I am Proud of Being a Conspiracy Theorist

robinph

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120035903#Comment_120035903

And if he were queried on any holes in his theories would he have tried to figure them out, or complain about being picked on and ignored the questions?

robinph

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120036122#Comment_120036122

So that sounds very much like science is attempting to come up with answers for the gaps in their theories.

They are not getting annoyed with people noticing the holes and running off to complain about getting picked on. They are acknowledging the holes and trying to solve them.

Conspiracy theorists on the other hand ignore the holes in their theories and pretend they don't exist.

robinph

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120036055#Comment_120036055

If you want your conspiracies to hold any water then you need to fill in the holes. None of the holes that get queried on this forum are ever particularly tricky to spot and really shouldn't take much for the conspiracy theorists to attempt to fill them in even slightly... Rather than running away complaining about being picked on.

joeguevara

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120036122#Comment_120036122

Hold on a second. The Cambrian explosion is not a hole. While the causes of the Cambrian Explosion remain a topic of open and exciting debate, the continued fossil discoveries from the Cambrian and Precambrian Eras are bringing more clarity to the evolutionary puzzle. These fossils provide valuable insight, particularly for envisioning the common ancestors of diverse groups. For instance, both vertebrates (fish) and echinoderms (sea urchins, starfish) are part of the group called deuterostomes. Without fossil evidence, it is hard to envision what a common ancestor would look like for these very different creatures.

robinph

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120036172#Comment_120036172

You'll have to explain the point you are trying to make a bit clearer. Are you saying that science is deliberately hiding information from us about the theory of evolution?

joeguevara

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120036215#Comment_120036215

no I haven’t. You said there was a hole. Fossil evidence shows there isn’t.

bad2thebone

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120036183#Comment_120036183

Running away complaining about being picked on.

Who's running away complaining about being picked on ?

Are there people being picked on ?

Who's picking on who?

Now we have a conspiracy.

joeguevara

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120036304#Comment_120036304

The fossil proof shows they did. More than likely through the evolution of vision. This certainly isn’t a hole.

robinph

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120036212#Comment_120036212

Well why didn't you say that then rather than being vague?

Science has tools and budgets at their disposal, and they use that to fill in the holes in current scientific knowledge. But this also happens with people doing science that do not necessarily have access to those tools and budgets, but they follow the same scientific methods.

Conspiracy theorists make zero attempt to explain their theories and just throw out vauge suggestions to which they have given absolutely no thought as to how what they are trying to suggest would actually happen, then when queried on those really simple to notice flaws in their ideas they get in a huff.

You don't need a big science budget to spot the flaws in conspiracies about JFK, 9/11, faked moon landings, or covid. Why can't conspiracy theorists just come up with a most basic of thinking behind their theories?

There is far more thought gone into the reasoning behind Harry Potter than we've ever got out of any conspiracy theory on these pages.

silliussoddius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120036304#Comment_120036304

Computations done by Pat Robertson?

robinph

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120036538#Comment_120036538

I'm not posting here to gain approval from conspiracy theorists. I am merely interested in their theories and how they came to them, yet they refuse to let anyone know any details about their theories.

Why do conspiracy theorists spend so much time posting about things other conspiracy theories on a conspiracy theory forum?

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120036122#Comment_120036122

Stephen Meyer is a creationist (rebranded to "Intelligent Design")

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer

He's member of the pseudo-scientific "discovery institute" and it's exposed below

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akv0TZI985U

robinph

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120036304#Comment_120036304

So would you then claim that there is something yet to be figured out in the science?

Or that science knows something and is conspiring to lie to everyone about it?

Big Bag of Chips

@robinph you've made your point - and the thread is going around in circles. As mentioned multiple times across the forum, if you keep asking the same question and are not getting the answer you want it's time to move on from asking the question.

@ Cognitive Dissident you've already been warned about name calling. Next instance will result in a week forum ban.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120037082#Comment_120037082

He is a creationist, and he is a member of the "Discovery Institute" (a religious organisation masquerading as legitimate science)

"The Seattle-based Discovery Institute, America's tiny but loud voice for Intelligent Design, is once again trotting out their thoroughly discredited argument that good science education requires that our public schools "teach the controversy." America's public schools should present the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution, as well as alternative explanations for our origins. They charge that academic freedom demands that teachers be encouraged, or perhaps even required to present both sides of any scientific controversy: "At Discovery Institute, we advocate teaching the controversy about evolution. That is for several reasons. Students should learn the full range of evidence on evolution. Teaching the controversy aids in developing critical thinking. And it trains students to think like scientists."

