• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Dragon Family lawsuit against the United Nations

Obviously not since many CTs believe there were real planes involved in the 9/11 attacks for example. I'm pretty sure that there were no real planes involved, BUT I originally believed there were real planes involved and before that I even believed in the official 9/11 story!

And what office announces the "official" story?

Given you believe peer review to be corrupt, what standards do you hold evidence to when convincing yourself there are no planes? What measures do you take to validate the evidence?
 
Obviously not since many CTs believe there were real planes involved in the 9/11 attacks for example. I'm pretty sure that there were no real planes involved, BUT I originally believed there were real planes involved and before that I even believed in the official 9/11 story!

So given that there's no meaningful consensus among conspiracy theorists and that there's no process -- formal or informal -- used by conspiracy theorists to test the strength of their evidence and claims, explain again how conspiracism is superior to mainstream science in getting at the truth.

I really wanna hear this. I mean, how is "making it up as you go" a valid form of investigation?
 
That I have a strong facade of being certain but in reality am uncertain about those facts behind my facade? Nope, because I don't have any facade of being certain. Maybe a facade of being uncertain, lol.

No that you are uncertain, and assume others are.
 
Prove it's not just a facade of certainty and that you're not deluded as you accuse others of being.

Well, any proof for or against that would NOT show my actual unconscious state of certainty or uncertainty. So it's not relevant.
 
Well, any proof for or against that would NOT show my actual unconscious state of certainty or uncertainty. So it's not relevant.

Nonsense. Your premise is that mainstream science is manipulative or manipulated, and that you can be certain of this. But on the other hand, you say certainty can be an unconscious facade. Therefore your certainty about the flaws of mainstream science may be an unconscious facade. Something that undermines your key premise is obviously relevant. I will take your answer as an admission that you cannot substantiate the validity of your certainty.

Your evasion of the question, however, is evidence that you are being mind-controlled. You are programmed to evade questions that attempt to discover how certain you are of something, lest cognitive dissonance erode your conditioning.
 
My point is that I don't even automatically trust mainstream scientific evidence. For example, I believe all evidence for Einstein's relativity is faked. In that sense I'm more skeptical than most skeptics.

Declaring your faith is an odd way to demonstrate your skepticism.
 
Nonsense. Your premise is that mainstream science is manipulative or manipulated, and that you can be certain of this. But on the other hand, you say certainty can be an unconscious facade. Therefore your certainty about the flaws of mainstream science may be an unconscious facade. Something that undermines your key premise is obviously relevant. I will take your answer as an admission that you cannot substantiate the validity of your certainty.

Your evasion of the question, however, is evidence that you are being mind-controlled. You are programmed to evade questions that attempt to discover how certain you are of something, lest cognitive dissonance erode your conditioning.

Ok, I'm uncertain about science being manipulated since I haven't any firsthand evidence of it. So I have some uncertainty about it I admit. BUT, even if it was admitted by the scientific community that there has been manipulation of scientific results, then I would be uncertain about that too! So I still maintain that skeptics may have a facade of certainty that in reality is covering uncertainty about the facts. The skeptic believes sincerely on a conscious level that he or she is certain because mainstream science has confirmed the facts. The skeptic has in some ways outsourced his or her critical thinking to external experts that are trusted blindly.
 
Ok, I'm uncertain about science being manipulated since I haven't any firsthand evidence of it.

Doesn't your belief in a manipulated mainstream in fact derive entirely from claims to that effect made by conspiracy theorists? How many times have you admitted not having done any research yourself and simply believed what someone else told you, putting faith in him solely because he was not of the mainstream?

So I still maintain that skeptics may have a facade of certainty that in reality is covering uncertainty about the facts.

No, mainstream science wears its uncertainly on its sleeve. Notwithstanding claims to have investigated to the best of its ability, science is predicated on the fundamental tenet that all its conclusions must be considered forever tentative. This is why scientists are still employed. They're busy revising theories to account for new evidence.

The skeptic believes sincerely on a conscious level that he or she is certain because mainstream science has confirmed the facts.

No. This is in fact the straw man you've erected in place of the skeptic.

The skeptic does not believe that mainstream science has confirmed the facts to any absolute or infallible sense, but only to the extent that it can be measured and tested using our available understanding and methods. The methods are designed to catch as many errors as possible. Hence were error is suspected, there must be specific grounds for suspicion, not just general distrust.

In contrast, the conspiracy theorist disbelieves some proposition for no good reason, other than that it's from the mainstream and they don't like the mainstream. The inductive leap in the hypothetico-deductive process is exactly the gap the conspiracy theorists hope to drive their wedge in. However, they deny that mainstream science acknowledges the presence of that inductive gap.

The skeptic has in some ways outsourced his or her critical thinking to external experts that are trusted blindly.

Whereas conspiracy theorists exhibit no critical thinking whatsoever, nor accept it from others. Conspiracism is just wanton speculation trying to call itself open-mindedness.
 
Doesn't your belief in a manipulated mainstream in fact derive entirely from claims to that effect made by conspiracy theorists?

No. Take the belief that Einstein's relativity is a hoax for example. What conspiracy theorist has claimed that? None that I'm aware of.
 
Probably from some alternative physics theories. Not from a conspiracy researcher I think.

Weasel words. If these "alternative physics theorists" are accusing the mainstream of hoaxing evidence for relativity, then they are conspiracy theorists. Same activity, different weasel-word name.

And I don't believe ideas like that until I have 'grokked' them a bit.

I know what Heinlein meant by grokking, but I don't know what you mean by it.

Either you have done your own research and can therefore present firsthand evidence that science is manipulative (contrary to what you claimed just a moment ago), or you have not done your own research, in which case you are simply outsourcing your critical thinking to these "alternative physics theorists."

Which shin do you want to be kicked in?
 
Weasel words. If these "alternative physics theorists" are accusing the mainstream of hoaxing evidence for relativity, then they are conspiracy theorists. Same activity, different weasel-word name.



I know what Heinlein meant by grokking, but I don't know what you mean by it.

Either you have done your own research and can therefore present firsthand evidence that science is manipulative (contrary to what you claimed just a moment ago), or you have not done your own research, in which case you are simply outsourcing your critical thinking to these "alternative physics theorists."

Which shin do you want to be kicked in?

This is off topic. Let's get back to the topic.
 
This is off topic. Let's get back to the topic.

I don't see how this is off-topic. You brought up Einstein. You brought up conspiracy theorists as alternatives to science. You brought up facades of certainty. Every sentence in my post refers to concepts you've raised in the last 45 minutes.

The point is whether you blindly believe in conspiracy theories or whether you were wrong earlier when you said you had no firsthand knowledge of the failures of science. The way I see it, you've painted yourself into a corner.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom