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

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, TKDfella said:

I think you missed my point. I was merely pointing, very generally, out to those who were discussing warming and cooling points. And I did NOT say  that it was debatable about human affects on the environment, on the contrary I intimated the opposite. What I did say that was/is debatable, is the degree/how much of an influence animals have. And I did not say that the Sun was responsible for CC, didn't even hint at that, but implied it was part of an overall process. I think you twisted my words a bit. As posting links, it was unnecessary to do so because the comment was very general without specifics.

There is still a great deal we don't know and there is a lot of research going on; for example, the apparent on going changes in the Earth's magnetic field and by how much might be more important than we realise; the SS movement through the galaxy can also contribute to conditions.

Natural CC is much more complex than previously thought as more satellite data is collected and the more we discover what happens on other planets.

Having posted satellite views on another previous thread (about the affects of the Covid lock downs/pollution) I would hardly deny anthropogenic affects but others might argue against that.

No, it's not more complex than previously thought. Certainly not on a global level. Those very early models have mostly proven to be very accurate. Of course, the more local your predictions become, the more complicated they become. But no climatologist ever thought that it  wouldn't be more difficult locally.

And the fact is,  denialists repeatedly invoke Malenkovitch cycles and the Sun to explain warming. Why even mention them if they're not relevant to the issue of anthropogenic global warming?

As for possible effects of the magnetic field, care to produce some evidence?  I can only imagine where you got that from.

Anyway, I've got this from NASA:

 

Flip Flop: Why Variations in Earth's Magnetic Field Aren't Causing Today's Climate Change

https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-climate/3104/flip-flop-why-variations-in-earths-magnetic-field-arent-causing-todays-climate-change/

 

As for the cosmic ray theory, it was posited in 2002. Not that it ever got much acceptance. And if that wasn't enough: 

Galactic link to climate change in doubt

https://physicsworld.com/a/galactic-link-to-climate-change-in-doubt/

 

And I really enjoyed your sign-off

"Having posted satellite views on another previous thread (about the affects of the Covid lock downs/pollution) I would hardly deny anthropogenic affects but others might argue against that."

But would their arguments be valid? You know of any?

 

 

[placeholder]

33 minutes ago, TKDfella said:

What I did say that was/is debatable, is the degree/how much of an influence animals have.

Are you referring to domesticated animals like cattle, sheep, goats, poultry. Or something else?

[Thunglom]

7 hours ago, Catoni said:

Well, we have the theory of evolution, and the theory of relativity. And the theory of gravity, quantum theory, string theory, Big Bang theory etc., etc…. ad infinitum. 
  The word “theory” does not mean “lie”. 

Theory has two different meanings based on context. In general conversation it is far less strong than in scientific parlance.

In general conversation the equivalent is nearer "hypothesis".

In scientific terms it is as near to accepted as you can get - many people say "it's only a theory" - really don't understand the significance of the word theory. 

f course the main principal of a "conspiracy theory" is that it isn't based on scientific principles.

[Thunglom]

8 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

An expert is someone who has acquired significant experience and knowledge in a given field through practice.

2 problems here...

Firstly this thread is essentially about the quality of argument used on Thaivisa. A dictionary definition is not actually a very good argument on its own as it doesn't set the word in context of the discussion or the point I was making.

 

Secondly the point Was making - is that the word is misused by most people on Thaivisa as a form of ad hominem or sealioning. It is used to infer the other persons argument is not valid - a fallacious appeal to authority.

 

So those who ask if you are an "expert" tend to be misusing the word or misunderstanding it - they are attacking the messenger not the message.

 

Edited December 18, 2021 by Thunglom

[Thunglom]

3 hours ago, The Hammer2021 said:

Theory means unproven.

As said that is not true in scientific terms. A theory is about as near as science/skepticality is allowed to get to the truth. Te evidence is put forward and is up for peer review-. Theories do not usually get disproved they are built on. For general public use they can be accepted as fact.

 

Unproven theories are really "hypotheses" - this is an ideal put forward before rigorous scientific investigation. 

In reality most "conspiracy theories" are just hypotheses, they are using the word "theory" in the more general conversational context....or even a tongue in cheek context.

[Thunglom]

On 12/5/2021 at 11:29 AM, ChipButty said:

To many big words being used in here for me, im off for a beer

one word that might have been bigger is "to"?

[LarrySR]

A scientific theory is a significant body of proof….an explanation that has been repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method. (The theory of gravity explains the law of gravity.) 
Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.

 

Example: Evolution is a scientific theory.
The “creation theory” is just a wild guess, dreamed up by goat farmers in the Bronze Age… NOT a scientific theory. 

