Are there any conspiracy theorist left here?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I'm not.

a reply to: Informer1958


It may be just a cycle, i wouldn't give this place up for the world.

I remember around 2012 midway we had a lull also, and all we had to choose from was doomy type stuff, now it tends to be

ATS = Americas Troubled Politics

One tends to forget at times that this is a worldly website, not just for the americans.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Your touching what I'm really getting at.

Think of it as art, intuitive art.

Just like in science you need to make an initial assertion in order to begin creating a theory in the first place.

Scientific theories get torn to shreds and broken down too, you know, peer reviewing?

So I don't know how you can compare a conspiracy theory with scientific theory but not want to hold the same skeptical standards...that's having a double standard.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
So I don't know how you can compare a conspiracy theory with scientific theory but not want to hold the same skeptical standards...that's having a double standard.

The point is that ATS was/is a conspiracy site. It's about out of the box thinking. It's not Scientific America. Although some like to weigh in as if they had a PHD. IDK why people can't just walk past what they don't believe in. Just gotta # on others. Pathetic.

a reply to: Willtell

Watershed stories dripping with proof of conspiracy:

Roswell UFO isn't?

Area 51?

Illuminati?

a reply to: intrepid

Does the motto of the site hold no meaning to you?

Do you think it's "pathetic" as well?

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: intrepid

Does the motto of the site hold no meaning to you?

Do you think it's "pathetic" as well?

Nope. I also don't care for egotistical narcissism. I'll wait while you look that up.

a reply to: intrepid

Then I would suggest you look in the mirror, because you're displaying this in the thread as well.

Asking someone to bow out of a thread for being "egotistical", and then expecting him to remain silent when you then go on to call him "pathetic".

I'm pretty sure you're the one being pathetic here.

a reply to: intrepid

Nevermind.

a reply to: intrepid

Times are a changing.

We are in the era of clickbait, where people hit share and parrot something they heard with zero scrutiny.

It's not about belief, it's just about cutting out the bs.

originally posted by: Chadwickus

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Your touching what I'm really getting at.

Think of it as art, intuitive art.

Just like in science you need to make an initial assertion in order to begin creating a theory in the first place.

Scientific theories get torn to shreds and broken down too, you know, peer reviewing?

So I don't know how you can compare a conspiracy theory with scientific theory but not want to hold the same skeptical standards...that's having a double standard.

Unfortunately, many conspiracy theories that have great merit will never be subject to a formal, thorough investigation where evidence is actually gathered and open to public scrutiny.

Therein lies the problem with debating 'government' conspiracy theories. While people may provide more than enough probable cause for a formal investigation, an investigation to actually prove them won't happen because the prime suspects will never investigate themselves or open themselves to an independent investigation.

I agree that scientific investigation cannot be compared to an investigation into government conspiracy theories. Science is free to investigate and examine evidence...ordinary people are not free to investigate the government and often have no means to gather evidence.

a reply to: intrepid

The point is that ATS was/is a conspiracy site.

Does that mean that critical thinking should have no place? Oh, wait:

The simple yet effective motto of our membership is "deny ignorance", which signifies an effort to apply the principals of critical thought and peer review to the provocative topics covered within.

Maybe not.

a reply to: Phage

Not sure of your point. Don't think outside the box? Accept nothing but the proven?

a reply to: intrepid

Not sure of your point.

Really?
It seems quite clear that intelligent criticism is intrinsic to the "philosophy" of the site, as opposed to irrational acceptance of anything "outside the box."

Surely you are aware that to "think outside the box" requires an understanding of what is in the box in the first place.

a reply to: Phage

It seems quite clear that intelligent criticism is intrinsic to the "philosophy" of the site, as opposed to irrational acceptance of anything "outside the box."

Your idea of intelligent criticism and rational acceptance vary greatly from mine.

You methodology for going about applying these techniques also varies greatly from mine. Even antithetical to mine.

a reply to: onequestion
Likewise, I'm sure.

a reply to: Phage

I will say though at the very least you do add a good critical thinking and logical counter balance.

a reply to: Phage

Yes I do BUT why piss on others journey to knowledge? I mean aside from seeming superior.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Phage

I will say though at the very least you do add a good critical thinking and logical counter balance.

YUP.

And I'd greatly miss him if he weren't around. Every group needs a Phage.

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Phage

Yes I do BUT why piss on others journey to knowledge? I mean aside from seeming superior.

Why not encourage critical thinking by asking pointed questions?