| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
omphaloskepsis 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2011
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 6341
|
 Posted: April 02 2024 at 11:21 |
Just because you say your scenario is par for the course...doesn't make it so. Sure, it's a given that confirmation bias explains why some people adhere to a particular conspiracy theory. Would that include your confirmation bias? 
Please give examples to illustrate your argument, Steve. So far, your arguments are generic and abstract. 
Edited by omphaloskepsis - April 02 2024 at 11:54
|
 |
SteveG
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20604
|
Posted: April 02 2024 at 12:36 |
 omphaloskepsis wrote:
Just because you say your scenario is par for the course...doesn't make it so. Sure, it's a given that confirmation bias explains why some people adhere to a particular conspiracy theory. Would that include your confirmation bias?
Please give examples to illustrate your argument, Steve. So far, your arguments are generic and abstract. |
I'm responding to a conspiracy theorist, so nothing I say will alter your confirmation bias. See how it works? You're stuck with your opinions as only those who are rational can be persuaded.
Edited by SteveG - April 02 2024 at 12:37
|
|
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Online
Points: 21180
|
Posted: April 02 2024 at 12:56 |
Sure. We both agree that conspiracy theories are usually wrong. So for every new theory we come across it is more likely that it is wrong than that it is correct. However, the theories can vary a lot in terms of how ordinary the claims are that you would have to accept as true in order for the theory to be correct, and this, among other factors, should be weighed against your bias to just dismiss every conspiracy theory as false.
Example:
A) The world is ruled by lizard people. B) The world is ruled by a small number of extremely wealthy people.
I would submit that although both are basically "unprovable", there is a striking difference in the likelihood of them being correct as well as the type of evidence that would be required to accept them as (likely) correct.
Edited by MikeEnRegalia - April 02 2024 at 12:56
|
|
SteveG
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20604
|
Posted: April 02 2024 at 13:57 |
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
Sure. We both agree that conspiracy theories are usually wrong. So for every new theory we come across it is more likely that it is wrong than that it is correct. However, the theories can vary a lot in terms of how ordinary the claims are that you would have to accept as true in order for the theory to be correct, and this, among other factors, should be weighed against your bias to just dismiss every conspiracy theory as false.
Example:
A) The world is ruled by lizard people. B) The world is ruled by a small number of extremely wealthy people.
I would submit that although both are basically "unprovable", there is a striking difference in the likelihood of them being correct as well as the type of evidence that would be required to accept them as (likely) correct.
|
I agree that both are unprovable but many compelling arguments with a rational basis can be made for example B. And that what is key. Compelling rational arguments which most conspiracy theories lack. Not everything can be proven but Cherry picking one or two arguments in the face of numerous compelling and rational counter arguments is the problem.
Edited by SteveG - April 02 2024 at 14:14
|
|
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Online
Points: 21180
|
Posted: April 02 2024 at 14:55 |
|
^ Agreed!
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65258
|
Posted: April 02 2024 at 14:57 |
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
Atavachron wrote:
^ No, conspiracy theorists are attracted to the plausibility of a conspiracy. Nothing wrong with that any more than being attracted to the non-conspiracy narrative. What's important is knowing what things are conspiracy and what aren't. No easy task. |
So conspiracy theorists are sometimes right, and sometimes wrong? That was kind of my point, since it was suggested that they're never right. |
Well sure because sometimes conspiracies are real. It's incorrect to assume that someone who is generally non-Conspiracy is simply ignorant of that, or of the fact that certain specific conspiracies may exist. In fact it's often because they've traveled that long road, been sown that deep ravine, and realized there are superior & more accurate ways of perceiving things.
|
|
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Online
Points: 21180
|
Posted: April 02 2024 at 15:13 |
^ It's generally wise to try to assume as little as possible about what others think.
|
|
Lewian
Prog Reviewer
Joined: August 09 2015
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 14728
|
Posted: April 03 2024 at 04:15 |
The thing with discussing "conspiracy theories" and how "conspiracy theorists" argue is that it distracts from whatever topic the "conspiracy theory" is about, here democracy and its problems.
