What do you guys believe?

[dtugg]

Twoofer, Holocaust denier, anti-vaxxer. I wonder if there are any conspiracy theories that Clayton Moore does not believe in. Clay, who killed JFK? Did man walk on the moon? What is HAARP? Where was Obama born?

 

[epepke]

Let me say first of all that I appreciate everyone's respectful responses to my questions. Thank you. Also, I am not a repeat poster, and I did not come here to cause trouble. I just discovered this board the other day, and I signed up yesterday. I am here for legitimate discussion.

This is a good post, and it clarifies some things. I shall try to answer your original question. I'm going to try to explain what a skeptic is and how skeptics differ from other people.

I have never denied climate change. I believe that climate change is real, but that it is overblown, and that governments are using it to influence policy in other areas.

This is a good example of the difference between a conspiracy and a conspiracy theory. The claim that governments are using AGW to influence policy in other areas is a legitimate statement, which may be more or less true amongst various governments. I note in passing that it's a fairly uninteresting statement, as governments do this about everything, including the color of white paper.

A conspiracy theory would be to claim that AGW is a fraud made up for this purpose, when there is significant scientific evidence otherwise. It may make you feel better that Michael Shermer, a famous and influential skeptic, resisted the conclusion that AGW was happening and believed that there was a legitimate debate for years after those conditions no longer held.

I don't question whether or not the Holocaust happened, but I do question the accepted fact that six million people died, and I do question some of the more outrageous stories of the Holocaust, such as "Zyklon B" and "soap for lampshades".

The epidermal lampshade and soap could be mythical. The evidence that Zyklon B was used, especially when the Nazis wanted to conserve ammunition, is rather substantial. Six million deaths is probably wrong, the accepted number is more like ten million, of which six million were Jews. If you are arguing that the real number was lower, then, as a skeptic or with skeptics, you have to show an understanding of the means by which this was calculated and mount evidence for a different number. You cannot just wave your arms and call it "outrageous."

While you're doing it, you're going to have to get over your propensity, evinced by an earlier posting, of taking it personally when people attack you. Skeptics attack each other all the time; we consider it a valuable and possibly even essential thing to do when searching for accuracy. Skeptics have learned many ways of preventing their egos from being bruised by vigorous discourse. Not that they always work very well, but we value it. You're going to have to learn that if you want to run with us.

I will get a negative reaction for saying this, but I think that many of you simply parrot people like Mr Randi and Mr Shermer, repeating what they have to say about everything.

I won't disagree with this. It happens a lot. Skeptics can parrot beliefs based on authority, and it's also true that skeptics can say stupid things. A lot of the skeptic movement reduces to cargo cult science. I have a tendency to point this out a lot, at least when I feel like it.

Sometimes I'm wrong and get set straight. The point (and I really hope you are paying attention to this) is that I'm allowed to do this. Of course, since we're dealing with people, they get ego-bruised, but it's only temporary. Eventually, it takes on the character of a reasonable, intellectual discussion.

That's what skeptics do, and it's what makes skeptics different.

Try saying something dramatically opposed to the consensus culture on your average conspiracy theory forum or religious forum. You'll get kicked off faster than you can say "Waaah!" Here, you might get the occasional gang bang, because people are people, but if you persist and marshall evidence for your position, it will at least be taken seriously.

Do you ever think for a moment that these guys may be deceiving you about anything?

Yes, we do. That is the entire point. Some of us even argue positions that we do not hold for the purpose of expanding discourse.

You may be unfamiliar with this type of discourse, but that's what we do here.

What about the countless people throughout history who have claimed various things and have had plenty of reasons for believing what they believe? Are we supposed to discredit every single one of these people because a group of people who are fortunate to make up even 10 percent of the world population devote their lives to debunking everything people hold near and their to their hearts?

First of all, we do not give a flying leap about what people hold near and dear to their hearts. We don't support the idea that something is true because it makes people feel all warm and skooshy inside. We prefer accuracy.

Second of all, yes, we should be skeptical. Where there are explicit reasons, we examine the reasons. Where it's eye-witness testimony and personal experience, we recognize that it is terrible evidence. Every American second-grader knows this, at least the ones who pay attention. It is still common practice in America to play a game called "telephone." You get a line of kids. Someone whispers something into the first kid's ear, who whispers it into the second one's, and so on. What the last kid reports is completely unrecognizable.

Again, every kid knows this, and there is little excuse for an adult not to know it. So when presented with oral histories passed down through generations, we don't assume they are correct.

Now, if you don't like that, you're in good company, and you're in the majority. It isn't this company, though.

 

[therival58]

I think another angle to conspiracy theory beliefs involves citing "quotes" from rich/influential/powerful people from the past who state malicious goals/beliefs aka David Rockefeller, Edward Bernays and his book Propaganda among others. The idea being that if one powerful person stating his goals in a memoir,etc, then the events unfolding must correspond with what they said.

