What do CTs remind you of?

[smudge]

Assuming it's done in good faith by someone acting like an adult, who is prepared to listen to the answer, who is able to understand it, who hasn't already asked it and been given as much of an answer as they person they're asking could be reasonably expected to give, who hasn't already made up their mind to ignore the answer if they don't like it, and who isn't going to deliberately misunderstand, misquote or otherwise treat the answer in a dishonest way.

Ideally, yes. I feel that at times this site may at times be a mite too tolerant of wind up merchants.
In a wider sense, we cannot control the motivation of others so must deal with what comes up (annoying or not!) as best we can.

I'm certainly not defending CT's. I'm defending questioning and challenging the status quo.
Yes, it's annoying when people don't or can't comprehend the evidence or are unable to see that they have lost the argument. I don't think we need to fear this. We just need to win the argument! Or show the true motivation behind it. Or both!

I maintain questioning and challenging is always a good thing. If it is based on flimsy reasoning it is the job of others (or us!) to show it.

[PaulW99]

I think CTers are much more rabid than the religious. When it was revealed that the Shroud of Turin was about 1000 years too young to be authentic, the Christians just shrugged their communal shoulders and changed the subject. I'm sure a lot of their leadership doesn't really believe the nutty stuff (like miracles).

Take, on the other hand, the Planet X/Nibiru business. There are people actually claiming that a huge new planet can be seen from the Southern Hemisphere, approaching Earth. When people who live there say it isn't true, the CTers say they're lying. It's all very simple. No evidence to the contrary is even considered. Other people post images from the Hubble and say that they are images of this planet, even though they must know they're not. They're either doing it as a joke or think it's somehow justified to get the news out.

If I did decide to manufacture some "evidence" to show something equally ludicrous (eg that Obama has lizard skin, or that the Sun doesn't exist) I'd be afraid that even when I revealed it was actually a joke and showed how I did it, people still wouldn't believe the truth.

[smudge]

Though I think rather more people fail through dimness, rather than brilliance.

.

Or poverty, or traumatic personal circumstances, or dyslexia....

[tolman]

Or poverty, or traumatic personal circumstances, or dyslexia....

Which can affect people of all abilities, and so don't really seem to affect the general question of whether people are more likely to fail through dimness than through brilliance.

[smudge]

Which can affect people of all abilities, and so don't really seem to affect the general question of whether people are more likely to fail through dimness than through brilliance.

My only point here was that there can be other factors affecting educational achievement than intelligence alone.

[Pebble]

My only point here was that there can be other factors affecting educational achievement than intelligence alone.

Fiction is littered with heros that despite their humble nature, lack of education and obvious lack of intellect save the day against a self serving system run by aparently intelligent highly educated individuals, relying only on grit and integrity.
In reality when was the last time an uneducated individual changed our understanding of the world, other than through depravity, cruelty or violence? Individual acts of selflessness or heroism do not quality.

[smudge]

Fiction is littered with heros that despite their humble nature, lack of education and obvious lack of intellect save the day against a self serving system run by aparently intelligent highly educated individuals, relying only on grit and integrity.
In reality when was the last time an uneducated individual changed our understanding of the world, other than through depravity, cruelty or violence? Individual acts of selflessness or heroism do not quality.

Pebble: I have no clue what you are getting at or how it relates to the statement (of mine) quoted. I suspect you have misunderstood me...?

I am in no way arguing against education, simply stating that poor school performance can be influenced by factors other than intelligence. Yes?

That said, I cannot (off the top of my head) think of any "thick" literary heroes which you suggest are common. Nor can I think of any true life heroic thickies. I'd be interested in examples of each form you or others. BUT, as I said, I cannot fathom the relevance of such to my quoted comment ...unless it was misinterpreted....?

[Pebble]

The urge to question and challenge what we are fed by those in powerful positions is (in my view!), a GOOD thing. .

For someone like that, I suppose it can be very attractive to think that they've found out something that most people haven't yet spotted, since it doubly proves (to them) that they really are some kind of misunderstood genius - firstly because they can see the things other people can't, and secondly because their obviously special anti-establishment thinking skills also explain why they didn't really fit with the education system - it's nothing to do with them being thick or illogical, it's just because they're such a rebel.
.

It is also true than many intelligent people fail to achieve within our education system.

It is also true than many very intelligent people fail to question the established view that they are brought up within.

Though I think rather more people fail through dimness, rather than brilliance.


How many of the conspiracies theories are about issues where less [formal or self-driven] education makes someone more likely to be right?

Or poverty, or traumatic personal circumstances, or dyslexia....

Pebble: I have no clue what you are getting at or how it relates to the statement (of mine) quoted. I suspect you have misunderstood me...?

I am in no way arguing against education, simply stating that poor school performance can be influenced by factors other than intelligence. Yes?

That said, I cannot (off the top of my head) think of any "thick" literary heroes which you suggest are common. Nor can I think of any true life heroic thickies. I'd be interested in examples of each form you or others. BUT, as I said, I cannot fathom the relevance of such to my quoted comment ...unless it was misinterpreted....?

