuff has attached itself to the jar & to the nail clipping. It's growing!! How can something like this grow in an air tight jar? Your guess is as good as mine at this point. All I know is, since I did this video , the nail clipping has only been in there for 37 hour's. At this point, all I can do is keep watching it. It stays in direct sun light , and is not bothered. If anyone out there can tell me why this is growing & behaving this way, I'd love to hear from you. I think that I'm not getting outside in the rain from now on. The stuff has shown it's ugly side to me. I wonder what it's doing to our bodie's! All I know is, this shouldn't even be going on in this manner. Please remix & share this every where you can!! Someone has to have an answer to this! God bless everyone & keep you all safe !! XOXOX

There's an answer, but the question is... would she believe it?

 

[F4Jock]

Here's an example of a chemtrail believer doing their own "research" in the form of an "experiment". I was blocked for simply asking what properties distinguish a "chemweb" from an ordinary spider web, her reply (after blocking me) was that she could just tell the difference. Alrighty then. She thinks anything that grows in a jar of rainwater is from "chemtrails". She also dropped out of school with something like an 8th grade "education", surprise, surprise. I'm curious as to what her response would be if somebody told her that there are all kinds of bacteria, algae, mold, fungi, etc. that naturally occur in rainwater and sitting a jar of rainwater in sunlight with a nutrient like a drop of blood is going to encourage something to grow. I mean, she did ask.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDlyg9Erqfs

Please read all of this in order to know exactly what is going on with this experiment. This is the test with rain water in a sterile jar & lid. There is only 1 drop of my blood & a sterilized nail clipping from me. What ever is in this rain water isn't good. This stuff has attached itself to the jar & to the nail clipping. It's growing!! How can something like this grow in an air tight jar? Your guess is as good as mine at this point. All I know is, since I did this video , the nail clipping has only been in there for 37 hour's. At this point, all I can do is keep watching it. It stays in direct sun light , and is not bothered. If anyone out there can tell me why this is growing & behaving this way, I'd love to hear from you. I think that I'm not getting outside in the rain from now on. The stuff has shown it's ugly side to me. I wonder what it's doing to our bodie's! All I know is, this shouldn't even be going on in this manner. Please remix & share this every where you can!! Someone has to have an answer to this! God bless everyone & keep you all safe !! XOXOX

There's an answer, but the question is... would she believe it?

One of the more interesting observations I've read: ".....

conspiracy idea suffers from the fatal flaw of having the conspirators engage in a complicated Rube Goldberg process to do something a rational person could do more effectively in a much simpler way."

You covered it all. The fingernail is a source as well.​

 

[lotek]

an addiction to secret knowledge plays a huge part in this and is why the issue is so persistent over time. the chemical rush from putting yourself above 'them', the rest, the sheep. Being ahead, aware, awake. self perpetuating. i was fallen into this for many years... ill dig up my recent posts on the subject. one need only look at the self chosen terminology involved to see a pattern...

There is, however, another possible form of reassurance, of an altogether more personal kind. The classic view of paranoia, the unwarranted belief that one is being persecuted, is that it is a wholly negative state. But what if paranoia is actually the sticking plaster that we fix to a very different kind of wound? That of feeling ourselves to be of no importance whatsoever, and our lives (and especially our deaths) of little real significance except to ourselves.

The London-based American psychoanalyst Stephen Grosz believes this may be the case. He argues, after twenty-five years of practice, that paranoia may often be a defense against indifference, against the far more terrible thought that no one cares about you. The elderly, at a time of their lives when no one very much wonders what they think, often become classically paranoid, believing that someone wishes to rob or hurt them. The lonely person fears that there is a burglar or a murderer in the empty house waiting for them. Indeed, they may often perceive the real symptoms of such threats— the noises, the shadows, the displaced objects. These fears disguise the truly obliterating disaster, the often well-founded fear that no one is thinking about them at all, what Grosz calls "the catastrophe of indifference."

Everyone knows Oscar Wilde's famous dictum "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." Fewer will have heard Susan Sontag's clever development of it: "I envy paranoids. They actually feel people are paying attention to them." If conspiracism is a projection of paranoia, it may exist in order to reassure us that we are not the totally unconsidered objects of a blind process. If Marilyn was murdered, then she did not die, as we most fear and as we most often observe, alone and ingloriously. A catastrophe occurred, but not the greater catastrophe that awaits all of us.

