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

[muir]

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.

Well i didn't say the world was going to end..i actually mocked the idea

I'm not going to get into the whole nibiru thing...

I did however support wakefield who said that the combined MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine was overloading the immune system of children, acting as a stressor on their immune systems that leads to fevers that then induce autism

I posted an interesting clip about the origins of AID's here the other day you might find interesting because it shows how scientists often disagree with each other and how one of the worlds leading scientists in the field of vaccines tested the serum of one of the other leading but rival vaccine makers and found it to be contaminated and told him so, but he scoffed at the idea and ignored his warnings

The scientific community then rallied around the scientist when he was accused of creating the AID's virus through his polio vaccines made with serum created from Chimpanzees; the scientific community felt threatened because basically they see themselves as the modern day priesthood and they were terrified that the public might lose faith in them if they were found to be fallible so they covered up their errors

It kind of reminded me of the recent film 'divergence' where society is split into factions of different personality types with the scientific types being one (they're a bit haughty and arrogant and basically lose the plot and start trying to take over all the other factions probably because they're labouring under some misconceoption that they have some mechanism for viewing the world that is superior to any other)

The other interesting thing is how the scientists circle the wagons hiding behind what they call the 'facts' but which as @say what demostrated above can be twisted for example the vaccines were made from a single bottles sent out to regional stations where they would be bulked up with serum created from local breeds of monkey/ape

So even though the initial bottle might be flawless the bulking up process could then introduce flaws. So their 'fact's were only good as far as they had ALL of them which people rarely do

Intuitive journalists who could sense that there was a connection between the polio vaccine and the AID's outbreaks tried to dig into the scientific 'facts' to find the link whilst the scientists tried to cover their tracks, claiming a superior position to the non-scientific but nonetheless insightful journalists

It's here and is a very compelling (if sickening) story:

[video=youtube;LZs1V8mpcoY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZs1V8mpcoY[/video]

I think whats important here is to realsie that different people have different levels if understanding and that to lump all conspiracy theorists together is a big mistake because some will be bang on the money, some will be talking ill informed nonsense and some witll be outright dissinfo agents

So take each theory and each theorist as they come

 

[dogman6126]

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?

You are right. It would be easier to let it be, but I hate it when missinformation is being spread. In some of my conversations, with some of those who follow conspiracy thoeries on this thread, after much questioning, you find out that some of those people do think themselves absolutly correct and in fact accept no new evidence if it contradicts their perspective. Also, if a thread is started that includes one of their conspiracy theories, they do assert there perspective as correct. That would be ok with me, but what drives me up a wall is these people are reasonable or convincing enough to get other people to agree with a false perspecitve. Often times these perspectives instill fear and misstrust in the world and those around them that they are supposed to trust. That is harmefull in my opinion. This will inevitably lead to conflict.

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.

As for when you might say it turns into an accepted theory, well it seems to me it is an accepted theory if either it is accepted by a vast majority of those qualified in the matter. For example, the vaccines debate from another thread. If the vast majority of doctors (at least those in the realm of research) agreed that vaccines where toxic, then it would be an accepted theory. The same idea would apply to other conspiracy theories.

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?

This would depend on the definition of conspiracy theory. If we mean it as a theory where a conspiracy is at work, then yes it would still be a conspiracy theory. If we mean it as a theory that is accepted by a fringe of our society, then it would no longer be a conspiracy theory if it where to come to be true. But this point is a hypothetical argument and therefore hardly proof to say that conspiracy theories are right. Let me refrase that, it was awkward word choice. Just because it could be right does not prove that it is right.

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

Sorry, I think you missunderstand. There are infact a few conspiracy theories of which I do agree have some merit. None of which are exactly what the conspiracy theory itself says, but some of them have some very accurate ideas in them. however to find out they are accurate, you have to do your own research. The place that talks about the conspiracy theory never has any real proof that they are correct in my experience.

 

[jimtaylor]

Conspiracy theory is an interesting area of thought in general and has some validity if only for the simple reason, “History is written by the victors.” My issue with conspiracy theory and theorists is that I have found that they often get full of themselves. They think they see the only truth and because their truth is far more complicated and diabolical, it is superior to a more simple truth. One of their thoughts is proven correct and suddenly their ego is so inflated that they began to shut out any other possibilities than their own convoluted and complex realities. They become as close minded as the ones they think are closed off to the “truth”.

They often argue that anyone who doesn’t see things as this ever evolving complicated web of deceit is either blind or stupid, which is asinine. The points brought up are often brilliant and could be accurate but I think they take it too far more often than not. They try to make it more complicated and more connected than it actually is.

For example: There is no doubt that within the US we have altered our food. We have pumped it full of all these different things. Some good, some bad. All of this in the attempt to feed an ever growing population or has it been done to make everyone fat and dependent upon a system?

I think the more simple explanation is that people are greedy. It is not always the case but typically the more food you can grow, the more you can sell it. The fewer crops you are losing to bugs, famine and any other natural deficiencies, the better your profits are going to be. Sure, that pesticide probably isn’t the best thing for people but the damage it does in the immediate is minimal. People think like this all the time. They don’t see the immediate consequences or they see them as minimal so they don’t care. What is worse, dying now of starvation or dying 30 years from now because of heart failure caused by obesity? Ask any starving person and I am pretty sure they would all choose the additional 30 years of eating crap versus dying now.

 

[dogman6126]

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.

What I'm talking about is that you might have a different answer to a different question where the situation is the same. Heres an example of what I mean. You can look at a single molecule. That molecule is doing a single thing at that point at that time. Now you can look at the electrons in that molecule at that same point at that same time, but your answer will be different. Same is true for the protons and the neutrons. But while what each of the constituant parts are doing something different than the whole, Each of the parts added together equals the whole. But you also raise a good point in the difference between the, as you call them, "hard sciences" and the social sciences. When you add, lets call it a human element, things change. This is like i was talking about another facet. However this facet is very complicated. I wonder if this is an inherrently unpredictable facet, but that doesn't mean its not understandable. Now before I go off on a very long tanget about the philosophy of humans as I see it, let me just say it short and sweet that its to complicated to say one way or the other. It's possible that it is entirely predictable. Its also possible that it is entirely unpredictable. At this point I suppose I'm more talking about a cause and effect and to assert an idea about reality you should prove it in some way that shows this cause and effect. I doubt I described that effectively. So I guess your right, thats not really exactly like empiricism. I think I'm just having a problem using this proper term as I have not exaclty studied it and we are relating it to a human element which complicates EVERYTHING. I'm sure everyone here agrees with that, lol

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.

Its not conjecture if the alternate perspective actually has reliable evidence for its point. I would say if you have opposing facts in the same occurrence, then the way you came about those opposing facts is inherrently incorrect. Either one or the other is correct or neither, but never both. However i must stress this means you have to be very specific of the point you are describing. Science often runs into a difficulty of not being specifric enough of the situation they are describing. Thats why science must accept add ons as our knowledge expands and we can see better these different facets.

