Some thoughts on the term 'conspiracy theory' and 'skeptic'

Post Reply New Topic

The term 'conspiracy theory' has essentially become a pejorative. Rather than simply meaning a hypothesis that a certain event is being done in secret by a certain group for a certain agenda, ie, a conspiracy, the term 'conspiracy theory' tends to imply that a hypothesis is stupid, wrong, insane, or at the very kindest, 'out there' to the point of not being worth taken seriously.

While some conspiracy theories really ARE nutty, such as the Flat Earth theory or the theory the Moon Landings were faked, others, such as those involving the Kennedy Assassination, UFOs, and 9/11, actually have quite a bit of evidence backing them up; not only that but the 'official' accounts of them are in many ways wanting and full of holes.

The term 'conspiracy theory' basically applies to any theory that would radically question the common 'knowledge' we all think we have.

The term 'skeptic' originally meant somebody who was unwilling to subscribe to a theory but also unwilling to totally discount it without evidence either way. However nowadays the term 'skeptic' more or less means somebody who doesn't believe in anything that isn't conventional or can be explained in materialist terms. Rather than being open minded and rational, the modern skeptic is a stubborn defender of the establishment and a force against any radical ideas that just might be true.

Some. But for the most part, no, strictly insane. I think the best one I've read was that the Mob did it, which has quite a bit of evidence behind it. Most of the others? Complete psychosis.



AHAHAHAHA, AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, HAHAHAHAHAHA, oh sweet zombie Jesus that's rich. Whew. I gotta take a breather after that one.




Nope. Complete psychosis. I've watched Zeitgeist and Loose Change. I've read the reports and seen the math and crunched them myself and, guess what? Psychosis. Surprise: the USA isn't invulnerable. News at eleven.



Really? Let's try this:

Kennedy - Official: Lee Harvey Oswald is convicted of involvement with Kennedy's murder. No other suspects are convicted, but the case remains open to this day and receives new evidence. Holes? Why yes! We'd love some credible evidence with which to fill them.

Kennedy - Conspiracy: THE GUBMENT IZ HIDING TR000000000TH!

UFO - Official: The hard line is that it's unrelated phenomena. The 'soft line' is that the US military has a need to test brand new flying crap that blows people up and/or kills them eighty thousand kinds of dead.

UFO - Conspiracy: Have you seen Ancient Aliens lately? If you have, seek medical treatment. You're suffering brain damage.

9/11 - Official: We screwed the pooch and got attacked by acknowledged psychopaths that hate us and are willing to blow themselves up in the name of their cause. We could have stopped it, but we were lazy and arrogant and we didn't, and innocent people paid the price.

9/11 - Conspiracy: THE GUBMENT IZ HIDING TR000000000TH!

Occam's Razor is well-named. It cuts out the crap.



Nope. It still means a theory revolving around an actual conspiracy to commit or manipulate various events or circumstances. It isn't the fault of the community at large that most of the modern theories are advanced by people that are ignorant, fanatical, insane or just plain freaking dumb.



Oooh, missed another one. A 'skeptic' is someone that is unwilling to put stock in a theory or paradigm without substantial evidence of its validity. Returning to my point above, it's not the fault of the skeptical community that the self-proclaimed 'open minds' tend to be ignorant, fanatical, insane or just plain freaking dumb. When you accuse someone of being close-minded for not believing in your pet theory, you are the one closing your mind.

Do I sound rude? Probably. This is kind of a sensitive subject for me, especially since I've had multiple people in positions of authority over me that take their time to try and preach their pet theories at me. Bring me something credible, or leave it at home, hey?

Someone who doesn't believe in anything that can't be explained in materialist terms is a materialist. Materialists are not necessarily always skeptics (or sceptic in my English), although most skeptics are materialists.

People would have thought the staging of the Gulf of Tonkin incidence was a pretty zany idea until McNamara told the truth about it.

A well deserved one.



What's worth with a theory that challenges common knowledge if it does not do it successfully? There's absolutely nothing to be gained from a theory just because it challenges common knowledge. There are no award points for being edgy or original.

