Debunking conspiracy theories

[JamPal]

The title of this forum, lead me to think that this area might be more about debunking conspiracy theories than actually discussing the possibility that some of them may indeed hold water.

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.


Those thoughts, led me to (perhaps) an interesting question on our own personal bias as a skeptics:


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?

No particular point to make, just interested to hear how you feel on the subject.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Forgive my short responses, as I have a headache and used up all my words replying to Yurebiz on another thread.

<snip>
Is there a bias toward dismissing and debunking conspiracy theories, and if so,

No

does that mean that in general you would rather take the word of the media or the government than any one else?

No

Does your personal skepticism stop at what are perceived to be reliable sources.

If it's Stephen Hawking talking about black holes, to an extent. Dan Rather about Gitmo, no.

Rather than sources outside of the main stream?

mu

No particular point to make, just interested to hear how you feel on the subject.[/quote]

 

[Big Les]

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick here. It may appear that people here are dismissive of any "alternative" theory, but you have to realise that most here have seen it all before. Especially with 9/11 but also JFK, the moon, all the classics - every supposedly new idea or theory is just a new spin on the same old debunked or evidence-lacking horse-dung.

Bottom line is that scepticism demands evidence. By definition "alternative" theories about events, just like "alternative" medicine and "alternative" history, science, you name it, all require evidence, testing, peer-review; all the features of the scientific method, before we can begin to think about incorporating them into the sum of human knowledge. Pretty much everything you see here has been floated for some time, but has failed these kind of tests.

If we were to accept any alternative idea without evidence, regardless of whether it comes from authority or from a bloke in a shed, we would be truly credulous and gullible.

 

[CHF]

I'll believe any theory so long as it has proof and qualified backing. Neither of which the 911 twoofers have.

Stick around and you'll see.

 

[uk_dave]

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?

No particular point to make, just interested to hear how you feel on the subject.

Fair enough.

There is skepticism toward conspiracy theories becuase, by their very nature they are theories which are contrary to the 'accepted' version of events. Basically someone is coming here and saying "Hey, you know what you thought was true about 'X'? Well, I've got evidence that it's not true"

Then, for the most part, the cnspiracy theorist is greeted with requests for them to share this evidence.

Now, at this point debunking tends to take place, but it is not necessarily inevitable, it's just that it always seems that the conspiracy theorist doesn't actually present any evidence, or the evidence they do present is extremely weak.

So I would say that the debunking is a natural result of curiosity about the claims of the conspiracy theorist which are found, on closer inspection, to be capable of being debunked.

It's not bias, it's critical thinking.

If you can't sing, don't audition for the broadway show. It invariably ends in tears.

 

[The Silver Shadow]

I'm one for science and fact. Conspiracy theories, in my experience, never held water and always leaked. Back when I was in middle school, I believed that the Titanic was a conspiracy, the specific belief being that it was the Olympic that had sunk and the names were switched around for insurance purposes and other things. I even did a project on that for my class. However, after growing up a bit and doing some serious looking into the topic, I realized that it wasn't indeed a conspiracy, and that certain facts were being witheld by the authors of the conspiracy theories.

The same thing applied with 9/11 conspiracy theories, but this time, I didn't choose to be a blind man being led by a dropout, I demanded evidence, and they never produced. All they produced was the history of false flag attacks that the US committed (That was for history), and history is not the best indicator for what can come in the future. For the scientific part, I have many friends at the university in civil engineering, chemical engineering and other areas that pertain to the topic at hand. Talking with them, I didn't get a full answer, because they were students, so I talked with their professor! I specifically asked the professor how 9/11 CANNOT be a conspiracy. I showed him the scientific claims that LC makes, and he put it to me in simple terms (I'm a Human Biology student) as to the inconsistencies that were put forth by that film.

So, to put it to you, I don't dismiss conspiracy theories, I reserve judgement until I get an answer that satisfies me (Plus, I don't like the Bush government AT ALL!). It's just a shame that the conspiracy theorists haven't provided anything to counter what has been debunked.

