'Do your own research / I do my own research' has become code for conspiracy theory followers

[Thunglom]

28 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So being skeptical of a study that shows man made climate change is a hoax because it is funded by the petroleum industry makes one a conspiracy theorist? 

This isn't actually a logical answer - it is a false syllogism. 

All scientists would be skeptical of this study and would then look at the evidence. If they found the methodologies and gathering of evidence were at fault they would then say how and why.

If their was no evidence and the person continued to promulgate that theory, then it would be counted as a conspiracy theory.

Here's a wiki definition - " conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable"

 

An example of a false syllogism or politician's syllogism would be: - 

all dogs have 4 legs

my cat has 4 legs

therefore my cat is a dog

 

you suggest: - 

someone suspects all skeptics question "studies"

my study questions the MMCC theory

then all studies that question the theory are conspiracists.

 

PS - a conspiracy theorist might en suggest that cats are really dogs in disguise.

[Thunglom]

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

You changed the subject. I thought we were talking about conspiracy theories.

No - the OP - is "Do your own research / I do my own research' has become code for conspiracy theory followers" - we are discussing te kind of flawed thinking that leads to people using or believing conspiracy theories.

My proposal is that without critical thinking people are very prone to believing conspiracy theories. 

 

but I'm concerned that you don't actually understand what critical thinking is hence your over simplistic examples.

 

 

[Yellowtail]

3 minutes ago, Thunglom said:

This isn't actually a logical answer - it is a false syllogism. 

All scientists would be skeptical of this study and would then look at the evidence. If they found the methodologies and gathering of evidence were at fault they would then say how and why.

If their was no evidence and the person continued to promulgate that theory, then it would be counted as a conspiracy theory.

Here's a wiki definition - " conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable"

 

An example of a false syllogism or politician's syllogism would be: - 

all dogs have 4 legs

my cat has 4 legs

therefore my cat is a dog

 

you suggest: - 

someone suspects all skeptics question "studies"

my study questions the MMCC theory

then all studies that question the theory are conspiracists.

All dogs don't have four legs, that would be a lie.

 

In any event, I said one should question "experts" when the "experts" are on the payroll of the authorities, you said this was the basis for a conspiracy theory. 

 

 

[Yellowtail]

8 minutes ago, Thunglom said:

No - the OP - is "Do your own research / I do my own research' has become code for conspiracy theory followers" - we are discussing te kind of flawed thinking that leads to people using or believing conspiracy theories.

My proposal is that without critical thinking people are very prone to believing conspiracy theories. 

 

but I'm concerned that you don't actually understand what critical thinking is hence your over simplistic examples.

 

 

Why would my not understanding critical thinking concern you? 

 

Is you opposition of simple examples that they are too easy to understand? 

 

 

[Thunglom]

15 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Why would my not understanding critical thinking concern you? 

 

Is you opposition of simple examples that they are too easy to understand? 

 

 

They don't actually relate to the discussion they just indicate how little your understand about the topic. 

It's a form of "sealioning" - passive aggression in the form of banal questions.

 

It's a bit like someone when confronted with their first motor car and has it explained as a horseless carriage who ten asks "So where do you keep the horses?" ...and then asks what horses eat.

[ozimoron]

5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Why would my not understanding critical thinking concern you? 

 

Is you opposition of simple examples that they are too easy to understand? 

 

 

It is a commonly conservative trait to want to find simple answers for complex problems. They don't like to look too deeply, hence opposition to critical thinking.

[Yellowtail]

2 minutes ago, Thunglom said:

They don't actually relate to the discussion they just indicate how little your understand about the topic. 

It's a form of "sealioning" - passive aggression in the form of banal questions.

 

It's a bit like someone when fronted with their first motor car and has it explained as a horseless carriage who ten asks "So where do you keep the horses?" ...and then asks what horses eat.

If you don't know, just say you don't know, no shame in that. 

[Yellowtail]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

It is a commonly conservative trait to want to find simple answers for complex problems. They don't like to look too deeply, hence opposition to critical thinking.

Why not provide a few examples? 

[Thunglom]

16 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

All dogs don't have four legs, that would be a lie.

 

In any event, I said one should question "experts" when the "experts" are on the payroll of the authorities, you said this was the basis for a conspiracy theory. 

 

 

No this is what you posted

"So being skeptical of a study that shows man made climate change is a hoax because it is funded by the petroleum industry makes one a conspiracy theorist? "

here, you were suggesting there that one should be skeptical of a study

Now you are claiming some "experts" are on the payroll yourself - you would need to find some satisfactory evidence to corroborate this.

