What is wrong with being a Conspiracy Theorist?

Where have you seen a single person with what you regard as a working knowledge of physics build a model that can completely collapse? If you don't know what Potential Energy is then how can you evaluate anything?

psik

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I enjoy conspircies just like I like good science fiction, I think in that context it's harmless so long as you don't take it to seriously.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeah, 9/11 is science fiction alright. But most of the stuff called science fiction these days does not have very good science and most of the sci-fi readers either don't care or can't tell. I'll bet most of them can't tell.

http://psikeyhackr.livejournal.com/1276.html

psik

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

When I said science fiction I was thinking more about the one where people claim they found evidence of aliens on the moon, whilst yes sure interesting but in a sci-fi way.

 

I have no problem with people who fantasize about the possibilities of human behavior in any arena, but when it becomes a paranoid obsession it is harmful to the individual and possibly others because often it affects their ability to think rationally and may cause them to make decisions based on things they believe to be true but aren't. For instance, a woman believes her husband is participating in human trafficking. She has no real evidence just strange circumstances that with a strong stretch of the imagination can support the possibility of said illegal behavior. Because she believes it so strongly she reports his alleged crime to the police. They investigate and determine that the claims are unsubstantiated. She believes in her claim so strongly that she is unable to consider that she may be wrong so begins to believe the police are involved. She tries to get help elsewhere with the same results landing whomever she turned to on the list of suspects until she begins to believe EVERYONE is involved. She begins to fear for her life and so kills her husband and goes into hiding.Yes this is an extreme example, I know this. But it could happen and I am sure that some murders are the result of someone's paranoia.

A less dramatic example could be a man who believes his partner is cheating on them. No hard evidence, only the partner displays behaviors similar to known cheating partners of the past. The man then constantly snoops and spies on the partner or even accuses the partner until the partner becomes fed up and leaves. The man has now destroyed his relationship with his partner and the partner may well have been innocent of any wrong doing.

Conspiracy theorists rarely consider the possibility that they are wrong. They get an idea in their head and then obsess over it and will search for proof that their theory is correct rather than searching for truth. They do not approach the situation with objectiveness. They reject evidence that proves their theory wrong and even find a way to distort evidence in order to make it support their claim.

It is unhealthy for themselves and if they are theorizing about politicians then they can have an awful affect on young people or anyone who may not know all the facts and can cause people to vote based on false information. If you can't see the harm in that, well... I don't know what to say to you.

 

You're asking the wrong guy. What I'm seeing here is that several people are telling you that you're wrong, showing you where you're wrong, and your response is juvenile BS like "ROFL" followed by a more emphatic restatement of your original position. You don't address any of the criticisms of your argument, you simply mock and restate. That's how I know you're a loon.

 

We are talking about 300 year old Newtonian physics that grade school kids should understand. It does not change. The fact that most American adults do not understand it is disturbing and hilarious but not surprising.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0wk4qG2mIg

Harvard graduates can't explain what causes winter and summer, and that video was made a decade before 9/11. So this hilarious stupidity is not surprising. I laughed at that video the first time I saw it. It took me two weeks to conclude airliners could not destroy the towers but the information that led me to that conclusion is what gets disappeared about the towers. So 9/11 says something about the psychology of this culture. Just like economists who can pretend that planned obsolescence is not happening and ignoring the depreciation of all of the cars purchased by consumers.

So you don't understand the conservation of momentum and you think my laughing at this nonsense is evidence of something. Yeah, that is the problem with most people. They think emotional nonsense is more important than physics.

Every skyscraper has to hold itself up. That means every LEVEL has to support the combined weights of all LEVELS above. But to make LEVELS stronger they have to put in more steel. Grumpy makes a big deal about the trusses. The trusses didn't hold up the towers. The core and perimeter columns held up everything and the trusses are attached to them. So to have discussed this for ELEVEN YEARS without most "scientists" demanding accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete down the towers is HILARIOUS.

But the 9/11 decade is a psychological issue Physics IS NOT.

My model has to get stronger toward the bottom just like a real skyscraper. The paper loops at the bottom are tripled. The washers are sorted by weight so the structure is bottom heavy. The strength and weight are separate unlike a real skyscraper because one washer weighs more than all of the paper loops. But if my paper loops are as weak as possible relative to their static load then why does the structure fail to collapse in two drops?

So if the physics dictates that the towers could not possibly collapse then what does that say about the psychology of all of the people who believe that they did?

It is hilarious but also a serious cognitive dissonance problem. So build a physical model that can completely collapse. But if you can't di it then...

psik

 

No, actually we are talking about the question stated by the OP, what's wrong with being a conspiracy theorist. I'm sure you and Balerion have a valid debate going between the two of you, (and this is directed at both of you) but to hijack and derail this thread with a tangent that does not answer the question of the OP is disrespectful to the OP and to those who are willing and/or desiring to discuss the original question. One that I think is a good one asked. I am sure many people ask this question within their own mind but few people actually take the time to think about the answer to the question. I think many opponents to conspiracy theories spend more time thinking about why any particular theory is wrong rather than why conspiracy theories in general are bad.