 

[JamPal]

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick here. It may appear that people here are dismissive of any "alternative" theory, but you have to realise that most here have seen it all before. Especially with 9/11 but also JFK, the moon, all the classics - every supposedly new idea or theory is just a new spin on the same old debunked or evidence-lacking horse-dung.

Edit.
re-read your post, and realised I mis understood your point. I'll get used to this forum lark soon. Sorry.

 

[Horatius]

Is there a bias toward dismissing and debunking conspiracy theories,

I'd say there is bias towards debunking, in that we tend to look at the evidence provided by the CTists with an eye to seeing if it's useful or not. I wouldn't equate this with dismissing them, though. In fact, some people have expressed frustration that we don't automatically dismiss the more outlandish claims.

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?

No, it doesn't. We don't "take the word of" anyone, as far as is possible. It's about evaluating the evidence, not just trusting the people who make statements. Even our most respsected members get asked for cites.

Does your personal skepticism stop at what are perceived to be reliable sources. Rather than sources outside of the main stream?

That's what we call a "false dichotomy". We evaluate the reliability of each source, regardless of where it comes from. If the New York Times tends to be more reliable than, say, Prisonplanet, that's not our fault

And if so is that healthy skepticism?

No particular point to make, just interested to hear how you feel on the subject.

It isn't so, so this question is moot.

 

[JamPal]

Good stuff. Interesting and re-assuring posts.

As a newb, some things seem to be dismissed very quickly here, which can lead one to question why. Of course, you've got the T-Shirts.

 

[beachnut]

The title of this forum, lead me to think that this area might be more about debunking conspiracy theories than actually discussing the possibility that some of them may indeed hold water.

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.

Those thoughts, led me to (perhaps) an interesting question on our own personal bias as a skeptics:

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?

No particular point to make, just interested to hear how you feel on the subject.

The forum is to discuss conspiracy theories. Got any good ones?

If you are talking about 9/11 CT, I have seen zero (0) well rounded theories from any independent 9/11 truth movement source. As in zero facts. Your not trusting anyone is fine, I would not either, I think facts and evidence on 9/11 speak for themselves and the crazy ideas of the 9/11 truth movement are all lies. Unless you know of some new facts about 9/11 the truth movement is a fraud.

I have no bias toward CT. I am upset they tell lies and mislead others, how do you like being lied to?

I deal with facts and evidence that can be proved. The 9/11 truth movement has no facts. End of story. The only bias I see on 9/11 truth is from the liars in the so called truth movement. I have tried to find facts and have only found lies from the 9/11 truth movement. Why?

No bias unless you think wanting facts instead of a feeling is a bias. BTW, wanting proof in the form of facts and evidence is not a bias.

 

[Totovader]

Good stuff. Interesting and re-assuring posts.

As a newb, some things seem to be dismissed very quickly here, which can lead one to question why. Of course, you've got the T-Shirts.

Questioning is just fine. I don't think anyone here is really afraid of questioning- it's assuming that's the annoying part.

Well- ok and some questions that just keep getting asked, then re-asked, and asked again- because conspiracists refuse to pay attention to the responses...

 

[JamPal]

Questioning is just fine. I don't think anyone here is really afraid of questioning- it's assuming that's the annoying part.

Cool, thanks.

Well- ok and some questions that just keep getting asked, then re-asked, and asked again- because conspiracists refuse to pay attention to the responses...

You are meant to help them confirm their theories. Thats the only reason they come to places like this.Or speak to any one about their theory for that matter.

 

[JamPal]

The forum is to discuss conspiracy theories. Got any good ones?

If you are talking about 9/11 CT, I have seen zero (0) well rounded theories from any independent 9/11 truth movement source. As in zero facts. Your not trusting anyone is fine, I would not either, I think facts and evidence on 9/11 speak for themselves and the crazy ideas of the 9/11 truth movement are all lies. Unless you know of some new facts about 9/11 the truth movement is a fraud.