 

[muir]

Conspiracy theory is an interesting area of thought in general and has some validity if only for the simple reason, “History is written by the victors.” My issue with conspiracy theory and theorists is that I have found that they often get full of themselves. They think they see the only truth and because their truth is far more complicated and diabolical, it is superior to a more simple truth. One of their thoughts is proven correct and suddenly their ego is so inflated that they began to shut out any other possibilities than their own convoluted and complex realities. They become as close minded as the ones they think are closed off to the “truth”.

All that matters is what is true

They often argue that anyone who doesn’t see things as this ever evolving complicated web of deceit is either blind or stupid, which is asinine. The points brought up are often brilliant and could be accurate but I think they take it too far more often than not. They try to make it more complicated and more connected than it actually is.

When they are being called insane and stupid for speaking the truth is it not a bit understandable that they might get a bit defencive?

For example: There is no doubt that within the US we have altered our food. We have pumped it full of all these different things. Some good, some bad. All of this in the attempt to feed an ever growing population or has it been done to make everyone fat and dependent upon a system?

Why has the population grown anyway?

There is a group of powerful people and they pass their wealth onto their children. These people control your political system. They do not want to change anything about the system because they want to stay on top so problems that occur are never dealth with but rather swept under the carpet

They profit from the exploitation of the worlds resources and their place at the top of the pile depends on keeping everyone else down

So there are a number of things going on there. Yes they control the corporations so they want people dependent on the corporations as then they are more easily controlled; people are less likely to bite the hand that feeds them

In my country we have had tensions between the classes for a thousand years. Your country was created when some people threw off the control of the British upper classes (but they eventually wrestled control back again)

The song below describes a time in the 1600's when some common folk called 'the diggers' took over the common lands and began digging them up and planting crops for everyone. They were of course violently suppressed by the land owning class but the issue over how resources are managed continues to this day and now in the US you have protestors chanting ''down with the 1%''

Did we really need to use carcinogenic pesticides or could we have managed land in a fairer way that would have stabilised the population and avoied the polluting of the biosphere...

[video=youtube;8hw-KPpCG-A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hw-KPpCG-A[/video]

I think the more simple explanation is that people are greedy.

No most people don't have much because a small number of greedy people have taken it all...that's the problem

It is not always the case but typically the more food you can grow, the more you can sell it. The fewer crops you are losing to bugs, famine and any other natural deficiencies, the better your profits are going to be.

That's a very capitalistic way of thinking about things. A person could quite reasonably ask why we need 'profits'?

Do you know what happens when they try to increase yeilds? If you take dairy cows for example they give them steroids and they make heavy demands on the cows which affects their health leading to infection which they then give the cows antibiotics for which then get into the milk and lower the effectiveness of anti-biotics on the public who then become susceptible to superbugs; also the quality of the milk is driven down lestening its health benefits for the people drinking it....its a completely false economy

Its the same with land...you mistreat soil and you destroy it (eg desertification). pestcides and herbicides leech into the water supply affecting aquatic life and the humans that interact with that life and the water...once again a totally false economy

Its unsustainable but the people at the top do not want to consider other methods because they want to maintain DOMINANCE

Sure, that pesticide probably isn’t the best thing for people but the damage it does in the immediate is minimal. People think like this all the time. They don’t see the immediate consequences or they see them as minimal so they don’t care. What is worse, dying now of starvation or dying 30 years from now because of heart failure caused by obesity? Ask any starving person and I am pretty sure they would all choose the additional 30 years of eating crap versus dying now.

People don't need to die of starvation they need to live sustainably and that requires a change in the system which is always violently blocked by the powers that be

The current system however does lead to famines, poverty and starvation and more and more people are reliant on food banks and we will at some point see food riots

The system doesn't work and the people who run it are not to be trusted

 

[dogman6126]

Well i didn't say the world was going to end..i actually mocked the idea

I'm not going to get into the whole nibiru thing...

I did however support wakefield who said that the combined MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine was overloading the immune system of children, acting as a stressor on their immune systems that leads to fevers that then induce autism

I was trying not to relate it to you muir. I was talking about conspiracy theories in general. Those first two are the best example I had because we have without any doubt proved them to be incorrect. However with the autism thing, its you said vaccines are toxic. Thats your general statement. And you have changed what you say is the reason from immune overload to mercury to aluminum. However what you said isn't even remotly similar to what wakefield was talking about. The only thing what you just said and what wakefield said was that you both think the MMR vaccine causes autism.

I posted an interesting clip about the origins of AID's here the other day you might find interesting because it shows how scientists often disagree with each other and how one of the worlds leading scientists in the field of vaccines tested the serum of one of the other leading but rival vaccine makers and found it to be contaminated and told him so, but he scoffed at the idea and ignored his warnings

The scientific community then rallied around the scientist when he was accused of creating the AID's virus through his polio vaccines made with serum created from Chimpanzees; the scientific community felt threatened because basically they see themselves as the modern day priesthood and they were terrified that the public might lose faith in them if they were found to be fallible so they covered up their errors

Have you considered that there might be another cause of the AIDS virus rather than this conspiracy? I personally agree with the man had sex with a monkey story, and yes that was a joke. I'm not going to spend the hours refuting each point like I usually do. I'm just going to take a leaf out of your book and just hit the nice pretty copy and paste button and be on my merry way.....

Debunked: The Polio Vaccine and HIV Link

The Historical Medical Library of The College of Physicians of Philadelphia
Hilary Koprowski, MD
EnlargeFootage courtesy of The Vaccine Makers projectBelgian Congo OPV tests
000331,000368When the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) was discovered in the 1980s, people immediately wondered where it had come from and how it had found its way into humans. One conjecture that arose in the 1990s put the blame for HIV on a public health measure: a polio vaccine.

In the late 1950s, several different groups of researchers were developing vaccines against polio, which at the time was still epidemic worldwide. One of these vaccines, developed by Hilary Koprowski, MD (1916-2013), was used in trials in Africa, after first being tested in the United States. The vaccine virus was grown in tissue cultures taken from macaque monkeys before being administered to about a million people in Burundi, Rwanda, and what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

In 1992, Rolling Stone magazine published a story that discussed Koprowski’s oral polio vaccine (OPV) as a possible source of HIV and, in turn, the AIDS epidemic. Koprowski sued Rolling Stone and the writer of the article, and the magazine issued a clarification statement in December 1993, saying (in part)

The editors of Rolling Stone wish to clarify that they never intended to suggest in the article that there is any scientific proof, nor do they know of any scientific proof, that Dr. Koprowski, an illustrious scientist, was in fact responsible for introducing AIDS to the human population or that he is the father of AIDS…. Dr. Koprowski's pioneering work in developing polio vaccines has helped spare suffering and death to hundreds of thousands of potential victims of paralytic poliomyelitis and is perhaps one of his greatest contributions in a lifetime of high and widely recognized achievements.