"The call to "teach the controversy," despite its appeal to intuitions about fairness, rests on an abysmal confusion about both science and science pedagogy. It is, in fact, nothing more than a calculated political strategy to hide the real agenda of the anti-evolutionists -- namely to get evolution out of the public schools."

"For starters, the "controversies" they want to teach don't even exist. In their minds the possibility that the earth is 10,000 years old is an open question, even though geologists settled that one in the 18th century. They still think that Adam and Eve were real people and Noah may have rescued all the animals in the ark -- claims settled in the 19th century. But most of their energy is spent promoting the idea that Darwin's theory of evolution is implausible nonsense or, at best, a controversial theory with widespread scientific dissent."

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/discovery-institute-still_b_8479280

Personally I don't have any big issue with creationists, religious people often have beliefs that the world was created by their God (or Gods). The issue with "Intelligent Design" and specifically this "Discovery Institute" is that it's intentionally deceptive, it relies on pseudo-science to trick people into thinking it has a legitimate scientific case, which is all part of the organisations agenda to reflect "politically conservative fundamentalist evangelical Protestant values."

Below is one of their internal documents which was leaked, their manifesto, makes for an interesting read to say the least

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf

Like a conspiracy..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119987104#Comment_119987104

Are you saying the parents need for comfort outweighs the health needs of the child, and the health system’s responsibility to provide the correct medical treatment?

Would you be comfortable with parents dictating to Doctors what treatment they feel is better for their sick kids? Do you not think there is a knowledge imbalance?

silliussoddius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120037392#Comment_120037392

Nearly a full house for reddit bingo.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120037392#Comment_120037392

You put his name into a Google search and then quoted from the first few search results.

Nope, unfortunately already heard about him (and his cohorts) before.

One of the sources I provided is themselves, an internal document. Outlining their own religious and anti-science agenda.

Probably the most entertaining debunk on the group is the scientist I linked previously, in his videos he dismantles their "science" and exposes the grift. Below are links to his expose's of the other Discovery Institute figureheads

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRxq1Vrf_Js - Casey Luskin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVQGQz-0Xeo - Michael Behe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFPHvvJWVAk - Gunter Bechley

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SixyZ7DkSjA - the first of several on James Tour, an utter crank

If anyone has time, I highly recommend any of those videos

As for the conspiracy angle, as mentioned this has all the unmistakeable hallmarks of a conspiracy, a conservative religious think-tank basically posing as a "scientific institute" with an agenda to attack evolution using pseudo-science and get it out of US schools.

banie01

I missed most of yesterday's discussion seems it was a doozy.

I see Stephen Meyer has been trotted out as the anti-thesis to Darwin's theory of evolution on the basis that there are holes in Darwin's theory.

The primary issue here, is that rather than shape a theory to fit the evidence that Meyer et al, feels contradicts Darwin. That they focus on fitting the evidence to the scaffold of creationism/intelligent design and then try and promulgate it as science.

It's fundamentally unscientific to approach evidence with a conclusion already determined and that's precisely what the Discovery Institute and its affiliates do.

There is nothing at all wrong with poking holes in Darwin. Where the problem arises is in rather than developing a theory that addresses any flaw in Darwin with a proposition supported by rigourous research? That the "new" theory is deliberately fitted to a creationist scaffold. That's deliberately contriving their research to fit their ethos. It's dishonest and at odds with the scientific method.

Curious_Case

I once encountered a poster who seemed oblivious to the idea that the findings of FUNDED research could possibly be at odds with the associated scientists' personal opinions.

Think expert witnesses in a court case - the opinions of the prosecution's expert witnesses tend to sit, all nice and cosy, with the prosecution's contention.

Ditto, the defence.

Ya gotta independently sniff each case.

banie01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120037595#Comment_120037595

It's a fair point. The source of funding and the purpose of any endowment body should be considered in any balanced review of a study.

banie01

Put forward something as true, get shot down by groupthinkers and then later be proven correct.

Anyone, anywhere can claim anything as true. Putting forward a "Truth" requires it's being evidenced as so by evidence.

The issue with many in the CT forum, is that there is a belief that saying something makes it true.

Veracity is not a matter of trust or faith. It is a matter of evidence. Be it physical, testamentary or experimental. That evidence is subject to test, review and scrutiny.

Without evidence?

There's no theory, there is someone telling a story and rounding it off with "trust me bro".

Much like your continue stance that the scientific method depends upon abductive reasoning. Were the scientific method wholly reliant upon philosophical reasoning? You would have a point. It isn't though, the practical sciences are wholly dependant upon practical proofs and repeatability of experiments and their verification by others.