Edited December 18, 2021 by LarrySR

[placeholder]

4 hours ago, The Hammer2021 said:

Theory means unproven. Conspiracy means hidden plan. Add the two words together and you usually get nonesense aimed at ignorant people

Theory of relativity? Quantum theory?

[Thunglom]

I've said earlier that dictionary definitions are often misleading in a discussion - especially one of this nature so I think it might be helpful to look at a longer more in-depth definition of "conspiracy theory" than that offered by OED or Webster.

This is the wiki article introduction ...

>A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, often political in motivation,[3][4][5] when other explanations are more probable.[3][6][7] The term has a negative connotation, implying that the appeal to a conspiracy is based on prejudice or insufficient evidence.[8] A conspiracy theory is not the same as a conspiracy; instead, it refers to a hypothesized conspiracy with specific characteristics, such as an opposition to the mainstream consensus among those people (such as scientists or historians) who are qualified to evaluate its accuracy.[9][10][11]"

 

the full article is here......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

 

[rattlesnake]

1 hour ago, Thunglom said:

2 problems here...

Firstly this thread is essentially about the quality of argument used on Thaivisa. A dictionary definition is not actually a very good argument on its own as it doesn't set the word in context of the discussion or the point I was making.

 

Secondly the point Was making - is that the word is misused by most people on Thaivisa as a form of ad hominem or sealioning. It is used to infer the other persons argument is not valid - a fallacious appeal to authority.

 

So those who ask if you are an "expert" tend to be misusing the word or misunderstanding it - they are attacking the messenger not the message.

 

Thank you for clarifying your point, I agree with you.

[Thunglom]

On 12/17/2021 at 9:35 AM, ozimoron said:

I didn't want to make it political but mainly the right wing is resisting serious efforts at fixing the problem. Murdoch's media is one of the main offenders in pushing global warming skepticism. We are far beyond claiming that it isn't real or if it is then it isn't man made.

The right actually use conspiracy theories to gain or keep power. This is not new, it can be seen throughout history.

This paper was prepared for the EU commission on the use of conspiracy theories by the extreme right and Populist politicians

 

Take note the influence of Q-anon on Trump supports.

 

Conspiracy theories and right-wing extremism – Insights and recommendations for P/CVE

"Conspiracy theories are morality tales based on archetypal narratives about right versus wrong, good versus evil. Providing “black and white” world views, they foster societal divisions between in-groups and out-groups by exacerbating intolerance against “the other” and delegitimising different voices as being part of the conspiracy. Extremist groups use conspiracy theories as a tool for recruitment and to advance their radical agendas exploiting uncertainties, fears, socioeconomic issues and mental health disorders amongst vulnerable people. In recent years, right-wing extremism has proven to be active and efficient in the dissemination of conspiracy theories aimed at targeting individuals or groups blamed to be responsible for the evil in society. Shielding the audience from the risk of being drawn into the conspiratorial labyrinth of these groups is crucial to push back the ability of conspiracy theorists in mobilising extremist action and violence"

 

https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/system/files/2021-04/ran_conspiracy_theories_and_right-wing_2021_en.pdf

 

[Thunglom]

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

Theory of relativity? Quantum theory?

try gravity and evolution too.

[LarrySR]

19 minutes ago, Thunglom said:

The right actually use conspiracy theories to gain or keep power. This is not new, it can be seen throughout history.

This paper was prepared for the EU commission on the use of conspiracy theories by the extreme right and Populist politicians

 

Take note the influence of Q-anon on Trump supports.

 

Conspiracy theories and right-wing extremism – Insights and recommendations for P/CVE

"Conspiracy theories are morality tales based on archetypal narratives about right versus wrong, good versus evil. Providing “black and white” world views, they foster societal divisions between in-groups and out-groups by exacerbating intolerance against “the other” and delegitimising different voices as being part of the conspiracy. Extremist groups use conspiracy theories as a tool for recruitment and to advance their radical agendas exploiting uncertainties, fears, socioeconomic issues and mental health disorders amongst vulnerable people. In recent years, right-wing extremism has proven to be active and efficient in the dissemination of conspiracy theories aimed at targeting individuals or groups blamed to be responsible for the evil in society. Shielding the audience from the risk of being drawn into the conspiratorial labyrinth of these groups is crucial to push back the ability of conspiracy theorists in mobilising extremist action and violence"

 

https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/system/files/2021-04/ran_conspiracy_theories_and_right-wing_2021_en.pdf

 

If one is unscrupulous and going to manipulate a segment of the population with propaganda, it makes sense to target the gullible demographic. Ya know, conspiracy nuts, racists, religious types and the dummy’s. 
 

