18 hours ago, dave2013 said:

The recent bioweapon that spread around the world managed to kill millions and the supposed cure has killed more millions, but this was really just a test run for a larger plan which I pray will be thwarted.

 

You say I put "much faith" in experts... but do you put "much faith" in conspiracy theory, Dave? 😏

1 hour ago, martin-w said:

but do you put "much faith" in conspiracy theory

What's the difference between a conspiracy theory and accepted truth?

These days it's a few months.

I'll generally trust my mechanic, but many of them practice "fee building."  "You need new shock absorbers!"  Or worse, "You need new brake pads."  Since I replace my own brake pads, I declined.  They put one lug nut on so tight I bent the lug wrench trying to get it off.  Bounced on it with my full weight, ended up injuring my ankle.  This shop specialized in mufflers and had that word in the name.  Another local shop (I won't mention the name but it rhymes with Good Beer) put a lug nut on so tight my son had to buy a grinder and grind the lug off.  I told him it served him right as the same shop did me bad on a previous transaction and I'd forbidden using them again.

If an "expert" gaslights you, don't trust them.  For example, if a doctor gaslights you, don't go back.  I've been through this a couple of times.

Ever had a mechanic tell you, "It's supposed to do that"? 🙂 

Hook

Edited July 29, 2025Jul 29 by LHookins

I'm a big believer in the ultimate conspiracy theory - occam's razor.  The reality is that most of us are far too unimportant for anyone to bother to organize against.  I'd call us pawns on a giant chessboard, but we aren't even that important to anyone.  Unless you have a lot of wealth, you aren't even allowed near the board.  

The traditional media and tech companies do try to gaslight everyone in order to keep us confused and from seeing the rather obvious things.  

Greed and personal gain is what movitates everyone, plain and simple.  They want everyday people arguing over silly things so that we don't pay attention to how our money is being stolen in plain sight.  

This gets back to the point of the thread - we've been taught that this is normal.  

We used to (usually) agree on the facts, but have different opinions on how to deal with those facts.  Today?  We argue what the facts are.  We're got prominent figures blatantly lying to our faces about simple facts, like something right out of 1984.  They contradict things they said weeks before, but we're supposed to pretend this is normal.  

Want to be less stressted and have better mental health?  Remember occam's razor.  The simplest explanation is almost always the correct one.  

4 minutes ago, kerosene31 said:

I'm a big believer in the ultimate conspiracy theory - occam's razor.  The reality is that most of us are far too unimportant for anyone to bother to organize against.  I'd call us pawns on a giant chessboard, but we aren't even that important to anyone.  Unless you have a lot of wealth, you aren't even allowed near the board.  

The traditional media and tech companies do try to gaslight everyone in order to keep us confused and from seeing the rather obvious things.  

Greed and personal gain is what movitates everyone, plain and simple.  They want everyday people arguing over silly things so that we don't pay attention to how our money is being stolen in plain sight.  

This gets back to the point of the thread - we've been taught that this is normal.  

We used to (usually) agree on the facts, but have different opinions on how to deal with those facts.  Today?  We argue what the facts are.  We're got prominent figures blatantly lying to our faces about simple facts, like something right out of 1984.  They contradict things they said weeks before, but we're supposed to pretend this is normal.  

Want to be less stressted and have better mental health?  Remember occam's razor.  The simplest explanation is almost always the correct one.  

More completely, the simplest explanation that fits the facts.

Or put another way, pick the explanation that requires the fewest additional assumptions.

3 hours ago, martin-w said:

 

 

You took that quote out of context, Dave, and you didn't pay attention to the second sentence. I provided several options.

I said "In terms of the video, the guy is an individual who is qualified in this field. Now, he may be right and he may be wrong, he may be just trying to sell a book, or maybe he is basing his opinion on research," I didn't state which I thought was more likely. 

What i consider is two important concepts. Those concepts are "probability" and "likelihood." Yes, qualified experts do get things wrong, no human being is infallible, but we don't expect Mindy, the hairdresser who lives down the street, who knows nothing about car engines, to accurately diagnose an issue with a cars engine. What we do is consult a qualified mechanic who it far more "likely" to diagnose the issue correctly. 

 

The likelihood of a highly qualified expert making a valid point is far more "likely" than an unqualified guy on the internet, especially a conspiracy theorist. 😏

 

 

That's fine, but be VERY careful where you get those other opinions from. 

 

 

Depends what you mean by "expert" There are some fields that are more likely to generate error than others. As you probably recall, I have a great interest in exercise science, in particular muscular hypertrophy. Well, in this field, the studies involve ridiculously low sample sizes, literally a handful of participants, and ultra short duration, often just 8 weeks. Then there's the issue of being able to measure hypertrophy with an ultrasound that often depends on the interpretation of the technician doing the scan. Error is far more likely than a gold standard study in a different field.

So you'd need to be specific about what kind of expert you mean. If you mean in a scientific field, then yes, all science contains a degree of error, that's unavoidable... but as for "frequently" that's a relative concept, and relative to an unqualified individual on the internet, or  a guy on the internet that claims to be an expert, or an individual who is obsessed with conspiracy theory.... orders of magnitude fewer errors.