There is no greater joy in scientific circles than disproving an axiom. It's a quicker path to fame and scientific noteriett than nodding along because someone made a good argument.

Science isn't based upon good philosophical points. It's based upon repeatable and provable and verifiable points. Theories aren't absolutes, they are the very best understanding of the evidence available. New evidence? Can and has disproven widely held theories, across a range of fields from linguistics, to archaeology and into the physical sciences.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120037561#Comment_120037561

If you read, I would suggest Gelentners essay:

It's Gelernter, and it's simply an unsourced book review of Meyer's pseudo-scientific book. The Claremont Review of Books is a right-wing think-tank (note the trend)

Interesting observations here of Gelernter's views from another computer scientist.

http://recursed.blogspot.com/2019/08/david-gelernter-makes-fool-of-himself.html

Also Gelernter leans towards climate change denial, doesn't like women working in jobs and all the usual red flags.

Berlinski.

David Berlinksi is an anti-evolution member of the Discovery Institute

Their ideas are supported by the math.

Pity they aren't supported by evolutionary biologists and anthropologists

The common denominator appears to be religion and the Discovery Institute

banie01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120037684#Comment_120037684

Why would you assume that anyone is "punching down"?

Interesting that now rather than defend the veracity or robustness of CTs?

That is now a case of certain posters are punching down on a cohort of posters who are seeking to enjoy "harmless stories, in the spirit of fun and interest, that allow people to discover the hidden truths and power hierarchies of the world."

Either they are stories? Or are you alluding to them being allegories if a truth hidden? A special and secret knowledge that boards own group of potential Nobel laureates are determined to silence?

To use a little of your abductive and wholly unevidenced reasoning...

If suppressing a truth could win anyone on boards a Nobel? Imagine the kudos that would accrue to anyone within the CT community who could present the evidence to overturn that pervasive consensus? That creationism is true? That Mossad wired WTC to explode or that Sandyhook or a.n other school shooting is fake.

Surely the same incredulity you apply to what are "accepted" theories or consensus should also apply to those theories the mainstream deems incredulous? Or is your aim solely one of contrarianism?

Edit

Fixed "novel" to Nobel in 2nd paragraph.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120037714#Comment_120037714

Their central ideas are extensively rebutted and refuted and shown to be pseudo-science in the videos I linked. They are lengthy, you may not want to watch them, but for anyone else interested I recommend them.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120037684#Comment_120037684

Indeed, however conspiracies can also be harmful and have real world effects. Qanon, Sandy Hook, medical conspiracies, climate science denial, etc.

And it can be argued that could extend to religious and conservative groups creating deceptive scientific bodies to push religious agendas.

banie01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120037754#Comment_120037754

So no discussion, ascribe to wokeness and smugness that which you don't like. The question of what I'm doing here?

Is engaging in discussion, trying to understand the evidence behind what are often at 1st glance outlandish claims. To see if any truth does underpin what many hold as unshakeable tenets of belief.

Yet despite that? In all the time I have frequented and engaged in the CT forum? I've yet to find that evidence.

Now if I was to go along with an earlier comment made here. I should really be approaching CTs as a folklorist or social historian. Although if that were the mode in which CTrs wish to post? Then surely, creative writing is the best place for such theories unless/until someone is willing to discuss the evidence on which their hypothesis hinges?

Why are you here? What brings you to the CT forum other than "anti-wokeness"?

Edit

I forgot to address your comment on your experience of the internet before it got all commercial.

I can only frame that response within the context of your 1 year old username. Unless of course you've had previous handles here? List them and let's see if we've spoken before, my own boards handle has been on use since 2007. So I'm not sure if you feel that is pre? Or post commercialisation?

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120037787#Comment_120037787

Never inferred that math was pseudoscience. These individuals from the institute are engaging in pseudo-science by promoting creationism as a legit science. There's a definite amount of deception involved in it. This kind of crankery happens, there are historians out there who e.g. deny the Holocaust, scholars who believe the world is flat, engineers and architects who believe 9/11 was an inside job. They all use similar (red flag) techniques, use technical jargon and word salad to bamboozle lay-people, logical fallacies, questionable methods, dodgy analysis, you name it.

Because they are experts, certain people trust them. Whilst ignoring or dismissing the thousands of experts who state otherwise (with overwhelming evidence)

A computer science or maths degree doesn't automatically make someone an authority on evolution biology.