You've got to give it to siLLy puPPy that at least from time to time he puts his cards on the table so that it is possible to see what his actual "theory" is, and whether it holds water (even though of course where the stuff he posts doesn't hold water it's always "far more complicated and far more research is needed to understand it all").
Now when I look at this:
| The world is ruled by a small number of extremely wealthy people |
- assuming that this is your view (in case it's not maybe better say that it's not and what it is instead rather than saying that "your words are twisted") - I have the following questions, given that we have elections and what happens in a democracy in some way depends on who is elected:
1. Can you name some of these people (I call them "rulers" in the following)?
2. Does "the world" governed by the "rulers" include countries such as China or Russia?
3. How do the "rulers" make sure that democracies (read "democracy" with quotes if you must ) don't do things against the "rulers'" will? Are the people that stand in elections with chances of winning personally controlled by the "rulers" and conscious of it, or are they rather just tolerated because they can't do dangerous stuff anyway, or are they somehow influenced without knowing, or are the elections rigged so that people who would want to act against the "rulers" don't stand a chance?
4. Regarding the many things about which the candidates of a democratic election differ, (a) don't the "rulers" care because what is at stake in elections won't touch their interests anyway (how can they make this sure?), or (b) will they actively stop anything that goes against their interests that an elected government might want to do, or (c) will they make sure that nobody is elected who'd do such a thing? (How?)
5. To what extent do the "rulers" control information, and how? Why doesn't it bother the "rulers" that whoever is interested in delegitimising democracy these days can find information all over the place?
6. Would the "rulers" be happy to see democracy defended, and if so, why do they allow it to be "teetering", in order to go back to the original topic of this thread?
|
|
SteveG
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20604
|
Posted: April 03 2024 at 05:40 |
Lewian wrote:
The thing with discussing "conspiracy theories" and how "conspiracy theorists" argue is that it distracts from whatever topic the "conspiracy theory" is about, here democracy and its problems.
You've got to give it to siLLy puPPy that at least from time to time he puts his cards on the table so that it is possible to see what his actual "theory" is, and whether it holds water (even though of course where the stuff he posts doesn't hold water it's always "far more complicated and far more research is needed to understand it all").
Now when I look at this:
| The world is ruled by a small number of extremely wealthy people |
- assuming that this is your view (in case it's not maybe better say that it's not and what it is instead rather than saying that "your words are twisted") - I have the following questions, given that we have elections and what happens in a democracy in some way depends on who is elected:
1. Can you name some of these people (I call them "rulers" in the following)?
2. Does "the world" governed by the "rulers" include countries such as China or Russia?
3. How do the "rulers" make sure that democracies (read "democracy" with quotes if you must ) don't do things against the "rulers'" will? Are the people that stand in elections with chances of winning personally controlled by the "rulers" and conscious of it, or are they rather just tolerated because they can't do dangerous stuff anyway, or are they somehow influenced without knowing, or are the elections rigged so that people who would want to act against the "rulers" don't stand a chance?
4. Regarding the many things about which the candidates of a democratic election differ, (a) don't the "rulers" care because what is at stake in elections won't touch their interests anyway (how can they make this sure?), or (b) will they actively stop anything that goes against their interests that an elected government might want to do, or (c) will they make sure that nobody is elected who'd do such a thing? (How?)
5. To what extent do the "rulers" control information, and how? Why doesn't it bother the "rulers" that whoever is interested in delegitimising democracy these days can find information all over the place?
6. Would the "rulers" be happy to see democracy defended, and if so, why do they allow it to be "teetering", in order to go back to the original topic of this thread? |
Let's streamline your arguments or opinions and say that what we consider to be the Free World is ruled by the small minority of rich people. That the rich are a small minority is a statistical fact and need not be debated here.
Let's use an example. Donald Trump was recently bailed out of paying a bond in excess of 175 million dollars, in a NYC court case that ruled against him, by a billionaire as Trump couldn't come up with the money himself. That's an exuberant amount of money "lent" by the billionaire as the chances of paying back the debt, even without interest, is slim to none. It's fair to assume that such an action would be devoid of some future lobbying, either political or in some way financial.
