This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
The genesis of conspiracy theories..
So I started reading about conspiracy theories a few days back, and to be honest, they are fascinating. It's like almost every big story has to have another side to it. Maybe its just human tendency to create a second story and make things convoluted.
One conspiracy theory that really stupefied me was the discovery/'invention' of HIV/AIDS. Some people believe that the CIA agents actually created the virus to wipe out homosexuals and African Americans. This is still one of the most debated topics, like JFK's death and the Moon landing.
My questions is, do you think these conspiracy theories are actually legitimate or nothing but concocted BS?
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
John Smith 30+
Faisel Butt
Two examples that I have encountered is religious creationists who believe that the earth is 6000 years old; and people who believe that the earth is flat and this is being covered up by a NASA lead conspiracy(!)
The lengths these people will go to refute observed data in order to uphold their beliefs is mindblowing. There is a whole forum where people discuss Flat Earth Theory and in the the discussion board you'll frequently find outrageous statements like "Flat Earth Theory is a fact and is not up for discussion", which I find equally tragic and comical.
One thing I've discovered with these two theories is that the supporters of both theories tend to involve Einstein's Theory of Relativity in their arguments without having the slightest understanding of it.
richard moody jr 10+
Was it a conspiracy when scientists studying the Eclipse of 1919 went in front of the Royal Society and the Royal Astronomical Society and "canonized" Einstein and the theory of relativity based on bogus data? Anyone familiar with the primitive equipment, the hostile viewing conditions and the fact that Eddington, the scientist in question, was an ardent admirer of Einstein would readily have admitted that the data were too equivocal to make any valid scientific argument, yet the story had to be told that Einstein had overturned Newton's view of the universe. Many scientists knew otherwise but said nothing.
Once Einstein became a superhero, he became a cash cow to big physics. Just look at CERN, look at the $16 billion spent on hot fusion, the billions spent on neutrino detectors and you can readily see how the silent conspiracy works. The third rail in physics is Einstein's reputation; challenge that and you will lose a tenure track position, your funding, the best graduate students, you will be denied access to the trade journals and you will be ostracized by your peers. If the American public knew how they have been "played" the massive funding for these projects might have been questioned.
Thousands of physcists know how much others contributed to relativity but say nothing lest they dull the shine on Einstein's halo.
John Smith 30+
As a physicist I can tell you that his reputation is wholly deserved: his contributions are simply everywhere, from cosmology to solid state physics to quantum mechanics, even though he's only known to the public for relativity, he was also a keen philosopher who practically invented the falsifiability principle years before Karl Popper became famous for it. Einstein is only known for a small part of his work and he never took credit for things he didn't think of first.
"Just look at CERN, look at the $16 billion spent on hot fusion, the billions spent on neutrino detectors and you can readily see how the silent conspiracy works."
Or maybe, you know, a planet with a GDP of $70+ trillion figures it might be a good investment to spend some billions on fundamental science...
Faisel Butt
I'm not denying existence of conspiracies. The ones that I have encountered have supporters who wants to believe and therefore are immune to logic or reasoning. An example is David Icke and his followers who believe that a reptilian race operates in a "dimension" just outside the visible light and the politicians are half reptilian half human. You'll be surprised at how many followers he has.
I do know that Lorentz and Poincare contributed to Special Relativity, but are you saying that Einstein didn't? You do hopefully give him credit for General Relativity.
One person getting the credit for collective work is not uncommon. The story of one man making a discovery is an easier story to sell. I don't see the conspiracy.
How would looking at CERN, hot fusion and neutrino detectors give me any insight in how this alleged conspiracy works?
All conspiracies are silent by default, wouldn't you say?
edward long 100+
Faisel Butt
edward long 100+
edward long 100+
Faisel Butt
edward long 100+
John Smith 30+
Nikhil Tummalapalli
edward long 100+
John Smith 30+
That is a grievous. mnalicious assessment of people of faith and clearly holds them in contempt"
Truth hurts, doesn't it? Are you going to stone me now or deliver me to the inquisition?
Anyway, what Faisel stated here correctly is that we're not saying religion causes conspiracy theories (which seems to be what you think we said), we're saying religion and conspiracy theories share a common origin in the human mind: the same thought patterns that make people believe in spirits, demons and bearded skygods also make people believe in conspiracy theories.
Faisel Butt
I did to some extend ridicule individuals who refute logic and the reality they live in for the sake of a belief system that exists in their head. I did also call it tragic. You then assume that I am singling out religious people. To put those words in my mouth is not only unfair - it is to lower the standard of this conversation.
You are making the assumption that supporters of Flat Earth Theory are religious. As far as I understand it is a movement of theists and atheists.
Regarding "believers of a young earth " I see no reason to restate my position. I fail to see what they can contribute to science, as they have already made up their minds regardless of how much data or evidence you put in front of them. And the ones I have been fortunate enough to talk to do see the theory of evolution and The Big Bang as an atheist conspiracy - at least the moderate ones. Others see it as a conspiracy lead by the devil.
I am very aware of who the people you mentioned are, thank you. Yes, it does qualify as an argument in the context you just described. But an argument against what? Against an imaginary statement that I never articulated and for some reason only you see.
edward long 100+
Faisel Butt
RE: "This is your third denial..."
Mr. Long, Please stick to the subject matter and refrain from cheap shots involving my language skills. This is not youtube.
You said that Flat Earth Theorists (FET) should be ridiculed for their dismissal of facts and evidence. As I see no difference between them and Creationists (CRE) in that sense, I ask you: Why ridicule one and not the other? You interpret this as me ridiculing CRE. You then make the false assumption that CRE equals religious people and magically you come to the conclusion that I ridicule religious people.
And you in fact introduced the term "ridicule". My original statement was that I found CRE and FET's denial of facts and evidence equally tragic and comical.
If this is acceptable reasoning to you, I don't see any point in continuing this discussion, as you must have a definition of logic that differs fundamentally from mine. If that is the case I believe we have reached the Nash equilibrium of this discussion.
Nikhil Tummalapalli
It seems like arguing over conspiracy theories are never ending. Everyone's entitled to their opinions.