If you are on the fence about this stuff, you can check on the science forum. If you've already made up your mind there's nothing I, or any links I post or millions of scientists can say which will change your mind, in which case these posts are just for the benefit of other posters who might be reading this stuff

Tony EH

So asking someone to back up their claims is now "wokeness".

Fuckin hell. 🙄

silliussoddius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120037988#Comment_120037988

Yep. And used in a zealous defense of their religious beliefs. It’s almost as if they want their beliefs to have some special privilege, a bit pc if you ask me.

The Nal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120037988#Comment_120037988

"the insufferable requests for evidence"

Its great banter. Claiming something incredible and then getting all snotty when asked for evidence to back it up.

Its bog standard garden variety conspiraloon behaviour.

greenspurs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120040792#Comment_120040792

Can any of yee lot post anything without some little insult included??

Dont think so...

Anyhoo , how many miles 'off thread' has this been driven ...............................

The Nal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120040868#Comment_120040868

Who is "yee lot"?

This thread is a binfire though yeah. The original post is one of the most cringy things Ive ever read.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120041820#Comment_120041820

If you genuinely think that a respected computer science and math PHD doesn't have the tools to critically evaluate other domains of knowledge

The Discovery Institute is creationist outfit with a religious agenda masquerading as a authentic scientific centre. They are trying hard to get the science of evolution out of the classroom, or at the very least have their rebranded version of creationism taught alongside it. Even if it's members were all evolutionary biologists or in related fields (clue, they aren't), the information they are producing is considered pseudo-science by respected palaeontologists, anthropologists, biologists and wider scientific community.

It's very devious of them, very unchristian too when you think about it.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120042070#Comment_120042070

The earth wasn't "created" 6,000 years ago, we knew this in the 18th century.

If you are religious and want to believe something like that, that's fine, but it's scientifically false. These people are charlatans who use their unrelated degrees (many of my friends have comp sci degrees) to bamboozle followers into thinking they are "science-y" and have legitimate scientific criticism of current theories, when they have anything but.

As mentioned the whole thing walks, talks and quacks like a scam, a conspiracy. A right wing creationist think-tank setting up a false scientific front to lend credibility to it's woo and manipulate people into believing that woo. There just an extra level of hypocrisy to it, because they are religious and "thou shalt not lie" and all that.

joeguevara

Catch me up..is someone trying to say that the earth is 6000 years old?

banie01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120042151#Comment_120042151

Yep. We have reached the defending creationism and it's proponents on the basis of the high IQ and quality education afforded by religious institutions stage.

Which raises questions as to what qualifies as a conspiracy and as to which religion holds the universal truth. If I subscribe to a non abrahamic religion? One that opines that the universe is 14billion years old? Does that mean my religion is wrong?

The nonsense of relying on faith as a "proof" and a shield against needing to substantiate a position.

That kernel of truth at the heart of every story, that CTs are now allegory and we should be comforted by that kernel of truth that set off the theory. Yet whenever anyone tries to actually query what that kernel is? We are bullies, book burners and god forbid... Iconoclasts.

Funnily enough, we are at least at the stage of this conversation where more than one on the CT side of the aisle are agreeing that CTs are in the main, stories.

So is it a space to tell unsubstantiated stories and criticism free safe spaces that they want? Which is quite ironic given the "anti-woke" stance really.

silliussoddius

Sopping wet with irony, down to the username.

Want to do a pool on the next beliefs to come out. I'll go with the end times and q

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120042219#Comment_120042219

So all CTs mentioned have so far found to have some kernel of truth, as discussed. All debunkers have been ' debunked ' as credible rationalists.

Hmmm. A little too much "I decree that everyone is wrong but me because I baselessly say so".

Have been here for years, (so far) I haven't come across any user CT that turned out to be true. During the pandemic is was chock-full of Covid conspiracies, (so far) none of those happened.

Likewise haven't seen any evidence that "populist" conspiracy theories like Sandy hook, moon landing hoax, chem-trails, 911, one-world-government, etc have any truth to them whatsoever.

This is not to say that conspiracies don't happen, they do, on an almost daily basis, just rarely the type that are discussed or hinted at here.

joeguevara

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120042225#Comment_120042225

I was wondering when we started hearing about holes in evolution. So the basis of this thread is Conspiracy theorists are proud they are uninformed religious zealots or is the person purporting creationism trying to portray conspiracy theorists in a poor light?

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120042365#Comment_120042365

It's actually a fascinating area to study, figuring out the evolution chain for each individual part of an organism, what the "prior art" was, what the missing fossil record looks like (given most of what we have are vertebrates which are a relatively small % of organisms).

