Dragon Family lawsuit against the United Nations

[JayUtah]

Maybe, but it's an organization outside of ordinary academia and an example of the usefulness of conspiracy theories.

And that would be the explicit admission of the crippling bias we've all suspected you harbor.

You haven't explain how the world comes to know that science is "hierarchically controlled" and "manipulated." In fact the only evidence you have of this is that the conspiracy theorists you worship say so. And you haven't shown us how the world is made to believe that the conspiracy theorists themselves have no ulterior motives. The only thing you've said is "They just don't, or if they appear to it's because the Evil Scientists have manipulated it look that way."

In your fantasy, science "somehow" is revealed as manipulative. Then the honest conspiracy theorists step in and say, "Don't worry, everyone; we'll clean this up." That's the Heroic Savior model of conspiracism, and it's well studied.

However, what happens from the real-world perspective is that scientists are simply doing what science ordinary does, and some conspiracy theorist levels an accusation of bias or dishonesty against them with little if any evidence and then says, "Now here's what we speculate may be happening instead, and if you don't believe us then you're just sheeple."

This is why you can't give anyone a rational explanation for why conspiracy theorists are somehow more trustworthy than mainstream scientists: You just implicitly trust them. You don't know why you believe them. It's a knee-jerk reaction.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The only evidence you accept is the peer-reviewed kind. Talk about self-fulfilling prophecy. Let me assure you that your adamant and dogmatic stance will pancake.

You mean he only acccepts evidence that is open to be reviewed and scrutinised?



So please, explain what checks and balances there are in place to ensure that CT malarky is more reliable? What is the modus operendi of the Conspiracy Theory Community, and how does it min imise the oppertunities for fraudulant and/or misrepresented data?

And, while we are on the subject you keep stating that if Science fails, CT will be usesful. How? Why? On what grounds? Please stop assuming that conspiracies are in some way a viable alternative to anything other than bed time stories until you have SHOWN this to be the case.

 

[Hans]

The ancients use to protest against the dangers of 'rumour'; ie conspiracy theories

 

[Anders Lindman]

You mean he only acccepts evidence that is open to be reviewed and scrutinised?

This is what I mean by self-fulfilling prophecy. You only accept scrutiny by peer-review as evidence, and the science community has monopoly on peer-review so no outside means of examining potential conspiracies are valid according to you.

You believe the peer-review process is the ultimate armor against all attacks against a scientific community that has in many places become like dogma that it's taboo to question, very much like the old religions.

You repeatedly ask for evidence, like a broken record, and then dismiss all evidence that has not been peer-reviewed by the very same scientific community that often is in question.

 

[JayUtah]

...and the science community has monopoly on peer-review

...say the conspiracy theorists.

You believe the peer-review process is the ultimate armor against all attacks...

Nope. It's just better than the unreviewed, unregulated, uncontrolled, Wild West approach of conspiracy theories.

You repeatedly ask for evidence, like a broken record...

Yeah, rational people can be annoying that way.

...and then dismiss all evidence that has not been peer-reviewed by the very same scientific community that often is in question.

No, we dismiss "evidence" whose strength has been untested. You know, the conjectural nonsense that conspiracy theorists spew and call "evidence." We're asking you what conspiracy theorists do to ensure their evidence is strong, their methods are valid, and their lines of reasoning are sound. So far you don't have an answer, yet you somehow assert that conspiracism is more trustworthy than science.

 

[Anders Lindman]

No, we dismiss "evidence" whose strength has been untested.

Tested by peer-review. That's what it comes down to. Otherwise you will dismiss the evidence. It's as simple as that. I have seen through your key defense strategy. And it's a biased strategy. You dismiss all evidence that has not been peer-reviewed by the very same scientific community that often itself is in question.

 

[JayUtah]

Tested by peer-review. That's what it comes down to.

Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth?

Deal with the argument I actually presented, not the one you wish I had.

I have seen through your key defense strategy. And it's a biased strategy.

Only when you rewrite my claim to be what you wish I had said. Why haven't you addressed the evidence showing your approach is the one that's biased?

 

[Scott Sommers]

This is what I mean by self-fulfilling prophecy. You only accept scrutiny by peer-review as evidence, and the science community has monopoly on peer-review so no outside means of examining potential conspiracies are valid according to you.

This is a very strange thing to say. It strikes me as the sort of thing that someone would say when they have heard of peer-review and has some basic understanding of how it works, but actually don't really know how it works.