Aaronovitch, David (2010-01-19). Voodoo Histories: The Role of the Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History . Penguin Group. Kindle Edition.

and my relation to that:

Anecdotally I would have to agree with that.

When I was much younger i was in a highly paranoid, educated, existential loneliness bubble for about 5years. to be a smart teenager... However, to not get into it much(tl:dr), I presented these symptoms as well and agree with the findings.

My paranoid existence was geared to making me feel above the non-participating. I showed clear signs of chemical or behavioral addiction to the paranoia, depression, elitism, and isolation. i thought i was soooooo damn smart. it didn't help that i was, but nothing near what i thought. I felt like Neo every day. awake. plugged in, unplugged, open, a wolf amongst sheep. I was creating the problems as an active defense against my lack of social function. I wasn't depressed and paranoid, I was elated and addicted to the rush of the various mechanisms. Even sadness was a self created system. A positive function I used.

The paranoia granted me massive sense of superiority. A way to dismiss the people and society in which i didnt fit. I was better. Far, far better... I was a little genius boy. Product of "everyone is special", and gifted education. Neo in the flesh i would have sworn. pro euthanasia, active population control, brith restrictions, and genetic defect control. mass prohibition and control. Progress at the cost of humanity... I know this is fiction, but i cannot help to look to the borg from startrek.. Elitist progress at the cost of humanity.

Then i learned of my hubris. if i was so far corruptible, and i am no better than any man, then so can be everyone so corrupted. No one can be trusted with such powers. Atleast no one alone. The liberal syndrome. I know better than you so let me change your life for you.

The best lesson i have learned. The degree of my childhood hubris. The true equality within humanity. I am not awake, or a wolf above sheep. I was just fucking crazy....

Just an anecdote, but I bet most who claim to be "AWAKE" act much the same way.

And yes, this is just another way to put myself above those who put themself above the sheep........ as a person i cant really remove that factor.. lol

Or you have the "I dont need to research, its an attempt to corrupt me with disinfo!

and MyMatesBrainwashed, i get your point, however the manner many of us approach 'research' regardless the subject matter or sources available to us plays a HUGE part in this. most research need not go beyond reading past the news site's summary and opening the original document to clear up many CT errors.

and lastly, a sloppy message to a guy i met on facebook who i was sort of flaming for pushing conspiracy theory crap. we are now good friends. he still posts lots of fringe stuff when he gets worked up and each time it obviously isnt credible i show him why and we go on, happily, as people should. to connect with him i told him about my 911 experience:

..... when i was 14 and an vocal 911 conspiracy supporter circa loose change days. every day this lil voice eating at me. saying "you know you cant discern speed in video with that method" and "you know if a fundy christian used that argument youd be laughing"then i realized i just wanted the stuff in the vids to be true because i already decided it was true...
then i got a job and realized just how often everyone makes mistakes or is lazy etc. now i imagine a secret nwo trying to scheme like that and i crack up. i cant believe i thought gw bush was that smart....or that dumb. nothing works 100% of the time.
now look at the "facts" and youtube quality "tests" used in loose change etc, its just blatant crap. laughably dismiss able. "video proof no airplane hits pentagon" omg omg proof! then ya watch it and not only can you not see the pentagon but the thing they point out as a missile is OBVIOUSLY a white suv on the highway going the same speed as the car infront and behind it.... lol but if you WANT it to be true, the highway looks like the pentagon, and you dont even notice the other 20 cars on the highway with the 'missile'.
then i saw the same ppl on facebook touting proof the people of libia loved kdalfi, that he was a good person and everyone had everything they wanted. saying that if you think it is a rundown dangerous place your eyes have been closed by media propaganda... Im left in awe that the ppl dont see just how blatant a propaganda film it is. yet i have friends, smart ones, telling me "look the ppl love him! we did it for oil!" showing me a 15min video of him in what is essentially a hiphop music video of him and his cronies driving around with guns giving out cash...
now i remember, it is never one's duty to disprove something, only to prove it. the burden of proof lays on he who puts forth, he who adds. it is never a requirement that i disprove chemtrails or homeopathy or 'natural', they have to prove it. and if each time evidence to the contrary is presented, it is deemed again to not exist unless further proven so.
this is where all those wiki links come in. they are all observations of how humans act when confronted with this situation. how even after the keystone of your belief is removed as true, one still holds the belief.
i am guilty of this myself from time to time, but by this point i do alot of redundant rationality checks in my head because im aware of it as a past problem.
its all very natural and with good reason, but ppl benefit from being aware of it.

