jackwanders Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 It’s quite good fun coming up with theories about who REALLY runs the world, who’s just faked their death and is hiding on a desert island, and what’s been put in your food to control your thoughts. But if you take this stuff too seriously, you are probably borderline mentally unwell. SOURCE: http://www.7days.ae/2006/07/16/conspiracy-...ical-flaws.html Discuss ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheElite Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 To follow a conspiracy theory is one thing, but to follow a conspiracy theory which is aimed at bringing some explanation to facts which do not make sense, or do not have any basis, is another. I do not think that it is a coincidence that theories which have to do with unclear facts, or hidden facts from the public get more attention from the public, than theories which have NO basis at all. For example, the former can be the 9/11 theories, and the latter, my mum's uncle's nephew saw Elvis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackwanders Posted July 18, 2006 Author Share Posted July 18, 2006 To follow a conspiracy theory is one thing, but to follow a conspiracy theory which is aimed at bringing some explanation to facts which do not make sense, or do not have any basis, is another. Would you mind giving one example of a conspiracy theory that has ever led to the publication of facts that were previously hidden or otherwise withheld? And I don't mean the 'facts' used to support the theory, but rather the 'facts' that the theory sought to expose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheElite Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 I think you misread. I was talking about theories which explain already known facts, not ones which bring new facts to light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackwanders Posted July 18, 2006 Author Share Posted July 18, 2006 I think you misread. I was talking about theories which explain already known facts, not ones which bring new facts to light. No, I read correct. The 'facts' I'm referring to are the 'explanations' you are referring to. To rephrase, can you give an example of a conspiracy theory whose explanation of already known facts turned out to be correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheElite Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 No, I read correct. The 'facts' I'm referring to are the 'explanations' you are referring to. To rephrase, can you give an example of a conspiracy theory whose explanation of already known facts turned out to be correct? I do not understand. What I was saying was that theories provide explanation and context for unclear facts. Are you saying, is there any theory which provided explanation which then made the theory correct? To this the answer is No. I haven't come across any theory, for the sole reason that we have this theory because we dont know all the facts. If we knew all the facts, we wouldnt have to explain them because they will fit in clearly, and it would not be a theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackwanders Posted July 19, 2006 Author Share Posted July 19, 2006 But surely the goal of any conspiracy theorist is to prove his theory correct. What I'm saying is that it has never happened. Ever. No conspiracy theory has ever made the jump from conspiracy to truth. This isn't like science where you create a theory that best explains all known observations and data. Conspiracy theorists cherry pick the few outlying observations and try to create this grand theory that ignores the large majority of observations and evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheElite Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 Conspiracy theorists cherry pick the few outlying observations and try to create this grand theory that ignores the large majority of observations and evidence. Not always. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackwanders Posted July 20, 2006 Author Share Posted July 20, 2006 Not always. What's funny is that you just cherry picked one piece of my post while ignoring the larger and more important observation I was making. does that count as ironic, or just amusing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheElite Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 It doesnt sound like anything except for you trying to hide your mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackwanders Posted July 20, 2006 Author Share Posted July 20, 2006 It doesnt sound like anything except for you trying to hide your mistake. It's not a mistake until you can provide examples to the contrary. Simply contradicting my statement doesn't mean I'm wrong. Besides, I never said 'always'. I only said that they do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts