Is "Healthy Scepticism" a Barrier To Conspiracy Research?

I often hear the endorsement of the term "Healthy Scepticism" thrown around by other atheists when discussing their approach to any new issue (or one they have not yet delved into). Coincidentally, most of them who seem to do this also don't take the topic of Conspiracy Research seriously. When I first heard the term, I thought it was a good thing because I didn't see how unhealthy scepticism (which would be closely related to paranoia) can be beneficial to discovering truth. Now, however, I have come to realise the reasons for using this term might be misguided at best or nefarious at worst.

Are they basically saying they will be sceptical on every topic EXCEPT Conspiracy Theories? Why the exception for that topic? I can understand the need to be more sceptical for something that is harder to prove and harder to demonstrate as being genuine, but still, just because something is harder to prove and more difficult to believe upon first hearing about does NOT mean it is less true.

We are not talking about stating that "your water is infected with microscopic robots that are slowly crawling to your brain and destroying your neural activity in an effort to destroy your motor functions and bring you closer to a slow painful death! At least entertain this idea before dismissing it or you are not a true sceptic!" We are talking about significant world events over history whose Official Versions don't add up and have led to significant issues as a result of accepting those Official Versions.

We cannot produce a golden document that verifies this assertion where all parties are openly named and all guilt is admitted, otherwise it would not be a genuine conspiracy. A genuine conspiracy would not have such a golden document and would not be easily provable on strong evidence alone. So yes, even though these things cannot be guaranteed when you do some research into the event in question, you will notice that parts about the Official Story you took for granted when hearing about it, simply don't add up now when doing the research and placing the claims made under scrutiny.

Healthy Scepticism is usually good, but it is not useful when you use it to create a barrier between discovering falsehoods about the Official Story of a significant event and then dismiss those falsehoods as mere coincidences and insignificant details. Any Official Story should hold up to moderate scrutiny, and sadly that is not the case in regards to many of the most noteworthy events in the modern era.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Yes
Read & see all. Evaluate later.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

no - why should it be ?

A healthy dose of skepticism is what brought me down this rabbit hole in the first place!

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Healthy skepticism should never be abandoned. Think about the alternatives. Too much skepticism?
Not enough skepticism?

It just means keeping your imagination under control and embrace logic and reason.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

The problem is that "healthy skepticism" is a decent scientific tool applied too much to real world matters. It allows the ignoring of evidence because of prior beliefs and twisted facts. No better example than government and science continuing to say that alien UFOs cannot exist here at our doorstep simply because of our prior assumptions about our history, religions, physics and primary place in the universe cannot allow it.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Even with a healthy skepticism it is impossible not to have delusions, superstitions, prejudices, and bigotries. Somewhere in the middle of this whole mess we form the best possible world view we can have based on our limited port hole into the Universe.

I very much like having a healthy skepticism with everything. I was recently arguing about the existence of chemtrails not being contrails. Someone made the argument the reason we did not see chemtrails in the 60s, 70s, and 80s is because modern jet engines are now more efficient and that is the reason why chemtrails did not start showing up in the skies until around the end of the 1990s. I thought this was a very good argument. So I did some research on jet engine designs and market share by manufacturers. And it turns out that the physics of water hasn't change since the 60s. So although it was a very good argument, it turn out in my mind not to be a good argument for the cause of chemtrails. So having a good skepticism is good.

The reason we have conspiracy research in the first place is because people are inherently evil. And there's billions of dollars at stake. And people will do anything and everything to manipulate the truth in order to preserve or prevent public policies causing a small group of people from billions of dollars of cash flow. Given what is at stake, and people are inherently evil, I'm pretty confident some of the conspiracy theories may be very close to the truth.

Here's one of my favorite conspiracy theories ever given to the public:

www.youtube.com...

What to believe?

"Ignorance is strength!"

Healthy scepticism is a requirement for conspiracy theorists, other wise, you believe every crackpot theory that comes down the line. It take that and the ability to separate the BS from the facts....and then whittle down what the "facts" actually are. In an age where every man and his dog can post opinion as "news" and have people just take their word for it, scepticism is a must.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

For me, I believe in whatever particular conspiracy when:

A) it is the most logical conclusion.. its rare but it does happen that the conspiracy is the most likely conclusion.

B) it has a benefit trail.. you really need to be able to establish both the motivation for a conspiracy and what benefits were gained from perpetrating it.

C) It cannot require a mustache twirling villian.. everyone is the hero of their own movie..no one dies evil just for evils sake.

D) it can't require thousands+ of people who are all in on it..you could never get 10,000 people to all play ball or take bribes..


For example:

Sandyhook: the conspiracy theory was that it was a false flag to enact gun control, but...

There was no benefit trail , no gun control was ever enacted, in fact a lot of states expanded gun availability for fear "they are comming to get your guns".

It would have required hundreds of people involved and pretty much required a mustache twirling villian to be true..


So I don't buy it..

In contrast look at the present trump collusion stuff...