Rolling Stone’s clarification notwithstanding, journalist Edward Hooper wrote a book called The River: A Journey to the Source of HIV and AIDS in 1999, based on the conjecture about an OPV/HIV link. Hooper argued that the animal cells used to culture the vaccine virus were kidney cells from chimpanzees local to where the vaccine was used, and that those chimpanzees had been infected with Simian Immunodeficiency Virus. According to Hooper, a vaccine made in such a cell culture would lead to human infection with HIV.

Although Hooper’s claims were widely publicized, evidence does not support (and in some cases directly contradicts) the idea of a link between OPV and HIV.

First, leftover stocks of the polio vaccine in question were examined by independent laboratories, and were confirmed to have been made using monkey cells—not chimpanzee cells, as Hooper had claimed. Furthermore, none was contaminated with HIV or SIV. This data reinforces the vaccine developers’ statements that only monkey cells, not chimpanzee cells, were used in producing the vaccine.

Second, a 2004 study published in Nature found that the strain of SIV affecting chimpanzees in the area where Hooper claimed vaccine had been prepared using chimpanzee cells was genetically distinct from HIV strains. This refuted Hooper’s claims from yet another angle: even if SIV-infected chimpanzee cells from that area had been used to make the vaccine, they could not have been the source of HIV.

Epidemiological studies also highlight a serious problem with Hooper’s claims of an OPV/HIV link: HIV-1 (the first of two known species of HIV, more infective and virulent than the second, HIV-2) was likely introduced to humans prior to 1940, and in a completely different part of Africa than the location of the polio vaccine trial, probably via infected chimpanzees in Cameroon. The Congo vaccine trials took place in the late 1950s—at least a decade after HIV had begun spreading in humans, and probably longer, according to more recent estimates (Worobey 2008). The vaccine could not have been the source of a virus that had already been infecting humans for many years.

Hooper, for his part, stands by his claims and alleges an organized cover-up, but his argument has largely been relegated to the status of a debunked conspiracy theory. Yet even though his claims have not been found to have merit, they have still managed to damage global efforts to eradicate polio. Rumors of the current oral polio vaccine having been intentionally contaminated with drugs to cause sterility and “viruses which are known to cause HIV and AIDS” led to local refusals to accept the vaccine in parts of Africa. It’s likely that these rumors are related to the original OPV/HIV accusations. Partially as a result of these refusals, polio flared back up in parts of Africa after vaccination had led to positive steps toward eradication.

It kind of reminded me of the recent film 'divergence' where society is split into factions of different personality types with the scientific types being one (they're a bit haughty and arrogant and basically lose the plot and start trying to take over all the other factions probably because they're labouring under some misconceoption that they have some mechanism for viewing the world that is superior to any other)

The other interesting thing is how the scientists circle the wagons hiding behind what they call the 'facts' but which as @say what demostrated above can be twisted for example the vaccines were made from a single bottles sent out to regional stations where they would be bulked up with serum created from local breeds of monkey/ape

So even though the initial bottle might be flawless the bulking up process could then introduce flaws. So their 'fact's were only good as far as they had ALL of them which people rarely do

Intuitive journalists who could sense that there was a connection between the polio vaccine and the AID's outbreaks tried to dig into the scientific 'facts' to find the link whilst the scientists tried to cover their tracks, claiming a superior position to the non-scientific but nonetheless insightful journalists

It's here and is a very compelling (if sickening) story:

[video=youtube;LZs1V8mpcoY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZs1V8mpcoY[/video]

I think whats important here is to realsie that different people have different levels if understanding and that to lump all conspiracy theorists together is a big mistake because some will be bang on the money, some will be talking ill informed nonsense and some witll be outright dissinfo agents

So take each theory and each theorist as they come

You do make a fair statement in your last 3 lines. Everyone is different. Just as some scientists (like wakefield) will cheat, some conspiracy theorists will be right. This may be a minority, but it is unfair to those or others to group them with the majority. However muir, you have shown us all that you are not in that minority, at least not with the majority of what you say. A few things I agree with to an extent, but I almost never agree with your logic to prove it.

 

[muir]

I was trying not to relate it to you muir. I was talking about conspiracy theories in general. Those first two are the best example I had because we have without any doubt proved them to be incorrect.

I think the solar flare issue is still in play as are the annunaki....

However with the autism thing, its you said vaccines are toxic. Thats your general statement. And you have changed what you say is the reason from immune overload to mercury to aluminum.

No i haven't changed ANYTHING i have always said that there are harmful components within the vaccines...i have mentioned BOTH thimerosol AND aluminium as harmful components

However what you said isn't even remotly similar to what wakefield was talking about. The only thing what you just said and what wakefield said was that you both think the MMR vaccine causes autism.

I repeat: I supported wakefeild but i am going further than him in that he didn't say to avoid the vaccines he only said to take them seperately whereas i'm saying even the seperate vaccines contain harmful components

Have you considered that there might be another cause of the AIDS virus rather than this conspiracy? I personally agree with the man had sex with a monkey story, and yes that was a joke. I'm not going to spend the hours refuting each point like I usually do. I'm just going to take a leaf out of your book and just hit the nice pretty copy and paste button and be on my merry way.....

Debunked: The Polio Vaccine and HIV Link

The Historical Medical Library of The College of Physicians of Philadelphia
Hilary Koprowski, MD
EnlargeFootage courtesy of The Vaccine Makers projectBelgian Congo OPV tests
000331,000368When the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) was discovered in the 1980s, people immediately wondered where it had come from and how it had found its way into humans. One conjecture that arose in the 1990s put the blame for HIV on a public health measure: a polio vaccine.

In the late 1950s, several different groups of researchers were developing vaccines against polio, which at the time was still epidemic worldwide. One of these vaccines, developed by Hilary Koprowski, MD (1916-2013), was used in trials in Africa, after first being tested in the United States. The vaccine virus was grown in tissue cultures taken from macaque monkeys before being administered to about a million people in Burundi, Rwanda, and what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

In 1992, Rolling Stone magazine published a story that discussed Koprowski’s oral polio vaccine (OPV) as a possible source of HIV and, in turn, the AIDS epidemic. Koprowski sued Rolling Stone and the writer of the article, and the magazine issued a clarification statement in December 1993, saying (in part)

The editors of Rolling Stone wish to clarify that they never intended to suggest in the article that there is any scientific proof, nor do they know of any scientific proof, that Dr. Koprowski, an illustrious scientist, was in fact responsible for introducing AIDS to the human population or that he is the father of AIDS…. Dr. Koprowski's pioneering work in developing polio vaccines has helped spare suffering and death to hundreds of thousands of potential victims of paralytic poliomyelitis and is perhaps one of his greatest contributions in a lifetime of high and widely recognized achievements.

Rolling Stone’s clarification notwithstanding, journalist Edward Hooper wrote a book called The River: A Journey to the Source of HIV and AIDS in 1999, based on the conjecture about an OPV/HIV link. Hooper argued that the animal cells used to culture the vaccine virus were kidney cells from chimpanzees local to where the vaccine was used, and that those chimpanzees had been infected with Simian Immunodeficiency Virus. According to Hooper, a vaccine made in such a cell culture would lead to human infection with HIV.

