RE: "Conspiracy Theorists", a Derogatory Term?
The label is completely valid. The problem is the kneejerk response society has been conditioned to have to the combination of those two words. It's actually gotten worse as simply the word conspiracy by itself is enough to get such a reaction these days.
Yet those words have very valid meanings. Kneejerk reactions are STUPID and are a sign of you being controlled. You should be able to look at anything without saying "heretic" before you've even thought about it.
For let's face it the term Conpiracy Theory/Theorist these days is used EXACTLY the same way as the phrases...
"Heretic!"
"Blasphemer!"
"Heresy!"
"Blasphemy!"
"Non-Believer!"
All of these also fall under a logical fallacy called the Appeal to Authority. This is the false idea that someone is an authority and because they told you something that makes it true. To challenge that is considered a CRAZY thing.
Yet, who gave these other human beings authority over you? Who gave them the right to do your thinking for you?
Are they omniscient super beings that can see more than you can?
NO they are not.
Yet, that is how most people treat THEM. This them is generally known as the State (aka The Government) and they are the new religion. Worship them, the politicians are the priests and what they say must be true. Otherwise you are a blasphemer!!!!
Wait they don't use that word. This religions replacement for "heretic" is "conspiracy theorist".
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.
Funny you should say that, I almost made comparisons with blasphemy and heretics (well the heretic's fork) but I decided to use that part on a comedic take.
I can't agree more, similar principal apply.. Aside from torture. No one likes to be associated with such term, so the ruling class benefits by people policing themselves.
However, I can't blame people who use the term but rather people who push those ideologies.
Thank you for the great comment and taking the time to share!
Undeniably true, but the reverse is also increasingly the case - "MainStreamer!" .. "zombie!" "sheep!" .. and so on .. so f'n ridiculous. Everyone is so desperate to be in a club of one kind or another, they throw away their own fundamental capability to discern what is true, and what is bullshit - I mean, there are a great many people who have spent some time in a post-secondary setting, and know how to do some basic research .. as long as they understand and respect the meaning of objective truth, then there is some hope.
Your quote; "Are they omniscient super beings that can see more than you can?" .. has a double-edge.
But hey, I am a utilitarian in that if the quality of life of the STEEMIAN majority, will greatly improve if STEEMIT is allowed to become the home of such material, then we who think otherwise must accept our fate. :)) .. or .. if sufficiently embarrassed, we can always split and build anew.
Oh and those supposed "Conspiracy Theories that Turned Out to Be True" .. many of those were revealed by journalists and academics employing Freedom of Information / Access to Information statutes, or waiting for classified material to be released - or were suspected but unproven, based on evidence (whistleblowing, witness testimony), until eventually proven ... it helps of course to be seeking truth about something that is 'provable'.
I know you've read a number of my articles. So you by now have a sense of who I am. My big battle is really only one thing. When thinking of the problems of the world I really only can think of one thing that could at some point (perhaps generations away) save the day... That simply is if the majority of the population has the opportunity to learn critical thinking. So I post about things and I try really hard to get people to think about things in a different way. I don't try to get them to agree with me, that would defeat the purpose of my efforts. I simply try to get them not to feel that they need to conform, to be willing to ask questions without feeling it is wrong to ask those questions. They must be okay with disagreeing even if they are alone in their disagreement.
I kind of put it this way... I am walking a path. We each are walking a path. Which path is the better path is hard to say because it is being created somewhere in that place called the future. Though if I were to try to force you onto my path, not only do I think doing that completely is impossible, but I might also be doing you a great disservice. That path you were on may have been perfect for you, and in the future your path might continue while mine may have reached a sudden end.
So instead we look around and see each other walking our paths. If you've decorated your path with something I think is cool I might add similar decorations or decorations that were inspired by what you did, but my path will still be my own and will still be different.
That's me. At this time, and place. Who knows how I'll change as I walk the path. Yet I am certain you will provide me input that will influence my path.
My goal in this and other posts/comments is that hopefully people will start being okay with being wrong, because that truly does open up a world of opportunity. Then perhaps they will learn about fallacies and get better and better at noticing when they themselves are using them, and also see through it when other people use it. I am constantly trying to get better at this myself. Some fallacies are second nature for me to identify, others I am still very rusty at. I notice each one I get good at makes it easier to see past people attempting to manipulate an outcome. I am not afraid to be wrong. I welcome it. That is when I generally have a big leap in learning.
And closing a mind and mumbling "conspiracy theorist" or "put on your tinfoil hat" simply closes the doors to possibilities.
This does not mean BELIEVE what you are told. It means question everything with a critical mind rather than an emotional or conditioned response mind.
This is a very wise perspective, it is the higher road, which will leave you untainted by the muck generated by those handicapped due to poor or prematurely-ended education or driven primarily by hate and/or political partisanship. You are right that they should not be silenced, but instead encouraged to develop debating skills, research skills, presentation skills, for their personal benefit, the benefit of those visiting the platform, which is ultimately a potential benefit to all.
As individuals I entirely agree, we should not limit ourselves and find what is true .. for ourselves in life .. walk softly and carry a magnifying glass. We have to be careful only that we do not harm our ability to find that truth, by subscribing to obviously lacking, pre-teen clubhouse secret handshake n decoder ring baselessness. That sense of exceptionalism and superiority of knowledge was great as kids, even healthy, but not as adults who need to think about mortgages and procreation.
I am also of the opinion that education should never have an ENDING. It might end when we die, but who knows maybe not even then. We'll find out some day. ;)
amen bro! :)
Well said.
It's a matter of who bears the burden of proof. History is full of examples of verifiable government, corporate, and private conspiracies. However, this does not prove that any given theory is supported by evidence.
As George Bernard Shaw said: All great truths begin as blasphemies.