Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Why People Believe in Conspiracies


  • Please log in to reply
144 replies to this topic

#91    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,888 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 03 March 2011 - 11:32 AM

View Postacidhead, on 03 March 2011 - 08:56 AM, said:

awesome.. freakin bulletproof Q24.. bring it flyingswan.. Q's winning
You wish.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#92    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,888 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 03 March 2011 - 11:35 AM

View PostStundie, on 02 March 2011 - 09:27 PM, said:

In the same way as posting a 9/11 debunking bible really advance ones arguments.  :lol:

Fight fire with fire as they say. lol
So providing a link with a lot of facts is "fire" and justifies a potty-mouthed return?  Looks more like desperate resort to insult due to inability to counter said facts.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#93    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 03 March 2011 - 12:05 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 03 March 2011 - 11:30 AM, said:

So? I could write a similar conversation where A's 1+1=2 corresponds to the official story and B's doubt to the conspiracy theory.
of course!
that was my point, one can use B's techniques to deny that 1+1=2, so logically one can use those techniques to deny EVERYTHING more complicated than 1+1=2. underlying B's argument is a philosophical method used by dogmatists that asserts that nothing is knowable.
therefore we can deduce the TECHNIQUE is not valid.
the question is then, which side is using those invalid techniques? I do not see Q24 or stundie using B's techniques.
your last post#92 was a rewording of B's last response, and B's techniques are used ad infinitum by offical story supporters.
the official story supporters who call themselves "skeptics" are in fact the exact opposite, they are dogmatists, who give a fake pretence that those labelled "conspiracy theorists" are dogmatic yet the "conspiracy theorists" are the true skeptics, it is weird mind looping that the debunkers revere skepticism yet practice the opposite.

"Timon Sextus Empiricus said that those who seek must deny they have found or can find, or persevere in the inquiry. Those who suppose they have found truth  are called dogmatists, those who think it incompehensible are academics, those who still seek are skeptics" - secret teachings of all ages.

which side wants an investigation and which side doesn't want an investigation?

Edited by Little Fish, 03 March 2011 - 12:11 PM.


#94    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,888 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 03 March 2011 - 01:27 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 03 March 2011 - 12:05 PM, said:

of course!
that was my point, one can use B's techniques to deny that 1+1=2, so logically one can use those techniques to deny EVERYTHING more complicated than 1+1=2. underlying B's argument is a philosophical method used by dogmatists that asserts that nothing is knowable.
therefore we can deduce the TECHNIQUE is not valid.
Trouble with that argument is that B is technically quite correct.  There is no valid mathematical proof that 1+1=2.  Russell and Whitehead published one in 1913, it ran to nearly 400 pages, but in 1931 Godel came along with his Incompleteness Theorum and undermined it.

Quote

your last post#92 was a rewording of B's last response
So?  Are you claiming that profanity is a valid argument?

If A resorts to profanity, B is perfectly entitled to use that response.

That's not the only example of A using weak arguments in your sketch.  For example:
I don't have access to the top journals and
here's a petition with thousands of respected mathematicians and fruit farmers stating that 1+1=2

Edited by flyingswan, 03 March 2011 - 01:39 PM.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#95    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 03 March 2011 - 02:50 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 03 March 2011 - 01:27 PM, said:

Trouble with that argument is that B is technically quite correct.  There is no valid mathematical proof that 1+1=2.  Russell and Whitehead published one in 1913, it ran to nearly 400 pages, but in 1931 Godel came along with his Incompleteness Theorum and undermined it.
you accept that nothing can be proved, yet accept the official story and ask others to prove alternative theories.

Quote

Are you claiming that profanity is a valid argument?
profanity is a valid response to unsound logic and where you think the opposer is acting in bad faith, no one said profanity was THE argument, although you and 74700 implied it was the argument. You said "It isn't enough to say that the official story is wrong, you have to first prove it, ie provide the "smoking gun", and then come up with an alternative that fits all the facts better.."
this is unsound logic, as stundie pointed out here:

Stundie said:

What a load of b******s!

You are right in that it isn't enough to say the official story is wrong, of course you have to prove it. So once it has been proven, then the official story is wrong.

It is not up to anyone to come up with an alternative that fits all the facts better....lol

If there is evidence the official story is wrong, then it is wrong, it doesn't automatically make it right again because someone can't provide a better theory. That statement alone highlights all that is wrong in your thinking and logic.

If the official story is proven wrong, then it is wrong. End of story!! lol
to pretend that the only argument that came from stundie was profanity is acting in bad faith, just like B's response to A, B has ignored all the argument that went before and responded as 74700 did and you did in post #92 to ONLY the profanity.