Although Hooper’s claims were widely publicized, evidence does not support (and in some cases directly contradicts) the idea of a link between OPV and HIV.

First, leftover stocks of the polio vaccine in question were examined by independent laboratories, and were confirmed to have been made using monkey cells—not chimpanzee cells, as Hooper had claimed. Furthermore, none was contaminated with HIV or SIV. This data reinforces the vaccine developers’ statements that only monkey cells, not chimpanzee cells, were used in producing the vaccine.

Second, a 2004 study published in Nature found that the strain of SIV affecting chimpanzees in the area where Hooper claimed vaccine had been prepared using chimpanzee cells was genetically distinct from HIV strains. This refuted Hooper’s claims from yet another angle: even if SIV-infected chimpanzee cells from that area had been used to make the vaccine, they could not have been the source of HIV.

Epidemiological studies also highlight a serious problem with Hooper’s claims of an OPV/HIV link: HIV-1 (the first of two known species of HIV, more infective and virulent than the second, HIV-2) was likely introduced to humans prior to 1940, and in a completely different part of Africa than the location of the polio vaccine trial, probably via infected chimpanzees in Cameroon. The Congo vaccine trials took place in the late 1950s—at least a decade after HIV had begun spreading in humans, and probably longer, according to more recent estimates (Worobey 2008). The vaccine could not have been the source of a virus that had already been infecting humans for many years.

Hooper, for his part, stands by his claims and alleges an organized cover-up, but his argument has largely been relegated to the status of a debunked conspiracy theory. Yet even though his claims have not been found to have merit, they have still managed to damage global efforts to eradicate polio. Rumors of the current oral polio vaccine having been intentionally contaminated with drugs to cause sterility and “viruses which are known to cause HIV and AIDS” led to local refusals to accept the vaccine in parts of Africa. It’s likely that these rumors are related to the original OPV/HIV accusations. Partially as a result of these refusals, polio flared back up in parts of Africa after vaccination had led to positive steps toward eradication.

All that is discussed in the film and more which i recommend you watch if you want to get a more complete picture

You do make a fair statement in your last 3 lines. Everyone is different. Just as some scientists (like wakefield) will cheat, some conspiracy theorists will be right. This may be a minority, but it is unfair to those or others to group them with the majority. However muir, you have shown us all that you are not in that minority, at least not with the majority of what you say. A few things I agree with to an extent, but I almost never agree with your logic to prove it.

No i have been proven right again and again and that will continue to happen

So far you have been shown to be incorrect on the flouride issue and that will continue to happen with all these issues until you are able to see through the BS

 

[say what]

That would be ok with me, but what drives me up a wall is these people are reasonable or convincing enough to get other people to agree with a false perspecitve. Often times these perspectives instill fear and misstrust in the world and those around them that they are supposed to trust. That is harmefull in my opinion. This will inevitably lead to conflict.

Fear and mistrust often comes with a lack of knowledge, and I doubt that anyone on this level of discussion would become harmed. On the flipside, there's many instances throughout history where popular opinion actually harmed people-

For years it was of popular opinion that smoking was good for you- know we know it's not.

Or how about the use of cocaine:

Things are much different now since research on the short and longterm impact of drugs is more available, but the fact is that popular opinion can, and has, been wrong. I think the fundamental premise of conspiracy theorists is to not just passively accept popular opinion- which also means, do not passively accept non-popular opinion. The idea is to become informed and asked questions. Yes there are grades to everything and there will be people who push more to the left or right, but the fundamental idea of it all is to ask questions and become informed.

As for when you might say it turns into an accepted theory, well it seems to me it is an accepted theory if either it is accepted by a vast majority of those qualified in the matter. For example, the vaccines debate from another thread. If the vast majority of doctors (at least those in the realm of research) agreed that vaccines where toxic, then it would be an accepted theory. The same idea would apply to other conspiracy theories.

Having worked in academics long enough, I know that there are great scientists who are qualified, but their research doesn't get published because it goes against the stream. Take the file drawer effect- this is where non-significant research (so we're talking about testing something and it not having an effect) doesn't get published. Some might say "so, that doesn't tell us anything" but null results are just as important as significant results. Follow this further, you can then see how the stream of evidence which is out there (that is published, because 'non-published' isn't deemed 'credible' or 'scientific') is predisposed to bias. Science is flawed in the way that it's always looking for a 'significant' effect- this impacts peoples' careers, their choice of studies, how they handle data, how they report data, etc. This is why, even evidence published in highly esteemed journals needs to be questioned, and why evidence in very obscured publications should be considered.

This would depend on the definition of conspiracy theory. If we mean it as a theory where a conspiracy is at work, then yes it would still be a conspiracy theory. If we mean it as a theory that is accepted by a fringe of our society, then it would no longer be a conspiracy theory if it where to come to be true. But this point is a hypothetical argument and therefore hardly proof to say that conspiracy theories are right. Let me refrase that, it was awkward word choice. Just because it could be right does not prove that it is right.

I guess this is where I get confused, what is the difference between a 'conspiracy' and 'fringe' theory? I suppose I've been misusing them, as I've figured they were interchangeable.

Sorry, I think you missunderstand. There are infact a few conspiracy theories of which I do agree have some merit. None of which are exactly what the conspiracy theory itself says, but some of them have some very accurate ideas in them. however to find out they are accurate, you have to do your own research. The place that talks about the conspiracy theory never has any real proof that they are correct in my experience.

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 see these two points to be in conflict. It might be how I'm reading it, but it just seems like that to me.

 

[say what]

What I'm talking about is that you might have a different answer to a different question where the situation is the same. Heres an example of what I mean. You can look at a single molecule. That molecule is doing a single thing at that point at that time. Now you can look at the electrons in that molecule at that same point at that same time, but your answer will be different. Same is true for the protons and the neutrons. But while what each of the constituant parts are doing something different than the whole, Each of the parts added together equals the whole. But you also raise a good point in the difference between the, as you call them, "hard sciences" and the social sciences. When you add, lets call it a human element, things change. This is like i was talking about another facet. However this facet is very complicated. I wonder if this is an inherrently unpredictable facet, but that doesn't mean its not understandable. Now before I go off on a very long tanget about the philosophy of humans as I see it, let me just say it short and sweet that its to complicated to say one way or the other. It's possible that it is entirely predictable. Its also possible that it is entirely unpredictable. At this point I suppose I'm more talking about a cause and effect and to assert an idea about reality you should prove it in some way that shows this cause and effect. I doubt I described that effectively. So I guess your right, thats not really exactly like empiricism. I think I'm just having a problem using this proper term as I have not exaclty studied it and we are relating it to a human element which complicates EVERYTHING. I'm sure everyone here agrees with that, lol




Its not conjecture if the alternate perspective actually has reliable evidence for its point. I would say if you have opposing facts in the same occurrence, then the way you came about those opposing facts is inherrently incorrect. Either one or the other is correct or neither, but never both. However i must stress this means you have to be very specific of the point you are describing. Science often runs into a difficulty of not being specifric enough of the situation they are describing. Thats why science must accept add ons as our knowledge expands and we can see better these different facets.

