Refusal to Accept Conspiracy

Throughout this forum and in the world, I have noticed- in otherwise rational and scientific thinkers- the refusal to accept that which contradicts the notion that massive conspiracy simply can not exist in today's society. This presumption trumps science in most cases. Authority figures and industry reps trump real scientists and researchers. Scientific evidence becomes invisible to the common person when conspiracy is attached to it. Rationalizing around conspiracy provides for faulty science.

Throughout history, the human story has been one of conspiracy against others. From reading a history book, it is easy to see this, and easy to accept it. Humans have always been selfish, manipulative, horrific creatures. Yet, in the present day, we have trouble seeing this quality in the system that we live in. There is the obsessive presumption that we are somehow more civilized than we used to be, even since only a generation ago. Perhaps mankind has evolved a new gene, one that makes us nicer and more compassionate, and less likely to conspire against fellow humans. Or more likely, it can be argued that we are more knowledgeable and therefore more practicing of morals and ethics than previous generations; or that conspiracy is less likely to exist due to living in a less stressful environment. But are we really more ethically and morally enlightened? After all, religious guidance has always been around but there has never been a time more full of non-believers than now. And is our overpopulated, money-driven, unknowing slave-driven system really less stressful and less susceptible to conspiracy? Are "lesser" countries not being invaded, both physically and mentally? We are in a perpetual state of war and desperation. Many people can't even find a job. Humans have not changed, we have only made things more complex. The obvious slave has been replaced by the oblivious slave, and our masters have gotten a lot more creative. Conspiracy is more rampant today than it ever was.

It's easy to see fault when looking at a system from outside. But it's harder to see the same thing when we are looking from within the system. This form of brainwashing is the basis of patriotism, and is exploited by those who wish to control and manipulate other people.

Man's innate refusal to accept conspiracy gives freedom to those who wish to conspire.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think OP confuses conspiracy(civil) with conspiracy theory.

Both cases can not be subject to science for a good reason: Science simply doesn't deal with social pissing contest between humans, it deals with

After all the conspiracies and their conspirators of a specific era are wiped out we don't change our scientific knowledge accordingly. They are irrelevant.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So you wouldn't consider police detective work to be a science? What is it then?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Puzzle, specifically a social puzzle. Of course police will recruit some bits of scientific knowledge and some technological advancement. Yet "the puzzle to be solved", or the subject of police scrutiny itself is not scientific.

 

We call chemistry a science but the kids in highschool aren't doing science when they're solving a problem for a test - they're solving a puzzle.

We call math a science but all anyone's doing in that field is attempting to solve puzzles.

What is science then?

 

Are they solving a puzzle? The puzzle is already solved; they are only learning the elements and rules. Can you imagine we would give unsolved scientific problems to the hands of high-school kids? I mean some of them can still solve scientific problems by their own curiosity and efforts, but it's not in the curriculum to ask them dealing with any unsolved scientific puzzle. They are simply learning.

Who are "we" calling math as a science? Mathematics is a sophisticated tool (a form of mind technology if you like) to help us to follow, construct, represent problems and solve them, it's not "science". This is the definition of math from Wikipedia if you are interested:

I already submitted a part of its definition in my above post. You can check out for the rest if you like. But if you have any problem for fitting any topic or scenario (such as police investigation or high school kids) to this definition , you are welcome, I will do my best...

 

I was talking with my mom yesterday about her habit of drinking tap water, and the very real dangers of fluoride. I roughly explained to her the science supporting my viewpoint. But she could not get past that mental blockade which prevented her from believing this science-attached-to-conspiracy. This is why I decided to write this post.

There is so much science out there supporting the idea that fluoride is a very dangerous bio-reactive toxin, yet instead of believing scientific evidence, she would more easily believe official statements from the industry which benefits from tooth decay, despite the fact that the evidence is not on their side. For example:
http://kidshealth.org/parent/general/teeth/fluoride.html#
Notice the section "The Controversy Over Fluoride". Read it. There is no link to scientific evidence or research. This is the sort of unscientific propaganda which most people are more likely to believe- because it comes from an official, authority/parent-like figure.

I do not mean this thread to be a debate over fluoride. My point of concern is this mental blockade that warps people's perceptions and rationale.

 

Everything in the opening paragraph of that article that explains the general characteristics of science is applicable to police detective work.

 

I thought we were not discussing whether we can apply scientific knowledge to police detective work or not. Yet if you mean the same definition can be applied to the definition of police work, how can you explain "nature" in the definition of science? Where in a police detective work people are looking to get knowledge on nature?

More specifically, what do you mean by "general characteristics"?

 

A police detective is inquiring into nature by trying to figure out what happened in nature at such and such a time with such and such people.

I mean the general definition.

 

Yes, both police detective and scientist look into nature; but one tries to get evidence for a criminal case (other factors also establish the case such as motive, human relations, etc.), other one tries to understand the very nature itself and its mechanisms, patterns, rules etc..

It's like I am looking at you to get your money (businessman), and I am looking at you in order to understand your medical condition (doctor). I think both actions should be classified differently in terms of their quality as much as in terms of type of knowledge and motives behind them, even if the observed subject (you) appears to be common for both cases.

It's OK, I still stick to "general characteristics", otherwise (I mean if you insist upon general "definition") I might need to ask you to come up with a reliable definition of "police detective work", and I guess this would be a cumbersome task.

 

I see what you mean but look at how similar they are:

1. They both are inquiring into an unknown in nature which they didn't create.
2. They both formulate and test theories based on evidence.
3. In certain cases they both rely on tools to either enhance their senses or facilitate investigation.

