"It doesnt exist because ive seen no evidence" is not leaving a book open. "Theres no evidence that ive seen whatsoever, so im just going to walk away from this because its outside of my methods" is.

quote:

Originally posted by leafar:
I dont see why you have such a problem leaving something as an open book and walking away from it. If you never want to go back to that book, dont. But leave it open.

If we did that, human knowledge would not advance. The book should never be fully closed (its those pesky likelihoods again: we can never be absolutely sure that something does or doesn't exist) but failing to test an idea and just walking away is irresponsible and leads people to invent silly superstitions to fill in the gaps.

Yes failing to test an idea is no good, i agree. And so is inventing superstitions just for the sake of having an explanation. So we agree, because ive got no problem with that. So the issue is whether or not these conspiracy people test their ideas, or if they seek and see evidence. Theres nothing wrong with formulating theories, as long as theyre at least loosely based on some past evidence, and then testing that (with an open mind). Scientists do it. Thats why a page or two back i made a list of sources.

quote:

Originally posted by leafar:
...So the issue is whether or not these conspiracy people test their ideas, or if they seek and see evidence. Theres nothing wrong with formulating theories, as long as theyre at least loosely based on some past evidence, and then testing that (with an open mind). Scientists do it. Thats why a page or two back i made a list of sources.

Testing something "with an open mind" is doomed to failure. We humans are incapable of such unbiased testing. That is why the scientific method is so important. It is all about performing tests that attempt to disprove a hypothesis, If the test fails, it is taken as evidence in favour of the hypothesis. If the test passes, the hypothesis should be rejected. Conspiracy theory people rarely work that way. They look for evidence to support their hypotheses only; they shy away from trying to disprove them. When one looks for evidence to support a belief, one will inevitably find it. The evidence is of course invariably worthless, but belief blinds the searcher to that.

quote:

Originally posted by leafar:
Yes failing to test an idea is no good, i agree. And so is inventing superstitions just for the sake of having an explanation. So we agree, because ive got no problem with that. So the issue is whether or not these conspiracy people test their ideas, or if they seek and see evidence. Theres nothing wrong with formulating theories, as long as theyre at least loosely based on some past evidence, and then testing that (with an open mind). Scientists do it. Thats why a page or two back i made a list of sources.

Some conspiracy theories are harmless entertainment - I don't really care if David Icke thinks George W. and the queen are lizards - but some can be dangerous. For instance, if scientists tell us that global warming is happening and we are the cause of it and therefore need to do something about it but there are people saying no, no, it's a hoax, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, and if they spread that idea then that undermines our efforts to take the necessary action.

As Carl Sagan said, it's good to have an open mind, but if your mind's too open your brains fall out.

When i said testing it with an open mind, i meant testing it with no particular desire to see a particular result. And i think one should do tests both to try to prove a hypothesis, and tests to disprove it. Theres no harm in that. I think thats probably the fairest way to do it.

What youve just described about how most conspiracy theorists work, the method youve talked about there is not a good way, i agree. They shouldnt shy away from evidence that goes against their original idea, because if their idea is so strong, it should stand up to opposition. But theres no reason to assume that most of them work that way just because their ideas are so at odds with what weve all been conditioned to take as fact.

Why dont we see much of these people on tv? Because its assumed that theyre talking nonsense. Many ordinary people off the street have heard of David Icke, for instance. But in what context? Wogan ("im THE son of god" (which he did not actually say)), and "jews are lizards and theyre evil and they want to rule the world". If you ask most people, theyll tell you that its a fact that those are his views, because thats what has been presented to them.

On the day of 911, not long after it happened, "Osama Bin Laden" was repeated, and that went on all day long. If youd never heard of him, by the end of the day it would have been ingrained into your brain, and now its standard to just accept that he did it. Maybe he did, and maybe he didnt, but i find it extremely dodgy how his name has become like a mantra, never to be forgotten.

And on it goes.

quote:

Originally posted by leafar:
When i said testing it with an open mind, i meant testing it with no particular desire to see a particular result. And i think one should do tests both to try to prove a hypothesis, and tests to disprove it. Theres no harm in that. I think thats probably the fairest way to do it.

