"...have there ever been proven conspiracies?..."

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It's good that concerned sharp minds are tirelessly separating the wheat from the chaff.

But what are the conspiracy theorists doing?

 

[JayUtah]

It's good that concerned sharp minds are tirelessly separating the wheat from the chaff.

But those sharp minds don't belong to conspiracy theorists.

In a separate thread we reported on actual conspiracies -- a list from Alex Jones, I believe. And what was most notable about that list was that none of the actual conspiracies were preceded by conspiracy theories. And the conspiracy theories we deal with most often -- 9/11, JFK, etc. -- have no resolution in sight; they keep grinding through the same long-debunked claims over and over. In fact, the conspiracy theorists specifically argue that it is not their aim to achieve any sort of resolution. It's not their job.

The conspiracy theorists have a negligible -- if not outright zero -- track record of discovering actual conspiracies, as reported by their own lists of "real" conspiracies. And they show no desire to change that.

It's much like the Nostradamists. They can tell you in great detail after the fact how Nostradamus predicted some noteworthy event. But no one seems to be able to use Nostradamus to predict actual future events. Apparently prophecy works only in retrospect. Hence conspiracy theorists pointing to conspiracies discovered and proven by others with actual evidence does nothing to validate their activities, which are vastly different.

 

[abaddon]

<snip>
It's good that concerned sharp minds are tirelessly separating the wheat from the chaff.

Isn't it just, because in thread after thread each conjecture you have for which you have presented arguments are all chaff and no substance. No credible evidence has been presented for a single claim made. None.

Why is that?

 

[Bubba]

But those sharp minds don't belong to conspiracy theorists. ...

I did not say sharp minds belong to conspiracy theorists.

I'd not bother to elaborate if the term 'conspiracy theorist' were not now effectively code for cuckoo. It appears some reputable dictionaries have not gone there yet.

If you mean every person espousing a claim of collusion is a dullard, miriam-webster seems to disagree.

Yes 'conspiracy theorist' now has a new popular definition (sometimes deservedly), in some circles, (excluding miriam-webster).

Re my use of 'sharp minds'... IMO they;

* see that conspiracies can work well for bad guys.

* understand we cannot know when successful conspiracies are unfolding around the world.

* know that some future conspiracy theories might not be bunk.

* recognize how 'conspiracy theorist' becoming code for cuckoo benefits conspirators.

* know that we cannot know how many whistleblowers really have been silenced or 'suicided', including where we never heard of the claim or the claimant.

Where 'conspiracy theorist' is now effectively code for cuckoo here, what term shall describe the person(s) suspecting/claiming collusion not yet disproven, should one appear?

Whistleblower? Or just another cuckoo CT ?

 

[turingtest]

I did not say sharp minds belong to conspiracy theorists.

I'd not bother to elaborate if the term 'conspiracy theorist' were not now effectively code for cuckoo. It appears some reputable dictionaries have not gone there yet.

If you mean every person espousing a claim of collusion is a dullard, miriam-webster seems to disagree.

Yes 'conspiracy theorist' now has a new popular definition (sometimes deservedly), in some circles, (excluding miriam-webster).

Re my use of 'sharp minds'... IMO they;

* see that conspiracies can work well for bad guys.

* understand we cannot know when successful conspiracies are unfolding around the world.

* know that some future conspiracy theories might not be bunk.

* recognize how 'conspiracy theorist' becoming code for cuckoo benefits conspirators.

* know that we cannot know how many whistleblowers really have been silenced or 'suicided', including where we never heard of the claim or the claimant.

Where 'conspiracy theorist' is now effectively code for cuckoo here, what term shall describe the person(s) suspecting/claiming collusion not yet disproven, should one appear?

Whistleblower? Or just another cuckoo CT ?

I'd call him somebody who doesn't understand the concept of "burden of proof"; maybe Miriam Webster hasn't told him what that means.

 

[Ladewig]

I'd call him somebody who doesn't understand the concept of "burden of proof"; maybe Miriam Webster hasn't told him what that means.

Indeed.


But to answer Bubba's question.
Investigator, amateur investigator, independent investigator, researcher, interested observer, concerned citizen.

I am still trying to understand why you think the way we use the term "Conspiracy Theory" on a skeptic board in a conspiracy-theory sub-forum is presumptuous. If you have evidence of a criminal conspiracy ( e.g. FIFA) then start a thread in a sub-forum related to that topic. If The thread fills up with evidence, the thread will reside in that sub-forum. If the thread fills up with assertions, rumors, explanations that defy logic, motivations that require hidden machinations that appear to go against self-interest, facts that are hand waved away, then it will be moved to the Conspiracy Theory sub-forum.

I answered your question; here is mine.

