The Conspiracy Theory

ai_1

Veronese68 wrote:

.....The problem is conspiracy theorists don't have the open minds they claim to have, they are far more close minded than most. No, I won't prove it.

Agreed. It's an obsession with subscribing to beliefs that are sensational and outside the mainstream. Often adherents seem to invest a lot of importance in identifying themselves as different and superior because they were able to reach this higher level of understanding. I can understand that to a degree. The problem is their central subject matter is complete self delusion and fantasy which they are completely unwilling to challenge. This to my eyes makes the conspiracy theorist "community" seem very similar to a cult in many ways. Whereas this is exactly the opposite of what they think they are.

ddraver

Nicely put Ai

I liken them to goths a bit (with which I flirted with as a nipper) who all "rebel" but in exactly the same way...


Edit - this is total chance but I ve just listened to something on beliefs and studies on people that hold strong beliefs. The brain actively ignores things that don't match what a person already believes. The example used was a bunch of staunch democrats and republicans were put in an MRI Scan and read a series of positive or negative comments about respective politicians. Afterwards they were asked if they were read pro or anti comments. The majority all said positive. The MRI Scan showed that their brains simply did not activate at the negative comments. Unconsciously, it completely ignored them.

The second item was that if a person tells you you are wrong then it's actually very uncommon to readjust your thinking (The brain develops a world view at an early age and it is incredibly hard to change that view in adulthood. If someone genuinely could do that assimilate information and alter their world view accordingly, then they would be considered insane). What actually happens is that you mistrust the person that tells you you are wrong. From this you can see how the mind of a conspiracy theorist (plus religious zealots etc) develops to the point where they no longer trust anyone or anything.

craigus89

So back on topic.

Whilst the vast majority of these theories are evidently complete bull, are there any conspiracy theories that people think there could be something true in?

The whole Kennedy assassination seems a bit odd to me. I don't know anywhere near enough about it to speculate either way - nor do I actually care that much as it has no effect on me - but I've heard some interesting stuff about certain government high-up's/FBI who wanted him out, the whole drug war going on at that time was all very corrupt etc seems slightly plausible.

But then, that could be just as much codswallop as the stuff Manc was saying.

ai_1

Craigus89 wrote:

So back on topic.

Whilst the vast majority of these theories are evidently complete bull, are there any conspiracy theories that people think there could be something true in?

The whole Kennedy assassination seems a bit odd to me. I don't know anywhere near enough about it to speculate either way - nor do I actually care that much as it has no effect on me - but I've heard some interesting stuff about certain government high-up's/FBI who wanted him out, the whole drug war going on at that time was all very corrupt etc seems slightly plausible.

But then, that could be just as much codswallop as the stuff Manc was saying.

As far as I know it's plausible that all was not as reported. But I don't know a great deal about it or about what is suggested by any conspiracy theories other than that he wasn't really killed by Lee Harvey Oswald. Plausible doesn't mean true. Kennedy was shot, many people wanted rid of him and it's conceivable it was done by someone other than the guy who was blamed. I'm not americentric enough to think this is worth my worrying about.

So, as far as I'm concerned there may or may not have been a conspiracy based on the little I know but it would not be completely earth shattering if I found out there was. It's a very different thing to suggesting that our understanding of the physical world is complete fiction or that we are all controlled by aliens, both of which theories have an abundance of evidence to the contrary and absolutely nothing credible to back them up.

ballysmate

Craigus89 wrote:

So back on topic.

Whilst the vast majority of these theories are evidently complete bull, are there any conspiracy theories that people think there could be something true in?

The whole Kennedy assassination seems a bit odd to me. I don't know anywhere near enough about it to speculate either way - nor do I actually care that much as it has no effect on me - but I've heard some interesting stuff about certain government high-up's/FBI who wanted him out, the whole drug war going on at that time was all very corrupt etc seems slightly plausible.

But then, that could be just as much codswallop as the stuff Manc was saying.

As with all conspiracies, the danger of being found out increases dramatically with every new person involved. Only takes one person to break rank for the house of cards to collapse.
With Kennedy for instance, imagine the people in govt agencies that would have to be involved in setting it up, recruiting LHO and then Benny. Mafia involvement? Yeah you'd trust some Mafia Don who lives in a dog eat dog world and mistrust.
Sells books though and good source of film scripts.

craigus89

Ai_1 wrote:

As far as I know it's plausible that all was not as reported. But I don't know a great deal about it or about what is suggested by any conspiracy theories other than that he wasn't really killed by Lee Harvey Oswald. Plausible doesn't mean true. Kennedy was shot, many people wanted rid of him and it's conceivable it was done by someone other than the guy who was blamed. I'm not americentric enough to think this is worth my worrying about.

So, as far as I'm concerned there may or may not have been a conspiracy based on the little I know but it would not be completely earth shattering if I found out there was. It's a very different thing to suggesting that our understanding of the physical world is complete fiction or that we are all controlled by aliens, both of which theories have an abundance of evidence to the contrary and absolutely nothing credible to back them up.