A million experiments by thousands of people over hundreds of years show you are wrong. The reason why the scientific method was devised is because your suggested way doesn't work.

quote:

What youve just described about how most conspiracy theorists work, the method youve talked about there is not a good way, i agree. They shouldnt shy away from evidence that goes against their original idea, because if their idea is so strong, it should stand up to opposition. But theres no reason to assume that most of them work that way just because their ideas are so at odds with what weve all been conditioned to take as fact.

I observe conspiracy theorists such as yourself. Time and again you list the "evidence" you have found to support your little theories and you dismiss any evidence against as just another part of that conspiracy. Thus I am completely justified in claiming that is the way all conspiracy theorists do things.

Why dont we see much of these people on tv? Because its assumed that theyre talking nonsense.[/quote]One doesn't need to assume. Simple open-minded research of what they say reveals conclusively that people like Icke are a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic.

quote:

On the day of 911, not long after it happened, "Osama Bin Laden" was repeated, and that went on all day long. If youd never heard of him, by the end of the day it would have been ingrained into your brain, and now its standard to just accept that he did it. Maybe he did, and maybe he didnt, but i find it extremely dodgy how his name has become like a mantra, never to be forgotten.

And I don't. As you say, he may have; he not not have. People like simple answers and he offers a simple answer. They close the book and move on. Those that insist there is some great sinister plan behind it are just as bad as those that need simple answers though.

quote:

Originally posted by Ape Man:
As you say, he may have; he not not have.

Well he has admitted it in audio and video tapes released in 2004, and been seen in video tapes released in 2006 with two of the hijackers, and previously with known 'masterminds' of the plot, plus the money trail leads in that direction.

Of couse that could all be false, faked, conspired....

But there's no evidence at all that anyone else was behind it...

Ape man, in a free society, it should be perfectly fine to show the views of various people. People should have the chance to see all views no matter how weird, and more importantly, people should be trusted to make their own choices about what to believe, rather than saying "its assumed" that theyre talking nonsense. For someone as well known as David Icke, whose lectures attract a lot of people and whose website is extremely popular, its amazing that he gets next to no attention by mainstream media. If the ku klux klan appeared on tv even as often as once a week, saying what they say, its safe to assume that most people have the intelligence to be of the opinion that theyre very wrong. So little old David Icke shouldnt be too much of a threat.

quote:

Originally posted by leafar:
Ape man, in a free society, it should be perfectly fine to show the views of various people.

It is a case of fair representation. For example, when a TV show does a program on world travel, do you really feel it necessary that a spokesman for the Flat Earth Society be allowed air time to express the view that its all a lie?

No, its not necessary. But something as important as "who did it" deserves a little bit more variety in whats presented in terms of possibilities. If its all a load of rubbish, then let people come to that decision, instead of having it made for them. If its rubbish and people are sane enough to see it, then there shouldnt be a proble, should there?

quote:

Originally posted by leafar:
No, its not necessary. But something as important as "who did it" deserves a little bit more variety in whats presented in terms of possibilities.

I think the revelation that the earth is falt would be a shade more important than who did 9/11, dontcha think?

quote:

If its all a load of rubbish, then let people come to that decision, instead of having it made for them. If its rubbish and people are sane enough to see it, then there shouldnt be a proble, should there?

The sad fact is that most laypeople are not able or qualified to come to a decision of their own. ITs very very easy for someone, like the Loose Change guys, to point at something weird and extrapolate from it. The human brain abhors a mystery - this has been proven by psychologists time and time again. The brain will in fact invent memories just to fill gaps, its small wonder people will be happy to swallow nice, simple sounding lies just because they are told it fits. It comes down to something politicians have known for ages. If you have a very intelligent person who uses logic and reason to demonstrate something (logos), they will often fail to win people over as well as someone who uses emotive arguments (pathos). People have to chose, so they chose the easy to understand one. Its called cognitive dissonance, if you want to look it up.

The problem is that with a catastrophic event like 9/11, there are an awful lot of weird things going on, it was a mercifully rare event. The fact that half the TV cameras in the US captured it from a million and one angles also means that if you are selective about which angles you use, you can find even weirder stuff. The proliferation of CTs can also be attributed to the internet, where all manner of insane theories can remain totally unchallenged. Can you imagine any of the CTs you subscribe to appearing in a peer reviewed paper?