Is there any president for that action? Yes of course. But it need not be done as any back room deal as it's commonly done in the open with business lobbyists supporting politicians and their causes, so why not a back room deal?
Now, this is all an example. I don't know who this billionaire is, so I reserve judgement. But this example is based on rational and compelling arguments. But none of this is a known fact, so I would caution anyone taking it as fact until this argument is proven concretely. That's something conspiracy theorists seldom do. The argument becomes a fact with no evidence to support it.
Edited by SteveG - April 03 2024 at 06:27
|
|
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
|
|
mathman0806
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 06 2014
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6414
|
Posted: April 03 2024 at 06:17 |
SteveG wrote:
Let's use an example. Donald Trump was recently bailed out of paying a bond in excess of 175 million dollars, in a NYC court case that ruled against him, by a billionaire as Trump couldn't come up with the money himself. That's an exuberant amount of money "lent" by the billionaire as the chances of paying back the debt, even without interest, is slime to none. |
Great typo. Or was it intentional?
|
|
SteveG
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20604
|
Posted: April 03 2024 at 06:23 |
mathman0806 wrote:
SteveG wrote:
Let's use an example. Donald Trump was recently bailed out of paying a bond in excess of 175 million dollars, in a NYC court case that ruled against him, by a billionaire as Trump couldn't come up with the money himself. That's an exuberant amount of money "lent" by the billionaire as the chances of paying back the debt, even without interest, is slime to none. |
Great typo. Or was it intentional? |
Probably a Freudian slip!  Thanks, I will correct it.
Edited by SteveG - April 03 2024 at 06:25
|
|
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Online
Points: 21180
|
Posted: April 03 2024 at 08:01 |
Lewian wrote:
The thing with discussing "conspiracy theories" and how "conspiracy theorists" argue is that it distracts from whatever topic the "conspiracy theory" is about, here democracy and its problems.
You've got to give it to siLLy puPPy that at least from time to time he puts his cards on the table so that it is possible to see what his actual "theory" is, and whether it holds water (even though of course where the stuff he posts doesn't hold water it's always "far more complicated and far more research is needed to understand it all").
Now when I look at this:
| The world is ruled by a small number of extremely wealthy people |
- assuming that this is your view (in case it's not maybe better say that it's not and what it is instead rather than saying that "your words are twisted") - I have the following questions, given that we have elections and what happens in a democracy in some way depends on who is elected: |
It is my suspicion, meaning that I am not asserting that this is the case, nor am I saying that I can prove it.
Lewian wrote:
1. Can you name some of these people (I call them "rulers" in the following)? |
No. Since they prefer to rule by proxy, it is prudent for them to keep a low profile. Let's put it this way, repeating an earlier question: To whom do the USA owe $35 trillion? It's these people I'm referring to.
Lewian wrote:
2. Does "the world" governed by the "rulers" include countries such as China or Russia? |
Unclear. Probably. Either they're in on it (and their rulers are either in league with the "rulers" or they've struck deals with them), or they're at war with them.
Lewian wrote:
3. How do the "rulers" make sure that democracies (read "democracy" with quotes if you must ) don't do things against the "rulers'" will? Are the people that stand in elections with chances of winning personally controlled by the "rulers" and conscious of it, or are they rather just tolerated because they can't do dangerous stuff anyway, or are they somehow influenced without knowing, or are the elections rigged so that people who would want to act against the "rulers" don't stand a chance? |
Corruption. Lobbyism. Call it what you will.
Lewian wrote:
4. Regarding the many things about which the candidates of a democratic election differ, (a) don't the "rulers" care because what is at stake in elections won't touch their interests anyway (how can they make this sure?), or (b) will they actively stop anything that goes against their interests that an elected government might want to do, or (c) will they make sure that nobody is elected who'd do such a thing? (How?) |
See previous answer.
Lewian wrote:
5. To what extent do the "rulers" control information, and how? Why doesn't it bother the "rulers" that whoever is interested in delegitimising democracy these days can find information all over the place? |
We discussed this: "the system" does not care about dissent as long as it does not destabilise it.
Lewian wrote:
6. Would the "rulers" be happy to see democracy defended, and if so, why do they allow it to be "teetering", in order to go back to the original topic of this thread? |
See previous answer.