Quite. I don't think arguing against gravity would count as a "conspiracy theory" though. That is just plain stupidity or complete delusion, whichever you prefer.

florerider

Could have sworn I saw a Gillian Anderson thread but it looks like it has floated off into the ether.

imposter2.0

florerider wrote:

Could have sworn I saw a Gillian Anderson thread but it looks like it has floated off into the ether.

Don't be daft - it could only float if there was no gravity. Oh...

orraloon

Anyone missing he-who-is-on-holiday yet?

briantrumpet

orraloon wrote:

Anyone missing he-who-is-on-holiday yet?

I'm still not quite sure if the joke was on those getting in a stew about it. It takes a certain genius to suck so many otherwise sane people into arguments in a world where the laws of physics change depending on where you are, and logic is some sort of weird fantasy. I wouldn't actually be surprised if he's gone back to a day job as a professor of physics (as he certainly knew how to wind up people who have some understanding of it). Or he might just be nuts.

pblakeney

orraloon wrote:

Anyone missing he-who-is-on-holiday yet?

Any conspiracy theorist worth his salt would assume that he is not really on holiday.

Velonutter

I can assure you he is on holiday :roll:

ddraver

Do you have a photo?

pblakeney

ddraver wrote:

Do you have a photo?

He would demand a video.

pblakeney

Velonutter wrote:

I can assure you he is on holiday :roll:

That's what they always say.

imposter2.0

ddraver wrote:

Do you have a photo?

Taken from space - and NOT a composite...

chris_bass

Imposter wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Do you have a photo?

Taken from space - and NOT a composite...

It must contain all of him and he must be rotating

city_boy

Chris Bass wrote:

Imposter wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Do you have a photo?

Taken from space - and NOT a composite...

It must contain all of him and he must be rotating

In 2D or 3D?

Stevo_666

City Boy wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

Imposter wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Do you have a photo?

Taken from space - and NOT a composite...

It must contain all of him and he must be rotating

In 2D or 3D?

Regardless of which, it would be NASA fake.

slowmart

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general ... cy....html



So are the SNP even more deluded seeing English conspiracies at every juncture............

orraloon

Wasn't The Telegraph at one time a newspaper of some intellectual stature? Sadly that would appear to be not the case now, judging by the increasingly bizarre tales it is trotting out on Scottish politics.

Not much of a conspiracy here, nothing to see, move along please.

briantrumpet

orraloon wrote:

Wasn't The Telegraph at one time a newspaper of some intellectual stature? Sadly that would appear to be not the case now, judging by the increasingly bizarre tales it is trotting out on Scottish politics.

Whatever its politics, it was once a great paper - alas no more. Under the ownership of the Barclay brothers it has lost nearly all of its quality writers, and the HSBC connection highlighted the extent to which the brothers control what goes in the paper. Add in the fact that, thanks to the lack of sub editors, the paper is littered with errors, and the sort of lurid tabloid headlines that the Express would be proud of, and we're left with a paper that is a mere shadow of its former self. A real shame.

slowmart

orraloon wrote:

Wasn't The Telegraph at one time a newspaper of some intellectual stature? Sadly that would appear to be not the case now, judging by the increasingly bizarre tales it is trotting out on Scottish politics.

Not much of a conspiracy here, nothing to see, move along please.

And the greatest trick the Devil pulled was to make you believe he doesn't exist..........

Daz555

Slowmart wrote:

And the greatest trick the Devil pulled was to make you believe he doesn't exist..........

He's just a big softie really - certainly in comparison to the homicidal maniac who lives upstairs.

finchy

orraloon wrote:

Wasn't The Telegraph at one time a newspaper of some intellectual stature? Sadly that would appear to be not the case now, judging by the increasingly bizarre tales it is trotting out on Scottish politics.

Not much of a conspiracy here, nothing to see, move along please.

The Daily Telegraph regularly trots out "global warming is a scam" conspiracy theories by people who haven't go a clue about science (Christopher Booker, James Delingpole - although he's gone now)

ballysmate

johnfinch wrote:

orraloon wrote:

Wasn't The Telegraph at one time a newspaper of some intellectual stature? Sadly that would appear to be not the case now, judging by the increasingly bizarre tales it is trotting out on Scottish politics.

Not much of a conspiracy here, nothing to see, move along please.

The Daily Telegraph regularly trots out "global warming is a scam" conspiracy theories by people who haven't go a clue about science (Christopher Booker, James Delingpole - although he's gone now)

Must confess that I only read the Telegraph up until my free access runs out, but is the fact that it publishes such articles, and I assume it also covers pro GW stories as well, not a good thing. GW is not an exact science, insofar that it is still hypothesis and can't predict results. By giving counter arguments it allows its readership to form their own view, rather than have it spoon fed.

Edit: I am not necessarily a climate change denier. I just think people have the right and I hope, ability, to form their own opinions*.

Edit of the edit * Apart from Labour voters obviously, who are criminally stupid.

ai_1

Ballysmate wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

orraloon wrote:

Wasn't The Telegraph at one time a newspaper of some intellectual stature? Sadly that would appear to be not the case now, judging by the increasingly bizarre tales it is trotting out on Scottish politics.