Fair enough. I'm not saying I'm any expert of this, it's just I have watched myself journey from being an empiricist/postivist within my own work, to moving to a very pragmatic POV which boarders on constructivism. This shift has wholly impacted my work and the way I view the world as a social and health scientist. I know many people that rely and praise the scientific method and empiricism, so I value it as a perspective. But I just think it become hypocritical and contradictory when you begin to study humans.

In fact, when I read

Either one or the other is correct or neither, but never both.

I was transported back to one of my scientific method courses where my professor was teaching us about the qualitative paradigm...I'm pretty sure what you said was in my head.

Not sure if you're interested and not to seem like I'm tooting anything, but if you're interested in science and epistomologies, you might want to consider these pieces (one of them I couldn't find a free version of a pdf)

http://ro.ecu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1257&context=ajte

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2106514?uid=3739432&uid=2&uid=3737720&uid=4&sid=21104513739183

http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/pub/fos/pdf/glasersfeld.pdf

 

[jimtaylor]

All that matters is what is true

Indeed, but who knows 100% what is true. You? Sorry, I don’t think so. I don’t think any one individual in the course of history has known what is true. In fact some of the most brilliant individuals the world has ever known admit that what is more important than knowledge, is realizing you don’t have a clue. The Kings, Rulers, Emperors, Pharaohs, Dictators, Presidents, etc… of the world who have led with iron fists and manipulation, didn’t know what is true. They only knew what they believed was true.

People always think what they think is “true”. You bring up good points and solid evidence for certain things but are they the complete truth? I don’t know. I think they are the other side of the coin, the other side of the story. They are just one piece of the puzzle. It doesn’t make them wrong, made up or false but they are not always the “truth”.

when they are being called insane and stupid for speaking the truth is it not a bit understandable that they might get a bit defencive?

So one close minded idiot deserves another? “Brilliant spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” The only reason anybody would get upset for being called out about their ideas or thoughts would be because they are looking for them to be justified and confirmed by others. If it is true, it matters not what others think.

Why has the population grown anyway?

There is a group of powerful people and they pass their wealth onto their children. These people control your political system. They do not want to change anything about the system because they want to stay on top so problems that occur are never dealth with but rather swept under the carpet

They profit from the exploitation of the worlds resources and their place at the top of the pile depends on keeping everyone else down

So there are a number of things going on there. Yes they control the corporations so they want people dependent on the corporations as then they are more easily controlled; people are less likely to bite the hand that feeds them

In my country we have had tensions between the classes for a thousand years. Your country was created when some people threw off the control of the British upper classes (but they eventually wrestled control back again)

The song below describes a time in the 1600's when some common folk called 'the diggers' took over the common lands and began digging them up and planting crops for everyone. They were of course violently suppressed by the land owning class but the issue over how resources are managed continues to this day and now in the US you have protestors chanting ''down with the 1%''

Did we really need to use carcinogenic pesticides or could we have managed land in a fairer way that would have stabilised the population and avoied the polluting of the biosphere...

Well yeah… What else is new? How is this different from any other point in the entire history of civilization? This is evident in the animal kingdom too. We can argue all day of whether it is moral or right but the truth is that it has been going on since humans stopped living in small tribes and starting forming societies. Has it ever been different? In small examples; yes, but once society reaches a certain threshold, every system tried results in the same outcome. So you say the current system is a failure but so is every system tried to this date.

Every time the 1% or the elite have been deposed, they are just replaced with a new 1%, a new elite. One that has won over the masses so that they can be the ones on top. Greed.

No most people don't have much because a small number of greedy people have taken it all...that's the problem

You are right most people don’t have much but that isn’t the problem. The problem is that they have been convinced that they need that much to be happy and to live fulfilling lives. I don’t know about you but I don’t need 30 cars and a palace to be happy.

That's a very capitalistic way of thinking about things. A person could quite reasonably ask why we need 'profits'?

I never said we needed them but it would be stupid to ignore that as a driving factor. Capitalism is real therefore it would be crazy to ignore it as a powerful driver.

The current system however does lead to famines, poverty and starvation and more and more people are reliant on food banks and we will at some point see food riots

Every system has… As I pointed out before. Every system we have tried has led to this result. Capitalism, communism, imperialism, federalism, etc… The reason why? There is always a group of people who want more than equality. There is always a group of people who want to be on top. There is always that kid who wants more candy than everybody else, not because they need it but because they want it.

 

[muir]

Indeed, but who knows 100% what is true. You? Sorry, I don’t think so.

If you read what i posted above about the puzzle analogy i'm very clear on this....i said i have found enough pieces to the puzzle to have a good idea of the wider picture but neither i nor anyone else has all the pieces....even the conspirators don't have all the pieces

I don’t think any one individual in the course of history has known what is true. In fact some of the most brilliant individuals the world has ever known admit that what is more important than knowledge, is realizing you don’t have a clue. The Kings, Rulers, Emperors, Pharaohs, Dictators, Presidents, etc… of the world who have led with iron fists and manipulation, didn’t know what is true. They only knew what they believed was true.

Well there are different kinds of knowing. These days we are mostly literate and have the internet and have more information at our finger tips than previous generations but then there is a spiritual knowing.

A peasant living out a simple life on the land who is happy and who hurts no one may arguably be more spiritually evolved than the most sophisticated urbanite who can tell you a load of facts they have memorised from countless sources but who feels empty inside

People always think what they think is “true”. You bring up good points and solid evidence for certain things but are they the complete truth? I don’t know. I think they are the other side of the coin, the other side of the story. They are just one piece of the puzzle. It doesn’t make them wrong, made up or false but they are not always the “truth”.

There are objective facts for example we know that certain people said certain things at certain times because they have been recorded but then there are subjective things

Ghandi said to keep speaking the truth even if you are the only one doing it; so when copernicus said that the sun was at the centre of the universe and everyone called him crazy for saying it he was in fact correct even when 'conventional wisdom' said otherwise

Then things become more complicated with people where you deal with unquantifiables. So for example someone could say: ''look capitalism is working because no one is starving in our society''

However someone else could counter that by saying that ''at the moment no one is starving but many are in poverty, many are dependent on food banks and many are unhealthy and unhappy and therefore the current system could be argued to not be successful''

So then it becomes an issue of how you measure health and happiness. Some people are more adept and getting to grips with such abstract things than others and some poeple are naturally good barometers of such forces in society

There is some objective data you could try and use for example by looking a the level of consumption of anti-deppressants and so on but even that is only a guide

So i guess to improve our accuracy we need to get as much information from as many sources as possible to build as full a picture as possible

So one close minded idiot deserves another? “Brilliant spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” The only reason anybody would get upset for being called out about their ideas or thoughts would be because they are looking for them to be justified and confirmed by others. If it is true, it matters not what others think.