It's also (unsuccessfully scientifically) being used by creationists to put doubt on evolution (if that bit doesn't have a full chain, therefore God) and it sounds like it could be true (our friend above is completely sucked in by it).

Also funny to see them try and use maths to prove the existence of an all powerful being.

greenspurs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120042314#Comment_120042314

"This is not to say that conspiracies don't happen, they do, on an almost daily basis, just rarely the type that are discussed or hinted at here"

Go ahead - Give an example , Start a thread and we can discuss them.

Might be better than the circle hyperbole going on in here now. 😫

robinph

Go ahead - Give an example , Start a thread and we can discuss them.

Threads will already exist in politics for conspiracies about defrauding elections or PPE contracts, or maybe in motoring regarding conspiracy to fake emission tests for a couple of examples if there is anything to be discussed about the topics.

greenspurs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120042923#Comment_120042923

Why arent they moved to CT forum then , if they exist ?

Do the usual crew go poo pooing the conspiracy being talked about there also ? 🤔

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120042314#Comment_120042314

Mmmmm.

Where conspiracy believers (they don't deserve the appellation of theoreticians) tend to go wrong is that they usually have a penchant for going big, as it were. Most of the silly conspiracies are of the incredible type (in the true sense of the word), like fake moon landings or 9/11 inside job stuff, and require a slavish devotion to mere contrary alternatives to propagate themselves.

Whereas, in comparison, the average real conspiracy is generally quite a small affair, like the DNC's machinations behind the scenes to oust Bernie Sanders from two Presidential runs, despite huge support for him. Or even MK-Ultra. Or if we go back to 9/11, the real conspiracy there was that the Neo-Cons used that attack to launch an illegal war in Middle East under a mask of propaganda lies about WMD's. That was something that America Inc. had been wanting to do for many years. Although that, in itself, wasn't really a small affair and had devastating worldwide consequences, most of which America didn't see. But it certainly isn't on the scale of the "inside job" narrative that was being put about in the wake of the attacks.

The problem for the conspiracy believers is that actual conspiratorial events usually aren't that amazing. So they have to invent the larger and more alluring picture.

It's also a touch ironic that we are now at the religious stage in the "discussion". Like believers in a religion, conspiracy believers can't have the beliefs questioned. Because under even the slightest investigation they find that what they believe in falls apart like wet tissue paper, and what they believe in is done so simply because they want to believe it.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120042894#Comment_120042894

Sure, e.g. I started a thread on one here

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058109958/russian-opposition-member-poisoned-with-novichok

As mentioned before have just finished a book titled "conspiracy". It's about the conspiracy to take down the site Gawker.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120043029#Comment_120043029

I've read it before, but, as I said above, the examples often used as proof, end up being consistent with evolutionary theory when investigated, this has happened time and again.

Now, there is lots and lots we don't know (missing fossil records being a big problem) but the maths has only shown apparent problems in areas where there had been little study up to that point, evolutionary biology is massive, like, impossible within many multiple lifetimes to investigate each track fully and prove it correct or incorrect and that allows people to live in a grey area to purport "something else" but they are doing so in the absence of a theory of their own.

Now, this is a good thing (when looked at scientifically) if the person is going out and finding that data to prove or disprove it and build their own theory. A lot of these people aren't doing that.

Myself, I hope we do find more, new protein and molecular interactions that we're missing today as it will expand our knowledge and allow us to seek out new cures and treatments and make everyone's life better as a result.

What I do know is that there has been 0 evidence of intelligence design found (the main counter-theory).

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120043029#Comment_120043029

Hmmm, these sound like claims from our friend Meyer again..

He claimed that animals in the Cambrian explosion didn't predecessors. That's not true.

It's directly addressed in the video below (I've even timestamped it)

https://youtu.be/Akv0TZI985U?t=944

Remember, it's one thing for someone to be wrong. This guy and his co-conspirators aren't just wrong, they are deliberately lying and distorting science as part of an agenda to cancel evolution out of schools.

greenspurs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120043148#Comment_120043148

Wow... 😲

I didnt think you had a suspicious bone in your body ...... 😜

robinph

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120042938#Comment_120042938

Because they actually happened and real evidence of the conspiracies exist. No, they won't get "poo pooed", but if someone was to suggest that a politician handed out PPE contracts to their mates because Bill Gates told them to by use of 5G signals, or lizard people were responsible for faked vehicle emissions tests then maybe they would be.

greenspurs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120043307#Comment_120043307

They are factual ? So they arent , in fact Conspiracy theories then? 🤔

So why would Dohnjoe use them as an example ???? 😮