 

[mike3]

Your comments also point to one of the issues that steers me away from any of the explanations for world politics that get labeled as a 'conspiracy theory'. I'm not American and I don't live in North America. These so-called 'conspiracy theories' are so culturally American I can only imagine them making sense to people with little worldly experience - young white American men, for example. In all the theories that get discussed here, the USA runs the world and all these other governments seem to do what they say, go along with US interests, or don't know what's going on.

And watch your reply to this last point. You might just come across like one of these conspiracy theorists who believes in vast, secret, one world control by a force that hardly anyone has ever heard of - except a small group of young, white American
men.

So then how can one gain enough knowledge so as for these theories to make no more sense at all? From where would one do it? How could I, for example, get a knowledge level like yours, that would be "well educated enough" in your view, in these matters to be able to dismiss all these theories myself, despite being poor? And why does being "white" do anything? How does the color of one's skin affect one's knowledge?

 

[Clayton Moore]

So then how can one gain enough knowledge so as for these theories to make no more sense at all? From where would one do it? How could I, for example, get a knowledge level like yours, that would be "well educated enough" in your view, in these matters to be able to dismiss all these theories myself, despite being poor? And why does being "white" do anything? How does the color of one's skin affect one's knowledge?

Never. Aristocrats and their PR people, pretenders close to the aristocracy, will never allow you to change UP.

Truth is there are oodles of ongoing conspiracies that are so buffered they have become "par for the course."

 

[Scott Sommers]

So then how can one gain enough knowledge so as for these theories to make no more sense at all? From where would one do it? How could I, for example, get a knowledge level like yours, that would be "well educated enough" in your view, in these matters to be able to dismiss all these theories myself, despite being poor? And why does being "white" do anything? How does the color of one's skin affect one's knowledge?

Actually Mike, most people do it simply by growing up. Belief systems like these are in the minority among adults of any background. Even conspiracy theorists themselves understand this point and often have elaborate explanations about why the Truth was discovered by a homogenous minority.

In fact, there are many documented links between ethnicity and beliefs, including conspiracy beliefs. You can look yourself if it matters enough to you, but there are already discussions about conspiracy beliefs in the Middle East and there is a large technical research literature on HIV conspiracy beliefs among African-Americans. I have never checked, but my guess is that Holocaust Deniers are also ethnically homogeneous.

 

[dafydd]

http://www.iirusa.com/vbc/welcome.xml

VACCINES are the continuing success story, earning over $27 billion in 2009 alone, despite difficult economic times for the pharmaceutical industry.

By 2012, vaccines are expected to bring in more than $35 billion in revenue.



It's not medicine, it's a business.

Clayton,old bean. Why don't you give us a short list of the so-called conspiracies that you don't believe in. It will be quicker.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Clayton,old bean. Why don't you give us a short list of the so-called conspiracies that you don't believe in. It will be quicker.

I don't believe Jewish people performed the labor required to kill 3 million Jewish children, women, and men with gas chambers.

You obviously do.


I don't believe all of America's in place procedures to protect America from the consequences of a hijacking could fail 4 times in one day, without prearranged interference, when there had not been a successful hijacking for more than 20 years before 9/11. (Other than two hijackings by employees who used their company ids to bypass going through passenger security.)

You obviously do.

I don't believe parents who notice their children's behavior, after a multiple
vaccine inoculation, suddenly degrades into autism can possibly be ignored and even worse ridiculed. Who knows better what has recently happened to their baby than its parents?

You obviously don't have a problem with it.


My views are positive, your views are negative.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I don't believe Jewish people performed the labor required to kill 3 million Jewish children, women, and men with gas chambers.

You obviously do.

If the alternative was death, I'm not surprised that some people helped in the murder of others. In fact, I would expect most people, in extreme circumstances, to choose a dishonorable life over an honorable death.

I don't believe all of America's in place procedures to protect America from the consequences of a hijacking could fail 4 times in one day, without prearranged interference, when there had not been a successful hijacking for more than 20 years before 9/11. (Other than two hijackings by employees who used their company ids to bypass going through passenger security.)

You obviously do.

Reasonable, since what happened on 9/11 was a completely different tactic that hadn't been tried before.

There hadn't been a hijacking in 20 years because 1) it became evident that hijacking was not a good way to get what you want, or even get out alive, and 2) laws were put in place to make it more difficult to board a plane anonymously and thus get away with your crime.

The 19 hijackers knew they did not have to get out alive. That was the big advantage they had over established procedures.

I don't believe parents who notice their children's behavior, after a multiple
vaccine inoculation, suddenly degrades into autism can possibly be ignored and even worse ridiculed. Who knows better what has recently happened to their baby than its parents?

You obviously don't have a problem with it.

Reasonable, because correlation does not equal causation.

My views are positive, your views are negative.

Good for your views. Proves nothing.

 

[LashL]

Discussion about the "vaccines cause autism" and "big pharma is in on it" conspiracy theories has been moved to its own thread here.

Posted By: LashL

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Back to the OP then --

I believe in methods with repeatable results. I believe in science.

 

[r-j]

I believe in plenty of conspiracies. Conspiracy theories on the other hand are basically defined by their unsubstantiated nature, hence I do not believe in any conspiracy theories.