There are two types of Republican voters. Millionaires and morons. 

Edited December 18, 2021 by LarrySR

[CharlieH]

Totally derailed into Climate change.

 

CLOSED

[Thunglom]

3 minutes ago, LarrySR said:

If one is unscrupulous and going to manipulate a segment of the population with propaganda, it makes sense to target the gullible demographic. Ya know, conspiracy nuts, religious types and the dummy’s. 
 

There are two types of Republican voters. Millionaires and morons. 

In the UK there is a well known meme - 

"There are two types of Tory voter, the millionaires and the misguided. To find out which you are look in your wallet."

[BritManToo]

18 minutes ago, Thunglom said:

In the UK there is a well known meme - 

"There are two types of Tory voter, the millionaires and the misguided. To find out which you are look in your wallet."

I was going to say something similar about Labour voters, but I could only find one Labour voter.

[Thunglom]

9 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I was going to say something similar about Labour voters, but I could only find one Labour voter.

How do you relate that to the OP?

 

Edited December 18, 2021 by Thunglom

[Scott]

Troll post reported and removed. 

 

[Thunglom]

Here is a summary of th OP

"

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

 

get brainwashed by misinformation from endless bad sources so you transform into yet another Person A.

Short of that, Person A and Person B have nothing left to discuss.

Is there a way out of this cesspool?

If there is, I don't see it. It seems to be getting worse and worse over time."

 

It is a question about the increasing prevalence of "conspiracy theories" and the related thought processes.

 

Basically it is the use of logical fallacies on forum threads. By entering into a discussion as to the rights and wrongs of climate change people are doing exactly that they are not answering the topic, they are indulging in that very thing  - logical fallacies

[The Hammer2021]

4 hours ago, Thunglom said:

As said that is not true in scientific terms. A theory is about as near as science/skepticality is allowed to get to the truth. Te evidence is put forward and is up for peer review-. Theories do not usually get disproved they are built on. For general public use they can be accepted as fact.

 

Unproven theories are really "hypotheses" - this is an ideal put forward before rigorous scientific investigation. 

In reality most "conspiracy theories" are just hypotheses, they are using the word "theory" in the more general conversational context....or even a tongue in cheek context.

In theory you might be correct but in practice no you are not....lol..Currently many theories are wild ill informed speculation based on the paranoid ignorance of really thick, stupid uneducated people. They are dangerous too...

[ozimoron]

When this thread started, I was under the impression that conspiracy theory believers were just a small proportion of the population comprising only fringe extremists. I also believed that they were randomly distributed and probably had few commonalities. I categorised them as probably belong to the very small club of flat earthers and moon landing deniers. 

 

Fairly soon I realised that I was quite wrong. I was shocked at just how many people are perfectly happy to believe the impossible and literally allow their lives to be guided by such theories. I began to do some more research. Then only yesterday I came across this article which was quite illuminating. I had not realised that the breakdown of society through mass delusion was hypothesised by Jung so long ago. I highly recommend taking the time to read this article.

 

"Indeed, Jung himself warned that modern society was prone to collapse due to a pandemic of "delusional ideas."

 

https://www.salon.com/2021/12/14/is-america-experiencing-mass-psychosis/

 

To further understand the meaning and ramifications of conspiracy theories one need go no further than the wiki explanation.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

Edited December 18, 2021 by ozimoron

[Thunglom]

11 minutes ago, The Hammer2021 said:

In theory you might be correct but in practice no you are not....lol..Currently many theories are wild ill informed speculation based on the paranoid ignorance of really thick, stupid uneducated people. They are dangerous too...

That's fundamentally incorrect - the scientific term and definition of "theory" is pretty much immutable.

There are of course many other "theories" that have no basis in science so they by definition fall outside that remit. They may masquerade as scientific. The problem lies in people's inability to differentiate.

 

"A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts.

A theory not only explains known facts; it also allows scientists to make predictions of what they should observe if a theory is true. Scientific theories are testable. New evidence should be compatible with a theory. If it isn't, the theory is refined or rejected. The longer the central elements of a theory hold—the more observations it predicts, the more tests it passes, the more facts it explains—the stronger the theory." - https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/evolution-today/what-is-a-theory

[Thunglom]

40 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

When this thread started, I was under the impression that conspiracy theory believers were just a small proportion of the population comprising only fringe extremists. I also believed that they were randomly distributed and probably had few commonalities. I categorised them as probably belong to the very small club of flat earthers and moon landing deniers. 