 

 

Exactly, too much credibility is given to randomers on YouTube over qualified experts, and the concept that "my ignorance is just as good as your expertise".

Conspiracy theories go back to medieval times;  the first use of the term "conspiracy theory" dates from 1863.  The following is from Google AI:

Quote

Twentieth Century:

Conspiracy theories became more mainstream, especially after events like the Kennedy assassination. 

Modern Usage:

The term "conspiracy theory" is often used pejoratively to describe beliefs that challenge official narratives. 

I learned from the Warren Report that just because something could be called a conspiracy theory didn't mean there wasn't a conspiracy.

Hook

2 hours ago, LHookins said:

Conspiracy theories go back to medieval times;  the first use of the term "conspiracy theory" dates from 1863.

Terms like "conspiracy theory", "denier", "tin foil hat", etc. are used to malign and ridicule people to discredit them in order to avoid actually having to debate them. 

It is the best tactic next to outright censorship, which they have actually resorted to using lately as they are getting desperate, and is just another tool in their disinformation and propaganda campaign.

Dave

Where someone proposed a potentially valid theory based on some kind of substantiable evidence, I'm all for an open mind.  sorry, but when people put forward ideas that are easily debunkable and/or outright seek to mislead others from a sound scientific or evidential reasoning, then those terms are absolutely 100% warranted.

Edited July 29, 2025Jul 29 by kevinfirth

I think that's a given, Kevin.

Hook

24 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

Terms like "conspiracy theory", "denier", "tin foil hat", etc. are used to malign and ridicule people to discredit them in order to avoid actually having to debate them. 

It is the best tactic next to outright censorship, which they have actually resorted to using lately as they are getting desperate, and is just another tool in their disinformation and propaganda campaign.

Dave

In my experience, most conspiracy theorists don't debate, though, either because they don't know how to, or they don't want to. Instead they play a game of rhetorical whack-a-mole where each bit of evidence that is debunked is replaces by another, and another until they circle back top the original one. Far from producing real evidence, they just regurgitate bad science, innuendo, cherry picked and out-of-context information, and outright lies. When challenged, their frequent response is to dump a link to a > 60-minute YouTube video, which they appear to assume people won't actually look at. If you ask for the critical timestamps in the video, you'll get tumbleweed as a response. It's just as futile as debating with  creationists - and for similar reasons, in my opinion. Most of them richly deserve the ridicule they get, and they bring it on themselves.

P.S. You're confusing desperation with exasperation.

Edited July 29, 2025Jul 29 by Holdit

14 minutes ago, kevinfirth said:

Where someone proposed a potentially valid theory based on some kind of substantiable evidence, I'm all for an open mind.  sorry, but when people put forward ideas that are easily debunkable and/or outright seek to mislead others from a sound scientific or evidential reasoning, then those terms are absolutely 100% warranted.

Or as Richard Dawkins put it, "It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out."

1 hour ago, Holdit said:

In my experience, most conspiracy theorists don't debate, though, either because they don't know how to, or they don't want to.

You just did the very thing I discussed.  You called people you disagree with "conspiracy theorists" and claimed they won't debate.  

I guess using derogatory names is your safe space or default go-to when you don't agree with someone.

We aren't allowed to debate a certain issue here, which I'm guessing is at least one thing you're subtly referring to.  Anyway, just keep going with certain policies and see where that leads you.

Good luck.

Dave

1 hour ago, LHookins said:

I think that's a given, Kevin.

Hook

Not for everyone!

27 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

You just did the very thing I discussed.  You called people you disagree with "conspiracy theorists" and claimed they won't debate.

I thought you two were arguing from the same side.  Am I missing something?

I've never called anyone a conspiracy theorist.  Some have called me that.  If I use the term, it refers to a class of people without specifying anyone individually.

Heck, I used to listen to William Cooper occasionally.  I didn't call HIM a conspiracy theorist.  I figured "nut job" was more accurate.  Besides, he may have accidentally spouted some truth occasionally.  I had no way of knowing.  But I didn't believe him either.

I can't describe how profoundly the Warren Report affected me.

Hook

Edited July 29, 2025Jul 29 by LHookins

2 hours ago, dave2013 said:

You just did the very thing I discussed.  You called people you disagree with "conspiracy theorists" and claimed they won't debate.  

I guess using derogatory names is your safe space or default go-to when you don't agree with someone.

We aren't allowed to debate a certain issue here, which I'm guessing is at least one thing you're subtly referring to.  Anyway, just keep going with certain policies and see where that leads you.

Good luck.

Dave

You see, this is precisely what I'm talking about. I made it clear perecisely what behaviour self-identifies these people. Disagreeing with me does not in and of itself make someone a conspiracy theorist, but rather their tendancy to argue dishonestly and their inability to think or evaluate critically and inability to grasp that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, whether that be accidentally or by design. From your reaction it would appear that such behaviour is likely to be your own modus operandi also, so yes, in that case you're wise to avoid me. Good call.