I back tracked to this topic from a split thread, and decided to read the entire thing before saying anything, but that post sums up what I was thinking, for the most part. It seems that the term "conspiracy theories" is self defining, so that if evidence showing a real conspiracy comes to light, then somehow it becomes something else, by definition, so there will never be any real conspiracy theories. By definition.

The better question by far, would seem to be, "What conspiracy theories turned out to be true?". As to what conspiracy theories currently are believed to be real, I would say the one about oil/coal companies trying to subvert the science of climate change, that would be a modern day conspiracy theory that has a lot of believers.

But that probably turns into "It's not a conspiracy theory! It's really happening!", making it exactly like all conspiracy theories that believers insist are real. Even with no evidence, it's the sort of vast international conspiracy that just seems like it must be true. But if so, then is it a conspiracy theory?

Of course not. If it's real, it doesn't belong in this section! But who decides what is real? That's the age old question, isn't it?

 

[Clayton Moore]

I back tracked to this topic from a split thread, and decided to read the entire thing before saying anything, but that post sums up what I was thinking, for the most part. It seems that the term "conspiracy theories" is self defining, so that if evidence showing a real conspiracy comes to light, then somehow it becomes something else, by definition, so there will never be any real conspiracy theories. By definition.

The better question by far, would seem to be, "What conspiracy theories turned out to be true?". As to what conspiracy theories currently are believed to be real, I would say the one about oil/coal companies trying to subvert the science of climate change, that would be a modern day conspiracy theory that has a lot of believers.

But that probably turns into "It's not a conspiracy theory! It's really happening!", making it exactly like all conspiracy theories that believers insist are real. Even with no evidence, it's the sort of vast international conspiracy that just seems like it must be true. But if so, then is it a conspiracy theory?

Of course not. If it's real, it doesn't belong in this section! But who decides what is real? That's the age old question, isn't it?

From the beginning of time the HAVES have conspired together to the detriment of the common folk.

The HAVES are called the HAVES because they have access to power and the MSM.

If you think there is no manipulation of the common folk by the HAVES then you think conspiracy theories are nonsense and can be explained away by citing any evidence as bad science or coincidence.

For instance the US political process has changed from elected representatives making decisions on issues
to
the "party" of elected representatives deciding what the issues are and making decisions on those issues.

 

[dafydd]

From the beginning of time the HAVES have conspired together to the detriment of the common folk.

I've always found jealousy to be the worst of the emotions.

 

[Craig4]

It's funny how CTers tend to find external reasons for failure.

 

[r-j]

Please keep to the topic. And remember, the topic is not other members.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

It's all starting to make sense now.

 

[r-j]

As to what conspiracy theories currently are believed to be real, I would say the one about oil/coal companies trying to subvert the science of climate change, that would be a modern day conspiracy theory that has a lot of believers.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=249353

Then there is the other side of that, which is that there is some vast international conspiracy by liberals to tax wealthy countries to help the poor ones, based on the belief that the rich countries ruined the weather.

 

[Rolfe]

Just to give you my read on [Lockerbie-related] things: judging from the discussions on other threads, I would say the balance of probabilities going on to clear and convincing evidence is in favour of a conspiracy. But there is as yet no definitive, case closed, smoking gun revelation/admission/apology to make it crystal clear to everyone that there was a conspiracy, beyond all reasonable doubt. And there may well never be such a revelation.

So in this sense, there is no definitive evidence in favour, certainly not to compare with the definitive evidence proving Watergate, Iran-Contra, etc.

Oh well, if we're bumping....

We do have that evidence now.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/366665

http://www.scribd.com/doc/117745379/Allegations-Outline-for-Press-1

The establishment is currently saying nothing to us and shooting off like a loose cannon in the press, showing every sign of having completely lost the plot. I imagine there's still a long haul in front of us, but having seen the 39-page document referred to in the Sunday Express article, it reads like "checkmate" to me.

Rolfe.

 

[GlennB]

Oh well, if we're bumping....

We do have that evidence now.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/366665

http://www.scribd.com/doc/117745379/Allegations-Outline-for-Press-1

The establishment is currently saying nothing to us and shooting off like a loose cannon in the press, showing every sign of having completely lost the plot. I imagine there's still a long haul in front of us, but having seen the 39-page document referred to in the Sunday Express article, it reads like "checkmate" to me.

Rolfe.

Quite a nice summary by The Express.

Good luck, but yeah, "long haul" is the way these things pan out. Probably 'till the real conspirators are nicely tucked-up with their pensions.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Actually true, proven conspiracies have indeed happened, but they've always been exposed and busted up. An enduring conspiracy persisting over decades or centuries is virtually impossible due to the law of probability: as long as there is some nonzero probability (which is every time) that someone will blow the whistle, then with enough people and enough time, it'll happen.

More likely, the reasons there are no change is the way the political system works. It presents big difficulties for anyone who threatens to do something maverick. E.g. they might not get voted in, or they might not be able to get enough campaign money, and even if they do get in there will be objectors, and so on...

So the rich getting super super rich and the super decline of the middle class is just happenstance? It has nothing to do with the rich seeking to deregulate anything that stands in the way of their getting richer?