I have no bias toward CT. I am upset they tell lies and mislead others, how do you like being lied to?

I deal with facts and evidence that can be proved. The 9/11 truth movement has no facts. End of story. The only bias I see on 9/11 truth is from the liars in the so called truth movement. I have tried to find facts and have only found lies from the 9/11 truth movement. Why?

No bias unless you think wanting facts instead of a feeling is a bias. BTW, wanting proof in the form of facts and evidence is not a bias.

I have never heard of the 9/11 truth movement. I will look them up though.

If you are linking this post with my little anti - bush fun in the other thread, well that is what got me thinking along these lines to be honest.

But, lets be clear, I don't believe for one moment that Bush had anything to do with 9/11. He simply isn't that clever. I do think he has used it as a reason for committing some pretty awful wrongs. For example, I think his protection of the Saudi's in all of this is despicable, and using 9/11 as a pretext to take us all to war with Iraq is as cynical a crime against our troops as one could ever imagine. But no, I believe the worst of his crimes occurred post 9/11. I also think that is why there are so many conspiracy theories. It now looks almost convenient for him. (He got to "finish" Daddies war after all)

Any way, that was Off Topic. And I was starting to ramble.

 

[MG1962]

Well I can say from experience that occasionally alternative views have more legs than you first think. I had a long discussion about a WW2 legend "The Battle of Shingle Beach" At first I thought it was a total croc, but as we discussed it further and I went off researching, it became more an more apparent that not only was the legend plausable, but in fact probably happened.

 

[T.A.M.]

Welcome to the Forum JamPal.

The title of this forum, lead me to think that this area might be more about debunking conspiracy theories than actually discussing the possibility that some of them may indeed hold water.

Correct.

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.

...and no less likely, I hope, provided the govt or media has provided you with ample evidence.

Those thoughts, led me to (perhaps) an interesting question on our own personal bias as a skeptics:

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?

The two can be seperated. I do tend to dismiss CTs, and I do tend to be biased towards debunking them, simply because the majority of the ones I have encountered have been extremely weak on evidence, and extremely full of speculation and conjecture.

I would like to believe the govt and media try to be truthful when they can, and for this reason, I do prefer to believe them, but that doesnt mean I do without evidence and proof.

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?

Reliable, by definition, means the information they present is closer to the truth, and is accurate more often than an UNRELIABLE source, so yes it is healthy to trust RELIABLE sources, more so than an UNKNOWN source. The trouble with many sources of an independent, or alternative nature, is the personal, singular bias of the reporter will figure much more into the reporting, as there are no stop gaps, no peer pressures to be honest and unbiased.

No particular point to make, just interested to hear how you feel on the subject.

ok...so there you go.

I have never heard of the 9/11 truth movement. I will look them up though.

Interesting.

If you are linking this post with my little anti - bush fun in the other thread, well that is what got me thinking along these lines to be honest.

didnt see it.

But, lets be clear, I don't believe for one moment that Bush had anything to do with 9/11. He simply isn't that clever. I do think he has used it as a reason for committing some pretty awful wrongs. For example, I think his protection of the Saudi's in all of this is despicable, and using 9/11 as a pretext to take us all to war with Iraq is as cynical a crime against our troops as one could ever imagine.

Interesting.

But no, I believe the worst of his crimes occurred post 9/11. I also think that is why there are so many conspiracy theories. It now looks almost convenient for him. (He got to "finish" Daddies war after all)

Any way, that was Off Topic. And I was starting to ramble.

Interesting. You have heard of many of these Conspiracy theories, but not of the 9/11 truth movement.

TAM

 

[beachnut]

I have never heard of the 9/11 truth movement. I will look them up though.

If you are linking this post with my little anti - bush fun in the other thread, well that is what got me thinking along these lines to be honest.