 

[JRBids]

Only the few who come here get the truth. Try telling the truth on their forums and you're removed and blocked from posting.

 

[AluminumTheory]

I think the CT rabbit hole is almost a form of brainwashing.

By getting someone to accept on CT as truth, they often follow the 'rabbit hole' into other CTs and next thing you know they believe in all of them. In this process they'll begin to trust otherwise questionable news sources like infowars while rejecting any credible news source as being some sort of government front, and/or funded by George Soros. At this point they can justify cherry picking evidence to support their claims because they can deal with contradicting information by simply rejecting it rather than addressing it.

 

[SeanDWalker]

Often you'll find theorists have done A LOT of 'research' but with highly flawed methods, trawling to find as much supportive evidence as possible through selective searches rather than the more useful process of seeking how it could not be the case first.

 

[Cairenn]

If you are not aware of looking for 'original' sources' you can find dozens of internet posts and articles that all started with ONE 'study' or post.

Two that I have encountered on the BP oil spill, are "the Valdez cleanup workers are dead or very ill and dying' and 'deformed seafood found in the Gulf' and that one comes with pictures. The first one all starts with an unpublished telephone survey of 78 workers taken by a Yale grad student in 2004. I never could find a copy of the survey. The fact that it was never published tells be that her adviser did not find it to be a good survey. The deformed seafood and pictures mostly lead back to an Al Jazeera article. It was poor reporting and the pictures were not even of seafood from the Gulf of Mexico.

 

[David Fraser]

I have a question for debate: People come to this forum believing in certain theories. They ask (Or challenge!) us to debunk them. We research on line and come up with facts in an attempt to do so. The questioners haven't seen most of these. We debate the findings and while some accept them others do not. Fair enough.

Now to my question. If we can find these facts why can't you? In other words, instead of asking us to do your homework and present alternate theories why don't you do some research on both sides of the arguement before you ask? Who knows - you may just answer the question yourself and this may be the only way you'll change your opinion!

There are a few chemtrailers I have come across that do a great deal of research. However there only real avenue and although they may be able to dig up some scientific papers they often misinterprets what they are reading. They often don't understand the context and certainly never read the references in a paper. If they could do that they could get avreal understanding if what they are reading and its relevance. I have a strong science background in environmental science and I do get frustrated when you end up arguing points that are not just wrong but made up. I do recommend to.many that they visit their local university library to gain access to some basic texts to give them a good grounding. All have been resistant to the idea.

I get the feeling with many it us not their research skills as such, but a clear bias and a blinkered view. They only look for evidence to prove their point and reject anything that will disprove it. It us not even a lack of intelligence but clear bias. A thread recently featured David Lim. Here is a final year Phd candidate that produces a well out together presentation. However not one of his sources or references has been subject to peer review, or did he check the voracity of. I think he even claimed that there was not a body of work around some areas. Irrespective of his discipline that is piss poor to say the least, but he found what he wanted to find. They all will all the time. I think it goes a little deeper than bias as most people will usually eventually accept a different hypothesis.

I have loads of data, links and papers that I am more than happy to share. Usually the moment I start presenting it I get blocked.

 

[RolandD]

Much of it boils down to a lack of critical thinking skills and I am beginning to believe that some people are not capable of critical thought. I have always encouraged critical thinking in our household, but my youngest, 16 yo, can ask the stupidest questions which have the most obvious answers. It might just be the age, but the 18 yo never went though a similar stage and they are equally smart.

 

[Rroval]

Because CT believers only see images which they use them as "evidence" and think no further due to lack of critical thinking.

It also boils down to that CT believers have a black & white worldview ("Us vs Them" attitude) which is why they lack critical thinking.

 

[Evil Petting Zoo]

Dunning Kruger effect.