"Conspiracy Nuts" are not as "nuts" as you think. Actually, they are probably smarter than you a

unless your "conspiracy" pans out and is found to be true, you are not a conspiracy theorist. you are a conspiracy hypothesizer. the misuse of the general meaning of the word theory, has been so misunderstood by most hypothesizers.

theory of gravity? theory of plate tectonics, avionic theory, mathematical theory. all based on solid ground with a major preponderance of empirical evidence that is easily confirmed.

hypothesis however are what most of the supposed theorists present.

its a travesty i tell you.
conspiracy nuts have banded together to change the meaning of the word theory.

lol guess that's a conspiracy hypothesis.

it could be just an attempt to make their hypothesis sound more serious and thought out. some hypothesis have become theory and provable...Watergate...Iran contra etc.

theory/ˈTHēərē/Noun
1. A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained: "Darwin's theory of evolution".
2. A set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based. More »
Wikipedia - Dictionary.com - Answers.com - Merriam-Webster

hypothesis/hīˈpäTHəsis/Noun
1. A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
2. A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth. More »
Wikipedia - Dictionary.com - Answers.com - Merriam-Webster
►

Originally posted by CaDreamer
its a travesty i tell you.
conspiracy nuts have banded together to change the meaning of the word theory.

No...the word theory has a different application as it applies to science. You are confusing two legitimate definitions.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


a true theorist attempts to prove things based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained:


theory/ˈTHēərē/Noun
1. A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained: "Darwin's theory of evolution".
2. A set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based. More »
Wikipedia - Dictionary.com - Answers.com - Merriam-Webster

where is that knid of dilligence in HAARP hypothesis... chemtrails, etc. it is lacking so the idea that they are theorists fails completely since most of what is typically presented is hypothesis.

hypothesis/hīˈpäTHəsis/Noun
1. A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

I'm smarter than you are. Is that the topic?
What's next?

My dogs bigger than yours ?

My Dads the chief of police ?

WTF please thank you ?

reply to post by CaDreamer

A scientific theory is a type of inductive theory, in that its content (i.e. empirical data) could be expressed within some formal system of logic whose elementary rules (i.e. scientific laws) are taken as axioms. In a deductive theory, any sentence which is a logical consequence of one or more of the axioms is also a sentence of that theory.

In the humanities, one finds theories whose subject matter does not (only) concern empirical data, but rather ideas. Such theories are in the realm of philosophical theories as contrasted with scientific theories. A philosophical theory is not necessarily scientifically testable through experiment. en.wikipedia.org...

I rest my case.

i do however read with great interest all of the credible hypothesis that are posted on ATS and they do at times get me digging for more information, often it counters their arguments. a lot of the time i find nothing and every once in a great while i do find grains of truth that make me think that there could be some truth there and i add that to the threads. i am not a "conspiracy theorist. they are a hard headed breed. lol i often admit freely with no shame when i am wrong. the only road to true knowledge is to understand first that you know nothing.

eccentric often is the nicest word i can use for a goodly portion of em. paranoid and delusional sometimes come to mind but would be unfair to use.

there are great geniuses in the past that where nuttier than a fruit cake. sometimes genius goes hand in hand with insanity. a great deal of times though insanity is just insanity.

We better not leave this thread with exactly 33 flags.

But I'll be damned if I'm going to flag it.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
reply to post by CaDreamer

 

A scientific theory is a type of inductive theory, in that its content (i.e. empirical data) could be expressed within some formal system of logic whose elementary rules (i.e. scientific laws) are taken as axioms. In a deductive theory, any sentence which is a logical consequence of one or more of the axioms is also a sentence of that theory.

In the humanities, one finds theories whose subject matter does not (only) concern empirical data, but rather ideas. Such theories are in the realm of philosophical theories as contrasted with scientific theories. A philosophical theory is not necessarily scientifically testable through experiment. en.wikipedia.org...

I rest my case.

how do you rest your case when you prove my point for me?
my definition of theory as to science is 100% correct. the closest thing most hypothesizers get to actual theory is philosophical theory, because their data is often lacking and often are scientifically untestable. or untested.

reply to post by BanMePlz


I just read an article on a test recently conducted. The lowest scoring 12% tested on a variety of intelligence-based concepts judged themselves to have scored in the top 40%. That means, the least able presume they are more able than the average person-- worse, that presumption disables them from even suspecting they may be wrong.

