A recommendation for conspiracists/people who understand things the rest of us don't

[Terry - Somerset]

A prime example of people arguing for the sake of arguing.

There is a flat earth theory and a spinning ball theory.

Both theories with no definitive proof of either.

Had you lived in an earlier period you could have been burned at the stake for suggesting a spinning ball nowadays you're scoffed at for promoting a flat earth, who knows what another 100 yrs will bring.

The thing I always wondered about is, what keeps the earth spinning for millions of years at a precise rate.

Anyone point me to a youtube video.

There is an implausible confidence in the capacity of science to produce conclusive answers. I, for one, have always been sceptical of:

"In the currently popular model of the Universe, 70% is thought to be dark energy, 25% dark matter and 5% normal matter"

It may be partly down to my inability to see, feel, touch, weigh the "dark". What happens if as a spacemen I crash into it - will I dent my spacecraft etc.

I don't remotely believe we have the final answer - just a theory which fits the limitations of current knowledge.

 

[guineafowl21]

I ain't no scientist and I know people play with words, so if we are to communicate we need to agree the definitions.

If there is a theory and evidence to support that theory. It's a theory

If there's a theory and proof of that theory, then it's a fact.

Not over-keen on that.

A hypothesis, tested by repeatable experiments, published in proper journals, in other words supported by a decent weight of evidence, becomes a theory.

Eg: theory of evolution, special/general relativity.

^^ These two are so well-supported, they have become essentially fact.

BUT… Newton’s theory of gravitation, accepted as fact for centuries, has now been shown to be incomplete (by general relativity). So we’re careful when using the word “fact”. Current/prevailing theory is better.

Try not to use the word “proof”. I can ‘prove’ to you light is a wave, and also that it’s a particle. The reality needed a new theory - quantum theory, which started out as a hypothesis about black body radiation.

But, but, but, an oblate spheroid isn't a ball

Ball-oid, then? What about rugby balls?

 

[niall Y]

Ah ... Rugby - .a game played by men with odd-shaped balls.

 

[Stanleymonkey]

The whole twisting the meaning of theory is part of the conspiracy toolkit.

Gravity is just a theory according to them - it doesn't actually exist and can't be proved. Evolution is a theory and so on.

The misunderstanding starts there and ends up with people pointing thermometers at the sun to take it's temperature!

 

[Vulcan]

Strange old thread. I wasn’t expecting it but I’ve decided to take advantage of the ignore feature for one poster.

 

[Delaney]

A case in point
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2lyzw7xwxo

I’m afraid you might be the ‘sucker’ here.

This article for the most part looks like a classic example of an exaggerated headline, to draw attention to an article that within 1 paragraph, is giving you numerous links fo other BBC services such as:

Watch the BBC’s coverage of….
Keep up to date with the BBC’s weather….
Get the latest blah blah blah…..

To go on, the article quickly gets down to one of it’s motivations; attacking X and tictock. Something nearly all left leaning legacy platforms have been doing for the last year.
Those two sites are the most popular places to get news and news based ‘entertainment’. So in short, their biggest competition.

They then go on to mock people who make outlandish (but often truth based) claims.
A common such person is MTG. They take one of her tweets, that we have no context for as none is provided, claiming that “the government can control the weather”.
Yet the article then goes on to explain how indeed, the government can control the weather.

The story is based on cloud seeding where the government (or govermental agencies), does indeed try to manipulate weather. The recent flooding in Dubai (I think), being a good example.
People see this, know that it’s being done and then extrapolate out. Those on the extreme end are cranks and flat earth types, who mostly just want attention.
This extrapolation is then lapped up by the msm because it gives them ammunition with which to attack the very platforms they want to alienate ‘Biden says “it has to stop”’ when talking about ‘misinformation’, which is code for ‘we need to regulate these roque platforms’.
This type of stuff is also nectar for a certain type of individual, often liberal authoritarian, anti conservative; lots of hubris etc.. who eagerly get the wrong end of the stick, allowing them to scoff at such ‘conspiracy’ theorists, when in fact most, have sound origins.

Often these types of BBC articles give no sources, no copies of tweets, yet go on to make sensational accusations and narratives, based on things that for all we know, could be manufactured for such effect.

It’s all a storm in a T-cup
(this time most likely controlled by the media).

 

[Scruples]

I ain't no scientist and I know people play with words, so if we are to communicate we need to agree the definitions.

If there is a theory and evidence to support that theory. It's a theory

If there's a theory and proof of that theory, then it's a fact.

Do you disagree?

But, but, but, an oblate spheroid isn't a ball

Some day when there is no paint I can watch drying, I may watch that. But whether the earth is flat, round or squashed tomato shape makes no difference to my daily existence.
I merely marvel at the way people become entrenched in a belief of their chosen theory/viewpoint and cling to it for dear life.

You said - If there's a theory and proof of that theory, then it's a fact.

Not quite. It just means that the proof may or may not be true. Science is fact only for as long as it takes a new theory to arrive, The atomic theory of electronic particles being a prime example. What I was taught at school in the 60s is no longer what they teach, these days.

 

[TRITON]

You said - If there's a theory and proof of that theory, then it's a fact.

Not quite. It just means that the proof may or may not be true. Science is fact only for as long as it takes a new theory to arrive, The atomic theory of electronic particles being a prime example. What I was taught at school in the 60s is no longer what they teach, these days.

Its not new theory, its an expansion on the premise of the original theory.