[Thunglom]

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

Why not provide a few examples? 

QED. ????

[Yellowtail]

4 minutes ago, Thunglom said:

No this is what you posted

"So being skeptical of a study that shows man made climate change is a hoax because it is funded by the petroleum industry makes one a conspiracy theorist? "

here, you were suggesting there that one should be skeptical of a study

Now you are claiming some "experts" are on the payroll yourself - you would need to find some satisfactory evidence to corroborate this.

[Thunglom]

7 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

You don't seem to be able to differentiate. If you claim that on in isolation - it is a fact we know is unsupportable - therefore you are conscripting to a conspiracy theory.

Your earlier statement was a hypothesis about study a study indicating this should be treated with reference to critical thinking.

I think I'm being seasoned - and whilst your lack of understanding of this topic and cynical arguments were entertaining that aspect has now worn thin.

[The Hammer2021]

52 minutes ago, Thunglom said:

This isn't actually a logical answer - it is a false syllogism. 

All scientists would be skeptical of this study and would then look at the evidence. If they found the methodologies and gathering of evidence were at fault they would then say how and why.

If their was no evidence and the person continued to promulgate that theory, then it would be counted as a conspiracy theory.

Here's a wiki definition - " conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable"

 

An example of a false syllogism or politician's syllogism would be: - 

all dogs have 4 legs

my cat has 4 legs

therefore my cat is a dog

 

you suggest: - 

someone suspects all skeptics question "studies"

my study questions the MMCC theory

then all studies that question the theory are conspiracists.

 

PS - a conspiracy theorist might en suggest that cats are really dogs in disguise.

A conspiracy theorist would agree with you without paws for thought!!

[Yellowtail]

14 minutes ago, Thunglom said:

You don't seem to be able to differentiate. If you claim that on in isolation - it is a fact we know is unsupportable - therefore you are conscripting to a conspiracy theory.

Your earlier statement was a hypothesis about study a study indicating this should be treated with reference to critical thinking.

I think I'm being seasoned - and whilst your lack of understanding of this topic and cynical arguments were entertaining that aspect has now worn thin.

That's what I thought, thanks!

[ozimoron]

8 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Why not provide a few examples? 

The second characteristic of the conservative temperament, which is closely related to the first, is an aversion to abstract argument and theorizing.

-------

Whereas the liberal consciously articulates abstract theories, the conservative instinctively embraces concrete traditions. For just this reason, many authorities on conservatism have been led to deny that it is a genuine ideology, regarding it instead as a relatively inarticulate state of mind.

 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/conservatism/Legacy-and-prospects

 

It has practically achieved the state of an axiom in our field that liberals are more complex
thinkers than conservatives. This is not without reason. Meta-analyses—covering a vast array of evi-
dence related to dogmatism, uncertainty avoidance, openness to experience, need for closure, and inte-
grative complexity—suggest that liberals are indeed more complex than conservatives

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiRxLar0PL0AhUYfnAKHaJ6A24QFnoECAEQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fhs.umt.edu%2Fpoliticalcognition%2Fdocuments%2Fpublications%2FConway%20et%20al%202015_Political%20Psychology.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1Vky-M1hC3bVnR4cdZGNxZ

 

----------------

 

Such an asymmetry would be consistent with mounting evidence that, in comparison with liberals, conservatives in the United States and other Western countries score higher on measures of dogmatism, cognitive rigidity, intolerance of ambiguity and uncertainty, self-deception, and threat sensitivity—and lower on measures of need for cognition, integrative complexity, cognitive reflection, intelligence, and analytical reasoning (see Jost, 2017). Conservatives are also more likely to adopt an “intuitive” cognitive style (Deppe et al., 2015; Talhelm et al., 2015), which tends to be associated with conspiratorial thinking

 

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/pops.12681

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Yellowtail]

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

The second characteristic of the conservative temperament, which is closely related to the first, is an aversion to abstract argument and theorizing.

-------

Whereas the liberal consciously articulates abstract theories, the conservative instinctively embraces concrete traditions. For just this reason, many authorities on conservatism have been led to deny that it is a genuine ideology, regarding it instead as a relatively inarticulate state of mind.

