Debunking conspiracy theories

[gumboot]

I wish people wouldn't equate "poor public speaker" with "not intelligent". Bush is a poor public speaker. He's not stupid. His history indicates he's not stupid.

The posters here are amongst the most intelligent people I know, but I would guarantee you the majority of them would turn into gibbering nervous wrecks in front of an audience, especially a hostile one. A lot of them would appear to be very very stupid. But they're not.

The ability to speak comfortably in front of any audience is an exceedingly rare ability, and it's something you can't really learn.

I've spent my entire life in front of an audience. It's as natural as breathing to me. And I've seen the affect an audience has on 90% of all people. In nearly every instance I can think of, the people I've seen dismissing a poor speaker as "stupid" would totally freeze up if I so much as pointed a camera at them.

-Gumboot

 

[qarnos]

First, I haven't read the other responses yet, so I don't know if someone has already pointed this out, but:

I am not a conspiracy theorist. However, I am no more likely to believe my Government than I am likely to believe a well thought out alternative theory. And certainly no more likely to believe the media than a more well rounded theory from an independent source.

This is the point. Conspiracy theories are rarely, if ever, "well thought out" or "well rounded".

To use 9/11 as an example - The conspiracy theory is not actually a theory at all. It is not even a collection of consistent ideas. It is largely made up of statements such as "X didn't happen because if it did it would have looked more like Y". The problem with these statements is that, by and large, no-one has ever seen X happen before, so no-one has any idea what it should look like.

In addition, conspiracy "theories" often debunk themselves by way of mutual exclusion of two seperate components. To use an example from the recent Moon Hoax thread, the proponent claimed that:

1) We didn't land on the Moon because the computer technology was not sufficient to support a manned landing.
2) The Lunar Landing Ranging Experiment (a set of special reflectors placed on The Moon by Apollo astronauts, which we know are there because we still bounce lasers off 'em to this day) was placed on The Moon by an unmanned spacecraft.

There is, of course, a massive logical inconsistency that we could not perform a manned landing because of lack of computing power, yet we could perform an unmanned landing, which would actually require more computing power! The two are mutually exclusive! If we had the computing power, we could go to The Moon. If we didn't, then how on Earth did the LLRE get there?

Another form of this self-inconsistency manifests itself if the idea that the alleged 9/11 conspirators flew real aircraft into the Twin Towers, but decided to use a missle at the Pentagon and try to make it look like an aircraft. They have already demonstrated they don't mind using real aircraft, so why the sudden change of plan for The Pentagon?

Conspiracy theories usually are born from the over-active imaginations of people, who don't know what they are talking about, authoratively declaring that something "doesn't look right", even though they have no frame of reference to compare to, and those who are qualified to such analysis disagree with them.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Is there a bias toward dismissing and debunking conspiracy theories, and if so, does that mean that in general you would rather take the word of the media or the government than any one else? Does your personal skepticism stop at what are perceived to be reliable sources. Rather than sources outside of the main stream? And if so is that healthy skepticism?

I think I'm fairly suspicious of anything reported in the major media, not so much because I doubt the honesty of the reporters, rather that I suspect failures of reporters to allow for their own bias. I can't give any specific examples, it just seems to me to be a good approach to keep my own perceptions honest. As for taking the word of the government at face value... all I can say is that I'm 47, and I've been paying attention. Politicians will say what supports their agendas.

The main reason I tend to disbelieve conspiracy theories - and 9/11 is an excellent example, though Pearl Harbor is just as good - is that they only make sense when explained backwards, starting from the results and extrapolating back to the motivations of the power behind the scenes. When I make the mental adjustment to place myself, in time, before the beginning of events, then tell myself the story of how events unfolded, the conspiracy theory suddenly becomes too ridiculous to convince a five-year-old. Debunking specific allegations comes later; it's generally the glaring logical inconsistencies that are the initial prompt for skepticism.

Dave

 

[JamPal]

only time will tell...lol.

TAM

Hang on. Now I am the subject of a forum conspiracy theory.



I am no woo merchant. I may be naive on some subjects, by the same token spending too much time here may make you too quick to dismiss that which lacks readily available evidence.

But I am here to learn, and share ideas with an open mind, nothing more.

 

[thisninjascrazy]

Hang on. Now I am the subject of a forum conspiracy theory.



I am no woo merchant. I may be naive on some subjects, by the same token spending too much time here may make you too quick to dismiss that which lacks readily available evidence.

But I am here to learn, and share ideas with an open mind, nothing more.

If you're here to learn, you're among good company Speaking for myself, I'm definitely no expert on fields such as psychics or engineering. Fortunately, many of the people in this forum have more knowledge on the subjects and I willingly defer to them when they arise.

I've only been here a short while myself. Whether or not I can follow the technicalities and specifics of a certain thread, I do enjoy reading them and I usually learn something. Here's hoping you'll pick up a few tidbits while you're here. Hell, I could stand to pick up a few more myself.

And just remember - as loathe as I am to speak on 'behalf' of skepticism - that a skeptic is never afraid to be proven wrong (with evidence, of course). In fact, many welcome it as the chance to learn something new. Welcome again to the forum.

 

[JamPal]

Thanks Ninja

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

If you're here to learn, you're among good company Speaking for myself, I'm definitely no expert on fields such as psychics or engineering.<snip>

Freudian slip? Did you mean "psychics" or "physics"? And how weird is it that that's a legitimate question to ask?

 

[Year Zero]

There's nothing wrong with not trusting the government. The problem is that the burden of proof is on the other side to prove demolition, or government complicity. The thing is that the struggle in the world between various nations like China, the EU, US, Russia, Islamic fundamentalists, is very real. And yes, throughout history alliances have shifted. When the US was supporting Islamic fundamentalists against Arab socialists or the secluar Afghan government, they never imagined that these people would end up being so much trouble.

Marx wrote about how capitalism expands into the world and remakes the world after its own image- makes it capitalist. Islamic fundamentalists want to live in a world of the past, and thus present an obstacle to this. A real conflict was inevitable.

 

[Big Les]

Hang on. Now I am the subject of a forum conspiracy theory.



I am no woo merchant. I may be naive on some subjects, by the same token spending too much time here may make you too quick to dismiss that which lacks readily available evidence.

But I am here to learn, and share ideas with an open mind, nothing more.

Just Asking Questions.

 

[thisninjascrazy]

Freudian slip! I definitely meant "Physics". I'd like to blame my stubby fingers for the error.

"The fingers you have used to type are to fat... To obtain a special typing wand, please mash your palm against the space bar..."