What is wrong with being a Conspiracy Theorist?

Aqueous Id,

Or maybe you're operating under the delusion that he is operating under the delusion...
Can you see how that kind of analisys is a non starter?

Can you give examples of this?

Would you regard JFK, or Malcom X as conspriacy nuts?

jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

if you do not agree with "accepted" physicist doctrine you are immediately labeled a "crackpot" not matter how glaring wrong their accepted beliefs are. No wonder we have been stuck where we are for so long.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

At last! Someone who can express things
as they see them.

What are your views on conspiracy theorists?

jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Is there anyone who expresses things in a way that they don't see them?

 

This is nonsense, obviously. Can you actually give an example of what "physicist doctrine" that is "glaring wrong", or are you speaking in generalities because that's all you've got?

And what do you mean we've been stuck where we are? Stuck where?

 

Yes.

jan.

 

And what is that like?
Can you point out someone, with actual examples?

 

Check out post 208.

jan.

 

And you believe that this poster is expressing things in a way that he doesn't see them??

??

 

When large scale phenomenon are involved which defy the Laws of Physics then the problem is rather different.

If the majority of people believe things which are impossible then there is definitely a psychological factor involved. Of course when the physics profession cannot do something as simple as discuss the location of the "center of gravity" of the tilted top 30 stories of the south tower for 11 years, when we KNOW the tilted 22 degrees, then we have to wonder who is being smart.

psik

 

It would appear that way.
Then again if could respond to the last question I asked him, there's a possibility
that I my mind could be changed.

That was only one example.
These forums are littered with preset expressions and to itemise them would be a pointless pursuit.

jan.

 

You are making no sense at all. You're claiming he's expressing things as he does not see them. No- you're entire claim is based on whether he is expressing things as you see them. He's supposed to agree with you. We all are.
When someone posted something you agreed with- you claimed he was expressing things as he sees them. No, he was expressing as you see them.

Saying he's expressing as he does not see them is absolute nonsense. The only way your mind will change is if he answers you in a way you agree with- as you see things.

You are not one to talk about 'preset expressions."

 

It appears from his post that conspiracy theorists are delusional, and/or narcasistic?

How does he actually SEE it like that?

jan.

 

There are people (and they can be found both among theists as well as among atheists) who have no functional notion of "perspective," "subjectivity," "opinion."
To these people, whatever they think about how things really are, this is how things really are; these people don't have a functional notion of "this is my opinion (and not necessarily the absolute, objective truth)", and so this distinction between subjectivity and objectivity is impossible for them to understand, impossible for anyone to explain it to them.

Of course, when directly challenged, some of these people will make declarative statements of subjectivity (ie. they will clearly say that they are just presenting their opinions), but otherwise in conversation, they speak in an objective-sounding form as if they would be speaking from an omniscient perspective.

 

I have the impression that by saying this -

you actually meant something like -

"At last! Someone who can express things as they really are!"

 

Laser guided hammer. On sale now at Home Depot.

Way to hit the nail on the head.

 

This is important because many here do not word their declarations in ways that would facilitate good, amiable, logical debate. And instead go down the this is true semantical route that flames and fans agitated discourse.

I think we could get a lot more info on each others beliefs, theories etc. if we just thought a little bit more deeply about how to present our respective sides to the present opposing debater; to get the most from them by respecting their positions and keeping the discussion flowing amicably. And actually being interested in peoples' specific personal positions to understand the crux of their arguments.

Maybe I am generalising too much?

 

The irony here is that you do the same thing, except you don't pretend you're presenting subjective opinion. I suppose there's something to be said for dropping all pretense, but it's still ironic that you're making such a lucid comment about these kinds of people as if you aren't one of them.

 

Excerpt of an Article published recently [re: Chemtrails conspiracy]:

and

believe it or not!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

edit: Gosh, it reeks of relationship to that SF movie called "Serenity"

Atmospherical medication...
[video=youtube;7EcyhneTXiY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EcyhneTXiY[/video]

 

Wow. Chemtrails and climate change denial in one excerpt? Nicely done.