Dragon Family lawsuit against the United Nations

[JayUtah]

Again, the same as with conspiracy research

Non-answer.

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

What keeps conspiracy theorists honest?

 

[JayUtah]

I try to be objective.

No.

 

[Anders Lindman]

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.

I have posted about why I believe Einstein's relativity is a hoax in other threads. It's a bit off topic for this thread. The same with why I believe HIV doesn't exist for example.

 

[Anders Lindman]

What keeps conspiracy theorists honest?

For example the will to be honest.

 

[Anders Lindman]

No.

I do.

 

[Tomtomkent]

For example the will to be honest.

As they have, in the past, been shown to be outright dishonest, this is inferior to the checks and balances of peer review science.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I do.

And yet you have argued when your attempts have been shown to be flawed.

If you even bother, you certainly fail.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I have posted about why I believe Einstein's relativity is a hoax in other threads. It's a bit off topic for this thread. The same with why I believe HIV doesn't exist for example.

What you believe is irrelevant. The only concern for this or any other thread is what you can prove. Which from this thread or any other is a sum total of zero of your assertions.

This has been discussed at length, and all you have ever offered is spoecial pleadings and smarmy comments about how others should do their own research. Which is irrelevant. You come here to discuss, we havbe engaged with you, either prove your points or stop pretending your beliefs are of any objective value.

 

[Anders Lindman]

As they have, in the past, been shown to be outright dishonest, this is inferior to the checks and balances of peer review science.

To repeat:

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]

To repeat:

Repeat it as often as you like, it wont magically make conspiracy theorists any more impartial, or any less faliable than scientists. The difference being that the scientific method of peer review adds an element of accountability, meaning there are checks and balances in science that conspiracy theorists actively avoid.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Repeat it as often as you like, it wont magically make conspiracy theorists any more impartial, or any less faliable than scientists. The difference being that the scientific method of peer review adds an element of accountability, meaning there are checks and balances in science that conspiracy theorists actively avoid.

You don't get it. IF the scientific community is corrupt and cannot be trusted about some particular topic (such as Einstein's relativity), and the government cannot be trusted, then what good is the peer-review process? So do you now understand that some ADDITIONAL means of investigation is necessary?

 

[Border Reiver]

Again, the same as with conspiracy research:



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

If you can't trust replicable data what do you trust?

 

[Tomtomkent]

You don't get it. IF the scientific community is corrupt and cannot be trusted about some particular topic (such as Einstein's relativity), and the government cannot be trusted, then what good is the peer-review process? So do you now understand that some ADDITIONAL means of investigation is necessary?

Well, as you have yet to offer any reason to suspect they MAY be corrupt (other than personal opinion) it is a redundant question. Even IF there was a single centralised scientific community (not so) it remains a fact that there are checks and balances in place that your "ADDITIONAL" means of investigation are lacking. There are NO safeguards to objectivity, professionalism or honesty in conspiracy theories. No controls. No measures. Irregardless of how necessary you believe it to be, it is all uncontrolled and worthless.

As it happens there is no unified Scientific community. The whole point of peer review is that there is rarely concensus, and everything can be repeated and held to account. I know the speed of light is constant in a vacuum because I can replicate the results of the experiment in my own experiment. If you disbelieve it you can offer your own assessment to be studied and replicated.

This is simply not so in conspiracy theories. It is meaningless academically.

 

[Tomtomkent]

If you can't trust replicable data what do you trust?

Some guy who says this other guy knew there was a second gunman, or no holocaust, or that those replicatable results for proving the time atomic clocks experience differs when one is stationary and one is travelling a velocity is somehow wrong...

 

[Anders Lindman]

If you can't trust replicable data what do you trust?

I trust something when I can verify it for myself, at least in some way rather than just trusting what the science says. For example, semiconductors work according to quantum mechanics. That is something I can verify myself. The same with Newtonian physics. No problem there. Einstein's relativity however seems illogical to me plus it's not anything I have been able to verify myself.

 

[Anders Lindman]

As it happens there is no unified Scientific community.

Science is compartmentalized. I claim (as a hypothesis) that Einstein's relativity is a hoax guarded by gatekeeper scientists the world over. In many if not most areas the scientific method works fine and as it should. What I say is that the scientific community is not infallible, and since science is often hierarchically controlled, for the scientific community to by itself correct frauds may take a very long time, or it may even get stuck on a fraudulent path (such as AIDS research I suspect). So additional investigation methods are needed imo, and conspiracy research is one such additional method.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Anders, your claimed hypothosis fails because;

Evidence of relativity is available for study, and repeatable.
You have no evidence for gatekeepers.
The. CERN project published data that appeared to contradict einstein, ergo there can be no organised conspiracy or gatekeepers.

Your distrust are assertions. they neither diminish science, nor show conspiracy theory as a viablealternative.

Science shown to be flawed would still not. Make ct a viable alternative nor allow us to ignore the lack ofaccountability in ct.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Anders, your claimed hypothosis fails because;

Evidence of relativity is available for study, and repeatable.
You have no evidence for gatekeepers.
The. CERN project published data that appeared to contradict einstein, ergo there can be no organised conspiracy or gatekeepers.

Your distrust are assertions. they neither diminish science, nor show conspiracy theory as a viablealternative.

Science shown to be flawed would still not. Make ct a viable alternative nor allow us to ignore the lack ofaccountability in ct.

Oh, CT is not an alternative as I see it. Conspiracy theories are a complement to ordinary science.

 

[JayUtah]

So do you now understand that some ADDITIONAL means of investigation is necessary?

And your argument for the efficacy of that "additional means" boils down to blind trust in it.

 

[JayUtah]

Science is compartmentalized.

...say the conspiracy theorists.

I claim (as a hypothesis) that Einstein's relativity is a hoax guarded by gatekeeper scientists the world over.

Because that's what your conspiracy theory tells you to believe.

In many if not most areas the scientific method works fine and as it should.

When has conspiracism ever produced anything useful or helpful?

What I say is that the scientific community is not infallible...

It doesn't claim to be. What better thing does conspiracism offer? Your argument simply sets up blind trust as the alternative.

...and since science is often hierarchically controlled

...say the conspiracy theorists.

...for the scientific community to by itself correct frauds may take a very long time

How long does it take conspiracism to detect and correct frauds? By what means?

So additional investigation methods are needed imo, and conspiracy research is one such additional method.

How convenient that conspiracy theorists stand ready to provide the "service" they claim is needed because of the evils they say is present in mainstream science.

Wow, you really don't see the circularity in your approach, do you?