Catch 22 – Show me the evidence you conspiracy loony! Evidence sucks!

originally posted by: Psynic

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: and14263

I just replied to a mh370 thread about something my brother in law told me he had heard . He has official contacts in the middle east . Royal contacts . Will i try to verify my claims . No . Could i , well i could possibly go a long way down that path without revealing to much . IF one of the owners asked i may consider but really is it worth it .Blood is thicker than conspiracy theories .

I would like to read your post.

Which Forum did you place it in?

Click the member's name on his/her avatar and then click the speech bubble icon "Posts". It'll be there somewhere.

Conspiracy Theorist is a derogatory term invented to discredit those who see through the BS and use their open yes to expose the truth.

"You saw past our BS? You're a nut-job conspiracy theorist!"

They do the same with criticism of Israel - "You're an anti-Semite!"

These terms are meant to dismiss critical thinking.

Although, yes, there are those tin-foil hat wearing people who do try to find a conspiracy in EVERYTHING, the sad thing, is I DON'T BLAME THEM! Most of what is happening in the world today is a conspiracy. One would be a fool to not think that people in power with malicious intent are in fact conspiring against us in many ways. Most people who use the term "conspiracy theorist" don't even know the true meaning of conspiracy, or just pretend not to to keep their bias.

As for the evidence factor which your thread seems to be about, it certainly goes both ways as I believe you tried to explain, my apologies if I misunderstood.

a reply to: and14263

I agree, the demand for evidence is often a great inconvenience to conspiracy theorists, just as it is to rumourmongers.

All the same, you raise an interesting question. Don't you, as a conspiracy theorist, want to be proved right?

Failing that, wouldn't you at least like to convince doubters that your theories are true?

How are you going to do that, without evidence?

a reply to: real_one

Read my mind.

Cheers!

originally posted by: WeRpeons
What gets me is the naysayers that can't face the possibility or the reality that UFO's/or extraterrestrial visitation has no basis of being a true conspiracy.

It is not a conspiracy theory until somebody challenges it. Whichever way I look at this, a real conspiracy theory requires reasonable logic as to why it might be true and, at the same time, a lack of genuine substance. Thus, it becomes a conspiracy theory when there is a concerted effort to refute the claim.

For example, believing that aliens exist somewhere very far from Earth is perfectly sound; and on the other hand, claiming this to be impossible would be rather ignorant. Suggesting that aliens have, at some point in the history of mankind, visited this planet or that they are currently present, is also fairly reasonable. There may not be any way for us to draw definitive conclusions, but that doesn't mean it's untrue. Here, we are not specifically considering a conspiracy theory but rather a subject which man has likely considered ever since he established logic.

As another example, consider Roswell; something very unusual and unexpected happened there. Whatever the truth may be, there was an obvious effort by the authorities to conceal the evidence. Therefore, it remains that speculation will be rife with suspicion. Maybe one of three things happened: ayleuns, say no more; a new technology was being tested, possibly a spy drone or weapons delivery craft; it was an elaborate hoax created either out of sheer boredom or as a smoke-screen for a completely unrelated, simultaneous event. We may never know.

In conclusion; a real conspiracy theory requires that a group of people, usually of authority, categorically and persistently refute that an event occurred or else the relevant details of such. In some cases, a government might neither confirm nor deny anything at all.
 

Many people confuse 'evidence' with 'proof'. They also believe proof is some objective 'reality'. In most cases, proof is simply a consensus agreed upon by authorities, derived from evidence. It only stands because the consensus rules that it does.

For example, a criminal is tried by the evidence. Most of the time the pieces of evidence are not proof in themselves, but a jury, judge or panel makes a decision by consensus from the evidence. We all know that sometimes the consensus is wrong.

When compiling and presenting evidence to support a particular conspiracy, most people will accurately say it's not proof. However, they will freely accept the opinions and findings of of an 'authority', simply based on his opinion, which is usually buttressed with only the evidence to support it and the exclusion of the evidence to undermine it.

a reply to: and14263

Come on! You're on a conspiracy web site. Nothing stands in the way of a good conspiracy. Not truth, not lies, not fabrication. If everyone had the proof there would be no conspiracy and what would be the fun in that.

originally posted by: and14263
With the quote above we are faced with the problem that our rationality is a product of paradigms. So if the paradigms themselves are created from falsehoods then what we deem rational is false and irrational.... See what I'm getting at?

Indeed, but we have to draw the line somewhere. Even if our perception of reality has been persuaded and coerced over time to fit a certain narrative, we've still presumably maintained a healthy skepticism throughout that process.

One thing certainly influences another, distrust of government is a particularly potent example we see regularly - the ever-circular suggestion that because A was proven, B must be true too without any evidence to support it, merely that distrust and suspicion.

a reply to: and14263

Thats how civilized debate is conducted. With credited proof. Are you saying things should be accepted just because some bugger says so?

a reply to: ziplock9000

We have been conditioned into paradigms from which we declare rationality but the whole point of the OP is:

How can you trust the credited proof when the people who credit it are usually part of the conspiracy or put in place by the establishment?

The conditioned thought 'that is how civilised debate is conducted' only goes to reinforce our trusting in TPTB.

a reply to: WeRpeons

Do you know how those conspiracies turned out to be true? Because evidence was provided that substantiated the conspiracies.

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: ziplock9000

We have been conditioned into paradigms from which we declare rationality but the whole point of the OP is:

How can you trust the credited proof when the people who credit it are usually part of the conspiracy or put in place by the establishment?