All i was trying to do was balance out your accusation that conspiracy theorists sometimes call others dumb for not grasping what they're saying by pointing out that in terms of abuse the conspiracy theorists get far more than goes in the oppositie direction; so if you're going to criticise ct's for insulting people perhaps in the name of objectivity you could recognise that most of the abuse is directed AT conspiracy theorists

There is actually a further dimension to such behaviours though which is to consider the 'tough love' approach which sometimes works better for some hard headed people; sometimes they need a little jolt. ultimately however the effect is the most important thing and if the person can see what is being explained and tune into the wavelength of the other person then all previous tensions are forgiven as simpy the birth pains of a cognitive leap forward

Well yeah… What else is new? How is this different from any other point in the entire history of civilization? This is evident in the animal kingdom too. We can argue all day of whether it is moral or right but the truth is that it has been going on since humans stopped living in small tribes and starting forming societies. Has it ever been different? In small examples; yes, but once society reaches a certain threshold, every system tried results in the same outcome. So you say the current system is a failure but so is every system tried to this date.

No some system work

This period of 'civilisation' is very new in our evolution and unfortunately each generation of the el-ite have passed down the knowledge of control to the next generation so we have not yet been able to overcome this current unstable and imbalanced paradigm

Every time the 1% or the elite have been deposed, they are just replaced with a new 1%, a new elite.

Well that's because the same cabal have been making all the plays but i do think that replacing one el-ite with another is pointless...it needs a paradigm shift in terms of how we all interact with each other and how we share the resources around

One that has won over the masses so that they can be the ones on top. Greed.

Well its a greed for power. Not everyone is infected with that sickness at least not to those kind of extremes.

I think we should as a society consider what kind of people they are that do push so hungrily for power

You are right most people don’t have much but that isn’t the problem. The problem is that they have been convinced that they need that much to be happy and to live fulfilling lives. I don’t know about you but I don’t need 30 cars and a palace to be happy.

Nope i don't need that...nobody needs that but some egos need that and that's the problem

There is a culture of entitlement amongst the ruling class where by they believe that they have a right to own everything an make all the big decisions. They believe they are superior and they give themselves the best education and health care and opportunities as a way to entrench their perceived superiority

I never said we needed them but it would be stupid to ignore that as a driving factor. Capitalism is real therefore it would be crazy to ignore it as a powerful driver.

Capitalism is simply a software for running the game

The guys at the top use fascism, capitalism, communism, consmuerism and anything else they can to keep epople divided and fighting amongst themselves

Every system has… As I pointed out before. Every system we have tried has led to this result. Capitalism, communism, imperialism, federalism, etc… The reason why? There is always a group of people who want more than equality. There is always a group of people who want to be on top. There is always that kid who wants more candy than everybody else, not because they need it but because they want it.

It's that X factor....that drive to power that fascinates many conspiracy theorists.

You won't hear people discussing that in the mainstream media. You have to look to the alternative media to find people digging into that looking for answers

And there are some pretty interesting ideas out there. I have to go to bed now so i can't explore them in this post but perhaps in another one!

But yes...that is where the real interest lies i agree...in asking: 'why'?

 

[jimtaylor]

It's that X factor....that drive to power that fascinates many conspiracy theorists.

You won't hear people discussing that in the mainstream media. You have to look to the alternative media to find people digging into that looking for answers

And there are some pretty interesting ideas out there. I have to go to bed now so i can't explore them in this post but perhaps in another one!

But yes...that is where the real interest lies i agree...in asking: 'why'?

Your right, "Why" is the important question, not "how" or "when". I could, as we have both done, go into a very long detailed breakdown of your post. None of which I think is wrong or out in left-field but it can be summed up more simply than that. Conspiracy theorists often lose credibility because they forget the why and they focus on the how and when. They bring up false-flag schemes, media controlling our minds, the central bank intentionally destroying the economy, etc… All of which may have valid points to them but are beyond what the majority of people care about or want to understand. Not that they can’t understand but they have more immediate concerns like getting their kid to school on time.

Nobody is ever going to listen or follow someone who makes them feel stupid. People follow those that inspire them, those that they can identify with and relate to. You can shout the truth all day long and have all the evidence in the world and still people will not see it because unless it is simple and easy for them to understand, they will not try to. So it is not only important to know “why” the world is the way it is or “why” people strive for power. It is equally important to know “why” you give a shit. It is important to know “why” you want to help other people see the truth. If you don’t know those things, you’re just another crazy preacher on the corner shouting bull shit.

There are things we know, evidence that is true. Like for example 2+2=4. I can deny it all day long but it doesn’t make it less true. Then we have more complicated things like society and people which aren’t that black and white. How do you not know that the reason why the elite has ruled over us for so long isn’t because without them, society crumbles? There are examples of that as well. It hasn’t always been the same elite ruling either. New elites rise and fall. How do you know that the reason they don’t utilize natural resources better is because they know the world is limited and to sustain humanity as long as possible requires them to sacrifice lives?

It might be a bad example but I remember watching a show about sea turtles when I was a kid. They lay their eggs at the edge of the beach. When those eggs hatch the baby turtles have to find their way back to the ocean. Along the way, predators eat them and most die. The camera crews could have easily saved all of them. But what would be the consequences? Are they the cruel elite who could have saved all those baby turtles, only to doom an ocean ecosystem?

History is full of examples of us trying to create equality, trying to better the standard of living, only to result in further destruction. There are examples of the leading elite trying to change things in a way that they think will make everybody happier. It has never been sustainable. It has led to overpopulation, destruction of ecosystems, mass differences in wealth, etc… I bring up this point because it is never as simple as it seems and perhaps, the resolution to all of this is to stop pointing fingers and start looking within. You don’t need to know the truth about who killed JFK, what really happened on 9-11, who runs the media or any of that to do that.

 

[dogman6126]

ok after rereading some of my posts I have to apologize for the terrible gramer. My computers hard drive messed up real bad so I have been without a computer for a while and have to use my phone right now. Please bare with me

Fear and mistrust often comes with a lack of knowledge, and I doubt that anyone on this level of discussion would become harmed. On the flipside, there's many instances throughout history where popular opinion actually harmed people-

Fear and mistrust can also come from false information. A perfect example of this is rumors in high school. However you do have a point. Inthis discussion probably no one will be adversely effected beyond minor ponderings.

For years it was of popular opinion that smoking was good for you- know we know it's not.

Or how about the use of cocaine:

Things are much different now since research on the short and longterm impact of drugs is more available, but the fact is that popular opinion can, and has, been wrong. I think the fundamental premise of conspiracy theorists is to not just passively accept popular opinion- which also means, do not passively accept non-popular opinion. The idea is to become informed and asked questions. Yes there are grades to everything and there will be people who push more to the left or right, but the fundamental idea of it all is to ask questions and become informed.

