The line between conspiracy theorists and rational skepticism as a logical analysis

[muir]

I don't have that fact, but that doesn't mean that someone else doesn't have it

You paralyse yourself in indecision if you want. Some of us are going to use our critical thinking abilities

[video=youtube;nE2SdF1fN4s]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nE2SdF1fN4s[/video]

[video=youtube;j5xo2NadZ-o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5xo2NadZ-o[/video]

 

[ThomasJ79]

Frankly, if empiricism can't crack it, nothing can. Everything else is conjecture. Enlightened guesses at best. Such is the universe.

That is mostly my perspective. I want connections and associations to be grounded in empirical evidence. If it cannot, I treat it as speculation. I find conspiracy theorist interesting, if it's something that sounds plausible, but most of the time some of the basic facts that the theory rests upon can be shown to be untrue and that usually brings the whole theory down.

It is this reason why I'm skeptical of religion, conspiracy theories, political ideologies, etc, because often people make unsubstantiated claims and seem to be more concerned with being the guru, having a legion of followers, and seeking their own agenda than arriving at the actual truth. I seem to be much more comfortable admitting that I don't know certain things, such as whether God exists or not, but I'm highly skeptical of those who say that they do know, that they have privileged access. An atheist cannot know for certain that the Christian God does not exist because it cannot be observed and outside the realm of empiricism, he can only assume that it is highly unlikely and rule it out.

The beauty of science is its adaptability. New evidence can reshape our understanding of the world around us; it constantly unravels more mysteries. The ugliness of faith is that no amount of evidence can make it untrue.

 

[muir]

That is mostly my perspective. I want connections and associations to be grounded in empirical evidence.

A person saying this is about as much use as a kick in the balls unless they are actually willing to look for evidence

if they do not they sound like a snob because they are saying that they have a mechanism for interpreting the world but they are not willing to get the fuel for that mechanism and they use this claim to a mechanism (empricism) as a wand to wave in the air as a dismissal to the people who have gone to the trouble of looking out the facts

So....your economy is controlled by the federal reserve; it has vast influence over your life in ways that many aren't even aware of

As a proponent of the 'empirical school' you must have searched out the information about how the fed was formed, who formed it, why and who owns it because to not know something so fundamental to your society and the system that controls you whislt making claims to be alla bout the facts would be imo negligent

If it cannot, I treat it as speculation. I find conspiracy theorist interesting, if it's something that sounds plausible, but most of the time some of the basic facts that the theory rests upon can be shown to be untrue and that usually brings the whole theory down.

Examples please

It is this reason why I'm skeptical of religion, conspiracy theories, political ideologies, etc, because often people make unsubstantiated claims and seem to be more concerned with being the guru, having a legion of followers, and seeking their own agenda than arriving at the actual truth.

Examples please......otherwise meet a charge of lack of intellectual rigor (mental laziness)

I seem to be much more comfortable admitting that I don't know certain things, such as whether God exists or not, but I'm highly skeptical of those who say that they do know, that they have privileged access. An atheist cannot know for certain that the Christian God does not exist because it cannot be observed and outside the realm of empiricism, he can only assume that it is highly unlikely and rule it out.

No but you can research into the roots of the concepts to find out where they have come from and what people have done with these concepts to further their own agendas

Concerning not knowing yourself....if you have not explored options then you could face a charge of lack of intellectual rigor and are kind of removing your credibility in a way to deny what other people are saying through your own enforced ignorance through a refusal to seek more answers

In effect you then choose to be in an ignorant but neutral state whereby you can contribute nothing to any discussion because of your own admitted ignorance

The beauty of science is its adaptability. New evidence can reshape our understanding of the world around us; it constantly unravels more mysteries. The ugliness of faith is that no amount of evidence can make it untrue.

oh and science is full of gurus by the way! Who turn out as thought evolves to be bullshit artists

 

[ThomasJ79]

muir, I wasn't really interested in debating the Federal Reserve as I have too many interests at the moment. I did read a book by a Kennedy entitled What God Hath Wrought. It discussed some of the early problems with federalizing the banking system during the early 1800s and described the battle between state and federal banks. Much of the difference was due to political ideology and who should control the money supply, but there were also good economical reasons for federalizing, one being the difficulty of managing too many currencies between states. For interstate commerce to become more effective, a national banking system seemed the most logical step.

Are there any good books you could recommend if I wanted to learn more about the history of the Federal Reserve?

