|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 12, 2006 21:00:59 GMT -4
Conspiracism and science are diametrically opposed in a surprising number of ways.Now Jay, that is just fundamentally cruel. You build up great expectations and then... nothing. Don't tell us you are going to make us wait for the program for the answer, some of us down here in the netheregions of the planet might be old and grey first (Yes Kiwi I do realise that some of us already are. )
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jun 12, 2006 23:30:48 GMT -4
As long as I can test the veracity of Apollo arguments with an outstretched thumb I'll consider the "skeptic/pro-apollo/scientific" viewpoint to be the more powerful and the closer to an abstract ideal of "truth."We quite often use the metaphor where truth is some sort of distant location and claims are either closer to or farther from that location. The metaphor is a handy way to illustrate the quality of various claims. In another sense, however, truth is not something that we have the luxury of keeping at a distance. Consider the fire and rescue workers at the Pentagon on 9/11. Truth is not a remote destination; these folks are knee-deep in truth. It has violently embraced them and has filled their lungs with smoke and toxic fumes: www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/6.jpgTo live (and to continue to live) is to be in contact with the truth. However, hoax believers have me scurrying inside from the deadly chemtrails. Science believers built me an airplane so I can visit Paris.This shows that conspiracy theory operates outside of life itself, and by that I mean outside of any context or framework of achievement. Conspiracists don't really investigate 9/11 with the goal of increasing cockpit security, improving emergency response, or saving lives in the future. They don't really work to solve the JFK homicide and bring perpetrators to justice in a timely fashion. They don't really address Apollo with the objective of successful manned exploration of the solar system. The required actions of those who pursue such real objectives are dictated by nature itself. There is no alternative. The viewpoints and methods of the non-conspiracists differ from the conspiracists precisely because the former lives, accomplishes, suceeds, produces, etc.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 13, 2006 1:14:54 GMT -4
That the producer asked me those questions does not mean I answered them on camera. This was from another conversation.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 13, 2006 2:57:01 GMT -4
so....... Are you willing to share your thoughts on the answers?
I'm sure most of us would be interesting in your thinking on what separates a scientific theory from a conspiracy theory and what makes a conspiracy theory so seductive to average people.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jun 13, 2006 8:17:30 GMT -4
...what separates a scientific theory from a conspiracy theory...
I question whether there really are any theories being developed on the conspiracy side.
The word "theory" can be misperceived as something abstract. Replace the word "theory" with "cookie recipe." What, then, separates Wernher Von Braun's oatmeal cookie recipe (which you can find in Recipes of the Rocket Scientists, NASA publication SP-317) from any of the conspiracy theorists' cookie recipes? The question has no clear answer because the conspiracy theorists do not bake cookies at all. They just carp on Von Braun's handiwork in the kitchen, casting doubt and suspicion on the whole enterprise.
Von Braun's recipe is not the ink markings on paper, or the thoughts in his head, but the physical process of mixing and baking ingredients. The way he does that will determine his success. Likewise, a theory is a recipe for other forms of doing, and here too, the way we go about doing it determines our success.
The conspiracy theorist does not engage in any form of enterprise. They don't aim for successful achievement, so they are not guided by its requirements.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jun 13, 2006 8:48:08 GMT -4
I'm sure most of us would be interesting in your thinking on what separates a scientific theory from a conspiracy theory I’m sure there’s a long answer to this question but I’ll give you my short version: A scientific theory incorporates all available data and observations and seeks to provide an explanation that is fully consistent with all know information. As new data becomes available the theory will change and evolve as necessary, often going in a different direction than the scientists may have first believed. When the theory can no longer explain observation, it will be abandoned in favor of a better theory. A conspiracy theory assumes from the start that there was a conspiracy. The conspiracist will then choose which observations to include and which to leave out, and the data will be manipulated in whatever way necessary to point to the predetermined conclusion. The theory may evolve, but it will never deviate from the conclusion there was a conspiracy. The conspiracist will never abandon the theory regardless of its flaws.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 13, 2006 9:28:45 GMT -4
I'd personally use "those sceptic about the conspiracy theory, the skeptics" or "critics of the theory".
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jun 13, 2006 9:38:48 GMT -4
A conspiracy theory assumes from the start that there was a conspiracy. The conspiracist will then choose which observations to include and which to leave out, and the data will be manipulated in whatever way necessary to point to the predetermined conclusion. The theory may evolve, but it will never deviate from the conclusion there was a conspiracy. The conspiracist will never abandon the theory regardless of its flaws.
It's worse than that. There is no one conspiracy 'theory'. A new theory will be constructed to explain every individual piece of evidence, and scant regard will be given to whether this fits with any other theory or not.
Observe as examples the various explanations given for the observed gravity. Planes in parabolic flight, wire rigs, slowed down video. Any and all of these are trotted out, without realising or caring that they cannot all apply at once. Or how about the lack of still images of Armstrong from the Apollo 11 lunar surface photos being explained as his determination not to be photographed carrying out such a great lie; an explanation that totally ignores and therefore cannot explain the many pictures of him from elsewhere in the mission, and the fact that he was apparently happy to have his lunar EVA transmitted live to the entire world.