Well, if theres a possibility that the people who did 911 are doing it as part of a bigger agenda, id have to disagree and say that its actually rather important compared to whether the world is flat or not.

Whats sad is that there are still those who believe that there should be a class of people who are the only ones with the authority to present a version of reality, and the peasant class should just accept it. Its a bit like a priest or imam forcing you to accept their interpretation of the scriptures. And we all know what than can lead to.

I cant imagine conspiracy theories appearing on the mainstream. That would be too much choice, wouldnt it? So lets just stick to the mainstream ideas. Theyre much simpler, and they require less thought. But yes id love to see those theories on peer reviewed papers. In fact id like to see them appear wherever they can be scrutinised in front of and by the mass of people for all to see. The very least it would achieve is that people would have a choice. As i say, if they turn out to be a load of old crap, at least people had the choice. I think we're all grown up enough to decide things for ourselves, instead of being spoonfed the daily version of events. Im not saying lets bombard people with conspiracy theories. After all, we're already bombarded with the official line. What im saying is, lets have these conspiracy theories on the mainstream where they can be criticised, and then there wont be the old excuse that because theyre only on the internet, that theres no quality control, or that "anyone can post all sorts of crap on the net" (but even the bbc has a website). Id love to see Alex Jones, Jordan Maxwell or David Icke on say, Question Time, Hard Talk or Newsnight or something like that. And if they get booed, then at least people will have been treated like adults, with the option to make up their own mind (or do you think that we are incapable of that?). And i doubt if the conspiracy theorists would object to this at all.

I dont see why in this day and age you still think that its ok to give 99% of mainstream media time to the official stories, while marginalising those with unconventional explanations for things, and forcing them to go to the only place available to them (the internet). I thought we lived in a free society. After all, we're having a war on terror to defend this wonderful freedom of speech that we're told we enjoy. Watch the news, and all you get is basically the same stories everywhere, as if theres nothing else going on. And all the opinions tend to be pretty much the same. This means that either what you see really is what there is, or, theres other news going on which is unreported.

As for swallowing nice, simple sounding ideas just because we're told it fits, isnt that what we're expected to do when we watch the news or read the paper?

quote:

Originally posted by leafar:
But yes id love to see those theories on peer reviewed papers. In fact id like to see them appear wherever they can be scrutinised in front of and by the mass of people for all to see. The very least it would achieve is that people would have a choice.

Surely if you want to indulge in a bit of conspiracy theory the Internet is here to cater for your every need.

And if you want a narrow version of reality that treats people like dumb animals, there's the mainstream at your service.

quote:

Originally posted by leafar:
And if you want a narrow version of reality that treats people like dumb animals, there's the mainstream at your service.

Just because you’re paranoid it doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you?

I dont really see what youre getting at there. My point is that people arent given the chance to think for themselves.

The ‘mainstream’ media you keep demonising can’t force people to agree with it. You yourself are evidence of this. The television isn’t an indoctrination machine…


Or is it? (cue spooky music)

Thats right, no one is physically forcing anyone to only watch mainstream media. But given the fact that a lot of people dont really have the time or inclination to check everything out, the mainstream should present a much wider range of views. The fact that it knowingly does this does make it an indoctrination machine.

I was typing too fast and made a mistake. I meant, the fact that it knowing does not do it.

quote:

Originally posted by leafar:
I was typing too fast and made a mistake. I meant, the fact that it knowing does not do it.

Sounds like you should chill out a bit it's Sunday morning after all.

I'm sure I just posted something on here earlier. Maybe it's a conspiracy, eh, Leafer?


Anyway, what I said was that having read a few of your posts now, I have come to the mainstream view that either:

You are engaging in a post-modern jape to bring responses/ire from the rational on here, and if this is the case, there are better ways to spend your summer holiday before you start your A-Levels

or


You are David Icke's representative on Channel 4 forums (which, incidentally, is quite mainstream and full of conspiracy theories as late - you must be happy, no?)



or


You are geniunely confusing 'thinking' with 'feeling' and are prepared to accept unsubstantiated hearsay sa actual facts in this world. Don't confuse the two. They are very different things indeed (even if they do come form the same 'brain', so to speak)....

Anyway, I hope The Reptilians don't get you!!

Im 31, and i did my a levels in 1992. And dont worry, the reptiles cant get me, im protected by the cat people.