You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: "Conspiracy Theorists", a Derogatory Term?
The problem is that there are too many conspiracy theorists that give conspiracy theories a bad name. Too many formulate or are willing to believe a conspiracy theory based on the flimsiest of evidence. Like Mulder, I want to believe but I'm a sceptic. I don't need proof but I do need evidence that shows a particular conspiracy theory is not the least plausible explanation.
Sure. Skepticism is good if it is based upon reason. It can be bad if it becomes a thing based more upon stubbornness than reason. I too am a Skeptic. Yet I don't close the door on possibility because it comes from a certain person. I more treat it like a sound in the woods. Do I have time to go investigate and learn more about the sound, or am I too busy at the time and simply shrug and go on with my life?
I guess it really depends upon two things. How interesting is that odd sound I just heard, and is it interesting enough for me want to divert from the plans I was pursuing?
I don't take anyone's word as being the absolute truth. I do consider certain people when they are talking about areas they have focused on as having a high probability of being correct.
Yet even high probabilities have that slim case where they don't happen. Thus, why people still buy lottery tickets. ;)
There are indeed some very whacky conspiracy theories... and sometimes that is a familiar sound and is annoying. I will likely ignore it and move on. However, there might be some other sound mixed in with them that is not something I have heard before. Is that something interesting enough for me to dig further on my own?
It is a good thing to be a skeptic. It is not a good thing if it becomes the I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE WRONG type of skeptic. The "I believe that is highly unlikely, show me evidence" type of skeptic on the other hand is a good and wise thing. It does not close the door on possibility.
Absolutes (aka closing that door) are usually wrong. There are usually exceptions to absolutes.
To me it's not about closing doors on possibilities. Anything is possible. But if you are going to make a claim then it is up to you to prove it or at least provide some convincing evidence of its possibility. Otherwise there is no reason to believe your particular theory over one I randomly make up.
It's not "I'm right and your wrong". It's "you've made a claim now its up to you to provide some convincing evidence".
There are an infinite number of possible explanations and links between events. The theory of Occam's Razor would tell you that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. If you are going to suggest another then you have to show me why it is more likely to be true. Too often conspiracy theories consist of nothing but a theory and absolutely no evidence or evidence that is circumstantial at best and even then only if you twist interpretation of the evidence in the most unlikely ways.
As far as considering people who have focused on an area and believing them, it depends on their history of accuracy.
I encounter this a lot. Yet it has an important keyword there USUALLY. That is not the same as always. ;)
I agree with this. Yet we must be open to what is presented rather than immediately defensive. Like I said Skepticism is good. Stubborness is not. ;)
It still requires evidence, yet there are those that can get fixated on their view and claim to be open... yet they will do whatever they can to ignore information that challenges a current belief. Is that really skepticism?
I am not claiming this is you by the way.
Yet that is still just a probability. It is a high probability like I said (assuming they've got a history of being accurate) yet that also does not mean they may not be wrong.
In addition, it is not always 100% right, and 100% wrong. People can also be partially right about some details and wrong about others.
I don't bother with believing. I observe the facts. Can you present me with data. Then I make a projection based on that data. But even then I don't say something will for certain happen based on that data until it in fact does happen because the world is a big place and new data can always present itself and new things can happen. In my experience one of the many problems with the whole conspiracy theory thing is lack of citations. People read something in one spot, make some connections in their head, write an article in another spot and then don't cite where they got their knowledge in the first place. Sometimes this can't be avoided given the nature of information leaking but still it seems to be a common problem.