If you don't want conspiracy theory to refer to woo stories, what term would you use for the stories that no one was killed at Sandy Hook. Or that President Obama and the UN are about to invade Texas in an attempt to take away our guns? And the hundreds of other thread topics that fill this sub-forum?

 

[Bubba]

Indeed ...

I answered your question; here is mine.

If you don't want conspiracy theory to refer to woo stories, what term would you use for the stories that no one was killed at Sandy Hook. Or that President Obama and the UN are about to invade Texas in an attempt to take away our guns? And the hundreds of other thread topics that fill this sub-forum?

I dont think I said that. Those two examples are conspiracy theories. I think I said it seems that Conspiracy Theorist is now code for cuckoo, as in sharp minds dont belong to conspiracy theorists.

I realize cuckoo and woo are now added to the definitions of C theory and C theorist definitions in some circles. To the delight of conspirators, no doubt.

Since the definitions no longer mean what they originally meant, new launguage is needed to distinguish old from new. Also to help avoid confusion and accusations of prejudice and bigotry.

I dont know, maybe there never was a time when 'Conspiracy Theory and C Theorist were plain language without added innuendo. I have not looked into that.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

To the delight of conspirators, no doubt.

See, that's where you're wrong. It's conspiracy mythologist who muddy up the water with their endless red herrings. For them, everything's a conspiracy except the things that are actually conspiracies. They're so busy chasing chimera and searching for mares' nests that they can't be bothered to put any sweat equity into the hard task of hunting down real conspiracies and exposing them. They are, in point of fact, the enemy of people who want actual conspiracies taken seriously. In that regard they are the ultimate UNPAID SHILLS.

 

[JayUtah]

To the delight of conspirators, no doubt.

Don't kid yourself. Despots love you. You latch onto the most irrational notions and convey the impression that objections to or arguments against those in authority are invariably based on poor logic, nonexistent research, and a healthy dose of paranoia. There is nothing a despot wants more than to be able to show -- with evidence -- that criticism against him is irrational.

Conspiracism pretends to hold powerful interests accountable. Instead, conspiracism facilitates the ability of powerful interests to devalue criticism.

Since the definitions no longer mean what they originally meant, new launguage is needed to distinguish old from new.

No. If you dislike being lumped into the stereotype, quit being stereotypical.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Since the definitions no longer mean what they originally meant, new launguage is needed to distinguish old from new. Also to help avoid confusion and accusations of prejudice and bigotry.

This is why I say "conspiracy mythologists". It cuts right to the heart of the matter.

 

[Jango]

I dont think I said that. Those two examples are conspiracy theories. I think I said it seems that Conspiracy Theorist is now code for cuckoo, as in sharp minds dont belong to conspiracy theorists.

I realize cuckoo and woo are now added to the definitions of C theory and C theorist definitions in some circles. To the delight of conspirators, no doubt.

Since the definitions no longer mean what they originally meant, new launguage is needed to distinguish old from new. Also to help avoid confusion and accusations of prejudice and bigotry.

I dont know, maybe there never was a time when 'Conspiracy Theory and C Theorist were plain language without added innuendo. I have not looked into that.

The term 'Conspiracy Theorist' as defined by the anti-conspiracy theorists here is lacking any type of reality based application.

 

[Bubba]

Would pedophiles be indebted to those who would redefine pedophile theories as jokes unworthy of investigation?

 

[Ladewig]

Would pedophiles be indebted to those who would redefine pedophile theories as jokes unworthy of investigation?

I have no idea how to answer that because I have no idea what a pedophile theory is.

 

[Ladewig]

I dont think I said that. Those two examples are conspiracy theories. I think I said it seems that Conspiracy Theorist is now code for cuckoo, as in sharp minds dont belong to conspiracy theorists.

I realize cuckoo and woo are now added to the definitions of C theory and C theorist definitions in some circles. To the delight of conspirators, no doubt.

Since the definitions no longer mean what they originally meant, new launguage is needed to distinguish old from new. Also to help avoid confusion and accusations of prejudice and bigotry.

I dont know, maybe there never was a time when 'Conspiracy Theory and C Theorist were plain language without added innuendo. I have not looked into that.

This last part strikes me as being the most important.

If I suspect that a high ranking official is working alone to commit crimes, I cannot even imagine describing my suspicions as a criminal theory. Do you think anyone would say, "listen to my criminal theory concerning the mayor"? No. People would say things like: I think the mayor may be committing a crime. Similarly if people thought the mayor and the town council were committing crimes, they would most likely say, I think the mayor and town council are committing crimes. Or they might say the mayor and the town council are conspiring to commit crimes. Not "I have constructed a theory concerning the mayor and town council conspiring to commit crimes."