 

[muir]

muir, I wasn't really interested in debating the Federal Reserve as I have too many interests at the moment. I did read a book by a Kennedy entitled What God Hath Wrought. It discussed some of the early problems with federalizing the banking system during the early 1800s and described the battle between state and federal banks. Much of the difference was due to political ideology and who should control the money supply, but there were also good economical reasons for federalizing, one being the difficulty of managing too many currencies between states. For interstate commerce to become more effective, a national banking system seemed the most logical step.

Are there any good books you could recommend if I wanted to learn more about the history of the Federal Reserve?

They shot kennedy for creating silver cerificates which can offer an alternative money from the federal reserve notes

This talk pretty much nails down its origins and the intentions behind its creators...here's the facts:


[video=youtube;lu_VqX6J93k]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu_VqX6J93k[/video]

So why bring up the fed?

Its a good example of how something so fundamental to our world is so little understood and by understanding it and talking about it a person risks being branded a 'conspiracy theorist' by those that haven't yet looked into it

Also its a good doorway into things because its a strand of the web that is pretty close to the centre of the web....control over the money supply provides the engine house for the cartel behind the reserve to then carry out their long term plans

"Give me control of a Nation's money supply, and I care not who makes its laws."

- Mayer Amschel Rothschild, founder of Rothschild Banking Dynasty

 

[say what]

That is mostly my perspective. I want connections and associations to be grounded in empirical evidence. If it cannot, I treat it as speculation. I find conspiracy theorist interesting, if it's something that sounds plausible, but most of the time some of the basic facts that the theory rests upon can be shown to be untrue and that usually brings the whole theory down.

It is this reason why I'm skeptical of religion, conspiracy theories, political ideologies, etc, because often people make unsubstantiated claims and seem to be more concerned with being the guru, having a legion of followers, and seeking their own agenda than arriving at the actual truth. I seem to be much more comfortable admitting that I don't know certain things, such as whether God exists or not, but I'm highly skeptical of those who say that they do know, that they have privileged access. An atheist cannot know for certain that the Christian God does not exist because it cannot be observed and outside the realm of empiricism, he can only assume that it is highly unlikely and rule it out.

The beauty of science is its adaptability. New evidence can reshape our understanding of the world around us; it constantly unravels more mysteries. The ugliness of faith is that no amount of evidence can make it untrue.

I guess this is in response to yours and [MENTION=3224]Kanamori[/MENTION] !!

I have a very hard time accepting that empirical evidence, and only empirical evidence can explain the world around me. We are taught at an early age that empiricism and the scientific methods are the only truthful ways to find knowledge; and while this isn't wrong, it's not fully correct.

...empiriscism insists that even in those fields where knowledge is judged to be possible, research must be strictly limited to questions for which the necessary kind of evidence is currently available. Speculation - knowledge claims not effectively support by such evidence - much be avoided.

There has, however, been variation in what we might call the severity of the empiricism adopted by positivists, in other word in how narrowly they define the domain of legitimate evidence, and in the restrictions they place upon what kinds of inference can be used to draw justified conclusions. As we have already seen, a very stringent version, modelled on physics, insisted that the only legitimate data are those produced by explicitly defined procedures designed to measure observable phenomena that can be subjected to experimental manipulation, with the only valid product being universal law. On this basis, not just qualitative, but also most quantitative, social science would be ruled out as unscientific, since it is unable to apply the strong form of measurement characteristic of natural science, can use only non-experimental designs, and at best produces low-level, probabilistic generalizations. Not surprisingly, most quantitative researchers have adopted a more liberal definition of scientific method, one that legitimates various kinds of approximation...

From: http://books.google.ca/books?id=khA...AT2koHgBw&ved=0CFwQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q&f=false


What this is saying is that most science, doesn't adhere to the strict methods of empiricism. This has two important implications: (1) those that feel all evidence must be 'scientifically proven' via the scientific methods, would be restricting their understanding of the 'truth' to very very little data, and (2) the data that we are basing our understanding on, has natural flaws.

I've said this so many times, but regardless of if you base your view of the world on conspiracy theory or mainstream theory, you have to look at where the information comes from and understanding the human bias that it has. The research experiment might meet the ideals of empiricism, but you have no way of knowing whether or not it has been influence by human biases (e.g., personal ideals, money, etc.) from the very beginning.

For example, if a report by the Surgeon General is released and it says "x and y are harmful, but z is fine" and they determined this through the scientific method, then it could very well be true. However, someone might say, "okay, but x and y are backed by abc inc., which contributed funds to the FDA, could this have impacted what they found?" - maybe yes, maybe no! It's hard to know, but it's important to ask that. If you ask that, then it encourages transparency throughout the entire process. For me, accepting that the information is truthful requires consideration of these questions.

