Given that Ryndanangnysen racked up 60 points since his registration in March, and that the vast majority of his post history equates to little more than "Nya you science nerds are stupid"... I've taken the liberty of issuing him with a permanent vacation. If anyone has any qualms or concerns with this, feel free to PM me and let me know - otherwise, I think we're better off without such, hm... is the term "Quality Shitposting" a sufficient oxymoron for the situation?
Psychology of Conspiracy Theorists
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
I reporting him twice yesterday, hoping for precisely this outcome. He was a classic troll with nothing whatsoever to offer for reasoned discussion.
Thank you very much.
One problem with conspiracy theory, is there is a dual standard in science. The areas of science that depends too much on statistics are often a constant source of conspiracy theory; risk. For example, today coffee is bad and tomorrow coffee is good. The first would be called a conspiracy theory, if Joe average did it; coffee is out to get us. This science theory will often change with the next study, showing us, it was subjective, all along, yet both will be called valid science.
Coffee is bad allows a politicians to pretend to help, while helping themselves, while coffee is good sells more coffee. Both science studies can be used to fuel a conspiracy theory tactic, against big business or big government, since logic is lacking on both sides and it is all subjective and dependent on chaos and dice, who both conspire against us.
Is the difference being, conspiracy theory requires thinking and not faith in chaos?
Coffee is bad allows a politicians to pretend to help, while helping themselves, while coffee is good sells more coffee. Both science studies can be used to fuel a conspiracy theory tactic, against big business or big government, since logic is lacking on both sides and it is all subjective and dependent on chaos and dice, who both conspire against us.
Is the difference being, conspiracy theory requires thinking and not faith in chaos?
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
If not conspiracy theories, certainly self-serving rhetoric flying the flag of science, hoping to ride on the prestige that science still has out there among the people.
There are organized activists out there insisting that radio-frequency emissions from cell phone antennas nearby will cause cancer or whatever. So they cram city council meetings trying to keep cell-phone companies from erecting antennas. (I'm sure they all have cell-phones in their pockets and insist on getting good cell-service.)
The people making these kind of arguments already think that they know what the truth is and are simply using "science" to give them what they hope will be authoritative illustrations of what they already believe.
The so-called "social sciences", especially sociology, are particularly prone to doing this. They will put out crudely conceived surveys, seeking statistical correlations between A and B, which their preexisting belief tell them must be related. If their statistics can tease a correlation out of the data, they will announce that A is a cause of B, when in fact no causal relationship has been shown at all.
One set of studies may supposedly show a correlation between coffee intake and pathologies, so we will be told that drinking coffee is bad for us. Another set may supposedly show an equally robust correlation between coffee intake and health benefits, so that we are told to drink more coffee. But neither set of studies really demonstrates any causal relationship between drinking coffee and either harm or benefits.
It's sloppy thinking either way.
The philosophy of the random universe, used by many areas of science, is part of the problem. The reason is since all things have odds, according to that theory, even conspiracy theories have finite odds of being true. In a rational universe, where cause and effect need to add up to a conclusion, conspiracy theories are not as easy to support.
Conspiracy theory is like playing the lottery, where anyone can win. It is not about cause and effect, until after all the balls randomly fall down the chute. Because all people have the same likelihood of winning the lottery, proportional to the number of lottery tickets purchased, conspiracy theories benefit by large groups; large ticket blocks. The conspiracy of big oil destroying the planet seems to be a sure thing, if you buy half the tickets, and then lobby to get others to buy with the group so you can get more than 50%.
Reason is the water that quenches the fires of chaos.
Conspiracy theory is like playing the lottery, where anyone can win. It is not about cause and effect, until after all the balls randomly fall down the chute. Because all people have the same likelihood of winning the lottery, proportional to the number of lottery tickets purchased, conspiracy theories benefit by large groups; large ticket blocks. The conspiracy of big oil destroying the planet seems to be a sure thing, if you buy half the tickets, and then lobby to get others to buy with the group so you can get more than 50%.
Reason is the water that quenches the fires of chaos.
I love conspiracy theories but dont label myself a "conspiracy theorist" since i often dont believe in them. I do like conspiracy theorists since they think outside the box and dont march in lock step and honestly i dont see anything wrong with that. Why people get angry if some people do not accept the status quo is something i never understood. With billions of people on this planet there will always (thankfully) be some who will not accept popular opinion just because it is popular opinion. Recently i have also observed conspiracy theories used as a coping mechanism.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Because those promoting the theory invariably have no understanding of the factors involved, and speak (forgive the vulgarity) out of their butts.
They are not promoting a theory, they are giving their opinion, their assessment and some are actually very intelligent. Thing is you can make a conspiracy out of almost anything.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Who is 'they' that is giving their opinion, rather than ardently pursing a poor argument based on a lack of understanding?
