again, i can link your hypocritical, contradicting reality if you want. yes... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! shrugs, so now what ?
Please do. But, while you're at it, also please explain exactly why you think it's "hypocritical, contradicting reality". I suspect that, as usual, you've made a snap judgement and foregone any form of rationality. I won't bother asking again if you can substantiate the original claim that started all this, since we both know you can't.
LIM.. what a nice backpedaling tactic. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! shrugs. give me time. i'll link your hypocritical, contradicting reality.
Yeah... in addition to showing why it's (supposedly) "hypocritical, contradicting rality" perhaps you'd also explain why it's "backpedalling". FYI the only reason I want the link (and the explanation) is so that I can tell you exactly why your claim of "hypocritical" is mistaken.
krash661: If you're a tier 1 scientist (whatever that means), perhaps you'd like to post something about the topic of the thread. So far, as far as I can see, all you have done is to claim that what some other posters have posted is "pure crap", and you've added a few LOLz and stuff, but no actual information or content based on your own PhD-level knowledge. So, let's hear what you've got on the topic, eh?
Post #11 was a suggestion that individuals who believe in 'conspiracy theories' suffer from psychopathology in a broad sense, and certainly from defects in cognition. So labeling somebody a 'conspiracy theorist' means that the content of what they say no longer needs to be considered, and the topic turns, ad-hominem style, to the individual's imagined psychological defects. I think that it was an example of a lazy and disingenuous rhetorical strategy. I doubt very much whether Billvon would dismiss every conspiracy theory, he probably believes in a number of them himself. An ad-hominem point of view. It's not dissimilar from the medievals labeling those they disagreed with 'heretics'. Not only did employment of a single word mean that the opponents' views no longer needed to be considered, it suggested that considering them could be dangerous. Today things haven't changed very much. Words like 'racist', 'sexist', 'fascist', 'communist', 'capitalist', 'faggot', 'anti-science', 'ufo-nut' and 'conspiracy theorist' are often used in similar ways. They aren't attempts to advance discussion, they are attempts to suppress it.
I disagree that it is an ad-hominem point of view... That is dependent upon the intent of the users of the phrase/label. If they intend to use it as something that aims suppress discussion then yes, of course it is. But that does not negate the possibility/claim (in that article) that those who regularly adhere to theories of conspiracies may have a certain make-up in their psyche compared to others. Further, the article, especially with regard the reference to the work done, does seem to be rather severe in the type of conspiracy theories that it is applying to, and is more of the paranoia-led theories than anything we have possibly seen here... I.e. The label as researched would simply likely not be applicable to (what I have seen of) people on this forum. Which is why I asked MR up front what he considered to be a conspiracy theory. But I repeat that throughout the article I see no indication that a conspiracy theory is necessarily false, or to be considered as such, even for those raised by the rarefied examples of conspiracy theorists that it (especially the referenced work) appears to be discussing. But yes, if the intention of anyone who uses the label is to suppress discussion, such an argument is fallacious. I do not dispute that.
Very well put. From the same source, different article (truncated of course): How can we explain the popularity and persistence of conspiracy thinking using an evolutionary perspective? The main cause lies in the way the human brain has evolved. In the multitude of data that reach us every day through our senses, our brains are constantly selecting, filtering, and organizing information. An important function of our mind is pattern recognition. Can we detect a pattern in the vast amount of stimuli that come to us from the environment?.... Another evolved function of the mind is to respond swiftly to threats. The biggest threat facing humans throughout history has been other people, particularly when they teamed up against you... End quote https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...-our-brains-are-hardwired-conspiracy-theories Note I included a link to my source, unlike #11: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sideways-view/201504/the-psychology-conspiracy-and-cover-ups
From article: "Conspiracy theories can be psychologically functional. For many, they make sense of a confusing and uncertain world. They make clear who the forces of darkness are and also forces of light, and endow them with the feeling that they are privy to secret knowledge. They also may help people define which group they belong to." But don't most morally-driven theories do that? Religious doctrines do it. Political parties do. Even holding up science as some sort of ideal pursuit of universal knowledge (see scientism) does that to some extent. IOW: "(Scientific theories) ..can be psychologically functional. For many, they make sense of a confusing and uncertain world. They make clear who the forces of darkness are and also forces of light, and endow them with the feeling that they are privy to secret knowledge. They also may help people define which group they belong to." Note to self: I'm not ad homing scientism here. I'm just diagnosing the psychological makeup of those who prescribe to it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes - but it is what makes the person prone to specific notions involving conspiracies that the article looks to address / raise / discuss. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I understand your point - but I do disagree with the exact mirroring that you have applied. I'm not sure, for example, that science has any notion of "forces of darkness" and "forces of light" (excepting dark energy and matter! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) But yes, everyone who has a tendency to think in certain ways can be analysed psychologically, and they will undoubtedly fit certain patterns. But some patterns, I like to think, lead supportable positions and are thus, to me, more rational to adopt.
I've sensed a definite "us vs. them" mentality in scientism advocates. The dark sinister forces of ignorance and superstition vs. the warriors of objective rationality. I DON'T think that is entailed by science itself. Just by scientism, using science as some sort of modernist program for saving humanity. Science itself should universalize our differences and enlighten us regarding our shared humanity. It shouldn't factionalize us into adversarial social structures or ideologies.