Quote

If A resorts to profanity, B is perfectly entitled to use that response.
yes, if A resorts SOLEY to profanity as an argument. when B acts like a dimwit or is suspected of acting out of bad faith by ignoring A's voluminous evidence, then A is entitled to respond with profanity (board rules aside).

Quote

That's not the only example of A using weak arguments in your sketch.  For example:
I don't have access to the top journals and
here's a petition with thousands of respected mathematicians and fruit farmers stating that 1+1=2
yes, when evidence is viewed in isolation. To pretend that A has ONLY presented those points is a strawman, particularly so when A has presented numerous exmaples of very strong evidence. you have stated that it is impossible to prove 1+1=2, therefore a judgement has to be made on a cumulative argument based on the weight of evidence. you can't do that viewing evidence in isolation. A jury reviews all the evidence, it would be absurd to have a different jury review seperate pieces of evidence in isolation.

Edited by Little Fish, 03 March 2011 - 03:01 PM.


#96    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,888 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 03 March 2011 - 05:37 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 03 March 2011 - 02:50 PM, said:

you accept that nothing can be proved, yet accept the official story and ask others to prove alternative theories.
A hypothesis cannot be proven, but it can be dis-proven.

Where have I asked you to prove your theories?  What I've been asking is for you to prove the official story wrong, and I'm still waiting to see the "smoking gun" that does that.

Quote

profanity is a valid response to unsound logic and where you think the opposer is acting in bad faith, no one said profanity was THE argument, although you and 74700 implied it was the argument. You said "It isn't enough to say that the official story is wrong, you have to first prove it, ie provide the "smoking gun", and then come up with an alternative that fits all the facts better.."
this is unsound logic, as stundie pointed out here:
to pretend that the only argument that came from stundie was profanity is acting in bad faith, just like B's response to A, B has ignored all the argument that went before and responded as 74700 did and you did in post #92 to ONLY the profanity.
Profanity is totally unnecessary on this forum, and to my mind any resort to it indicates a lack of good argument.  

Quote

yes, when evidence is viewed in isolation. To pretend that A has ONLY presented those points is a strawman, particularly so when A has presented numerous exmaples of very strong evidence. you have stated that it is impossible to prove 1+1=2, therefore a judgement has to be made on a cumulative argument based on the weight of evidence. you can't do that viewing evidence in isolation. A jury reviews all the evidence, it would be absurd to have a different jury review seperate pieces of evidence in isolation.
Which gets us back to where we started.  Does the alternative story fit all the facts better than the official story?  Or does it explain one perceived anomaly at the expense of bringing in a lot of new problems with the rest of the facts?

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#97    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,555 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 03 March 2011 - 08:44 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 03 March 2011 - 11:35 AM, said:

So providing a link with a lot of facts is "fire" and justifies a potty-mouthed return?  Looks more like desperate resort to insult due to inability to counter said facts.
You didn't provide a link with lots of facts, you posted a pseudo skeptical bible. lol

If the website is so hot at this debunking malarkey, then maybe you could point out the evidence in the website which refutes Dick Cheney's own claim about him being in the PEOC when they hear of the Pentagon attack? lol

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#98    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,555 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 03 March 2011 - 09:03 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 03 March 2011 - 11:18 AM, said:

Two points:

First, what are these facts D to L that conflict with the official explantion to the extent that they disprove it completely and make an "inside job" the only possible explanation?
No point in discussing these with you until we have established what the official story is or the truth?

So do you believe that Dick Cheney arrived at the PEOC at 9:58, perhaps 10:00 as the commission suggests and what evidence do you have to support it.

View Postflyingswan, on 03 March 2011 - 11:18 AM, said:

Which of them is the "smoking gun" rather than a minor error?
Sorry matey, but you can't automatically go around putting everything down to an error because you are making the claim it is an error, therefore the burden of proof would be on you to prove it was just an error.

View Postflyingswan, on 03 March 2011 - 11:18 AM, said:

I've asked you this before and I'm still waiting for an answer.
And I'm still waiting for you to explain why Cheney didn't arrive at the PEOC before the Pentagon attack and why Mineta didn't over hear Cheney talking about AA77, because all I have heard so far is you claim that he is mistaken without a shrapnel of evidence other than alluring to another conversation which although similar, is clearly a different conversation.

This doesn't prove that Mineta over heard Cheney talking to an aide about UA93 when he clearly states that he knew nothing about UA93 until after it had crashed.