There are criminals who conspire to commit crimes, but I cannot believe that any of them are joyfully saying "ha, ha. People can no longer seriously theorize about our criminal conspiracies because the term 'Conspiracy Theory' carries too much baggage."

 

[Nick Terry]

The term 'Conspiracy Theorist' as defined by the anti-conspiracy theorists here is lacking any type of reality based application.

Which shows only that you do not understand how we use the term conspiracy theorist. It is used to describe people who make allegations of a conspiracy even though they lack direct evidence of that particular conspiracy.

Therefore it has a very clear real-world application, especially since there are demonstrably a large number of unproven conspiracy allegations out there.

 

[LSSBB]

This last part strikes me as being the most important.

If I suspect that a high ranking official is working alone to commit crimes, I cannot even imagine describing my suspicions as a criminal theory. Do you think anyone would say, "listen to my criminal theory concerning the mayor"? No. People would say things like: I think the mayor may be committing a crime. Similarly if people thought the mayor and the town council were committing crimes, they would most likely say, I think the mayor and town council are committing crimes. Or they might say the mayor and the town council are conspiring to commit crimes. Not "I have constructed a theory concerning the mayor and town council conspiring to commit crimes."

There are criminals who conspire to commit crimes, but I cannot believe that any of them are joyfully saying "ha, ha. People can no longer seriously theorize about our criminal conspiracies because the term 'Conspiracy Theory' carries too much baggage."

Good point, Ladewig. Here is a companion case study, Operation Safe Road. The case best known as the George Ryan scandal, it was in fact a wide ranging conspiracy, as the criminal charges to the many involved attest. It even involved all the classic CT elements: government, the death of innocent Americans, and greed. It also was uncovered as part of a criminal investigation, and not some independent hobbyist connecting the dots.

Granted, most conspiracists wouldn't care, because it did not include the White House, CIA, FBI (at least as participants in the conspiracy) NSA, or even NIST or FEMA.

 

[JayUtah]

The term 'Conspiracy Theorist' as defined by the anti-conspiracy theorists here is lacking any type of reality based application.

Nonsense. It's the definition used by the peer-reviewed scholarly literature on the subject, of which there is a fair amount. Nick Terry has given you the particulars of that definition and its application.

The elephant in the room is that most conspiracy theorists I've talked to literally cannot tell the difference between belief in a conspiracy and belief in a conspiracy theory. Or stated more explicitly -- the difference between a proven conspiracy and belief in a conspiracy theory for which they can provide only inference, no evidence.

 

[Jango]

Nonsense. It's the definition used by the peer-reviewed scholarly literature on the subject, of which there is a fair amount. Nick Terry has given you the particulars of that definition and its application.

The elephant in the room is that most conspiracy theorists I've talked to literally cannot tell the difference between belief in a conspiracy and belief in a conspiracy theory. Or stated more explicitly -- the difference between a proven conspiracy and belief in a conspiracy theory for which they can provide only inference, no evidence.

CT, as commonly used, is too inclusive. It lumps together very different kinds of people, be they a propagandist (like RT or Press TV), the mentally ill or people who examine events and come to different conclusions than the common narrative (I.e. people who are skeptical of government/business/individual claims).

 

[JayUtah]

CT, as commonly used, is too inclusive. It lumps together very different kinds of people, be they a propagandist (like RT or Press TV), the mentally ill or people who examine events and come to different conclusions than the common narrative (I.e. people who are skeptical of government/business/individual claims).

So are you suggesting we should wait for a diagnosis from a mental healthcare professional before applying a label? Or should we simply apply the term that describes observable behavior without attempting the often-impossible task of differentiating from among root causes? The psychologists I've read seem to have no problem with a phenomenological or symptomatic definition.

Regarding those who "come to different conclusions than the common narrative," I think we can continue differentiating based on whether they can provide any actual evidence for those conclusions. If they can, then "journalist" or "historian" might be a more suitable term. If they cannot, I think "conspiracy theorist" is still the best label. You seem to want solipsistic paranoia excluded from "conspiracy theorist." I see no reason to do that.

 

[Jango]

So are you suggesting we should wait for a diagnosis from a mental healthcare professional before applying a label? Or should we simply apply the term that describes observable behavior without attempting the often-impossible task of differentiating from among root causes? The psychologists I've read seem to have no problem with a phenomenological or symptomatic definition.

Regarding those who "come to different conclusions than the common narrative," I think we can continue differentiating based on whether they can provide any actual evidence for those conclusions. If they can, then "journalist" or "historian" might be a more suitable term. If they cannot, I think "conspiracy theorist" is still the best label. You seem to want solipsistic paranoia excluded from "conspiracy theorist." I see no reason to do that.

How so?