You believe the peer-review process is the ultimate armor against all attacks against a scientific community that has in many places become like dogma that it's taboo to question, very much like the old religions.

Actually, it's mostly the conspiracy theorists here who seem to care about peer-review. The so-called skeptics here don't care one way or another what evidence you conspiracy theorists pull up. Personally, I couldn't care less about any of that crap you think of as evidence and generally ignore almost everything you and others say, except to laugh at it.

Peer-review is the language that I speak. If you want to speak to people outside the nut bar community of conspiracy theory about these ideas, and not have us laugh at you, that's how it's done.

You repeatedly ask for evidence, like a broken record, and then dismiss all evidence that has not been peer-reviewed by the very same scientific community that often is in question.

But of course we do. The stuff you think is evidence is a joke. Why would anybody care about it? If you want to talk to people here and not have them laugh at you, this is what you need to do.

Isn't this obvious? At least have the dignity to pretend you're on some religious mission and don't care what anyone else thinks. Who cares if you have no proper peer-reviewed evidence? Who cares if the stuff you think is evidence is just childish silly sorts of things that people chuckle about and dismiss as stupid? Honestly, who cares?

You do, don't you. You want someone like me or Jay or anyone else here to accept something you've said as clever or smart or even reasonable. Because we sure don't care one way or another what you think about what we say.

Sorry if this is a little rough. But it is the truth.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth?

Because I was addressing all debunkers on this forum and not just you personally.

 

[JayUtah]

Because I was addressing all debunkers on this forum and not just you personally.

If you're going to quote my post, address the argument it makes.

 

[Anders Lindman]

But of course we do.

Yes of course you dismiss all evidence that hasn't been peer-reviewed. That's your pet defense strategy. And it is deeply flawed.

 

[Anders Lindman]

If you're going to quote my post, address the argument it makes.

I was doing so in a general sense. You only accept peer-review evidence. So anything outside of the scientific community is automatically rejected. Which in turn means an automatic dismissal of all conspiracy theories. How convenient for you.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Yes of course you dismiss all evidence that hasn't been peer-reviewed. That's your pet defense strategy. And it is deeply flawed.

Perhaps you have a miscorrelation. The cr*p you post here is not peer reviewed, but that is not why it is rejected. It's rejected because it's cr*p. In real science such cr*p would have been widely rebuked in the peer review process, but you could attempt a new study based on the source data, or try to repeat the experiments to see if the data is valid.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I was doing so in a general sense. You only accept peer-review evidence. So anything outside of the scientific community is automatically rejected. Which in turn means an automatic dismissal of all conspiracy theories. How convenient for you.

Then why quote the post if you writing a direct reply. Notice how I am directly addressing your statement, thaat is why I quoted it.

 

[JayUtah]

I was doing so in a general sense.

No, you were putting words in my mouth to pretend I had made a weaker argument than I actually had. And you're doing so again. You're trying desperately to corral my claims back into your "scientific peer-review" notion, because you have a pre-written rebuttal for it. Address the claims I actually made, not the one you have a brainwashed response for.

Evasion is a sign of mind control. Try again.

 

[R.A.F.]

Because I was addressing all debunkers on this forum and not just you personally.

Ok...then why are you "putting words" in all our "mouths"?


You need to stop that.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Aha! So you are saying that declassified documents about this may exist?

This is actually a step up for Anders, I believe. He now apparently needs a third-party to carelessly assume the existence of something before that something can be "confirmed" to exist to his mind.

 

[JayUtah]

Ok...then why are you "putting words" in all our "mouths"?

You need to stop that.

He's been mind-controlled to do that. They've implanted a standard response when questioned about why conspiracism is superior to mainstream science, but it only works for the small number of "trigger" claims it was designed to answer. So the mind-controllers cleverly conditioned him to rewrite any actual claims as if they were one of the predetermined claims. Then he can give the canned responses without the risk of cognitive dissonance eroding the mind-control framework.

 

[R.A.F.]

You only accept peer-review evidence. So anything outside of the scientific community is automatically rejected. Which in turn means an automatic dismissal of all conspiracy theories. How convenient for you.

How "convenient" for you to misrepresent mainstream thought with this load of crap. What you have described is the "definition" of closed-mindedness.



...and since you have provided no evidence for this statement, we can with assurance completely ignore it.

 

[Scott Sommers]

Yes of course you dismiss all evidence that hasn't been peer-reviewed. That's your pet defense strategy. And it is deeply flawed.

Tell me....tell me...Grasshopper, why is it deeply flawed?