People who are able to think for themselves and that is the conclusion that they draw so if people get angry then maybe it THEY who have the problem.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
People have the right to their opinion. They do not have the right to expect that - if that opinion is ill-informed and based on ignorance - it should be taken seriously. And if that ill-informed ignorant opinion interferes with otherwise informed discussion, then they are being destructive, rather than constructive. It is this interference that angers those who otherwise which to pursue a thoughtful - and informed - discussion.
It depends on where it is presented. The fact that people like you demand others to believe in what you believe in is the epitome of destructive behavior. A few years ago i was on a "skeptics" forum and i actually felt bad for the majority of the posters because they lacked creativity, lacked imagination, lacked the ability to discover new things. You are much less informed than you think and your beliefs are a security blanket.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
You're taking this personally, and trying to make it an ad hominem argument.
I was not speaking of you; I was speaking of conspiracists, of which you assert you are not.
But I see it's OK for you to get angry, but you don't understand how others do?
Now that the shoe is on the other foot, you understand.
I do no such thing. You are projecting.
Facts are things that everyone can partake of independently. Beliefs, as you call them can be based on facts. Or not. Therein lies the difference.
Skeptic forums and science forums (such as this one) are about facts. Creativity and imagination is fine, but they don't get to imagine their own facts. Or ignore existing ones. This is the flaw of most conspiracists.
How can you possibly claim to have any idea how informed I am? You are projecting again.
And, I might add, angry.
There was no anger, so i dont know what you are talking about. One day you will wake up and see that many of your beliefs are lies. Then how will you feel? I am not a conspiracy theorist but i love the conspiracy theorist. Do you hate detectives? All detectives are conspiracy theorists, otherwise they would not be a good detective. They probe, they prod, they seek the truth against all odds. I feel free, not beholden to some old crusty BS artist who writes in a text book. We know no boundaries, and yet, you are limited. Nothing more than a parrot waiting for his next cracker, his reward. What a shame.
Well, either way, i said conspiracy theorists serve a purpose and i stand by that. People dont change, it is how they are made, whats inside of them. They dont like beliefs forced on them. But the reality is we cannot be held back, we are searchers. If i take ten people and ask them what color is the sky and one person answers other than blue i ask why...what do you know? What can you tell me? Yet, you mock them and therefore you are limited, never to learn more and i just think it is a shame.
Well, either way, i said conspiracy theorists serve a purpose and i stand by that. People dont change, it is how they are made, whats inside of them. They dont like beliefs forced on them. But the reality is we cannot be held back, we are searchers. If i take ten people and ask them what color is the sky and one person answers other than blue i ask why...what do you know? What can you tell me? Yet, you mock them and therefore you are limited, never to learn more and i just think it is a shame.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
These are all highly antagonistic statements, designed to turn a discussion into a personal attack. They are irrational (since they are baseless).
Same thing.
If you want to continue to discuss this, you'll have to stay on topic. ad hominem arguments are, by definition, off-topic.
Precisely. Limited to facts. That's how answers are born.
CTs often do not burden themselves with facts. That's how fantasies are born.
This is certainly true.
Sometimes they are right.
I did not condemn all conspiracists, and I did not condemn them categorically.
But I do condemn those who seek to turn a discussion into a mud-slinging contest by using highly emotional, antagonistic ad hominem attacks.
Remember, you asked why people get angry. They get angry because people want to be taken seriously without bothering to be objective or do the hard work.
Where does this come from? Nobody is forcing anything on anyone. You tilt at windmills.
Disagreeing with someone, and presenting facts that refute their ideas, is not "forcing" anything on anyone. As previously stated, everyone is entitled to their opinion; they are not entitled to be taken seriously if they don't do their homework.
OK, so you do admit to being a Conspiracy Theorist. The flip-flop doesn't bode well for your engaging in this discussion in good faith.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
There are 90-degree reflectors placed on the Moon by the astronauts. You or I or anyone who cares to, can - from the comfort of their backyard - point a laser at the Moon and receive the reflected signal 2.6 seconds delayed.
This is direct, empirical, independently-verifiable and irrefutable evidence that we landed on the Moon. Boom.
It is the kind of fact that all Moon Hoaxers do not trouble themselves with.
This is direct, empirical, independently-verifiable and irrefutable evidence that we landed on the Moon. Boom.
It is the kind of fact that all Moon Hoaxers do not trouble themselves with.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Well said.
Nah, I am not buying that. You can find a million excuses and it all only means you cannot accept someone disagreeing with you
We is meant to reflect humanity or civilization, and since I dont believe many, sometimes any, fundamental established conspiracy theories I cannot xonsider myself a conspiracy theorist. Some people are more in tune with perception, just as I can tell from reading a few posts that you are British.