Not much of a conspiracy here, nothing to see, move along please.

The Daily Telegraph regularly trots out "global warming is a scam" conspiracy theories by people who haven't go a clue about science (Christopher Booker, James Delingpole - although he's gone now)

Must confess that I only read the Telegraph up until my free access runs out, but is the fact that it publishes such articles, and I assume it also covers pro GW stories as well, not a good thing. GW is not an exact science, insofar that it is still hypothesis and can't predict results. By giving counter arguments it allows its readership to form their own view, rather than have it spoon fed.

Edit: I am not necessarily a climate change denier. I just think people have the right and I hope, ability, to form their own opinions*.

Edit of the edit * Apart from Labour voters obviously, who are criminally stupid.

While people do indeed have the right and ability to form their own opinions, it is unfortunately the case that huge swathes of the public can be relied upon to form those opinions on the basis of wishful thinking, flawed intuition, partial/skewed information, and the personalities of key supporters of each position. Giving both sides of an argument is all very well, except that in the media this typically has the effect of legitimising discredited minority views and putting them on a par with the consensus position. For example, if the news was to report many of the views expressed earlier in this thread (e.g. gravity does not really exist) in a factual and authoritarian manner, a fair number of people would think this was actually a fair point and worth examining.
No doubt Manc33 would say this is the point and we only believe what we do because we're told to, so it would be better to hear both sides of everything. However, where the argument for the opposing view is incredibly weak or non-existent that just opens the doors to cults and attention seekers and introduces pointless confusion.
If the met office forecasts that the next 3 days will be bright and warm with light winds and low possibility of rain, should the weather forecast on TV also include the possibility of a world ending flood because some small group believes Noah's flood version 2 is on the way? After all weather forecasting is complex and sometimes imprecise so who knows.

bompington

Ai_1 wrote:

While people do indeed have the right and ability to form their own opinions, it is unfortunately the case that huge swathes of the public can be relied upon to form those opinions on the basis of wishful thinking, flawed intuition, partial/skewed information, and the personalities of key supporters of each position. Giving both sides of an argument is all very well, except that in the media this typically has the effect of legitimising discredited minority views and putting them on a par with the consensus position.

Absolutely. Much better just to tell them what their betters have worked out to be true and ban all argument. After all, that approach has worked pretty well for institutions as diverse as the Spanish Inquisition, The Nazi Party and the Soviet Communist Party. Oh hang on, not much diversity there actually...

Daz555

Ballysmate wrote:

Edit: I am not necessarily a climate change denier. I just think people have the right and I hope, ability, to form their own opinions.

Individuals are entitled to their own opinions but they are not entitled to their own facts.

When it comes to opinions it is also worth noting that there is no right to have an opinion heard, nor is there a right to have an opinion respected.

ballysmate

Ai_1 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

orraloon wrote:

Wasn't The Telegraph at one time a newspaper of some intellectual stature? Sadly that would appear to be not the case now, judging by the increasingly bizarre tales it is trotting out on Scottish politics.

Not much of a conspiracy here, nothing to see, move along please.

The Daily Telegraph regularly trots out "global warming is a scam" conspiracy theories by people who haven't go a clue about science (Christopher Booker, James Delingpole - although he's gone now)

Must confess that I only read the Telegraph up until my free access runs out, but is the fact that it publishes such articles, and I assume it also covers pro GW stories as well, not a good thing. GW is not an exact science, insofar that it is still hypothesis and can't predict results. By giving counter arguments it allows its readership to form their own view, rather than have it spoon fed.

Edit: I am not necessarily a climate change denier. I just think people have the right and I hope, ability, to form their own opinions*.

Edit of the edit * Apart from Labour voters obviously, who are criminally stupid.

While people do indeed have the right and ability to form their own opinions, it is unfortunately the case that huge swathes of the public can be relied upon to form those opinions on the basis of wishful thinking, flawed intuition, partial/skewed information, and the personalities of key supporters of each position. Giving both sides of an argument is all very well, except that in the media this typically has the effect of legitimising discredited minority views and putting them on a par with the consensus position. For example, if the news was to report many of the views expressed earlier in this thread (e.g. gravity does not really exist) in a factual and authoritarian manner, a fair number of people would think this was actually a fair point and worth examining.
No doubt Manc33 would say this is the point and we only believe what we do because we're told to, so it would be better to hear both sides of everything. However, where the argument for the opposing view is incredibly weak or non-existent that just opens the doors to cults and attention seekers and introduces pointless confusion.
If the met office forecasts that the next 3 days will be bright and warm with light winds and low possibility of rain, should the weather forecast on TV also include the possibility of a world ending flood because some small group believes Noah's flood version 2 is on the way? After all weather forecasting is complex and sometimes imprecise so who knows.

Funny you should mention gravity. For years everyone was content with the Newtonian model until some strange looking chap said that it wasn't quite right. Perhaps we should have ignored Einstein?
As regards your weather analogy. If I'm going out, perhaps on my bike even, I may check the 5 min weather forecast. I will then look at the sky and prevailing weather and then make an informed decision about what to wear, having gathered information froma variety of sources.