If you listen to prof Brian Cox, or Neil DeGrassey Tyson on something like how we discovered Neptune, it gives a better understanding.
We formulate the data, and it works, but for a niggling doubt because the math doesnt quite work out and it suggests something else is at play. So as we adapt the original theory we discover the reasons for the error, though 'error' is completely the wrong term.

 

[MikeJhn]

Gravity sucks.

The empirical proof that the Earth is not flat, if it was cats would push everything over the edge.

See post https://cdn.imagearchive.com/ukworkshop/data/attach/171/171188-Cat-Whiskey.jpeg

 

[Deadeye]

I’m afraid you might be the ‘sucker’ here.

This article for the most part looks like a classic example of an exaggerated headline, to draw attention to an article that within 1 paragraph, is giving you numerous links fo other BBC services such as:

Watch the BBC’s coverage of….
Keep up to date with the BBC’s weather….
Get the latest blah blah blah…..

To go on, the article quickly gets down to one of it’s motivations; attacking X and tictock. Something nearly all left leaning legacy platforms have been doing for the last year.
Those two sites are the most popular places to get news and news based ‘entertainment’. So in short, their biggest competition.

They then go on to mock people who make outlandish (but often truth based) claims.
A common such person is MTG. They take one of her tweets, that we have no context for as none is provided, claiming that “the government can control the weather”.
Yet the article then goes on to explain how indeed, the government can control the weather.

The story is based on cloud seeding where the government (or govermental agencies), does indeed try to manipulate weather. The recent flooding in Dubai (I think), being a good example.
People see this, know that it’s being done and then extrapolate out. Those on the extreme end are cranks and flat earth types, who mostly just want attention.
This extrapolation is then lapped up by the msm because it gives them ammunition with which to attack the very platforms they want to alienate ‘Biden says “it has to stop”’ when talking about ‘misinformation’, which is code for ‘we need to regulate these roque platforms’.
This type of stuff is also nectar for a certain type of individual, often liberal authoritarian, anti conservative; lots of hubris etc.. who eagerly get the wrong end of the stick, allowing them to scoff at such ‘conspiracy’ theorists, when in fact most, have sound origins.

Often these types of BBC articles give no sources, no copies of tweets, yet go on to make sensational accusations and narratives, based on things that for all we know, could be manufactured for such effect.

It’s all a storm in a T-cup
(this time most likely controlled by the media).

Thanks, I'm well aware of cloud seeding with silver iodide. The conspiracists that believe this could be used to create a Category 5 storm are deluded. So yes, it is a case in point, and no, it doesn't make me a sucker. Nice try though

 

[Agent_zed]

Thanks, I'm well aware of cloud seeding with silver iodide. The conspiracists that believe this could be used to create a Category 5 storm are deluded. So yes, it is a case in point, and no, it doesn't make me a sucker. Nice try though

Don't forget the Jewish space lazers starting forest fires!

 

[John Brown]

Don't forget the Jewish space lazers starting forest fires!

Now I see the reason behind your forum identity...

 

[Ollie78]

A case in point
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2lyzw7xwxo

That is actually amazing. I can scarcely believe it was deemed necessary to produce this article. Its like we are living in a permanent 1st of April.
If we had the power to make a Hurricaine then surely we could prevent them in the first place. Of course we certainly can`t trust the BBC.

 

[niall Y]

Thanks, I'm well aware of cloud seeding with silver iodide. The conspiracists that believe this could be used to create a Category 5 storm are deluded. So yes, it is a case in point, and no, it doesn't make me a sucker. Nice try though

I believe Russian scientists experimented using bags of cement. Though that could be a myth.

 

[trvlr]

look... it's obvious that the earth is flat... when you view it from sea level... Ii only appears to be round 'cos as people reach the end/edge of it their weight causes it to bend and the more people approach the end of it the more it bends..., until the two edges meet and so on... Retires to kitchen for further dose of fortified wine.....

 

[John Brown]

That is actually amazing. I can scarcely believe it was deemed necessary to produce this article. Its like we are living in a permanent 1st of April.
If we had the power to make a Hurricaine then surely we could prevent them in the first place. Of course we certainly can`t trust the BBC.

I agree. It's like half the world have been rendered moronic! I blame those 5G masts..

 

[JSW]

It's like half the world have been rendered moronic! I blame those 5G masts..

Said without a hint of sarcasm

 

[Agent_zed]

I think one of the biggest problems is the advent of CGI and photo manipulation on a mass scale, coupled with the ease of dissemination. Sure back in the day powerful people could manipulate photographs and film (NASA cough cough) but it was incredibly hard to do, certainly not easy for a lay person.

Nowadays, it is pretty easy to manipulate photos and spread them far and wide incredibly quickly, and most people can do it. Mobile phones now can cut out people from photos with a few swipes of a finger, for example.

It makes it far easier to believe far out conspiracies when you can't even trust the majority of information you are seeing with your own eyes.

 

[nickds1]

The answer (for me at least) is to treat all/most "statements of fact" with a healthy dose of cynicism.

The Sagan Standard/Laplace Principle of "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" always seems a good starting point. It's the quality of the "evidence" that folk need to examine most closely and treat with most cynicism.

This is why I love programs like "More or Less" - should be compulsory in schools!

 

[John Brown]

The answer (for me at least) is to treat all/most "statements of fact" with a healthy dose of cynicism.

The Sagan Standard/Laplace Principle of "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" always seems a good starting point. It's the quality of the "evidence" that folk need to examine most closely and treat with most cynicism.

This is why I love programs like "More or Less" - should be compulsory in schools!

Occam's razor also a good starting point. The number of weird and wonderful explanations resorted to by the flat earthers is a prime example of the opposite.
IMO.