Trump Russia connection:

A) With all the "crazy coincidences" it is kinda the logical conclusion...

B) There is a clear benefit trail, trump gets the DNC leak dropped a month before the election and Russia gets lifted sanctions and the US Turing a blind eye when putin takes back Ukraine. Well trump has already been paid , Flynn was fired for lying about telling the Russian ambassador Trump would lift sanctions, and the only change trump made to the GOP platform was that the US wouldn't give weapons to ukraine. Hell I just watched Fox News say "we should give putin Ukraine to smooth over the Syria bombings...

Quid pro quo..

C) It doesn't require a mustache twirling villian: trump wouldn't have to trade anything Americans care about.. you couldn't find 4 Americans that care about sanctions or Ukraine.

D) it only requires a handful of people.. Russian intelligence, trump and a couple of his advisors is all that is required..


Those are my criteria to belive a conspiracy theory.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

You forgot, "follow the money."

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: JoshuaCox

You forgot, "follow the money."

That was "included " in the benefit trail lol..

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Dark Ghost

Even with a healthy skepticism it is impossible not to have delusions, superstitions, prejudices, and bigotries. Somewhere in the middle of this whole mess we form the best possible world view we can have based on our limited port hole into the Universe.

I very much like having a healthy skepticism with everything. I was recently arguing about the existence of chemtrails not being contrails. Someone made the argument the reason we did not see chemtrails in the 60s, 70s, and 80s is because modern jet engines are now more efficient and that is the reason why chemtrails did not start showing up in the skies until around the end of the 1990s. I thought this was a very good argument. So I did some research on jet engine designs and market share by manufacturers. And it turns out that the physics of water hasn't change since the 60s. So although it was a very good argument, it turn out in my mind not to be a good argument for the cause of chemtrails. So having a good skepticism is good.

The reason we have conspiracy research in the first place is because people are inherently evil. And there's billions of dollars at stake. And people will do anything and everything to manipulate the truth in order to preserve or prevent public policies causing a small group of people from billions of dollars of cash flow. Given what is at stake, and people are inherently evil, I'm pretty confident some of the conspiracy theories may be very close to the truth.

Here's one of my favorite conspiracy theories ever given to the public:

www.youtube.com...

What to believe?

"Ignorance is strength!"

Maybe you should have verified the claim that there were no contrails in 60s, 70s, and 80s first?

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: Dark Ghost

Healthy skepticism should never be abandoned. Think about the alternatives. Too much skepticism?
Not enough skepticism?

It just means keeping your imagination under control and embrace logic and reason.

I agree.

We humans love our drama, and have from our earliest days, for whatever reason.

The first principle of drama is that the audience practice a "willing suspension of disbelief". IMO, we have been so conditioned to suspend our disbelief of anything on the small stage television, the silver screen of television, that we have lost much of our ability to be skeptical of what we are being shown or told.

Yes, skepticism is a very good thing.

a reply to: Dark Ghost
I think that it was President Regan who said it the most succinctly: Trust but verify.

It's fine to trust the idea that what one is reading/hearing/seeing is accurate in life, but if one is not willing to take the extra steps to try and verify the reports/broadcasts/videos, then they have not earned the privilege to debate the topic or take a stance on a subject.

Of course, that's my opinion, but if a healthy skepticism leads one to further research a topic, then it is always good--but then again, I guess that would be the "health" part of "healthy skepticism," huh?

a reply to: Dark Ghost


Ummm...no...as long as it's coupled with a rigorous scientific application of objectivity...

Skepticism does not equate prejudicial mindset...it merely establishes a basis for objectivity and a healthy application of a true scientific approach...

(if applied in an open minded objective manner)




YouSir

Healthy is good for the most part unless one is discouraged early on from it without knowing it can be helpful. It becomes bad when there is the point where it becomes unhealthy skepticism. It seems obsessive personalities and or competitive behavior if not borderline trolling to some. Just like direct trolling(and shilling) it serves the purpose to discourage, disrupt the discussion, and participation overall about topics.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Well, there is actual healthy skepticism, which is better described as logical thought and common sense, and then there is claimed "healthy skepticism", which is then a label, meaning they claim it's better to doubt.

The irony is, if they were truly skeptics, they'd doubt a lot more of the official claims.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
Is "Healthy Scepticism" a Barrier To Conspiracy Research?

If skepticism is 'healthy', as you suggest, then if it finds trouble with 'conspiracy research', then the problem is with the 'research'.

originally posted by: namelesss
If skepticism is 'healthy', as you suggest, then if it finds trouble with 'conspiracy research', then the problem is with the 'research'.

I think you missed the point of the opening post.

I was referring to people avoiding doing research on conspiracy topics on the assumption that "Nuh, the Official Version seems right to me, I don't need to verify it..." being used as an excuse not even do any research into the events as they were presented. In other words: 'Healthy' Scepticism = being sceptical on everything except stories that are conspiratory in nature — i.e. when it comes to being sceptical of Official Stories of significant world events of the modern era.

it is clear that skepticism means different things to different people