A theory better have evidence to back it. The Kennedy Assassination, UFOs, 9/11 was a inside job, they are all stuff that we have no evidence for. It is pointless to believe in something just because it challenges common knowledge.

A scientific skeptic would change his mind if you provide good evidence. A lot of scientists didn't believe Einstein until the experiment with solar eclipses was made successfully twice. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence you can't expect people to ask you for less evidence than we asked Einstein for.



STRRAAAWWWWMAAANNNN!! !!11

http://www.skepdic.com/skepticism.html

Wow you guys are dicks.

Guilty as charged. However, you chose to open up your thread with hostile accusations about doubters. Don't be surprised that we got hostile back.

I think the problem is that most of them really are insane, so when one comes along that's actually credible, it becomes a "boy who cried wolf" situation.

I'm including UFOs in that insane category though, sorry. The Kennedy assassination is a different story.

The problem with most of these theories is that they don't have substantial evidence. Generally, a person will go through the official theory, find a few elements that would need better explanations, a few inconsistencies, and conclude that it is irremediably false. Then, the person will come up with a strange theory that fits the problems with the official one, disregarding almost all other evidence. Finally, when anyone brings forth an explanation of the "inconsistencies" that fits the official theory, they will be completely ignored.

The thing is, most of the time, the "official" theory is also the one with the best evidence. That's why it's "official" in the first place. Therefore, those who rely on evidence, that is, the sceptics, will accept it, when given the evidence.

However, the term with the worst treatment in such regards is "revisionnist". In common parlance, it has come to be associated with Holocaust denial, which is very sad. When I say it in casual circumstances, using it in its actually sense (someone who contests the standard opinion of the historic community), I am always met with serious suspicions, even when discussing spice prices in the 15th and 16th century...

a salient point. clearly there are conspiracies, such as this ^ , operation gladio, etc. etc. perhaps it would be better to refer to real conspiracies as "clandestine operations" or something to separate them from the outlandish dross that is spread by more obviously delusional individuals.


i do, however, find it fascinating how one can go from understanding actual events such as those noted above and end up believing in the most absurd ideas, such as david icke's idea that a race of fourth dimensional shape shifting lizards are covertly controlling the human race as a means of harvesting energy from us. we have this on one side, and those who believe that everything is as it seems and question nothing on the other.

perhaps these are two extremes of dealing with the cognitive dissonance that occurs when we discover that our rulers are not as benevolent as we may have once thought.

The thing about most conspiracy theories is that they raise more new questions than they answer by claiming things for which there is no evidence. This is not to say that every has to have a materialistic explanation, however if it doesn't I'll believe the materialistic explanation. Some may say that earthquakes are caused by tectonic plates some may say its because some god wants to punish us, I think the former is a more credible theory on the subject.

Some may say John F Kennedy was shot in the head some may say it was Sylar from "Heroes" hiding on the grassy knoll. The term "conspiracy theory" has come to mean a theory which has pretty much no evidence and claims outlandish things. If someone claimed that the U.S government conspired with the financial industry to funnel taxpayer money to the top 1% wouldn't call that a conspiracy theory, because its a case that can be argued without resorting to outlandish claims.

I don't think UFO stories are insane, as many people have seen something in the sky that they couldn't explain. But saying that it's was a creation by another race of beings is another.

Ever wonder why the government neither confirms or discredits the existence of UFOs? Because it's a good cover story for secret military projects. It can also gauge how people are gullible, and I'm sure they use that against us to.

Last edited by snapcap on 15 Mar 2012, 1:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

SHAPESHIFTER!! !

Once two or three people know something its gone from being a strong secret to a fragile secret, by the time ten people know something its incredibly fragile, by the time 50 people know something its leaking like a siv, by the time only a few thousand know something its fan fiction.

+1

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFeLlY7oJNc[/youtube]

I look at 9/11 the same way I look at Pearl Harbor: The President knew it was going to happen and was warned that it was going to happen. Yet, it was allowed to happen since it served as a handy back door into a war nobody really wanted and a convenient justification for the curtailing of civil liberties. I wouldn't exactly call this empirical truth, but it's certainly more plausible than the "inside job" theory.