Conspiracy Theorists are, in fact, Nuts

[Unkotare]

Insights into the Personalities of Conspiracy Theorists: Scientific American


"Conspiracy Nut" is an accurate term.

 

[daws101]

Insights into the Personalities of Conspiracy Theorists: Scientific American


"Conspiracy Nut" is an accurate term.

a little slow to catch on?

 

[Wolfstrike]

the government admitted dumping chemicals on San Franciso
just that one incident alone is proof the government is involved in sinister plots.
you can't say it never happened , because the government admitted it.
anyone who thought the government would never do anything like that turned out to be a fool

 

[R.C. Christian]

Insights into the Personalities of Conspiracy Theorists: Scientific American


"Conspiracy Nut" is an accurate term.

Impressive post, LOL.

 

[TheOldSchool]

We'll see who's laughing when the lizard people come snatch up your kids

 

[TakeAStepBack]

 

[whitehall]

Say what? "Scientific theories must be falsifiable" but "conspiracy theories are hard to prove". I would offer that exactly the opposite is true.

 

[daws101]

Say what? "Scientific theories must be falsifiable" but "conspiracy theories are hard to prove". I would offer that exactly the opposite is true.

Conspiracy. Just saying the word in conversation can make people politely edge away, looking for someone who won’t corner them with wild theories about how Elvis, John F. Kennedy, and Bigfoot are cryogenically frozen in an underground bunker.

Yet conspiracies do exist. In the corporate world, major companies we buy products from everyday have been found guilty of conspiring to fix prices and reduce competition. Just about any planned criminal act committed by more than one person could be considered a conspiracy, from simple murder-for-hire to the Watergate break-in.

Many conspiracy theorists go much further, though, and see a hidden hand behind the world’s major events. While some of the theories have a grain of truth to them, conspiracy theories are impossible to disprove, because the hardcore believers will find some way to rationalize away evidence that contradicts their beliefs. Eyewitnesses who dispute their conclusions are mistaken—or part of the conspiracy.

At least that's what they want you to think ...
Conspiracy Theories ? Top Ten Conspiracies | LiveScience

 

[percysunshine]

I remember all the conspiracy theories in 2008 about how Obama was going to take away all of our guns. What a bunch of nut cases....

 

[daws101]

I remember all the conspiracy theories in 2008 about how Obama was going to take away all of our guns. What a bunch of nut cases....

you forgot the bush coup in 04.

 

[Toro]

Conspiracy theorists are generally the least analytical and skeptical people around.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The tendency of conspiracy theorists, when their theories are challenged, to simply enlarge their theories is the issue here, I think.

Any evidence against the theory is simply made part of the conspiracy.

 

[percysunshine]

The tendency of conspiracy theorists, when their theories are challenged, to simply enlarge their theories is the issue here, I think.

Any evidence against the theory is simply made part of the conspiracy.

Sooo...you are enlarging the theory as to what constitutes a conspiracy theory.....how convenient.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The tendency of conspiracy theorists, when their theories are challenged, to simply enlarge their theories is the issue here, I think.

Any evidence against the theory is simply made part of the conspiracy.

Sooo...you are enlarging the theory as to what constitutes a conspiracy theory.....how convenient.

I don't know what this is supposed to mean.

 

[whitehall]

The ironic thing is that the opinion by the magazine that calls itself "Scientific American" is itself a conspiracy. The bottom line is of course the Global Warming conspiracy. When reasonable people disagree with global warming the alleged scientific community gets all huffy and calls it a conspiracy.

 

[percysunshine]

The tendency of conspiracy theorists, when their theories are challenged, to simply enlarge their theories is the issue here, I think.

Any evidence against the theory is simply made part of the conspiracy.

Sooo...you are enlarging the theory as to what constitutes a conspiracy theory.....how convenient.

I don't know what this is supposed to mean.

I am challenging your theory and ... never mind.

 

[daws101]

The ironic thing is that the opinion by the magazine that calls itself "Scientific American" is itself a conspiracy. The bottom line is of course the Global Warming conspiracy. When reasonable people disagree with global warming the alleged scientific community gets all huffy and calls it a conspiracy.

because it is ....the planet is warmer than 100 years ago that's indisputable science...
if we are causing it or is it a natural cycle that's what disputable...

 

[Wolfstrike]

The ironic thing is that the opinion by the magazine that calls itself "Scientific American" is itself a conspiracy. The bottom line is of course the Global Warming conspiracy. When reasonable people disagree with global warming the alleged scientific community gets all huffy and calls it a conspiracy.

because it is ....the planet is warmer than 100 years ago that's indisputable science...
...

what temperatures were you reading 100 years ago?

 

[Politico]

Conspiracy. Just saying the word in conversation can make people politely edge away, looking for someone who won’t corner them with wild theories about how Elvis, John F. Kennedy, and Bigfoot are cryogenically frozen in an underground bunker.

Ok this psrt of your statement is really the core of the problem. People don't back away when it is mentioned because of the word or what might be brought up. The reason is because at some point after the topic is breached, which often can peak someone's interest, the proof part comes. That's when it all falls apart. They don't have any any. And then inevitably the theorist in question starts talking about foil hats or aliens or microwave mind control. That's when they start sounding manic, crazy and dangerous. And people don't want to be othered with that crap.

 

[daws101]

The ironic thing is that the opinion by the magazine that calls itself "Scientific American" is itself a conspiracy. The bottom line is of course the Global Warming conspiracy. When reasonable people disagree with global warming the alleged scientific community gets all huffy and calls it a conspiracy.

because it is ....the planet is warmer than 100 years ago that's indisputable science...
...

what temperatures were you reading 100 years ago?

Global average temperature since 1880. This graph from NOAA shows the annual trend in average global air temperature in degrees Celsius, through December 2012. For each year, the range of uncertainty is indicated by the gray vertical bars. The blue line tracks the changes in the trend over time.
https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years

you want fries with that?