Next, intelligence tests and aptitude tests are rather objective-- but so is observing another's ability to mentally conceive, research and analyze other possible and probably theories, explanations and outcomes. Predictive results carry much weight. Lastly, "book smart" shows up as an objective and predictive indicator. That is to say, that far too much conspiracy theory discussion is based on unsourced blog entries-- and not on historically informed and referenced ideas.

The claim, "The mainstream media doesn't want us to know so we rely on blogs" comes far too quickly from the mouths of many. The mainstream media is made up of many persons-- most of whom know a little about many things. But specialists and experts-- they know how to research, reference and cite supporting data. That is not a minor ability-- no matter what excuse is used for denying it.

When I see a conspiracy theory mentioned-- I look for supporting evidence. Mostly I see the very human tendency to take the path of least resistance-- also known as laziness. When confronted with an unpredictable world-- instead of re-thinking one's own misconceptions, it is easier to decide that secret and malevolent powers are the cause for one's own lack of ability to anticipate events. That leads to futility, and futility leads to blame.

Meanwhile, real problems, with real solutions get ignored, and real people suffer, unnoticed, because the lazy way requires nothing more than opinion to absolve one's own lack of reaction to the needs of another.

Here endeth the lesson.

Originally posted by CaDreamer
my definition of theory as to science is 100% correct. the closest thing most hypothesizers get to actual theory is philosophical theory, because their data is often lacking and often are scientifically untestable. or untested.

Philosophical theory...maybe just dreaming or an intuitive leap...is quite often at the root of scientific theory. It starts with 'what if?'

You are debating only half of the picture.

Quick edit to remind you that the concept of 'conspiracy theory' need not be scientific in nature.

even a broken clock is right twice a day. and there are many mentally broken posters on ats.

so, even if 2 of their ridiculous theories are true, then the world is in bad shape.

humanity has shown over the centuries to be capable of anything.

so it is possible that some elites are performing rituals to satan in return for power.

it is also possible that God intervenes, unseen, many times to keep the world in check.

i saw a interview on 60 minutes with bob dylan and he confirmed he made a pact with satan for musical fame, and no one was laughing.

Originally posted by wasco2

Originally posted by muzzleflash
I think Carl Sagan put it best in his book " The Dragons of Eden ".

He explained that all humans have equal intelligence because our brains are essentially the same.

Sagan was unequivocally wrong. He was either simply lying or unaware of research on the nature and physiological structure of intelligence. For years what IQ tests measured could only be detected by the tests themselves. In recent years more advanced methods of examining the brain are beginning to show the physiological differences in the brain that result in more or less intelligence. Our brains are not the same, some work better than others. As much as liberals would like to blame all differences in intelligence on environment it's simply not true. Psychologists currently believe intelligence is at least 85% heritable. I think it's probably higher but even at 85% it means basically that the IQ you have at birth is what you will always have. And some have more intelligence than others and will likely be more successful in life.

Look at it from my perspective.

I presented a well researched work with many sources that explained my case in detail.

However you counter it with Internet rumors about "Psychologists" and then proceed to invent statistics at your fancy.

So I would have to have little choice but to consider your statements as bunk, considering the circumstances.

Perhaps if you had a moment to back up such wild claims, you may be taken more seriously.

Perhaps Conspiracy nuts isn't appropriate. It makes the people who are obsessed with seeking the truth crazy even though thats not the case

reply to post by Mike_A


I'm really not sure what threads you read, but most are about actual news, and most of the discussion held in these threads supply vast amount of info about the subject in question...once you ween out the trolls and egoheads that is..

reply to post by BanMePlz

You hit the nail on the head.
It kinda just makes sense.

I've always found that a problem always arises when a sentence contains the word, conspiracy.
Or, indeed, when someone is tarred with a brush laden with 'conspiracy'.

Fact is, according to the roots of the word, democracy is a conspiracy, so is any commercial enterprise where employees work for a boss, so is science, so is religion, etc. etc. etc...

In a legal sense, sometimes the word conspiracy is used to describe nefarious versions of these same endeavours...at other times...collusion...which basically means the same thing.

In the sense that a 'conspiracy theory' remains at the lunatic fringes of any debate...the mechanism which perhaps created the collusion and conspiracy (whatever sounds better for you), would cover up evidence on small scales and on larger scales. Some of this evidence, for any number of reasons may never be recovered, except as hearsay or anecdote. Thus begins the painting of a conspiracy theory...

Akushla