But, lets be clear, I don't believe for one moment that Bush had anything to do with 9/11. He simply isn't that clever. I do think he has used it as a reason for committing some pretty awful wrongs. For example, I think his protection of the Saudi's in all of this is despicable, and using 9/11 as a pretext to take us all to war with Iraq is as cynical a crime against our troops as one could ever imagine. But no, I believe the worst of his crimes occurred post 9/11. I also think that is why there are so many conspiracy theories. It now looks almost convenient for him. (He got to "finish" Daddies war after all)

Any way, that was Off Topic. And I was starting to ramble.

Your political stuff will do best in the political forum, you should start a thread. But you seem to believe the very junk you say you are immune by not trusting sources. I see a few CTs in your post veiled under your idea of the awful wrongs; you should start a political thread, in the political forum of all the awful wrongs done due to 9/11, even include the view from a Kurd point of view, or compare and contrast the problems of Iraq to problems of the Balkans.

You are right Bush is not clever (do you have a source) he would have died in trying to fly high performance jets, no way he could pass a year long class on learning to fly high performance jets. OOPS, he passed. Darn, okay not clever enough, guess you meant something else, but what does that have to do with CTers? Are you saying CTers are okay to make up lies to protest other things and make up lies? The only thing needed for 9/11 was the ability to kill pilots, fly planes into buildings. Two steps too easy even for politically biased posters who can not find the political forum.

How clever do you have to be to kill pilots and crash planes. Too simple, too easy.

It seems you could be a secret CTer on 9/11 from you posts but so far you are doing a good job hiding it. You should move this to the political forum and list those evil things post 9/11. You could even list the sources. But Bush being clever or not has not a darn thing to do with 9/11 events, and should have not a thing to do with CT about 9/11.

But no there is no bias, there is a search for facts. Check out the resource on 9/11. But I so not see why Saddam was allowed to shoot a my buddies for 12 years, do you? Even Clinton bombed Saddam, you could have a great thread in the political forum. Do it.

CTers should use facts what do you think? No bias, look for facts. Got facts?

The point is I have no idea what you wrote about Bush, the Conspiracy Theories forum is about CT. The political forum is better suited for my suggestions so you can vent your political ideas. I find that most CTer on 9/11 use some bias, usually unnamed, to support their conclusions and forget to find facts or evidence. Seems like you never heard of 9/11 CTs.

 

[hellaeon]

You will find a lot of people in this forum and around the globe have many issues with how the war on terror has been used for other political gains and means.

Amazing you know about conspiracies but not 9/11?

Conspiracy theories are cool but almost all the time just heresay, rumour and innuendo.

You only have to read an article on the average kook site and I mean kind of back away and read it from a different mindset, approach it with -'I am going to dismiss all the emotion and look only for exact verifyable facts, black and white' and you will find none of their articles hold any substance other then being tabloid articles.

Nothing should ever be dismissed out of hand unless its purposefully stupid (eg Look up 'the pentacon'), and everything 'should' deserve its peer review. I dont understand why the reluctance with conspiracy nuts is to stay with their theory in the face of actual, physical, scientific evidence. Surely you want the knowledge of being 99% right? I know thats what I prefer.

Conspiracy theories I think also lend to a misunderstanding of science, and lets face it, some science is so complex its easy to be overwhelmed - But for me I look at that with envy and awe, kind of like a spiritual experience if thats a term to use.

Nature and the way it works itself is utterly amazing.

My thoughts

Cheers

 

[Big Les]

The Mark of Woo...Mark Two?

 

[T.A.M.]

The Mark of Woo...Mark Two?

only time will tell...lol.

TAM

 

[thisninjascrazy]

Welcome to the forum! As far as debunking conspiracies, I like what Penn Jillette said...

"A true skeptic demands to be convinced... with evidence."

Unfortunately, that's something the 9/11 Truthers lack. For the most part, they 'shotgun' you with one point (usually stuff that's been debunked countless times) after another hysterically. If you can't answer all of them, they take that as a 'win'. If you've got a strong constitution, have a look at a guy named Alex Jones to see how hysterical and irrational they can be.