 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/conservatism/Legacy-and-prospects

 

It has practically achieved the state of an axiom in our field that liberals are more complex
thinkers than conservatives. This is not without reason. Meta-analyses—covering a vast array of evi-
dence related to dogmatism, uncertainty avoidance, openness to experience, need for closure, and inte-
grative complexity—suggest that liberals are indeed more complex than conservatives

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiRxLar0PL0AhUYfnAKHaJ6A24QFnoECAEQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fhs.umt.edu%2Fpoliticalcognition%2Fdocuments%2Fpublications%2FConway%20et%20al%202015_Political%20Psychology.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1Vky-M1hC3bVnR4cdZGNxZ

 

----------------

 

Such an asymmetry would be consistent with mounting evidence that, in comparison with liberals, conservatives in the United States and other Western countries score higher on measures of dogmatism, cognitive rigidity, intolerance of ambiguity and uncertainty, self-deception, and threat sensitivity—and lower on measures of need for cognition, integrative complexity, cognitive reflection, intelligence, and analytical reasoning (see Jost, 2017). Conservatives are also more likely to adopt an “intuitive” cognitive style (Deppe et al., 2015; Talhelm et al., 2015), which tends to be associated with conspiratorial thinking

 

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/pops.12681

 

So it's safe to assume you will not be providing any examples, yes?

 

That's what I thought, thanks. 

 

 

 

[Thunglom]

18 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So it's safe to assume you will not be providing any examples, yes?

 

That's what I thought, thanks. 

 

 

 

he just has!! QED - again!!????

[ozimoron]

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

So it's safe to assume you will not be providing any examples, yes?

 

That's what I thought, thanks.

Here's some more

 

Republican voters are very obedient. Today's version of conservatism functions almost as a religion, offering simple solutions to complex problems.

 

https://www.salon.com/2017/10/10/historian-nancy-maclean-were-under-attack-by-a-right-wing-machine/

 

At its heart, Populism is the offer of simple solutions to the complex problems that have caused disaffection and anger across the world. The worst thing the progressive movement can do in response is to seek simple solutions to Populism.

 

https://www.popandpolitics.net/populism-a-complex-problem-with-complex-solutions/

 

https://paedspoliticsbiscuits.wordpress.com/2021/04/08/simple-solutions-for-complex-problems-a-habit-the-tories-just-cant-quit/

 

When people are left to make political decisions on their own they drift toward the simple solutions right-wing populists worldwide offer: a deadly mix of xenophobia, racism and authoritarianism.

 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/08/shawn-rosenberg-democracy-228045/

 

Particularly in the popular media, populism is conflated with demagoguery, political manipulation, the provision of simple solutions to complex problems, and the promotion of a black-and-white view of politics and the world in general

 

https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190274559.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780190274559-e-5

 

 

[LarrySR]

4 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

So being skeptical of a study that shows man made climate change is a hoax because it is funded by the petroleum industry makes one a conspiracy theorist? 

Can always spot the Fox viewer in the comments.
Steve Doocy says “climate change is a hoax” and that is the end of the matter. Lol. 

The campaign to undermine public trust in climate science has been described as a "denial machine" organized by industrial, political and ideological interests, and supported by conservative media to manufacture uncertainty about global warming.

 

The politics of global warming have been affected by climate change denial and the political global warming controversy, undermining the efforts to act on climate change or adapting to the warming climate. 
Those promoting denial commonly use rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of a scientific controversy where there is none.

Organized campaigning to undermine public trust in climate science is associated with conservative economic policies and backed by industrial interests opposed to the regulation of CO2 emissions.

 Climate change denial has been associated with the fossil fuels lobby, the Koch brothers, industry advocates and conservative think tanks, often in the United States.

More than 90% of papers skeptical on climate change originate from right-wing think tanks.

[LarrySR]

3 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

So it's safe to assume you will not be providing any examples, yes?

 

That's what I thought, thanks. 

 

 

 

The climate change denial industry is most powerful in the United States. The fossil fuel industry disinformation campaign is supported by politicians that support a corporate agenda and the right wing media has convinced their gullible viewers that the scientists can’t be trusted. 

 In the 2016 United States election cycle, every Republican presidential candidate questioned or denied climate change, and opposed U.S. government steps to mitigate it. 
 

A Pentagon report has pointed out how climate change denial threatens national security.

A study from 2015 identified 4,556 individuals with overlapping network ties to 164 organizations which are responsible for the most efforts to downplay the threat of climate change in the U.S.

In 2013, the Center for Media and Democracy reported that a group of 64 U.S. think tanks, had been lobbying on behalf of major corporations and conservative donors to oppose climate change regulation.