Will respond in more detail later ...
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Online
Points: 21180
|
Posted: April 03 2024 at 08:28 |
SteveG wrote:
Let's use an example. Donald Trump was recently bailed out of paying a bond in excess of 175 million dollars, in a NYC court case that ruled against him, by a billionaire as Trump couldn't come up with the money himself. That's an exuberant amount of money "lent" by the billionaire as the chances of paying back the debt, even without interest, is slim to none. It's fair to assume that such an action would be devoid of some future lobbying, either political or in some way financial.
Is there any president for that action? Yes of course. But it need not be done as any back room deal as it's commonly done in the open with business lobbyists supporting politicians and their causes, so why not a back room deal?
Now, this is all an example. I don't know who this billionaire is, so I reserve judgement. But this example is based on rational and compelling arguments. But none of this is a known fact, so I would caution anyone taking it as fact until this argument is proven concretely. That's something conspiracy theorists seldom do. The argument becomes a fact with no evidence to support it.
|
Let's not forget that the whole court case was arguably silly in the first place. I fail to see the relevance of the example. It's douche vs. turd. Neither stands for democracy, it's two sides of the same (rotten) coin.
|
|
SteveG
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20604
|
Posted: April 03 2024 at 11:11 |
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
SteveG wrote:
Let's use an example. Donald Trump was recently bailed out of paying a bond in excess of 175 million dollars, in a NYC court case that ruled against him, by a billionaire as Trump couldn't come up with the money himself. That's an exuberant amount of money "lent" by the billionaire as the chances of paying back the debt, even without interest, is slim to none. It's fair to assume that such an action would be devoid of some future lobbying, either political or in some way financial.
Is there any president for that action? Yes of course. But it need not be done as any back room deal as it's commonly done in the open with business lobbyists supporting politicians and their causes, so why not a back room deal?
Now, this is all an example. I don't know who this billionaire is, so I reserve judgement. But this example is based on rational and compelling arguments. But none of this is a known fact, so I would caution anyone taking it as fact until this argument is proven concretely. That's something conspiracy theorists seldom do. The argument becomes a fact with no evidence to support it.
|
Let's not forget that the whole court case was arguably silly in the first place. I fail to see the relevance of the example. It's douche vs. turd. Neither stands for democracy, it's two sides of the same (rotten) coin. |
The relevance was the possibility of the rich in political power. It was a conspiracy theory that can't be proven. Is that what's bothering you?
|
|
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
|
|
Valdez1
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 07 2024
Location: Walla Walla Wa
Status: Offline
Points: 351
|
Posted: April 03 2024 at 11:30 |
" It's douche vs. turd... Neither stands for Democracy. "
I'm making a T-shirt with THIS Regalia's quote on it. 
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Online
Points: 21180
|
Posted: April 03 2024 at 13:16 |
|
^ the point being?
|
|
SteveG
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20604
|
Posted: April 03 2024 at 14:08 |
|
^ More likely his own opinion.
|
|
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
|
|
Hugh Manatee
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 07 2021
Location: The Barricades
Status: Offline
Points: 1587
|
Posted: April 03 2024 at 19:48 |
My understanding is that most conspiracy theorists have an emotional investment in their chosen theory, and emotion is very hard to shift with logic.
|
|
I should have been a pair of ragged claws
Scuttling across the floors of uncertain seas
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Online
Points: 21180
|
Posted: April 03 2024 at 23:23 |
SteveG wrote:
The relevance was the possibility of the rich in political power. It was a conspiracy theory that can't be proven. Is that what's bothering you? |
How was/is that a conspiracy theory? I think that most people would agree that there is that kind of corruption in politics. Some would limit it to the opposite camp (e.g. hardcore Trump supporters would only see the corruption with the democrats, fanatical Biden supporters would see it only with Trump etc.), but I think that many would agree that the corruption is systemic.
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65258
|
Posted: April 03 2024 at 23:25 |
|
^ There are no 'fanatical Biden supporters', that's why Trump has a chance to win.
|
|
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
"Democracy is Teetering"