Dragon Family lawsuit against the United Nations

[Tomtomkent]

Because that quote was about how I meant what was NOT the same as the mind control the secret cabal uses. Look at the posts prior to the one you quoted for context.

Which again returns us back to the same old question, which you should probably answer before you get bored of hearing it:

If that was the case, why did you argue against me saying it was neither feasible nor required? Why did you argue AGAINST viable alternatives?

 

[Anders Lindman]

Then why do you advocate conspiracy theories over science?

In some cases when there is suspicion of science being manipulated, then to use science itself will be very difficult because of the gatekeeper scientists who control what is allowed (in practice) to be researched.

 

[Tomtomkent]

In some cases when there is suspicion of science being manipulated, then to use science itself will be very difficult because of the gatekeeper scientists who control what is allowed (in practice) to be researched.

And yet scientists prove you wrong all the time by peer reviewing and altering our knowledge in several areas. Including those you claimed to be illegal. So what makes you think we should offer any credence to another unfounded assertion?

 

[JayUtah]

In some cases when there is suspicion of science being manipulated, then to use science itself will be very difficult because of the gatekeeper scientists who control what is allowed (in practice) to be researched.

Non-answer. How does a conspiracy theory provide more reliable findings?

 

[Anders Lindman]

Non-answer. How does a conspiracy theory provide more reliable findings?

I don't think conspiracy theories provide more reliable findings when the scientific method works as it should. HOWEVER, in the case of manipulation and fakery of scientific evidence, then the scientific community becomes partial. And then conspiracy theories provide a possible impartial investigation into the issues.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I don't think conspiracy theories provide more reliable findings when the scientific method works as it should. HOWEVER, in the case of manipulation and fakery of scientific evidence, then the scientific community becomes partial. And then conspiracy theories provide a possible impartial investigation into the issues.

Conspiracy theories are NOT impartial. Their purpose is to insinuate a conspiracy.

Also, you have not offered any evidence to suggest that the scientific methodology of peer review research does NOT work as intended and does NOT refute faulty data. Despite historical presedence to show this does infact happen.

Please stop pretending that you asserting something makes it in any way plausible.

 

[JayUtah]

And then conspiracy theories provide a possible impartial investigation into the issues.

How are conspiracy theories impartial?

 

[Tomtomkent]

How are conspiracy theories impartial?

A better question is how CAN they be, if their purpose is to theorise that there is a conspiracy?

 

[Anders Lindman]

Conspiracy theories can be impartial if the conspiracy theorists have integrity, honesty and objectivity.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Conspiracy theories can be impartial if the conspiracy theorists have integrity, honesty and objectivity.

How? They are theorising about conspiracies. That, by definition, requires them to be searching for a party to claim to be conspiring. They can not be impartial, they have a vested interest.

You appear to be mistaking impartial for objective, something else very few conspiracy theorists manage to be.

 

[JayUtah]

Conspiracy theories can be impartial if the conspiracy theorists have integrity, honesty and objectivity.

And who determines whether they do? And by what criteria?

 

[Anders Lindman]

And who determines whether they do? And by what criteria?

Public opinion determines that.

 

[JayUtah]

Public opinion determines that.

And this is better than science ... how?

 

[Anders Lindman]

How? They are theorising about conspiracies. That, by definition, requires them to be searching for a party to claim to be conspiring. They can not be impartial, they have a vested interest.

You appear to be mistaking impartial for objective, something else very few conspiracy theorists manage to be.

The conspiracy theorists can start with a hypothesis, and then objectively research and test that hypothesis.

 

[Tomtomkent]

And this is better than science ... how?

Anders doesn't have to worry about facts, figures and evidence?

 

[Anders Lindman]

And this is better than science ... how?

Again, the same as with conspiracy research:

I don't think conspiracy theories provide more reliable findings when the scientific method works as it should. HOWEVER, in the case of manipulation and fakery of scientific evidence, then the scientific community becomes partial. And then conspiracy theories provide a possible impartial investigation into the issues.

When the scientific community itself cannot be trusted, we need some way to correct its diversion from honest research.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The conspiracy theorists can start with a hypothesis, and then objectively research and test that hypothesis.

No, you start with a theory then select only the evidence that you feel confirms it, then reject evidence you do not like as "possibly fraudulant", with out then offering any evidence to suggest fraud.

We know this because it is what you have done in this thread.

If conspiracy theorists were objective they would not be conspiracy theorists they would be objective researchers with no reason to identify themseleves as CTS, who were not looking for a CT, but found one based on the evidence.

 

[JayUtah]

The conspiracy theorists can start with a hypothesis, and then objectively research and test that hypothesis.

And what's to keep them from falling into the same errors of manipulation that you accuse science of doing? Is there any check other than the presumption of integrity and fickle public opinion?

 

[Tomtomkent]

When the scientific community itself cannot be trusted, we need some way to correct its diversion from honest research.

Yet, you have not shown anything to even suggest there is, has been or will be a time the scientific community can not be trusted. I will remind you that the peer review process can, and has, been shown to weed out and disprive fraudulent or incorrect data.

All you have done is stated you deny some evidence and claim, with out support, it may be fraudulent. That is meaningless.

 

[Anders Lindman]

No, you start with a theory then select only the evidence that you feel confirms it, then reject evidence you do not like as "possibly fraudulant", with out then offering any evidence to suggest fraud.

We know this because it is what you have done in this thread.

If conspiracy theorists were objective they would not be conspiracy theorists they would be objective researchers with no reason to identify themseleves as CTS, who were not looking for a CT, but found one based on the evidence.

I try to be objective.