Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
For those of you who wish to share your conspiracy theories I offer you in return the following advise as to how avoid conflict or argument because you feel your theory is not being given due respect, understanding, or scrutiny. Consider the following as the base requirements most critical thinkers will expect to see if they are to take a theory as something worth serious consideration, and not something that has been plucked from the air.
If people tell you that your theory is not supported by evidence it is not because they are sheeple, it is not because they are thinking the wrong way, it is not because they don't share your insight to how the world works and it is not because they are shills. It is because they have weighed your evidence against the null, or against more mundane theories, and have found your theory lacking. Calling people Sheeple, telling them to wake up, etc, will not convince them that you do indeed know better. It will unfortunately convince many that you are more concerned with patting your own back and trying to look special by being superior than having an adult discussion.
There is a good chance your theory is little more than accussing somebody of a crime, a serious crime. It is always worth remembering that many people will find it unsporting and unfair to level such claims with out a substantial basis. There are always those who will think it is a meaningless game to suggest somebody was Jack the Ripper, caused 9/11, sank the Titanic, or was the true force behind a mass shooting. Let's assume you are not a troll. Let's assume you actually think there has been ill doings by some conspiracy, then you will instantly earn more attention if your posts remember these claims are going to be harmful, hurtful and potentially spiteful if shown to be wrong.
As a general rule, show some decorum. Choosing the smiley icon for the thread will do you no favours. Starting posts with LOL or Hahahaha or the like will actively sour your chances because it suggests you are finding some humour in a tragedy.
Consider that such claims will need a stronger reasoning behind them than the assumption that the government would be hiding something, or your gut feeling that authority has it in for you. Many conspiracy theories are about an intent to, or the covering up of, or direct causing of, death. If you want to claim a bombing was not real because you suspect Group X are the kinds of people who would probably plant a bomb consider how the families of those who lost loved ones will feel if they were to read you using their loss for your rant. To their eyes you don't like the government so you are using their pain a excuse to moan about the government. You may think you are protecting people from Big Pharma by sharing your instincts about what may or may not cause cancer or autism, but unless you can substantiate your claim you are just using the suffering of others to slur somebody. That is not something those whose suffering or loss you are using will likely appreciate.
The burden of proof is NEVER for others to disprove what you are saying. Any challenge you wish to issue along the lines of "prove this wrong" or "explain this" is utterly worthless.
The burden is yours to prove your theory correct. To "overcome the null" . Assume that most people will think the world acts in the way they are accustomed to until you can show them otherwise. It will be believed that bombs are placed by the criminals the evidence points at untill you supply new evidence. UFOs are explained by mundane means until you produce an alien craft. HAARP works exactly the way we have evidence for, and obeys the laws of physics until you can show us otherwise.
The biggest mistake many people make is to assume that one person who claims to have seen something, heard something, or experienced something, proves that is what happens. If a film or photo conflicts with their statement then it is cut and dried. The film is faked, the photo a fraud. It is very tempting to assume anybody who disagrees with the witness is calling them a liar or a fool.
Unfortunately people can remember a moment honestly and still be wrong. Memories are not a perfect record, they change details subtly with out us noticing. They fill in blanks with things we assume, or things we learn later. An hinest person can misremember, an honest person can be wrong, a dishonest person can lie. Memories are subjective.
But you are not telling us their memories. You are repeating the best subjective description of their memories and then giving us YOUR understanding of those descriptions. Which are also subjective.
Photos, films, documents, fingerprints, bullets, metals, materials of all kinds trump stories told by somebody, no matter how honestly given. These are more reliable not least because if they have been altered, faked, or manipulated, those manipulations leave traces. If you wish to discredit evidence you do so with evidence, not with claims.
That is not to say that subjective evidence is with out worth, but it IS lower down the scale. What people saw and heard are important tools for understanding what the physical evidence says.
It is also worth remembering that just saying "If there was a conspiracy they would have faked X, Y, and Z" is not the same as showing how and why X, Y, or Z were faked, nor is it reason enough to wave them away as having been faked. Unless you can show evidence the photo was a composite or the aircraft was a hologram, guess what: They weren't.
1. Not all ideas are equal.
You have the right to believe what ever you want. That is the wonderful thing about the freedoms we all enjoy. That does not mean that you should expect everybody to treat your belief as a valid alternative with equal merit to the concensus. No matter how much you want your theory to be taken seriously it will be judged on the evidence.2. Believing your theory does not make you smarter.
Nor does it make others dumber.
Nor does it make others dumber.
If people tell you that your theory is not supported by evidence it is not because they are sheeple, it is not because they are thinking the wrong way, it is not because they don't share your insight to how the world works and it is not because they are shills. It is because they have weighed your evidence against the null, or against more mundane theories, and have found your theory lacking. Calling people Sheeple, telling them to wake up, etc, will not convince them that you do indeed know better. It will unfortunately convince many that you are more concerned with patting your own back and trying to look special by being superior than having an adult discussion.