Dark energy is not a 'force of darkness' but rather a force which is as yet invisible to all but cosmological studies of gravitation and at this time it is unclear if is energy or a weird cosmological constant of the type allowed but not demanded by General Relativity. So its more akin to a measured-as-non-zero free parameter in our best model of gravity, an encapsulation of temporary human ignorance, than the denial of parsimony that a "conspiracy theory" is. Likewise there is no "dark" in dark matter, in that it is apparently transparent to our observational methods to date, but because it is clumpy it is possible to map it via its gravitational lensing effects, so it is the most parsimonious explanation for galaxy rotation curves, cosmological expansion and gravitational lensing effects when the laboratory-known forms of matter don't explain them by themselves. It is not scientism to know what science is and to apply it. Our legal system is necessarily built on an epistemology of empiricism because people can't prove that they didn't commit murders in some round-about or magical fashion but prosecutors can infer a likely specific course of action a person took to commit a specific murder and demonstrate how the alleged actions were consistent with physical evidence and the behavior of human beings. The Salem witch trials were condemned because it was not empirical truth that was sought but confirmation of outrageous stories made up by scared children. Confirmation bias is an enemy of science and successful criminal investigation.
It is not about dark energy, it is a piece of the discussion, conspiracy theory and psychology thereof. Belief in forces of darkness along with good/evil are a part of Human Psychology that cannot be ignored by those who study Human Psychology. You have mixed up two different science topics. Look into Arson Science for examples of bad science and the legal system. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/investi...ence-sent-dad-prison-killing-wife-kids-n89601 well... currently there are some raising questions about some of the 'science' used in the legal system. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...s-whats-reliable-and-whats-not-so-scientific/
Science might not, but scientism certainly does. Many Sciforums threads seem to be based on the assumption that there's some grand historical battle underway for the soul of the human race, between "science" (a word that expands unhistorically to become synonymous with sound reasoning in any and all matters) and the dark forces of ignorance and obscurantism. The board's loud and at times abusive atheist fundamentalism piggybacks atop that idea. It's often apparent in the board's divisive political rhetoric as well, as attempts are made to portray perceived enemies as "anti-science". It's all about good vs. evil. So if somebody makes some assertion, arguably we needn't pay any attention to the content of the assertion or to the reasons and justifications that are advanced to support it. It's sufficient to say, 'That's pattern number 352' and suggest that it's the pattern (and some unconscious motivations) that explain the assertion, as opposed to a plausible and justifiable thought process. The beauty of that is that the individual summarily dismissing another person's ideas can wrap him or herself in the flag of "science" while doing it. (It's 'psychology'! Anyone who argues back against me outs themself as a "denier"!) I can imagine our proponents of scientism salivating like Pavlov's dogs at the thought of that little rhetorical trick. The relevant patterns in determining rationality are patterns of logical inference. They can only be perceived and assessed if we pay close attention to the argument that the other person is actually making. And in many cases it's more complicated than that, since most people are reasonably rational and disagreements often revolve around the nature and quality of evidence and on how it is weighted. That's often an intuitive judgement. It only becomes a matter of logical inference when all kinds of implicit auxiliary assumptions are made explicit, which often threatens to render everything circular.
I was clarifying Sarkus' smiley-face-digression on dark energy, not introducing a new topic without basis. Some people have a mental picture of "dark matter" being black-colored when as far as we know it is invisible to EM radiation. Lack of understanding of science will lead people to defer to purported authorities, yes. It's not scientism for the judge and jury to latch on to the testimony of a purported expert witness as giving true answers when the defense did not tease apart the supposed basis for that understanding. In some of those stories, there was contravening information on the state of the forensic science at the time of conviction and yet we don't hear the story that the defense presented that information. The legal system is adversarial so a poor defense is a big factor in false convictions. That shouldn't be a surprise. Science is hard and so is the legal practice. But unlike science, court cases must come to a decision with whatever finite resources which are brought to bear on the matter at the time and like all non-trivial decision processes, even the most scientific, that system is guaranteed to have the potential of false positives and false negatives. Even now, the prosecuting county is not planning on an apology because the answer "we know we don't know now if it was arson" is not synonymous with "we now know it wasn't arson." Imagine a justice system where the defendant did have to demonstrate that they were innocent of every charge, and you will see this is not the worst methodology.
I have asked you in the past to quote who you are refering to. But that doesnt change the point; Sarkus was not discussing 'dark energy' either. Sarkus merely introduced a fallacious argument; strawman I believe, and you focused on that, rather than the context, which was the psychology of conspiracy et. al. You were the one who introduced the legal system use of science into the discussion, I only presented the issue that there are plenty of examples of 'legal science' being wrong. The expert witnesses used the 'consensus science' in their testimony. Problem being the consensus was incorrect. http://ismbook.com/scientism.html But we are both straying off topic.
Not really a strawman, rather just an attempt at a little humour... playing off the terms "darkness" and "dark energy" etc. Certainly no seriousness was intended, and I assumed that would have been obvious. So apologies if it fell somewhat flat. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
OK. Question then. Are you saying your entire exchange with MR is simply to ridicule him? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
How on earth did you infer such arrant nonsense from what I have written? From a play on words for humorous effect (missed or otherwise)? Seriously? Question for you: have you actually read the exchange? It is entirely without ridicule, attempted or otherwise, and conducted on both sides with due respect to views held, agreed with or otherwise.