So where's your evidence? Or is it a case of you arguing what you personally want to believe because it's more comfortable?? lol

View Postflyingswan, on 03 March 2011 - 11:18 AM, said:

Second, the trouble with your wildly differing versions of the conspiracy scenario is that one may fit perceived anomaly D, but miss E to L, the next fits E, but misses D and F to L, etc.
My wildly differing versions of the conspiracy scenario?? lol

I was not arguing that my version of the conspiracy was wildly differing, I was pointing out that people are individuals and therefore have many different theories.

If I am having to explain this again to you, you clearly didn't get what I said earlier and more importantly have a poor ability to retain information.

View Postflyingswan, on 03 March 2011 - 11:18 AM, said:

If you think all these are important, you have to have a theory that includes them all.
Oh don't you worry about what my theories are, concentrate on yours. ;)

View Postflyingswan, on 03 March 2011 - 11:18 AM, said:

If you don't think some of them need to be considered, which of the common ones do you dismiss?
I don't dismiss evidence unless their is overwhelming evidence which shows evidence is wrong and even then I don't dismiss it, it's just means that one theory is much more possible than the other.

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#99    Valdemar the Great

Valdemar the Great

    Mainly Spherical in Shape

  • Member
  • 25,050 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:there

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 04 March 2011 - 07:56 AM

View PostLittle Fish, on 03 March 2011 - 02:50 PM, said:

profanity is a valid response to unsound logic  
Is it really? Good heavens. So in that case, a perfectly valid reponse to a good 80% of topics in this section would be "what a load of absolutely ***** ********!!!", then.  I'll have to bear it in mind, it'd save an awful lot of time.  :unsure2:

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

H. P. Lovecraft.


:cat:


#100    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 04 March 2011 - 12:31 PM

View Post747400, on 04 March 2011 - 07:56 AM, said:

Is it really? Good heavens. So in that case, a perfectly valid reponse to a good 80% of topics in this section would be "what a load of absolutely ***** ********!!!", then.  I'll have to bear it in mind, it'd save an awful lot of time.  :unsure2:
that is precisely what I didn't say.


#101    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,888 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 04 March 2011 - 03:25 PM

View PostStundie, on 03 March 2011 - 09:03 PM, said:

No point in discussing these with you until we have established what the official story is or the truth?
No point in discussing anything with you if you continually duck my questions.

The next part of your reply is in the wrong thread,  suggest you repost it there.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#102    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,555 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 04 March 2011 - 11:36 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 04 March 2011 - 03:25 PM, said:

No point in discussing anything with you if you continually duck my questions.
Well seeing as you have failed to explain to us whether you believe that Dick Cheney arrived at the PEOC at 9:58, perhaps 10:00 or not, then what's the point of discussing this any further or showing you evidence D, E, F etc.

View Postflyingswan, on 04 March 2011 - 03:25 PM, said:

The next part of your reply is in the wrong thread,  suggest you repost it there.
How can the next part of my reply be in the wrong thread when I quoted and responded to your entire post, that you made, in this very thread??  :w00t:

Maybe you should try addressing all the points I raised instead of cherry picking quotes and complaining. lol

And why repost it, you could always respond to it in either thread?

Edited by Stundie, 04 March 2011 - 11:38 PM.

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#103    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,888 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 05 March 2011 - 11:51 AM

View PostStundie, on 04 March 2011 - 11:36 PM, said:

How can the next part of my reply be in the wrong thread when I quoted and responded to your entire post, that you made, in this very thread??
Because you took every point I made and instead of addressing the point you responded with something about Cheney.

This thread is much more general, on the question of how people justify their beliefs.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#104    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,888 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 05 March 2011 - 01:24 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 05 March 2011 - 11:51 AM, said:

...on the question of how people justify their beliefs.
...and you obviously think changing the subject is a good technique.

To get back to the meat of the subject:
What I've been asking is for you to prove the official story wrong, and I'm still waiting to see the "smoking gun" that does that.

Edited by flyingswan, 05 March 2011 - 01:27 PM.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#105    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,555 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 06 March 2011 - 09:49 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 05 March 2011 - 11:51 AM, said:

Because you took every point I made and instead of addressing the point you responded with something about Cheney.
Are you cracking up??  :w00t: lol

I've addressed every point you have made. The reason I mentioned Cheney is because of a silly point which you brought up in where you hilariously claim that.......

flyingswan said:

Because you haven't shown that the official story is wrong.

stundie said:

I have shown you in the other thread that Dick Cheneys arrival time at the PEOC is wrong.
http://www.unexplain...dpost&p=3803767
Maybe you should try addressing all the points instead of cherry picking parts which don't challenge you and answering them in the belief you have addressed every point. lol

View Postflyingswan, on 05 March 2011 - 11:51 AM, said:

This thread is much more general, on the question of how people justify their beliefs.
How do you justify yours?? Because you don't use evidence to support your claims, that's for sure. lol

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users