Additionally, if we say that empiricism is the only way to know the truth, we limit our own experiences and understandings of the world. I know what I experience is truth on some level, but empiricism says that what I experience (if it can't be replicated to the exact details), cannot be true. This has huge implications to how we understand the world, my experience has value in what I see to be true or not true, just as your own experiences shape your understanding. Following empiricism limits our ability and right to use experiential knowledge to shape our lives; and we know that some things just cannot be understood through empiricism, and thus, more qualitative and subjective data is important.

Just because it might be in that .05%, doesn't mean it's not truthful. And I think this is what conspiracy is about - it's not throwing away that .05%, and saying that there might be value in it.

 

[ThomasJ79]

Just because it might be in that .05%, doesn't mean it's not truthful. And I think this is what conspiracy is about - it's not throwing away that .05%, and saying that there might be value in it.

That's very true. I'm used to working with 5% uncertainty as opposed to .05 %, but I do get what you mean, perhaps you were just using an arbitrary number. I think it is important to not treat the 5% as if it is on equal footing with the 95% because it is less probable. This is not to be confused with "not being true". Conspiracy theorist may take something that is possible, but present it as most likely, which is not the case. If they presented it as a possibility, however unlikely, they would have more credibility because they are recognizing the unlikelihood of their theory. But they don't, they say " this is possible, therefore it could be just as true."

 

[the]

Jung: Psychological Types [abridged] CW Vol.6 Par 629-630

Whats this about?

 

[Stu]

Whats this about?

It is my contention that excessive introverted thinking drives an individual to only reinforce an image or symbol (archetype) they hold within themselves. When you look at Muir's conspiracy theory, I mean the big one, the one with the Central bankers practicing black magic and holding the land of Israel as some sort of sacred ground, you are seeing him pull information and facts out of the shared objective reality and crafting them into his personal quasi religious internal belief. That is not to say that he is entirely wrong about many things......

 

[say what]

That's very true. I'm used to working with 5% uncertainty as opposed to .05 %, but I do get what you mean, perhaps you were just using an arbitrary number. I think it is important to not treat the 5% as if it is on equal footing with the 95% because it is less probable. This is not to be confused with "not being true". Conspiracy theorist may take something that is possible, but present it as most likely, which is not the case. If they presented it as a possibility, however unlikely, they would have more credibility because they are recognizing the unlikelihood of their theory. But they don't, they say " this is possible, therefore it could be just as true."

I totally combined probability with percentage! oopsie! My bring is not working! 5% or .05!

as for truth- I think it's works on a grey scale- it's not black or white, at least not for me! And that's where empiricism has it's faults for me- it's very black and white, and I think almost everything is grey - especially when you are dealing with social sciences, or people in general!

 

[muir]

That's very true. I'm used to working with 5% uncertainty as opposed to .05 %, but I do get what you mean, perhaps you were just using an arbitrary number. I think it is important to not treat the 5% as if it is on equal footing with the 95% because it is less probable. This is not to be confused with "not being true". Conspiracy theorist may take something that is possible, but present it as most likely, which is not the case. If they presented it as a possibility, however unlikely, they would have more credibility because they are recognizing the unlikelihood of their theory. But they don't, they say " this is possible, therefore it could be just as true."

No that's not what they do

The best analogy i can give you is that of making a puzzle

You have many pieces before you but you don't at first know what the image is that the puzzle will create

As you begin arranging the pieces you begin to have ideas about what the image might be and at first these evolve as the image becomes fuller

Eventually you have so many pieces of the puzzle down that even though you don't have the entire picture you can say with a fair degree of certainty what the image is portraying

Now here's a further thought for you....

depending on the nature of our reality we might actually be creating our reality as we go and the deeper we look into the infinate realm of possiblity the more we will create...