3. Understand the weight of accussation
There is a good chance your theory is little more than accussing somebody of a crime, a serious crime. It is always worth remembering that many people will find it unsporting and unfair to level such claims with out a substantial basis. There are always those who will think it is a meaningless game to suggest somebody was Jack the Ripper, caused 9/11, sank the Titanic, or was the true force behind a mass shooting. Let's assume you are not a troll. Let's assume you actually think there has been ill doings by some conspiracy, then you will instantly earn more attention if your posts remember these claims are going to be harmful, hurtful and potentially spiteful if shown to be wrong.
As a general rule, show some decorum. Choosing the smiley icon for the thread will do you no favours. Starting posts with LOL or Hahahaha or the like will actively sour your chances because it suggests you are finding some humour in a tragedy.
Consider that such claims will need a stronger reasoning behind them than the assumption that the government would be hiding something, or your gut feeling that authority has it in for you. Many conspiracy theories are about an intent to, or the covering up of, or direct causing of, death. If you want to claim a bombing was not real because you suspect Group X are the kinds of people who would probably plant a bomb consider how the families of those who lost loved ones will feel if they were to read you using their loss for your rant. To their eyes you don't like the government so you are using their pain a excuse to moan about the government. You may think you are protecting people from Big Pharma by sharing your instincts about what may or may not cause cancer or autism, but unless you can substantiate your claim you are just using the suffering of others to slur somebody. That is not something those whose suffering or loss you are using will likely appreciate.
4. Understand your burden of proof
The burden of proof is NEVER for others to disprove what you are saying. Any challenge you wish to issue along the lines of "prove this wrong" or "explain this" is utterly worthless.
The burden is yours to prove your theory correct. To "overcome the null" . Assume that most people will think the world acts in the way they are accustomed to until you can show them otherwise. It will be believed that bombs are placed by the criminals the evidence points at untill you supply new evidence. UFOs are explained by mundane means until you produce an alien craft. HAARP works exactly the way we have evidence for, and obeys the laws of physics until you can show us otherwise.
5. The evidence you like is not always the best evidence.
The biggest mistake many people make is to assume that one person who claims to have seen something, heard something, or experienced something, proves that is what happens. If a film or photo conflicts with their statement then it is cut and dried. The film is faked, the photo a fraud. It is very tempting to assume anybody who disagrees with the witness is calling them a liar or a fool.
Unfortunately people can remember a moment honestly and still be wrong. Memories are not a perfect record, they change details subtly with out us noticing. They fill in blanks with things we assume, or things we learn later. An hinest person can misremember, an honest person can be wrong, a dishonest person can lie. Memories are subjective.
But you are not telling us their memories. You are repeating the best subjective description of their memories and then giving us YOUR understanding of those descriptions. Which are also subjective.
Photos, films, documents, fingerprints, bullets, metals, materials of all kinds trump stories told by somebody, no matter how honestly given. These are more reliable not least because if they have been altered, faked, or manipulated, those manipulations leave traces. If you wish to discredit evidence you do so with evidence, not with claims.
That is not to say that subjective evidence is with out worth, but it IS lower down the scale. What people saw and heard are important tools for understanding what the physical evidence says.
It is also worth remembering that just saying "If there was a conspiracy they would have faked X, Y, and Z" is not the same as showing how and why X, Y, or Z were faked, nor is it reason enough to wave them away as having been faked. Unless you can show evidence the photo was a composite or the aircraft was a hologram, guess what: They weren't.
6. Know when to retract.
So you make a suggestion and when somebody points out a gap, or a flaw, or outright contradicts you . Know when to retract a statement because you were wrong, know when to admit you were in error or when your idea is just that. If you have to make a special pleading, back pedal, or make a "I can't prove THAT but how about THIS" argument. If you can't support the claim evidence for other claims, or crying "conspiracy" is not a substitute. You are expecting others to consider your theory and possibly be convinced. The least you can do is extend the same curtesy and possibly be convinced yourself. You expect others to retract their own claims that can not be proven, expect the same of yourself.7. Hold all evidence to one standard
If you are willing to dismiss evidence that contradicts you for a flimsy reason, (because it comes from a government source, because there is some possibility it was a Big Pharma Fraud, because you don't fall for misinformation, etc) be willing to dismiss the evidence that happens to agree with your pet theory on that same flimsy reason. If you refuse to accept evidence against you because it fails to meet a high standard then be prepared to dismiss all evidence you agree with that ALSO fails to meet that high standard.
?
.
), the pilots wouldn't have given up the aircraft willingly, and so on and so forth.