The only difference I'm seeing here is that you think police detective work isn't as important as inquiring into the laws on nature (which I might agree with you on) and so you don't consider it a science because of these sentimental connotations you have attached to the word.

 

No they aren't.
Police are looking for patterns/ relationships in a puzzle created by other human beings.
Science (or at least the methods of) is applicable to police work but it's no more doing science than is someone solving an anagram. It's an investigation of an artificial construct, not an enquiry into nature qua nature.

 

You're telling me that when someone is inquiring into the laws of nature they aren't looking for patterns?! Really??

So what's your definition of science then? Please... no links. If you choose to use a reference then please quote only the parts that are applicable so I don't have to sift through them and make assumptions for you. Thank you.

You're just trying to sound all sophisticated and learned here. Artificial construct? Wtf? I'll reply to this when you reword it in a way that shows you actually cared to communicate.

 

If you want to raise similarities only, we can add more numbers to the list such as "both depends on human problem solving", "both are committed in this universe", "both requires distinctive study in order to get results", "both can reach the results by chance -sometimes (serendipity)-", and so on and so forth...

The problem is, what do these similarities tell us in terms of understanding the identity of these two occupations and their subjects. In this point, we should also look for "differences" if "similarities" consume to make any sense.

I will only remind you my example from the previous post: Unknown nature of how much money I can get out of your pocket as a businessman or unknown nature of your medical condition. You see, "unknown nature" doesn't fulfil any promise if we don't ask the expected question: "Unknown nature of what?"

But their understanding of "what is evidence" and "for what" are different: In a nutshell, even a single piece of hair could be a problem solving evidence for a detective, yet evidence should be consistent and repeatable for scientist (one shot accidents are not enough to build a rule; it can be used to destroy a theory though). I'm not saying that "collecting evidence" and/or "depending on evidence" are not shared by both areas; but when it comes to define "evidence for what?", a different picture starts to emerge.

Let's say a microscope. I can claim that even an artist rely on a microscope depending on his/her way of expressing artistic view. You can use a knife to stab someone or to slice a bread. I think "tool" comes very much secondary to our discussion. Otherwise one would claim that both scientist and businessman use mathematics in their profession, therefore they are dealing with same profession with same aim. It doesn't work like that.

"Importance" is a very subjective and arbitrary classification. It will say nothing about the identities of any subject issue. Once we decide on either sameness or difference of anything, we can chat about which one is important and which one is not. This is entirely different area.

"Sentimental connotations" and "science". I think these two doesn't go together unless one is a scientist who loves his/her job and harvest some motivation out of this "sentimentality". Yet, this person should still leave "sentimentality" out of his/her job (same as a policeman for that matter).

I am not a scientist, neither a police detective. So leave my "assumed sentimentality" out of equation for the sake of discussion. It has nothing to do with the definitions and explanations I come up with. If you find any of my sentence constructed with an "emotional" drive, you are welcome to underline it, display it. Otherwise your "sentimentality" claim will not make any sense other than being an empty accusation.

 

Rather than post a quote for quote reply, Baftan, I would like for you to give me your definition of "science" in as simple a form as you can muster. Do not provide a link for me to sift through and consequently have to make assumptions about what you were referring to.

 

I see you missed or ignored the important part of the sentence.

If you don't know what science is by now that's your fault.
But one example that isn't scientific (in most police cases) is repeatability and multiple observations, or the lack of. How about the reliance on eye-witness testimony? Police look for the most likely answer (enough to convince a judge and jury), not a definitive answer. They also find a workable answer (i.e. this is the way he did it) and tend NOT to farm it out to other police for verification. In science someone releases their result and asks if anyone can duplicate (or even invalidate) them.

If that's what you think then it simply shows a lack of knowledge on your part.

Artificial construct as opposed to something that's occurred in nature.
Yeah, maybe you should stop posting until you've had an education.

 

Which part you didn't like the definition that I already provided from Wikipedia? Be specific:

1. Do you want me to come up with a definition of science with "my own words"? In this case, ask yourself, what will you do if I simply recruit alternative vocabulary but preserve the same meaning of Wikipedia definition? Have you got a strategy for that?

2. Do you want me to bring you a definition from a different source? From where, which one is acceptable for you? A dictionary? A definition from NASA or CERN? Name it please.

3. Do you want me to tell you what do I feel about Science? I'll tell you straight away: It's good. Is that what you want to hear? I thought you asked me to compare the "nature" of police detective work vs. Science.

4. How dare you to ask me to "come up with a definition" while you didn't even attempt to define or to link any definition of what a "police detective work" is? How am I going to know that you are not keep inventing the definition in your mind depending upon the answers you get?

5. Why do you send arbitrary claims and listed arguments if you are not going to read and evaluate my answers? What is your aim in this discussion? Trying to discover some perspectives or just to satisfy your unsubstantiated claims? Which one?

 

And human beings were created by nature SO it is an inquiry into nature.

If you aren't going to define the terms you're using for debate then the debate is useless... I will have to assume you can't do it and will have to cease discussion with you. Hopefully Baftan will be able to pick up where you left off!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Oh yah, I forgot, humans don't occur in nature! What was I thinking!! LoL!!!

 

Baftan,

I went to the link and because there's a whole page of content there, it's unclear what part you considered to be the definition. I make no pretension that I am able to debate something of which I am not clear on the definition. You have been making assertions that certain things are and are not "science" THEREFORE I assume you know the definition of "science" AND SO I'm asking you to provide it here in this forum in its most simplistic form so we can continue with the discussion.