However your own argument shows that science does ask questions. At least so far as the smoking example, there research was only a 10 month study so theywhere correct that the effects over 10 months where minimal considering their level of technology. However in this case the scientist messed up and didn't accurately consider technology long term effects. We did discover that those things where actually harmful, just took time. I admit again you make a good point on the limitations of science with this example. Scientists are limited by the level oftechnology abd creativity of what they consider.

Having worked in academics long enough, I know that there are great scientists who are qualified, but their research doesn't get published because it goes against the stream. Take the file drawer effect- this is where non-significant research (so we're talking about testing something and it not having an effect) doesn't get published. Some might say "so, that doesn't tell us anything" but null results are just as important as significant results. Follow this further, you can then see how the stream of evidence which is out there (that is published, because 'non-published' isn't deemed 'credible' or 'scientific') is predisposed to bias. Science is flawed in the way that it's always looking for a 'significant' effect- this impacts peoples' careers, their choice of studies, how they handle data, how they report data, etc. This is why, even evidence published in highly esteemed journals needs to be questioned, and why evidence in very obscured publications should be considered.

But isn't what your talking about, these null results, only cause bias in the sense that it might not be relevant in this specific study for x effect, but is possibly relevant in talking about y effect? Isn't that what you mean by non related research? In this case the bias in peer reviewed journals would be very minimal because those studying eeffect y could still reproduce the study done for effect x even though they might not know the study was already done. If you consider research as compartmentalized where those studying x and those sstudying y might not share each of there non related research, but that says nothing about restricting then from doing similar studies. The only restriction would be the creativity of those studying each effect to come up with the necessary experiment. Therefore I don't see any reason to conclude that information in highly esteemed journals is any more or less reliable than in more obscure journals. In fact I would suggest that esteemed journals would be more reliable in the sense that it would lead to more peer review. However I would say approach both journals in the same way. Don't take it for granted, and actually strive to disprove what is suggested. That's how real science is supposed to be.

I guess this is where I get confused, what is the difference between a 'conspiracy' and 'fringe' theory? I suppose I've been misusing them, as I've figured they were interchangeable.

I understand the confusion. This was talked about in the other thread. Someone, I think Muir, mentioned the termconspiracy theorist was ccoinedby CIA to represent a theory that goes against the mainstream idea. This could include conspiracies like the masons or non conspiracies like the 2012 end of the world. I called that a fringe theory because it's by definition in the minority. However the specific term conspiracy theory by definition of the words would mean a theory specifically about a conspiracy. That is the distinction I was trying to make

I see these two points to be in conflict. It might be how I'm reading it, but it just seems like that to me.

Allow me to clarify. Certain conspiracy theories have a grain of truth in thenin my opinion that leads me to a similar conclusion. For example, large money interests effecting certain areas. However, every conspiracy theorist i've talked to(those who agree with most conspiracy theories, come up with their own theories, etc.) I don't find reliable in any way.

 

[dogman6126]

Fair enough. I'm not saying I'm any expert of this, it's just I have watched myself journey from being an empiricist/postivist within my own work, to moving to a very pragmatic POV which boarders on constructivism. This shift has wholly impacted my work and the way I view the world as a social and health scientist. I know many people that rely and praise the scientific method and empiricism, so I value it as a perspective. But I just think it become hypocritical and contradictory when you begin to study humans.

In fact, when I read



I was transported back to one of my scientific method courses where my professor was teaching us about the qualitative paradigm...I'm pretty sure what you said was in my head.

Not sure if you're interested and not to seem like I'm tooting anything, but if you're interested in science and epistomologies, you might want to consider these pieces (one of them I couldn't find a free version of a pdf)

http://ro.ecu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1257&context=ajte

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2106514?uid=3739432&uid=2&uid=3737720&uid=4&sid=21104513739183

http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/pub/fos/pdf/glasersfeld.pdf

And I have no reason to discount your perspective on the human element. To me I just don't understand such a complicated dynamic. I would need to do a LOT of considering before I reached a conclusion on the accuracy of empirical evaluation of human behavior/interaction.

I actually plan to study epistemology in about a year or two in college. Very much looking forward to it I enjoy most types of philosophy. I'll check out your links later.

 

[Lark]

"Conspiracy Theorist" is it so strange that one person of power would collaborate with another in order to benefit both parties?

Yeah but I've read good accounts of why and how those two things differ, a bunch of distinctive descriptions come to mind sociology vs. conspiracy theorising, institutional theorising vs. conspiracy theorising, class struggle vs. conspiracy theorising, special interests vs. conspiracy theorising etc. etc.

And its obvious enough to me that they dont mean the same thing at all.

The possibilities of cabals or cartels are as old as the first political economists and earliest (conservative generally speaking) pseudo-sociology when Smith was hopeful individual greed and competition could catylise the public good, productivity, cheap and quality merchandise because it'd keep the shopkeepers conspiring against the public in check. I've always thought of Marx, and his precursors and progenitors, as being a response to Smith's ideas as being brilliant literature or ideology but theoretically credulous.

One of the things about conspiracy theorising, as it exists in pop culture, which I think sets it apart from other sorts of theorising is its bizarre or fantastical nature, maybe that's what the OP meant about zebras and horses, but there's never anything within a conspiracy theory which could be a mundane matter of realpolitik, its never the "washington consensus" but its the illuminati, a secret society of privileged athiests capitalists which has survived since who knows when but is actually a front from sun worshippers in ancient egypt, you see what I mean?

A point which the OP does make, which I like a lot and do not hear very much outside of some social work theorising about discrimination and oppression generally, is his one about people wishing to believe in an "invisible enemy", the persistence of a belief in a "them", "out there", who need to be fought has all sorts of consequences. More obstructive than anything else.

 

[muir]

Your right, "Why" is the important question, not "how" or "when". I could, as we have both done, go into a very long detailed breakdown of your post. None of which I think is wrong or out in left-field but it can be summed up more simply than that. Conspiracy theorists often lose credibility because they forget the why and they focus on the how and when.

They have to do that because people ask them for 'facts' so then they have to break things down

They bring up false-flag schemes, media controlling our minds, the central bank intentionally destroying the economy, etc… All of which may have valid points to them but are beyond what the majority of people care about or want to understand. Not that they can’t understand but they have more immediate concerns like getting their kid to school on time.

We all have immediate concerns including 'conspiracy theorists' but the difference is that conspiracy theorists are aware of other immediate concerns that many people are not yet aware of but which will continue and deepen as problems for society until everyone becomes aware of them (eg chemtrails)

Nobody is ever going to listen or follow someone who makes them feel stupid.

I don't know of any conspiracy theorists that want to be 'followed'

Conspoiracy theorists are simply aware of the fact that the only strength the people have is in NUMBERS so they try to spread awareness to grow the numbers of people who can then pro-actively engage with the situation

People follow those that inspire them, those that they can identify with and relate to.