But getting back to the consensus reality there are things that can be objectively verified and when a person has found enough things to support an idea and they are able to make predictions about the future with that paradigm to a high degree of accuracy then really it deserves more than to be dismissed as crackpot nonsense

There is always a time lag after events before the government will open its files to the public in order to allow anyone involved to live out their life without being held accountable for their actions; sometimes the files are destroyed altogether

So one example would be how i was saying here on this forum that the CIA was behind the 1953 coup in Iran and i was met with the usual tirade of abuse, ridicule and denials but then the government disclosed that information and it became public knowledge that yes indeed the CIA had been behind the coup. Did i get any apologes from the people who had called me crazy? No

When the media started a frenzy around the gas attack in syria i said here on the forum that Assad was not behind the attacks and i was met with heavy criticism and was bullied off the syria threads and had to make my own thread where i could tell the truth; and in time sure enough the New York Times admitted that they had flasly reported the story and that there wasn't proof that assad was behind the attacks and they retracted their story. Did i recieve any apologies form the people who abused me? No

I recently had a debate with some people about flouride in the water in which i was heavily insulted until i presented testimony from one of the worlds leading experts on flouride which supported what i was saying; did i receive an apology from the people who had insulted me? No

If you go into my blog you can see that i was talking years ago about high up peadophile rings in the US and British government and now these stories are making it itno the mainstream news

I predicted the social unrest in the US (occupy movement) on this forum and was called crazy, i predicted the unrest in the middle east YEARS AGO on this forum and was correct. I was even specific enough to predict social unrest in Italy about 2 weeks before it then occured!

I told everyone here that the government was spying on us and was met with howls of derision and then the stories broke in the mainstream media proving the existence of PRISM and other programs in the wake of Snowdens Revelations

I said recently that cannabis oil can help cure cancer and then a university research paper came out showing this to be true

These are just a few of the things i have predicted....i've done it again and again and again in the half decade i've been here and yet i've received no apologies from the people who wronged me

In fact i'm still receiving abuse from people who have demonstrated to me that they lack the depth of understanding around these issues to be able to see the image behind the pieces in the puzzle

I'm not sure how many times i'm going to have to be right before some people realise that 'conspiracy theorists'..at least the dedicated ones are actually far from crazy and are infact very well informed

It's a sorry state of affairs when people who have enough information to speak the truth are attacked for doing so; this is i suggest one of the reasons our society is so unhealthy...because it has a poor relationship with the truth

 

[Stu]

i predicted the unrest in the middle east

dang, I may have to change my signature

 

[muir]

It is my contention that excessive introverted thinking drives an individual to only reinforce an image or symbol (archetype) they hold within themselves. When you look at Muir's conspiracy theory, I mean the big one, the one with the Central bankers practicing black magic and holding the land of Israel as some sort of sacred ground, you are seeing him pull information and facts out of the shared objective reality and crafting them into his personal quasi religious internal belief. That is not to say that he is entirely wrong about many things......

No i do NOT claim that they are holding israel as some sort of sacred ground (zionism is secular)

I actually argue that they have no right to the land at all as they are descended from the khazars NOT the israelites

The zionist federation even looked at starting an ashkenazi colony in africa but settled on the idea of palestine

That land has always been strategic geographically hence the crusades (catching many trade routes incl the spice routes) and it has religious significance as well for the abrahamic religions which i guess zionism can use for leverage

Jim Marrs argues there is an older significance to the site but that's maybe going a bit too deep into the rabbit hole for this discussion!

However old manuscripts have been recovered from that area that have had consequecnes for our understanding of religion and mysticism, such as the dead sea scrolls, and the cabal would be interested in securing those (see legend of the templars digging under temple mount for example)

So for Marrs 'sacred' has a different significance

For the khazari ashkenazis that land has no sacred significance as their forebears did not come from there

 

[dogman6126]

That's very true. I'm used to working with 5% uncertainty as opposed to .05 %, but I do get what you mean, perhaps you were just using an arbitrary number. I think it is important to not treat the 5% as if it is on equal footing with the 95% because it is less probable. This is not to be confused with "not being true". Conspiracy theorist may take something that is possible, but present it as most likely, which is not the case. If they presented it as a possibility, however unlikely, they would have more credibility because they are recognizing the unlikelihood of their theory. But they don't, they say " this is possible, therefore it could be just as true."

That is a good point about conspiracy theorists. They will portray a possibility as the most likely when it is not. That is a fact of who they are. If the portray the widely accepted belief, then it is no longer a conspiracy theory in most cases

 

[muir]

dang, I may have to change my signature

Give it enough time and i'll be proven right about Bill Gates, the Club of Rome, eugenics and planned parenthood as well

 

[muir]

That is a good point about conspiracy theorists. They will portray a possibility as the most likely when it is not. That is a fact of who they are. If the portray the widely accepted belief, then it is no longer a conspiracy theory in most cases

Examples please or you are just blowing out hot air

 

[dogman6126]

I totally combined probability with percentage! oopsie! My bring is not working! 5% or .05!

as for truth- I think it's works on a grey scale- it's not black or white, at least not for me! And that's where empiricism has it's faults for me- it's very black and white, and I think almost everything is grey - especially when you are dealing with social sciences, or people in general!

