Conspiracy Theories
- Thread starter Bushcraftsman
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
Is it necessary to insult and ridicule people who have different beliefs to yourself? Does doing so make your argument more valid?
Of course, there's an alternative to conspiracy theories.
Of course, there's an alternative to conspiracy theories.
- Everything is precisely as it seems.
- The history books were not written by the winners and instead represent an objective record of what really happened in the past.
- Everything we were taught in school was true.
- Media moguls use their transglobal empires to broadcast a true reflection of current affairs and provide balanced debate about key issues. Everything you read in the papers or watch on the TV news is true, or as close to that as can be realistically achieved.
- Warfare is a chivalric art form used to liberate oppressed peoples across the globe if conducted by ourselves or our allies. Warfare is evil expansionism if conducted by anyone else.
- Corporate power structures have no interest in influencing the democratic process other than by legal means.
- The vast budgets of the NSA, CIA, FSB, Mossad, MI5, MI6 and GCHQ is mostly expended dreaming up new recipes for yummy desserts.
Hmm, you started well.
But then....
...if that (either you believe in conspiracy theories or you are a gullible idiot) isnt an attempt to ridicule people who dont see things your way, I dont know what is?
That's the other thing with conspiracy theorists, aside from preaching paranoid tripe, they always seem to miss the irony.
Last edited:
if that (either you believe in conspiracy theories or you are a gullible idiot) isnt an attempt to ridicule people who dont see things your way, I dont know what is?
That's the other thing with conspiracy theorists, aside from preaching paranoid tripe, they always seem to miss the irony.
You used the phrase "gullible idiot", not me. I constructed a logical argument to illustrate the fact that it is highly unlikely that the world works the way which we are all told it works. It's a solid argument. You then finished with more ad hominem insults about "preaching paranoid tripe"- you have a very poor debating technique.
Very true Richard - smug acceptance of anyones beliefs but your own leaves you open to charlatans
Good grief
*
*
*
*
*
*
How can anyone not like Marmite ? :eek
...........and Marmite chocolate is absolutely the best
M
*
*
*
*
*
*
How can anyone not like Marmite ? :eek
...........and Marmite chocolate is absolutely the best M
forestwalker
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
The "accpted word of truth"
...
Have you read the "letters" section in any scientific journal? Been to a scientific conference? No acceptance of anyone elses word as gospel, but a lot of "why", "how", "how do you reconcile this with...".
And trust me, the Nobel prize is nothing like a cannonization, more like a very nice bit of tin in the miltary, and a decent chunk of cash. And dear old Alfred is not seen as any kind of saint, more like an industralist/inventor with a vision.
Science is a method, a way of approaching problems, a way or working towards answers. When someone here tries difference combinations of woods for handdrills then they are doing science (well or badly). When Robin Wood tries different sharpening stones he is doing science. When someone says "because Mors/Mears/Brown/the faries in the bottom of my garden/Bear told me so" they are not doing science.
Or are you claiming that the scientific method is flawed? If so, do explain, I'm all ears.
You can indeed and it is really, really good
If you say so Mary... just don't go buying me any
forestwalker
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
Your argument is flawed, since you placed a straw man in opposition to your hypothesis, and claimed that since the straw man was ludicrous then your hypothesis is proven. No sane thoughtfull person has ever claimed those things you posed as a strawman.
I'm stating that the proponents of science get all hot and bothered when their new religion is criticised. Have you ever been to a religious conference? Its full of debate, discussion, argument and counter argument. The proposition that religions do not have open discussion and argument in exactly the same way as science is the absurdity here. Just look at the Anglican debate on homosexuality in the clergy. PLenty of different positions and discussion there.
I'm not anti science. But those who accpet facts presented to them in a scientific journal exhibit the same blind faith as those who accept rules presented in a religious book. They are no more wise becasue they blindly follow a different religion. Those that claim climate change is sciuentifically proven without having personally made a single measurement of climatic data are indulging in an act of religious faith by blindly trusting a credo.
My point is no single sytem has a monopoly on truth or an absence of charlatans - its just that scientists like to delude themselves that they do. However they lover their frocks, titles and gongs the same as any other religion. Of course, just like every other religion, they think they are the "one true path".
Red
Similar threads
