TED Conversations

Michael Fullerton

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Why is someone a "conspiracy theorist" merely because they question the government account of something? Isn't that plain old skepticism?

Skepticism is supposed to involve objectively questioning claims based on evidence. Why then is someone called a conspiracy theorist when they merely question a government's extraordinary claim which is seriously lacking in evidence?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Aug 2 2013: Generally I find the order of events is what is different between skepticizm and a conspiacy theory. Many "Conspiracy Theories" seem to be fully formed theories for which evidence is then sought. This is the wrong way around. You are supposed to form a theory based on the evidence at hand. A pre-formed theory causes people to try to match evidence to what they want it to be. I'll give you two examples. The airplane that hit the Pentagon, everyone talks about where's the wreckage from such a big heavy plane. The problem here is that planes are big and heavy compared to cars but compared to a building they are very light for their size so when you crash an aluminium plane into a steel and concrete structure the plane loses badly. My other favorite is from a video on the collapse of the twin towers where they compare the towers behavior to one of the other buildings that remained standing eventhough it was "supporting a heavy crane". Here the problem is that the crane was a self supporting construction crane that in reality was reinfoercing the building.
    • thumb
      Aug 22 2013: I have never heard of a conspiracy theory that was a fully formed theory for which evidence is then sought, except the official conspiracy theory of how 9/11 was solely the work of al Qaeda. The absurd NIST studies are examples of attempting to match evidence to what they want it to be.
      • thumb
        Aug 22 2013: 9/11 is a good example. Thousands of people see two planes crash into two buildings which then burn for a period of time until heat stress causes structural failure. There are hundreds of examples of similar fires causing similar structural failures and then someone decides it must have been an inside job and they go looking for all sorts of complex and spurious arguements to support their conspiracy theory.
        This is a diesel fire causing the collapse of a crane in Sydney last year as an example.
        • thumb
          Aug 25 2013: Nobody saw heat stress cause structural failure of the Twin Towers or WTC 7. That is an irrational _belief_ with absolutely no scientific support whatsoever. No one denies that hot enough fires can weaken steel. 9/11 skeptics however _know_ that there is absolutely no evidence that the fires in the three towers were hot enough to catastrophically weaken structural steel so that it offered almost no resistance.
      • thumb
        Aug 26 2013: Did you watch the video? That's an unloaded crane that can lift 10tonnes collapsing under the weight of its own jib due to the heat effects of diesel burning in air. The fires in the towers would have been much hotter as the structure would have held the heat in.
        I must point out that your language gives you away as no-one can know how hot the fires were we can only estimate based on the limited knowledge we have of the circumstances or by observing similar situations.
        Plus the problem I see with the controlled implosion theory is that when a crew does implode a building they spend weeks weakening the structure by removing or partially cutting through sections of the structure. Otherwise the explosions required are large and dangerous to the surrounding buildings.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.