In my opinion, the grey that you are talking about comes from the idea of perspective. If you look at something in one light it can appear one way, while looking at it in another light will make it appear another way. However I would not call this the world being in grey. This is just a limitation of our existence and language. The universe exists with many facets and the way you look at something can change the way it is to be described. However, for me I don't think that is where empiracism is at fault. Really I find empiracism all the more effective in decerning truth. If you scientifically prove something, you must also talk about the conditions in which this is true. This is useful in the way that we can discern the way things actually are in that specific case. Its hard because there are so many facets and cases to look at, but we can know that that one piece is correct (we are working in principle here). Now this is useful also because you can look at things on different scales and scintifically discover how they are. However in many cases, these to scales are very different. Macro vs. micro scales never have the same laws in science. Quantum physics and special relativity. Micro and macro economic principles. Even we can see that a single cell is in no way sentient, but a system of trillions of cells is. You could call this layers, but I call this facets of knowledge to be found. It seems to me the grey your talking about comes from this way that when you look at it one way it has one set of rules and another way has different rules. However we can look at all those facets scientifically and learn the way things are.
I think empiricism is deffinately best because of this. As mentioned by someone earlier, if your not looking at things empiracly, then you are relying on conjecture. No longer needing proof which will inevitably lead to error.

 

[say what]

That is a good point about conspiracy theorists. They will portray a possibility as the most likely when it is not. That is a fact of who they are. If the portray the widely accepted belief, then it is no longer a conspiracy theory in most cases

I think there's a fine line here - just because conspiracy theorist say and/or support an idea/possibility, doesn't mean that they think it's the most likely, or are they pushing it on you. I see many of the things posted on here regarding fringe ideas to be more of a "look at this, it might interest you", rather than "THIS IS RIGHT! BELIEVE IT" a lot of it is how you approach the information too. If someone believes in it, how does that impact you? Does it really matter?

When does a conspiracy theory turn into an accepted theory? Saying that they are conspiracist ONLY because they believe in non-widely accepted beliefs diminishes the value in their ideas.

What happens if we find out the conspiracy theories are all right? Are they conspiracy theorists now? Or are they just a select group of people who saw through the BS?

Your line of things assumes conspiracy theorists are all wrong, and there's absolutely no truth in anything that they say.

 

[dogman6126]

Examples please or you are just blowing out hot air

The 2012 end of the world theory about solar flares destroying the Earth. The 2012 end of the world theory about planet/star nibiru. Huge conspiracy of hundreds of scientists all trying to discredit the single scientist Wakefield whome you so strongly support. The list goes on and on.

 

[say what]

In my opinion, the grey that you are talking about comes from the idea of perspective. If you look at something in one light it can appear one way, while looking at it in another light will make it appear another way. However I would not call this the world being in grey. This is just a limitation of our existence and language. The universe exists with many facets and the way you look at something can change the way it is to be described. However, for me I don't think that is where empiracism is at fault. Really I find empiracism all the more effective in decerning truth. If you scientifically prove something, you must also talk about the conditions in which this is true. This is useful in the way that we can discern the way things actually are in that specific case. Its hard because there are so many facets and cases to look at, but we can know that that one piece is correct (we are working in principle here). Now this is useful also because you can look at things on different scales and scintifically discover how they are. However in many cases, these to scales are very different. Macro vs. micro scales never have the same laws in science. Quantum physics and special relativity. Micro and macro economic principles. Even we can see that a single cell is in no way sentient, but a system of trillions of cells is. You could call this layers, but I call this facets of knowledge to be found. It seems to me the grey your talking about comes from this way that when you look at it one way it has one set of rules and another way has different rules. However we can look at all those facets scientifically and learn the way things are.
I think empiricism is deffinately best because of this. As mentioned by someone earlier, if your not looking at things empiracly, then you are relying on conjecture. No longer needing proof which will inevitably lead to error.

empiricism asserts that there is a single and sole truth. What you are describing here, re: multiple perspectives and differences at various levels (e.g., perspectives), is not empiricism. Also, to equate the workings of politics, society, and interpersonal relationships to physics or any hard science that doesn't use human or human interaction, is to disregard the 'perspectives' that you say exist.

Presenting an alternative perspective is not conjecture- it's accepting the subjectivity that is inherent in the world we live in. There can be true opposing facts about the same occurrence- this can't happen in empiricism.