 

Fairly soon I realised that I was quite wrong. I was shocked at just how many people are perfectly happy to believe the impossible and literally allow their lives to be guided by such theories. I began to do some more research. Then only yesterday I came across this article which was quite illuminating. I had not realised that the breakdown of society through mass delusion was hypothesised by Jung so long ago. I highly recommend taking the time to read this article.

 

"Indeed, Jung himself warned that modern society was prone to collapse due to a pandemic of "delusional ideas."

 

https://www.salon.com/2021/12/14/is-america-experiencing-mass-psychosis/

 

To further understand the meaning and ramifications of conspiracy theories one need go no further than the wiki explanation.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

With refence to your first web address - https://www.salon.com/2021/12/14/is-america-experiencing-mass-psychosis/ – It seems that Katharine Bainbridge’s interpretation is what they are discussing and it does supply an “answer” for Jingthing’s initial question...

 

“Is there a way out of this cesspool?”

 

"Bainbridge says the way out of this conundrum, from a Jungian perspective, is to embrace humanism and empathy. "We have to find our humanity, and [ask], 'what does it mean to be a human being?'" Bainbridge said. "It means that you have to integrate your own darkness, wrestle with your own paradoxes and stop projecting out onto other people the opposite inside of you." Bainbridge added: "There are no simple answers. But we have to hold on to our own humanity, instead of projecting out and demonizing other people. That's how we survive."

[Atlantis]

Should we just credulously believe the reviews of random avatars on Thai Visa? Or should we man up, take responsibility, and Do Our Own Research?

[Thunglom]

7 minutes ago, Atlantis said:

credulously believe the reviews of random avatars on Thai Visa?

this takes us back to the OP and shows the main problem on this and other forums.

"believe the reviews of random avatars" fails to differentiate between a baseless "random" comment and the resend argument. It shows the inability to differentiate that is so common on so many forums.  You nee to b able to weed out an argument from a logical fallacy.

 

[ozimoron]

8 minutes ago, Atlantis said:

Should we just credulously believe the reviews of random avatars on Thai Visa? Or should we man up, take responsibility, and Do Our Own Research?

Please define in concise terms what "do your own research" actually means? How should we go about "doing our own research" Most of us believe we actually do and those that advocate "doing your own research" actually don't. All I have seen from those who advocate "doing your own research" is basically an entreaty to ignore all sources of information except fringe conspiracy sites and dubious and discredited pseudo science. Nobody has yet actually define what the term means in a way that is actionable, at least not to my mind.

 

 

 

[ozimoron]

8 minutes ago, Thunglom said:

this takes us back to the OP and shows the main problem on this and other forums.

"believe the reviews of random avatars" fails to differentiate between a baseless "random" comment and the resend argument. It shows the inability to differentiate that is so common on so many forums.  You nee to b able to weed out an argument from a logical fallacy.

 

What it actually displays is circular reasoning, as if the proposition itself is self evident and self justifying when it is in fact meaningless without additional context. As I said it's a call to do no research. Don't expect a reasoned argument.

Edited December 18, 2021 by ozimoron

[Thunglom]

7 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

What it actually displays is circular reasoning, as if the proposition itself is self evident and self justifying when it is in fact meaningless without additional context. As I said it's a call to do no research.

 

8 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

What it actually displays is circular reasoning, as if the proposition itself is self evident and self justifying when it is in fact meaningless without additional context. As I said it's a call to do no research.

"Should we just credulously believe the reviews of random avatars on Thai Visa" - is not actually circular reasoning - it's basically gullibility - if you then used that proposition as justification of your argument then it could be circular reasoning.

e.g

Person A: God exists.
Person B: Why should I believe that?
Person A: Because the Bible says so.
Person B: Why should I believe the Bible?
Person A: Because the Bible is a word of God.

 

[BritManToo]

9 hours ago, ozimoron said:

Please define in concise terms what "do your own research" actually means? How should we go about "doing our own research" Most of us believe we actually do and those that advocate "doing your own research" actually don't. All I have seen from those who advocate "doing your own research" is basically an entreaty to ignore all sources of information except fringe conspiracy sites and dubious and discredited pseudo science. Nobody has yet actually define what the term means in a way that is actionable, at least not to my mind.

I do my own research all the time, I'm currently researching the effects of herbs on BPH.

My research works like this, I read forums where guys have a similar problem, I read the herbs they have tried, then I order the same supplements and try them myself.

 

Results so far,

Saw Palmetto = did nothing, Stinging Nettle root = seems to work.

[rattlesnake]

23 hours ago, ozimoron said:

Not every climate change denier or vaccine skeptic gets censored by the MSM and responsible social media.

Really? An example or two would be great.