The issue raised by Tolman was that many CTers are outsiders who feel the system failed them from the outset, but in reality many failed to adapt to the system because of their own lack of intelligence. You wished to defend their failure on the basis that there are other reasons for failing.

My point is that the world is now sufficiently complex that inability - for any reason - to access an adequate education, renders an individual unlikely to contribute significantly to the forefront of debate. Thus were there a conspiracy to be uncovered, it is those who have survived the education system that would have the understanding to unpick this.

Popular myth gives us heros like those in Acopalypse Now, the Matrix, or Close Encounters where relatively ordinary people explore and discover the extra-ordianry truth.

[tolman]

In reality when was the last time an uneducated individual changed our understanding of the world, other than through depravity, cruelty or violence?

I suppose that depends what is meant by 'uneducated'.

What I'd wonder is how often people with what seems like a distaste for education (except when praising their handful of heroes) actually come up with great new knowledge.

The rank-and-file CT believers who just parrot other people's theories seem to really prize knowing something that everyone else is too stupid or too educated (or both) to see, as if there's some particular prize to be won for doing that.
That does rather smack of people trying to cover up for a past failing.

People (or at least adults) who actually are bright and fairly knowledgeable, whatever their educational background, while maybe appreciating the knowledge they have, don't generally go round crowing about how they knew something before somebody else, since if they are bright and do know a fair bit, they understand something about how much they don't know, and they understand that almost everything was known first by someone else.

[tolman]

Popular myth gives us heros like those in Acopalypse Now..

That would have been a really good alternative title for Hot Fuzz.

[smudge]

The issue raised by Tolman was that many CTers are outsiders who feel the system failed them from the outset, but in reality many failed to adapt to the system because of their own lack of intelligence. You wished to defend their failure on the basis that there are other reasons for failing.

No. You misunderstood me or I did not make myself clear.

I simply made the point that failure to achieve within our education system can have many reasons. I was not referring to or defending CTers by that comment, simply responding to a comment Tolman made. Tolman may have a point about 'some' who "fail to adapt" to the school system. I felt his point too general and wished to state that other reasons for failure (generally, not specificaly CT'ers)may also may apply.

I was suggesting, and still suggest, that questioning the established view IS a good thing. CT'ers fall down because they are unable to back up their claims.

For clarity I'll quote my first post on this thread;

there is a healthy element of 'challenging the establishment' at the root of many CT's. It becomes unhealthy when it mutates into a Religious belief position. Once this happens all rational argument is dismissed as being "establishment propaganda".
The urge to question and challenge what we are fed by those in powerful positions is (in my view!), a GOOD thing. BUT; it needs to be balanced with a healthy dose of evidence and good reasoning. Some people just don't have the ability to think that way and are instead fueled by paranoia and in-group biased.

Hope that clarifies my view?
It is not the questioning that is wrong. It is the lack of evidence, understanding....lack of education, you might say, which is the problem.

My point is that the world is now sufficiently complex that inability - for any reason - to access an adequate education, renders an individual unlikely to contribute significantly to the forefront of debate. Thus were there a conspiracy to be uncovered, it is those who have survived the education system that would have the understanding to unpick this.
.

Totaly agree.

[Pebble]

I think what I am trying to say is that it is time to move beyond 'challanging the establishment' There is now such a wealth of proven concepts to work with that the 'establishment' has the basics correct or is so obviously flawed as to be the subject of international ridicule. Challanging on specific points remains a priority, but 'challanging the establishment' suggests that one is locked in a time warp.

[bryan]

This thread is for the smart people to discuss loonies like you. Not for idiots to spout rubbish.

Stay on the nutter threads.

For your information, I'm still allowed to post in "Conspiracy theories, NWO, Illuminati".

You should have started this thread where it belongs, in the "Pseudo-Sociology" section.

[smudge]

Popular myth gives us heros like those in Acopalypse Now, the Matrix, or Close Encounters where relatively ordinary people explore and discover the extra-ordianry truth.

I don't mind that. I do see that science is rather too often portrayed as the 'great evil'.

The rank-and-file CT believers who just parrot other people's theories seem to really prize knowing something that everyone else is too stupid or too educated (or both) to see, as if there's some particular prize to be won for doing that.

Which is why I suggest questioning (as opposed to following or "parroting other peoples theories") is always a good thing.

People (or at least adults) who actually are bright and fairly knowledgeable, whatever their educational background, while maybe appreciating the knowledge they have, don't generally go round crowing about how they knew something before somebody else, since if they are bright and do know a fair bit, they understand something about how much they don't know, and they understand that almost everything was known first by someone else.

Yes. The more you know the more you know you don't know.

[smudge]

I think what I am trying to say is that it is time to move beyond 'challanging the establishment' There is now such a wealth of proven concepts to work with that the 'establishment' has the basics correct or is so obviously flawed as to be the subject of international ridicule. Challanging on specific points remains a priority, but 'challanging the establishment' suggests that one is locked in a time warp.

If the "establishment" that is your current environment is the religion you are currently being indoctrinated with then you are, in effect, in a time warp.
Regardless of how much we may or may not have progressed I'm always in favor of more questions, more ideas. Questioning and challenging the status quo is at the root of all progress, science and truth seeking.