Are Conspiracy-Theorist a danger to society??

Which ones are NOT helping people realize the truth?

Which ones are NOT helping people realize the truth?


The ones that aren't true of course.

Most of the conspiracy theories in circulation distract us from the truth. The elite allow them to circulate because they are total bullshit and have nothing to do with what the elite are actually up to -- what they're actually conspiring to do. The conspiracy theories in wide circulation are the ones that the elite, the "conspirators" if you will, have allowed to remain in wide circulation. They are bread and circus.

The issue is complicated because doubt remains a cornerstone of the rationalist or scientist world view. In this view, doubt is a good thing; no theory is ever proven; new facts can always surprise us tomorrow; etc. Besides, disputes, arguments and counter-arguments are the modus operandi of science. So there's nothing inherently wrong about disputing a well-established scientific consensus.

The problem is HOW you do it.

One way is to stay within the remits of the scientific method and institutions. Quite another is to shoot at science from the outside, from layman and even an anti-scientific POV. This for me defines the difference between a nutjob (latter case) and a valid critique (the former). One has to be well trained in order to interpret any evidence correctly in any field of science nowadays. People who don't know squat about astrophysics or climatology or history should know better than attack the scientific establishment.

This is not to say that the scientific establishment is always right, nor even fair. Of course there are coteries and lobbies and in-group thinking and what not in there. That's where the post-modernist deconstruction of scientific 'objectivity' is, i believe, an important historical event explaining why anti-science nuts are currently on the rise. Foucault and co, while being on the whole correct that science is a social phenomenon with its historical biases and blind spots, gave ammunitions to hyper-skeptics. Now everybody with a keyboard and 2cents worth of philosophy thinks he/she can deconstruct and reconstruct his/her own personal reality so that it fits the bible or whatever else... The very idea of objective fact has been undermined by post-modernists, for better or for worse, and the nut jobs can argue more easily from an anti-establishment POV.

Another new thing of course is internet. These polemics existed before but they tended to remain confined to a few outliers in any society. Now these guys have found a place where you can doubt the holocaust or Pi anonymously so it's paradise for them hyper-doubters. Imagine them at work, telling to their boss that the correct number Pi is actually not 3.14159 etc but something else. Being outside of normal consensus entails a cost in any society, except internet.

Ok, Well now then. I am now assuming that you know which ones are 'used"

Really curious now.

well, actualy 'science' is also in the conspiracy, because 'science' is here to keep us from any real truth.

'science' is all bollocks and shite!

As I said before, nothing we use is because of 'modern science'!

You should stop using computers, the WWW, and millions other things.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

I was waiting for that one to come up! It is always the same. I call it Automatic Robotic Software Knee Jerk Reflex Action (ARSKJRA).

Anyway, here comes the question to your statement:


why?

Just don't tell him he should stop using vaccines because he doesn't believe in the concept of "evolving" viruses.

You'd be attacking a straw man, since he already won't go near those.

In fact that's one of the ways conspiracy theorists can be dangerous to society: by undermining trust in certain scientific discoveries such as sanitation or vaccines or condoms, which require a large portion of society to adopt them in order to work.

Vaccines are extremely dangerous to our health! By design! (=conspiracy)

Because they are a product of science, obviously...

If that is so, you must be able to easily prove that. So, be me guest.

What sort of proof would you consider conclusive?

starting doubts now? Getting cold feet? YOU said it was because of science.

Just bring the evidence to the table!

Another way to tell between 'doubting in a scientific manner' and 'doubting in a non-scientific way' is to ask for what kind of evidence it would take to disprove a theory. If your interlocutor can imagine a possible counter-evidence to his claims, he remains within the scientific method (as defined by Popper). If he cannot, his claims cannot be tested empirically, and thus they are beyond science.

You are jumping to conclusions. Getting a bit boring.

What kind of evidence would satisfy you? What source would you trust? What possible fact, if presented by me, would have the power to change your mind?

I tell you what it is for me. If one would discover that computers existed in the middle ages, then i would accept that they are not a product of modern science. What would it take for you to believe they are?

O nooo, please bring on some evidence mate! What are you so afraid of?

If you bring it on the table we see what happens. I have no clue with what you will come so I can't anticipate on the evidence.

But this really seems difficult to you, eh?


Come on, mate, don't be scared. bring it on and we will just see what happens!