The conditioned thought 'that is how civilised debate is conducted' only goes to reinforce our trusting in TPTB.

Just because some corruption exists doesn't mean that all sources are corrupted. Many times, the people who sing the "establishment is burying the truth" tune haven't looked into the real facts that show their pet theory to be wrong. Real conspiracies DO exist and have happened, but are RARELY as intricate or nefarious as the ones that conspiracy theorists like to go on about.

It also seems that the more elaborate and far reaching a conspiracy, the less evidence that appears to be forthcoming to substantiate the conspiracy. If the 9/11 conspiracy was just left at, "the government isn't telling us everything about that day," I'd bet more people would believe it, because that is a reasonable claim. But when you start making up things like the government was in on the attack, then the burden of proof needs to be fulfilled.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

And the same question should be asked about that evidence - Is it empirical (might not be the correct word, years since I've read philosophy, best word is probably UNBIASED) or is it studies and experiments performed and recorded with bias from somewhere?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I can see where you're coming from and yes, not all sources would be corrupt. But if some are, and there is no way of telling then how can we distinguish what is good evidence and what is bad? Rhetorical question.

On a personal note - and this goes well against my OP - I'm going to try and be more fact based. Not sure if it will work as I'm not great at research and intellectually not as advanced as many greats on here.

a reply to: and14263

Well in the scientific community, the only evidence that matters is objective or empirical evidence. If you don't have that at a minimum for your theory, then you don't have any proof. What trips people up is that they make the mistake of believing that subjective evidence is valid evidence. It isn't and can't be, even in large numbers. We may be able to tell trends with it, but at no point can we ever know anything definitive with it.

I've noticed over my time here on ATS that many get frustrated with the skeptics because our standards of evidence are never met, while those people's standards have been met. They cannot understand how their evidence is flawed because they have failed to learn the difference between objective and subjective evidence.

Here is a good article that explains the difference between the two types of evidence:
Difference Between Objective and Subjective

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I can see where you're coming from and yes, not all sources would be corrupt. But if some are, and there is no way of telling then how can we distinguish what is good evidence and what is bad? Rhetorical question.

Evidence shouldn't be examined in a vacuum. You look at ALL the evidence equally. If you have evidence from a certain source that you think may be questionable. Look at the evidence from other sources and see if it says the same things or something different. This is why people who question the scientific method are inaccurate. They state things like "vested interests fund the research that they want." That may be true (and is, I'm not denying it), but science isn't just conducted in this country and isn't just funded by those people. It is funded by many different interests with many different agendas. Yet most of the time the science still works out to say the same things.

If you are looking at a source on global warming and feel that it is biased because it originated in the US, then go look at a paper from India and see what they are saying. If you have a source talking about contrails and how they spread from the CDC, but think that it is biased because chemtrails; then go look up a source on contrails from Australia. American science isn't the only science being conducted in the world and in order for science to be wrong, the logistics of EVERY scientist being in on the deception are just unreal and absurd.

On a personal note - and this goes well against my OP - I'm going to try and be more fact based. Not sure if it will work as I'm not great at research and intellectually not as advanced as many greats on here.

I am always willing to help people search for answers if they are open to hearing things they may not like or agree with. Just like any other skill, critical thought requires learning the basics first. The first basic that goes with critical thought and evidence analysis is to learn to not let your biases and preconceived notions get in the way of the evidence. It isn't easy, and just like any other skill requires practice. Once you are able to do it though, it becomes MUCH easier to spot what is going on and see through the deceptions taking place.

Also, much like any other skill, if you practice critical thought incorrectly you will have to end up breaking bad habits later down the line. So the longer you let confirmation bias cloud your search for answers, the harder and longer it will be to break that habit. But it MUST be broken if you want to learn the finer points of the skill.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

My point here would be that the objective evidence/data which is reported still asks us to trust the data gatherer.

I think I posted that link to someone once!

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I think what you say here is very valid:

If you are looking at a source on global warming and feel that it is biased because it originated in the US, then go look at a paper from India and see what they are saying. If you have a source talking about contrails and how they spread from the CDC, but think that it is biased because chemtrails; then go look up a source on contrails from Australia. American science isn't the only science being conducted in the world and in order for science to be wrong, the logistics of EVERY scientist being in on the deception are just unreal and absurd.

a reply to: and14263

Correct, this is why the scientific method employs peer review. By publishing all the data and the experiment conducted, it allows anyone to go back and retest the person's experiment. You don't even need to be a scientist to do it. The information is open for anyone to retest it and publish their own results.

So yes, there are times where the data gatherer uses flawed methods either knowingly or unknowingly, but science also has a procedure to work those things out. Once a hoax has been discovered, it is dropped from the list of available evidence for a given theory/hypothesis.

This doesn't mean that because hoaxes have been found in the past, you can discredit whole scientific theories like evolution deniers like to do. It just means that there used to be X amount of evidence for a theory and now there is X - 1 amount of evidence for a theory. X is still above the threshold of appropriate proof for the theory to be valid though.

The axiom of the free is that the burden of proof lies with the accuser.

But the main procession here on ats literally all it is devolved into name calling.

eventually it just happens either at the beginning of the thread or at the end when its necroed and no longer followed.

Thats why the site is a muck raking pit. the mods dont even clean up the bad threads they just clog the whole like some joke.

a vary bad joke.