http://www.infowars.com/33-conspirac...n-should-know/
no longer a conspiracy or theory.
Printable View
http://www.infowars.com/33-conspirac...n-should-know/
no longer a conspiracy or theory.
Interesting article but it seems to imply that because some past conspiracies turned out to be true that all conspiracies should be respected. To be honest, that line of thinking is a logical fallacy. The validity or truth of past conspiracy theories has no weight or merit in the validity of any current potential conspiracy theory. Each idea must hold weight by the value of it's own evidence.
...or so the Bilderberg globalists would have you believeQuote:
Originally Posted by AJ Camacho
... and just to be clear. Just because something is declared publicly as a "Conspiracy Theory" does not mean that it has any less value or merit than any other idea. The logic on this works both ways. An idea must stand up on its own merit not be torn down or lifted up on the labels of other ideas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJ Camacho
Fair enough. I feel that once something has enough evidence behind it, we should at least pay attention. In the scientific world they do that. I mean, they jump to conclusions with far less evidence then a lot of conspiracy theories have. What I see in this link is this: the public had suspicions. The public isn't as stupid as the government thinks. Our suspicions were confirmed. That means that our current suspicions have a legitamate reasons for concern.Quote:
Originally Posted by AJ Camacho
[QUOTE=David Rosado;89829]I mean, they jump to conclusions with far less evidence then a lot of conspiracy theories have.QUOTE]
The difference between scientific investigation and conspiracy theory is the quality of evidence. Conspiracy theorists most often violate a couple of fundamental tenets of science not the least of which is: you must prove the accepted theory wrong. Science progresses by falsifiability; that is, nothing can EVER be proven true. A theory is only convenient or useful and it is ALWAYS subject to revision as new evidence becomes available. It is also only accepted as scientifically valid if it is testable and falsifiable. Rarely is this true of a conspiracy theory. Often, it is the LACK of evidence that is used to "support" the idea of a conspiracy. While that may be comforting to the conspiracy theorists, those of us a little more inclined towards skepticism recognize that a lack of proof is just that -- no proof at all. There is also a bad tendency to forget that truth of the statement that the plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "data". Last but not least, plausibility is not truth. Plausibility is not data. Just because a thing seems likely or "makes sense" does not make it true. The sun going around the earth made so much sense to so many people that the guy who said it ain't so was imprisoned for it (to be fair, the Vatican pardoned Galileo in 1992 for demonstrating the Copernican truth).
Having said all of that, there absolutely are people in positions of power who will do what they can, when they can to maintain or otherwise consolidate that power. Governments and corporations have a vested interest in keeping as much of their doings private as they possibly can -- because we simply wouldn't stand for that shit if it were public. I do believe there are some awful conspiracies and we have to be diligent abuot seeking them out. But in the process, we can't throw out critical thinking.
[QUOTE=Jason Hyatt;89837]hence why the UN calls Chemtrails a conspiracy theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by David Rosado