 

[BusyB]

On 12/5/2021 at 1:48 PM, ozimoron said:

The basis of the modern conspiracy theories is to make them so wacky that there is no real way to disprove them. Your example is a good one. There is no way to disprove that there is a teapot orbiting Mars so it's perfectly valid to insist one is and shout down anyone who challenges the proposition based on mere critical thinking.

This is also the (perfectly correct) argument against superstition aka religion. That it cannot be disproved. It ignores the fact that the onus is on those making a claim to prove it. 

[Yellowtail]

11 hours ago, ozimoron said:

Here's some more

 

Republican voters are very obedient. Today's version of conservatism functions almost as a religion, offering simple solutions to complex problems.

 

https://www.salon.com/2017/10/10/historian-nancy-maclean-were-under-attack-by-a-right-wing-machine/

 

At its heart, Populism is the offer of simple solutions to the complex problems that have caused disaffection and anger across the world. The worst thing the progressive movement can do in response is to seek simple solutions to Populism.

 

https://www.popandpolitics.net/populism-a-complex-problem-with-complex-solutions/

 

https://paedspoliticsbiscuits.wordpress.com/2021/04/08/simple-solutions-for-complex-problems-a-habit-the-tories-just-cant-quit/

 

When people are left to make political decisions on their own they drift toward the simple solutions right-wing populists worldwide offer: a deadly mix of xenophobia, racism and authoritarianism.

 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/08/shawn-rosenberg-democracy-228045/

 

Particularly in the popular media, populism is conflated with demagoguery, political manipulation, the provision of simple solutions to complex problems, and the promotion of a black-and-white view of politics and the world in general

 

https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190274559.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780190274559-e-5

 

 

Those are not examples. 

 

Are you not able to provide even one real world example of conservatives trying to find simple answers for complex problems? There are so many you must be able to come up with at least one without having to link to what someone else thinks. 

 

Here's an example:

Complex problem: Too many poor people

Simple solution: Give people money 

 

 

[Yellowtail]

10 hours ago, BusyB said:

This is also the (perfectly correct) argument against superstition aka religion. That it cannot be disproved. It ignores the fact that the onus is on those making a claim to prove it. 

Yes, Christians by definitions are not critical thinkers and should be barred from holding public office. 

[Thunglom]

4 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Those are not examples. 

 

Are you not able to provide even one real world example of conservatives trying to find simple answers for complex problems? There are so many you must be able to come up with at least one without having to link to what someone else thinks. 

 

Here's an example:

Complex problem: Too many poor people

Simple solution: Give people money 

 

 

FHS! YOU are the example!

[kimamey]

22 hours ago, HashBrownHarry said:

If you thought i was a mass murdered or paedo, that's up to you, it's your opinion.

It would still be wrong without evidence and it would be wrong for anyone to believe it. 

[BritManToo]

On 12/5/2021 at 7:48 PM, ozimoron said:

The basis of the modern conspiracy theories is to make them so wacky that there is no real way to disprove them. Your example is a good one. There is no way to disprove that there is a teapot orbiting Mars so it's perfectly valid to insist one is and shout down anyone who challenges the proposition based on mere critical thinking.

And yet you are the one trying to shout down everyone who disagrees with you.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

And yet you are the one trying to shout down everyone who disagrees with you.

No, I just keep asking people to either support their claims with credible evidence and research or shut up. No success on either front so far.

[ozimoron]

6 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Those are not examples. 

 

Are you not able to provide even one real world example of conservatives trying to find simple answers for complex problems? There are so many you must be able to come up with at least one without having to link to what someone else thinks. 

 

Here's an example:

Complex problem: Too many poor people

Simple solution: Give people money 

 

 

Climate change. Off topic here but the gist is that hey we had record snow this year so global warming is fake. That's the kind of facile, simplistic thinking I'm referring to.

[BritManToo]

14 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Climate change. Off topic here but the gist is that hey we had record snow this year so global warming is fake. That's the kind of facile, simplistic thinking I'm referring to.

I'm still waiting for the sea level to rise (enough for me to see), rich Americans to stop buying beachfront property, and financial institutions refusing to give 30 year loans on coastal houses before I jump on the 'climate change' bandwagon.

 

Call me facile all you want, but that's me 'doing my own research'.

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I'm still waiting for the sea level to rise (enough for me to see), rich Americans to stop buying beachfront property, and financial institutions refusing to give 30 year loans on coastal houses before I jump on the 'climate change' bandwagon.

 

Call me facile all you want.

edit: comment about climate change removed as off topic.