Conspiracy theories..?

Are conspiracy theories a conspiracy by the government to misinform people to what is really going on, so that they don't have any idea about what is really going on or is that in itself what they want you to think?

 

There's something they aren't telling you...

 

It's not that one about Santa is it?

 

No...

 

Ironically you are not telling me something too...

 

You see what I did there....

 

No?

 

Then there must be a conspiracy...

 

I knew it!!!

 

...partly. but all "myths" and "conspiracies"..come from a truth....

 

Yes but then Santa Claus comes from a truth that doesn't make the idea more sound. It's just a trite observation.

What it is is a non sequitur to say that because x was true then all cases related to x are therefore more somehow more sound, all cases should be evaluated on their merits. Otherwise you might as well just put on a tin foil hat and hide in the basement.

 

Conspiracy Theory and Conspiracy Fact are two completly different things. Most of the time they seem to be used in wrong context.

With making a decision with anything, both sides of the question should be adressed before coming to a conclusion.

Its confusing because sometimes the theory is indeed a fact, and sometimes a fact is in the wrong theory, so it doesn't look like a fact. When you take all these conspicary facts and you start to put pieces together, you then realize the real theory. That theory though is always impossible to prove. Its almost like a mouse running on a wheel...

For example, what has been told to the public about the 9/11 attacks with Osama Bin being the terrorist leader of the attakcs and all that is a 'conspicary theory'. If you do some research about 9/11 you learn that jet fuel couldn't burn the steal frame of either twin tower. That the designer and engineers build them to withstand several plane impacts. You learn that windows blow out in a pattern as the building begins to collapse (indacating bombs are going off). You wonder where any of the actual plane parts are from the crash in pennsylvania and the pentagon.

So then you start to find more and more facts and you start to come up with a more accurate theory and realize the most common 'theory' is indeed completely wrong. You have to think about this stuff in reverse psychology.

 

http://www.theonion.com/video/911-conspiracy-theories-ridiculous-al-qaeda-says,14222/

Actually you have to think about these things logically. Seldom are conspiracy theorists logical about either their assumptions or the conclusions they leap to like a monkey in a forest of possibilities. And often they are self reinforcing non sequiturs, they will only listen to the bias they have and the people who agree with them, hence you are looking at something not scientific but more like a cult.

What you should of said is then once you have one unprovable assumption you latch onto others because you don't discriminate about your a priori assumptions and so you just keep going from one unfounded case to the next, looking not at any science but at anything that supports your bias. Whilst I do not claim to have all the answers, I look at the evidence and say we cannot know these things, a conspiracist looks at we cannot know, and sees it as a God of the gaps. Ie things are unknown hence God or in this case x or y must have done it there is no other answer. This is not rational, this is wishful thinking at best and self reinforcing prophecy at worst. If you spent half the time you do on just agreeing with your bias, and tried actually analysing it logically and from an unbiased perspective you would come to the conclusion that there are many explanations, some of which are true, some of which are false, but you cannot pick and chose based on what you want to be true.

 

Well, I'm with broony on the 9/11 issue. There are so many 800 pound gorillas is that room that anyone who still believes the official explanation can reasonably be called a "coincidence theorist," as they certainly exhibit great faith in great coincidence.

 

What happens is that a line, or a fence, is created by those attempting to keep something from being discussed and examined fully. This is done by the use of such terms as "conspiracy theorist" which soon evolves into the term "conspiracy nut." One of the greatest fears of people in general is to be viewed as not acceptable in the eyes of their peers. When it becomes clear which opinions will put them on the "nutty" side of the fence, most people will not air those particular opinions.

This is especially true of the 9/11 issue. People believe that they will lose all credibility should they side with the obvious conclusion.

 

Actually, everything that Carlid said--people picking and choosing only the information which will back their opinion concerning a certain issue--is also true of people who pick and choose what information they will not look at or discuss when it comes to their own opinion of an event.

 

But the main point about conspiracy theories is that once enough evidence has been looked at and corroborated by enough sources to prove that the theory is more likely than not, the naysayers unwittingly become conspiracy theorists themselves.

For instance, in the case of 9/11, they will ignore science in favor of hanging on to their cult-like belief that something "just can't be true." And when pressed, they have little more reasoning to offer other than: it just can't be true!

 

Like Carlid said, it's easy for conspiracy theorists to come up with conclusions on so many topics because the assumptions that are made often wrongly or loosely qualify other assumptions - so it creates a whole network of assumed resolutions.

I've tried to tell that stuff to my friends that are all into conspiracy theories but they won't listen.

I ask them, who is the Illuminati? How can you prove to me that this is real?
They say that you just have to believe in it.
So then I ask them about the Bible, and they say it is bullshit, and I tell them they just have to believe in it.

(I am not a 'Christian')

 

Yes, it is like Carlid said. But it also works in reverse, like in the case of 9/11. The difference between your friends and myself is that I don't ask anyone to "simply believe." I ask them to look at the facts. That's a little different, wouldn't you agree?

 

No. The facts just aren't there to make any case at all, in 911 there just is nothing substantial left tin the rubble, what there is a shed load of what ifs and a serious lack of an ability to prove it; I hate to repeat myself but the facts you think are there, are just things you want to be there because you are invested in it. Too invested in it. Facts would denote a scientifically proven case, there is no means to prove anything in this case at all except anecdotally, and that's worth shit.