Now if we can just answer the question without mocking other members by name and drawing them out into a derailing tangent.

 

I agree. And psi has already lost this debate in another thread at the hands of people who have a far better idea of what they're talking about than I do, so there's no need for me to fumble about in the dark with ROFL Man. Sorry for the trouble.

 

What is a Conspiracy Theorist then?

The idea that 19 Arabs with box cutters flew planes into buildings is just as much a conspiracy theory as anything else.

But in practice anyone that says that theory is stupid IS CALLED a Conspiracy Theorist as though it is an insult. So is everyone that discusses the subject a conspiracy theorist?

psik

 

The term "conspiracy theorist" colloquially refers to people who believe in absurd conspiracy plots and cover-ups in spite of a lack of supporting evidence and/or a preponderance of evidence to the contrary, such as Troothers, who believe 9/11 was perpetrated by the US government and the Twin Towers fell in a controlled demolition.

That 19 Arabs with box cutters hijacked planes and flew them into buildings is a fact, not a theory, by the way.

 

TRUE BELIEVERS KNOW their theory is not a theory. ROFL

So why do we hear some of these hijackers are still alive?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdEm8z2NTBo

psik

 

No, TRUE BELIEVERS TYPE IN ALL CAPS.

Probably for the same reason we hear the Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot are still alive.

 

You are right. Any investigation is based on the theory of a conspiracy. The term "conspiracy theorist" is perhaps a misnomer is the sense that a negative connotation is attached to it. Much in the way some people use the word "gay" as an insult. Obviously being gay is not the same as being bad. In the same respect being that having a theory about a possible conspiracy should not automatically mean you are a nut job.

Our society is not perfect and few people think objectively 24 hours a day. We are all subject to thoughts and ideas to be justified by how we feel rather than objective observation.

But for sake of the question, conspiracy theorist is usually reserved for those who decide what the result of the investigation should produce and only look for evidence to support the theory and ignore any evidence that suggest the theory is wrong. Conspiracy theorists tend to refuse to accept the possibility that they are wrong. If solid evidence is presented proving the theory wrong, they simply say it is fabricated and the source of the evidence is tainted by the conspirators.

But technically you are correct, holding a theory of a possible conspiracy is normal and healthy. Suspicion is a good thing. It keeps us from being taken advantage of. But there is healthy suspicion and then there is irrational paranoia. The term "conspiracy theorist" usually is used to describe those who have fallen into the realm of irrational paranoia.

Technically we all occasionally hold theories of a conspiracy, not necessarily in regards to huge government coverups, but in our everyday dealings with people around us. When my daughter comes to me out of the blue and tells me she loves me, I theorize that its a conspiracy to manipulate me into giving her something she wants. My evidence: she rarely tells me she loves me without provocation. Sometimes my theory is correct, other times she just got inspired by something she saw on the net or tv to tell me she loves me and her motives are purely innocent. But when she states her case that she doesn't want anything, then I have to accept that my theory was wrong otherwise I will be in a position of never trusting her which could harm her emotionally. And lead me to the unwarranted belief that my child doesn't really love me.

I hope that helps.

 

The BBC was reporting this in September of 2001.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1559151.stm

psik

 

Actually, if you look at the meaning of theory, it is a theory. What the "Troothers" have is an unsubstantiated hypothesis. But the words "conspiracy hypothesizers" just doesn't roll off the tongue very well. So even calling them theorists is an error.

So in my previous post replace "theorists" with "hypothesizers". Then it should be more accurate, though I do reserve the right to continue pondering the semantics and making further corrections to my position as we go.

 

So are the 19 Arabs with box cutters a "conspiracy theory" or not?

psik

 

This is where that critical thinking skill comes into play. Spidergoat mentioned it earlier. There are over 50 people in the USA alone that have the exact same name as me, first middle and last name. A few of them even look like me and are about the same age. Do you have any idea how easily a mistake could be made if one of them committed a crime and i was confused for the guilty one? These things happen. And a suspect is a suspect. It means they are suspected of a crime, obviously the people listed on the suspect list are presumed dead due to the nature of the crime, so no trial has given them an opportunity to present evidence of their innocence. That's the trouble with a crime where the criminal dies in the process, even more so when there body is destroyed beyond recognition. The case will never be tried for these individuals and suspects are all we will ever have. If these surfacing individuals can prove they are indeed the people the FBI believes are guilty then the fact that they live proves their innocence. And all that proves is that the FBI suspects the wrong individuals. It does not blow the entire case out of the water.

 

That would depend on how one defines the term "conspiracy theorist". Popular accepted usage of the term would say no it is not a conspiracy theory. But if you look at the words conspiracy and theory separately then it certainly is a conspiracy theory. The idea of 19 Arabs using box cutters to take over airplanes and crashing them into buildings to satisfy a political or religious agenda, does in fact describe a conspiracy. A theory is a hypothesis supported by strong evidence and accepted to be true based on that evidence. So technically, calling people with unsupported paranoid beliefs of conspiracies, conspiracy theorists is an oxymoron. Maybe the label was given in sarcasm, who knows. But for the sake of the question in the OP, we should use the term as it is accepted and used by the masses.