I don't think people should 'follow' i think they should take responsibility for themselves, but to do that they need to know whats going on so that they can make informed decisions. The corporate media does not inform people so we have to do it ourselves

You can shout the truth all day long and have all the evidence in the world and still people will not see it because unless it is simple and easy for them to understand, they will not try to.

I don't think its a complexity problem i think its a question of openness to the truth

Someone might not be that bothered about things until the reality train comes bursting into their life, for example when the housing bubble burst in 2008 and many people lost their homes and business people started to pay a lot more attention to economics

So as all these issues begin to affect us all more and more people will look hardre and harder for answers and when they do they will find people giving them

So it is not only important to know “why” the world is the way it is or “why” people strive for power. It is equally important to know “why” you give a shit. It is important to know “why” you want to help other people see the truth. If you don’t know those things, you’re just another crazy preacher on the corner shouting bull shit.

Except i'm not shouting bullshit and when i tell people that there are peadophile rings in our government leaving them open to being blackmailed by intelligence services from various countries and then it come sout in the mainstream media that i'm right then really i wasn't crazy to point out how compromised our government had become i was in fact completely sane and sensible and everyone should be making a fuss about it

The reason these crazy people get away with all this corruption, war and abuse is becuase it is out of the limelight of peoples awareness so if we want to fix our broken economies and societies then we need to turn the spotlight on these things and as voters and taxpayers we all have a responsibility to be aware so that we can avoid being duped by the crazy people and can instead make the right decisions that will shape our society in a better way

There are things we know, evidence that is true. Like for example 2+2=4. I can deny it all day long but it doesn’t make it less true. Then we have more complicated things like society and people which aren’t that black and white. How do you not know that the reason why the elite has ruled over us for so long isn’t because without them, society crumbles? There are examples of that as well.

I know because there are communities where that is not the case and the reason societies crumble throughout history is because of centralised power NOT the other way round.....think about it.....look at any societal collapse...you will find it was preceded by centralised power

It hasn’t always been the same elite ruling either. New elites rise and fall.

No thats not correct, there are bloodlines and families and groups/organisations going back thousands of years

How do you know that the reason they don’t utilize natural resources better is because they know the world is limited and to sustain humanity as long as possible requires them to sacrifice lives?

Because firstly opting out of sustainability doesn't make sense and secondly becuase i know the mindset of these people because i have studied them

It might be a bad example but I remember watching a show about sea turtles when I was a kid. They lay their eggs at the edge of the beach. When those eggs hatch the baby turtles have to find their way back to the ocean. Along the way, predators eat them and most die. The camera crews could have easily saved all of them. But what would be the consequences? Are they the cruel elite who could have saved all those baby turtles, only to doom an ocean ecosystem?

That's looking at the issue too narrowly because the danger to the turtles is not the inaction of a handful of camera crew, the danger to the turtles is the encroachment on their environment by an unsustainable and all consuming culture of consumerism (which is fuelled by the el-ite)

History is full of examples of us trying to create equality, trying to better the standard of living, only to result in further destruction.

Once again you are looking at this too narrowly

Just because you've been told that what occured in the USSR and China grew out of a desire for equality doesn't mean that's true...in fact it's false

If you dig beneath the history textbooks you are given at school then you find that the central bankers funded and supported the people who created the 'Bolsheviks' and that the bolsheviks destroyed the true revolutionary group the 'menshiviks'.

Thi is the part where people need to make a cognitive leap to realising that the power el-ite have used various ideologies to achieve their aim of centralising power more and more under their control

So for example we are told that the bolsheviks were 'communists' but communism is when the workers own and control the means of production but what we saw in the USSR and China was in fact a el-ite controlling the means of production with everyone else being told what to do

The word 'communism' has been attached to that mode of planned economy by the corporate media so much now over decades that most people believe that's what communism is but neither of those countries achieved a state of communism...they never got past the dictatorship of the proletariat stage

Once again this is an issue of centralisation v's decentrlaisation and really the dictatorships whether you label them 'communism', 'fascism', 'capitalism' or whatever are really CENTRALISED power systems

Even the word 'capitalism' is missused. For exmaple what we have in the US is a centrally controlled market economy which is STATE capitalism. Free market capitalistsare disgusted at this and say that it is NOT true capitalism because the state keeps interferring

So you see the real picture is not all these labels...these '-isms' that people throw around because frankly they're so missused anyway as to become practically useless as tools for communicating ideas but rather the REAL dynamic at play is the CENTRALISATION or DECENTRALISATION of power

The el-ite know this and they work with all these different -isms but ALWAYS with a view to centralising power...that's what defines them as a current within humanity

There are examples of the leading elite trying to change things in a way that they think will make everybody happier. It has never been sustainable.

When?

It has led to overpopulation, destruction of ecosystems, mass differences in wealth, etc…

Are you referring to the ideology of 'consumer-ism' where people are given luxuries and processed food all paid for through cheap and easy credit?

Because that is not really about the l-ite trying to make people happy, that is about the el-ite trying to stop the population from becoming disgruntled and demanding a revolutionary change

Just look at our consumerist society with all its comforts....many people are unhappy!

This is because comfort is not the most important thing for humans in fact we haven't evolved to be comfortable!
This gluttinous culture has made people into children where they have no say in the decision makig process and have farmed out all responsibility to the el-ite; this has been disasterous!

people need to be involved in their community at every level...they nee to feel they have a stake in things and have some say over things....that brings health in many ways that is currently lacking in our society

I bring up this point because it is never as simple as it seems and perhaps, the resolution to all of this is to stop pointing fingers and start looking within. You don’t need to know the truth about who killed JFK, what really happened on 9-11, who runs the media or any of that to do that.

Looking within is what will reveal to you how out of alignment this current system is with your true nature

Once a person does that then they begin a journey of exploration into why the system is so out of alignment and that journey will take you to many places including who killed JFK and who was really behind 911

And the more you learn the more you understand why things are so out of balance

And once a person understands whats wrong and why then they are in a position to make informed decisions and strategies as to how they are going to engage with this reality in such a way as to firstly maintain their own health and happiness and sanity and secondly how they might play a part however large or small in helping to right the imbalance

 

[muir]

its never the "washington consensus" but its the illuminati, a secret society of privileged athiests capitalists which has survived since who knows when but is actually a front from sun worshippers in ancient egypt, you see what I mean?

That's nonsense...i've been speaking about the washington consensus (neoliberalism) here for years and so do many other conspiracy theorists

But who do you think drew up the washington consensus?

 

[feltfriend]

I've always differentiated the two by the idea that skeptics are driven by logic whereas conspiracy theorists are driven more so by emotion. I guess this kind of supports that.

 

[Stu]

I've always differentiated the two by the idea that skeptics are driven by logic whereas conspiracy theorists are driven more so by emotion. I guess this kind of supports that.

I think our resident conspiratorialist would passionately argue for his objective dispassion.

 

[feltfriend]

I think our resident conspiratorialist would passionately argue for his objective dispassion.

Then I suppose presentation may be more vital in determining the difference than the actual content of their theory/argument/whatever