The sole goal of a conspiracy theorist is to undermine the accepted version of events. They scarcely trouble themselves with having to come up with a consistent version of events that better fits all the observations. That is where they differ from scientists. A new scientific theory is not accepted simply because it fits one aspect that an existing theory failed to cover, but only when it fits that and all the others as well. A new conspiracy theory is accepted provided it gives a possible alternative explanation for some of the observations.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Jun 13, 2006 10:02:15 GMT -4
Surely the Apollo "Conspiracy Theory" is just the simple idea that the moon landings were a hoax. All the carping about photographic anomalies, the searing radiation hell, etc. is just a vain attempt to produce evidence to uncover the conspiracy.
For me, the separation of the scientific theory and conspiracy theory is simple:
Scientific Theory is founded on the evidence. Look at the evidence and put together a conclusion/theory that fits in with all of it.
Conspiracy Theory, OTOH, is founded on the conclusion/theory. Look at your conclusion and attempt to put together the evidence in such a way as to fit in with it.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jun 13, 2006 10:47:29 GMT -4
There is no one conspiracy 'theory'. A new theory will be constructed to explain every individual piece of evidence, and scant regard will be given to whether this fits with any other theory or not.
Hence, there really is no conspiracy theory. A multitude of ad hoc and conflicting explanations does not guide us in baking better cookies or building better airplanes.
The sole goal of a conspiracy theorist is to undermine the accepted version of events.
Yep. Conspiracy theory is just a form of intellectual subversion.
That is where they differ from scientists. A new scientific theory is not accepted simply because it fits one aspect that an existing theory failed to cover, but only when it fits that and all the others as well.
Since this discussion is partly philosophical, I would like to point out the metaphor that runs through such talk. We say that a theory "fits" observations, but that is an academic or classroom way of looking at the matter. In the real world, we do things, such as building cockpit doors, and we do them more or less well, with better or worse results. Scientific theory is not something that is separate from the world and is not something that we literally fit to the world; it is the way we command, manage, and manipulate the resources of the world to particular ends.
A new conspiracy theory is accepted provided it gives a possible alternative explanation for some of the observations.
Conspiracy theorists don't really explain things, nor do they care to. Ask them what happened in Dallas on November 22, 1963 and they will beat around the bush and make excuses for why they can't tell you anything in much detail. The purpose of pointing out what looks to be a wire in an Apollo video is not to explain, but as you say, to undermine.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 13, 2006 11:09:59 GMT -4
If I had the answers I would probably write them down.
Science tries to expand its knowledge to fit the manifestation of the problem. Conspiracism tries to simplify the problem to fit the researcher's knowledge.
Science looks for the simplest hypothesis that is sufficient to explain behavior. Conspiracism tries to lump all kinds of irrelevancies into the basic theory.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Jun 13, 2006 11:46:46 GMT -4
Hence, there really is no conspiracy theory. A multitude of ad hoc and conflicting explanations does not guide us in baking better cookies or building better airplanes. I think Joe's hit on a major point here, in that a scientific theory generally has some utility, even if that may not necessarily be apparent to the public at large. Conspiracy theories, on the other hand, only tend to impede understanding.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 13, 2006 12:30:47 GMT -4
Yes, conspiracy theories are not about providing a better explanation; they're about tearing down some unfavored explanation. This is done in the alleged guise of providing a watchdog service to mankind.
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Jun 13, 2006 15:20:11 GMT -4
Yes, conspiracy theories are not about providing a better explanation; they're about tearing down some unfavored explanation. This is done in the alleged guise of providing a watchdog service to mankind. On the BAUT board, there was an attempt to start a thread about how well theories alternative to the Big Bang fit the observations. It was nearly impossible for the ATM proponents not to try and bash the Big Bang Theory. Some of them considered the request of dealing only with the observations and their own theories, instead of saying how bad the BBT is, as fighting with a hand tied behind their back. Apparently they do not see themselves as scientists, but as "anti-BB". The same seems to work for conspiracists.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jun 13, 2006 15:41:13 GMT -4
After spending some time at lurking in the ATM forum at the BAUT (now there's a mouthful of acronyms!) I decided that no-one there had one theory. They had a scientific theory -- which did not agree with observation -- and they had a conspiracy theory -- to wit, how observations were systematically falsified to support the current theory. The one was not viable without the other.
This happens with Apollo Hoax believers and 9-11 conspiracy believers as well, if you can drag them out that far. At some point you'll find them arguing that Apollo as described was impossible, and mainstream science has been methodically and thoroughly manipulated to hide that unpleasant truth.
For some reason it seems impossible to get most hoax believers away from the image of academic theorists in long robes chattering away to each other in some remote ivory tower. Perhaps the hoax believers lack the basic understanding of science and technology that unveils just how connected what they see as rarified academia with the concrete and viable; that is, what links the most abstruse papers on quantum chromodynamics with the engineering that put an Intel chip into their desktop PC.
|
|