kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 12,632
Well, I'd be interested in a method that reliably converts gravity deniers into rational human beings. I might even be able to pick up some pointers. Could you provide a few JREF/ISF links where you successively employed this method on some hardcore conspiracy warriors?
Antigravity obsession and 9/11 are two types of woo (which come to mind) I have no ability to address.
9/11 is like a deist flavor of religion, in that you can't prove nobody knew it was coming. It's really unlikely in my mind, but it's not 100% completely impossible.
It kind of falls under the umbrella of this:
https://www.semanticscholar.org/pap...Bale/26ff6be33c8775e385504ae7e5a9b988b4658417
Political paranoia v. political realism: on distinguishing between bogus conspiracy theories and genuine conspiratorial politics
ABSTRACT
Scholars and intellectuals often fail to pay sufficient attention to the historical and political importance of conspiratorial politics, that is, real-world covert and clandestine activities. This is primarily because they rarely make an effort to distinguish conceptually between such activities, which are a regular if not omnipresent feature of national and international politics, and bogus ‘conspiracy theories’, elaborate fantasies that purport to show that various sinister, powerful groups with evil intentions, operating behind the scenes, are secretly controlling the course of world events. Bale's purpose is to provide a clear analytical distinction between actual conspiratorial politics and ‘conspiracy theories’ in the pejorative sense of that term, and to suggest that research methods appropriate to investigating and analysing the former have long been available. In a world full of secret services, surreptitious pressure groups, criminal cartels and terrorist organizations, academics can no longer afford to ignore bona fide conspiratorial activities of various types, which have often had considerable historical significance in the past and are likely to continue to exert an impact on events in the future.
The antigravity people are a different thing alltogether, it seems. It would take someone with significant expertise in physics to try my method and see if it even works with them. But I have seen an actual physicist try to teach them, and the way it goes is, the scientist goes on and on starting from scratch till the believer can't follow the math any more, and starts just making things up to cover for their ignorance, and when the physicist pinpoints the place it goes wrong, the woo goes full Godwin's law, like clockwork.
BUT - that wasn't using my method (I don't think) where you make sure to the best of your ability to not let the believer's (or even your own!) ego get tied up in the outcome of the discussion. You have to remember that people feeling humiliated dig in deeper. You can't learn when you're feeling over-the-top defensive. That's true of almost everyone.
But most of the time the physicist gets so enraged over being called a Nazi for knowing how to do math, they go into full on roast mode. Which is definitely understandable. And quite entertaining to watch, I have to admit.
eta:
Another principal of my method, is that you have to have the same debate at least 3 times with someone who's DEEP into the belief. They don't really accept it the first or second time, even though they know. The belief that they're right and just couldn't quite prove it sticks around and re-emerges as certainty in the belief again. I don't think I've ever seen someone stick with the demonstrably false belief even after 5 rounds tho.
Last edited: