Wanna Conspiracy Debate?

A General discussion about everything other than South Park

Moderator: Big-Will

(ugly)Bob
Posts: 5860
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 6:54 am

Re: Wanna Conspiracy Debate?

Postby (ugly)Bob » Sun Jul 08, 2012 10:36 pm

are you saying that there are so many alternate ideas (collective) that one becomes skeptical.

yes, this is why people tend to adopt parts they are unhappy with (skeptical) and take those fragments they like the sound of and mash it up with their own findings
the concept of what is reality (fake or real) is actually a massive discussion in itself. (my response here is heavily stunted because you said most of what is there lol)

the idea of having these clouds of varying sized theories and concepts (and questions and so on...) all, overtime, combine togethor, dumping old concepts and taking up new ideas.. (i have a feeling i am contradicting myself a little bit) when people discovered that the world wasn't flat (a concept from heaps of theories and ideas) they discovered that Earth was round. It was real (fact). my idea of concepts being clouds of not facts but people's speculations stem from the idea that we wonder and speculate until we find (with a whole pile of evidence and scientists) it is a legitimate fact. with these facts, i am saying that we pluck out what we want to believe in and call those concepts fact (facts are considered concepts too i think) because they believe it. they want to think its a true fact. ditch other evidence and call that just a mere conspiracy. which leads to people plucking out what they want. and some concepts happen to be chosen the most often, leading others to believe it too.. (if you dont get what i mean, ask, ill try explain better)
witness vantage points was an analogy i had taken out from ZZ, you have lets say five people with very very different stories and their little dishes of evidence. onlookers will take what suits them and call it a fact. and some of these dishes are more likely to be adopted than others. making it a set of concepts. back to the idea of people picking at a pile of clouds.

the preferred option (think of a buffet) will most likely be chosen because so many people have picked it up and improved its ideas. (flat world, dude sails world, discovery--> the world round!! people were skeptical) then over time... people adopted it.

what i mean is, a theory takes time to grow. and in order for it to grow, people need to contort it into something making more sense, by adding more evidence.


i HOPE this makes sense to you!! i really do! im sorry if i scrambled your thoughts.
"We're all just a bunch of multi-coloured humans!"
Zazaban
Posts: 3280
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 5:32 am

Re: Wanna Conspiracy Debate?

Postby Zazaban » Sun Jul 08, 2012 10:37 pm

I take back what I said a page ago.
skurtz wrote:
nwt000 wrote:Get your trolling ass out of here!

I'm more friendlier drinking some espresso.
(ugly)Bob
Posts: 5860
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 6:54 am

Re: Wanna Conspiracy Debate?

Postby (ugly)Bob » Sun Jul 08, 2012 10:44 pm

^^^
hay! :craig:
fine... ill shut up and if anyone replies, ill keep my lines maximum four lines.
"We're all just a bunch of multi-coloured humans!"
Zazaban
Posts: 3280
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 5:32 am

Re: Wanna Conspiracy Debate?

Postby Zazaban » Sun Jul 08, 2012 10:58 pm

(ugly)Bob wrote:^^^
hay! :craig:
fine... ill shut up and if anyone replies, ill keep my lines maximum four lines.

No problem with you, it's just the general sense that the original topic has fallen off the rails, which is always a bad sign.
skurtz wrote:
nwt000 wrote:Get your trolling ass out of here!

I'm more friendlier drinking some espresso.
(ugly)Bob
Posts: 5860
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 6:54 am

Re: Wanna Conspiracy Debate?

Postby (ugly)Bob » Sun Jul 08, 2012 10:59 pm

o yea. :oops: :oops: ... this thread should close. sorry about my philosophical crap
"We're all just a bunch of multi-coloured humans!"
Zazaban
Posts: 3280
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 5:32 am

Re: Wanna Conspiracy Debate?

Postby Zazaban » Sun Jul 08, 2012 11:03 pm

(ugly)Bob wrote:o yea. :oops: :oops: ... this thread should close. sorry about my philosophical crap

Not crap. Create a new thread, why not.
skurtz wrote:
nwt000 wrote:Get your trolling ass out of here!

I'm more friendlier drinking some espresso.
(ugly)Bob
Posts: 5860
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 6:54 am

Re: Wanna Conspiracy Debate?

Postby (ugly)Bob » Sun Jul 08, 2012 11:05 pm

nah.. too clouded and much too unstable to debate on. (look at this one!)
"We're all just a bunch of multi-coloured humans!"
Zazaban
Posts: 3280
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 5:32 am

Re: Wanna Conspiracy Debate?

Postby Zazaban » Mon Jul 09, 2012 1:01 am

(ugly)Bob wrote:nah.. too clouded and much too unstable to debate on. (look at this one!)

Those kind of metaphysical debates are always fun, though. Especially when somebody gets way too into it and starts making death threats.
skurtz wrote:
nwt000 wrote:Get your trolling ass out of here!

I'm more friendlier drinking some espresso.
Unassumption
Posts: 3849
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 8:49 pm

Re: Wanna Conspiracy Debate?

Postby Unassumption » Mon Jul 09, 2012 1:27 am

It sounds like you're describing confirmation bias, though I don't want to assume you're talking about something you're not. If that's what you meant, I'd regrettably have to that in most areas of life people fall prey to it. We have ways of getting beyond it though. That's why some theories are independantly discovered and accepted by multiple people. We can't use those tools all the time or in all circumstances but we can make an effort? On some topics, everyone seems tempted to fall for cognitive biases though certain people, such as those unaware of them, seem more likely to. Have you ever read about postmodernism, it sounds like something you'd be interested in?

It's not really off topic. When pushed to defend ideas that go against most evidence, people often resort to arguing against the tools we use to get as close to the truth as we can; redstone's arguments against simpler explanations being more likely than complicated ones is an example of this.
The more people have to 'interpret' the facts, the more likely their story is questionable.

Everything's been discussed to death before we got a chance to be born, even if a conclusion has been found we aren't aware of it so it's worth talking about still, no shame not being the first to talk about it.
Last edited by Unassumption on Mon Jul 09, 2012 1:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
AND BY THE WAY, I WIN
(ugly)Bob
Posts: 5860
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 6:54 am

Re: Wanna Conspiracy Debate?

Postby (ugly)Bob » Mon Jul 09, 2012 1:40 am

Unassumption:
Confirmation bias... yes! that is what i meant. Your words covers my entire three posts.

Zazaban wrote:
(ugly)Bob wrote:nah.. too clouded and much too unstable to debate on. (look at this one!)

Those kind of metaphysical debates are always fun, though. Especially when somebody gets way too into it and starts making death threats.




fun to read. fun. to READ.
"We're all just a bunch of multi-coloured humans!"
Big-Will
Board Moderator
Posts: 18835
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 8:57 am

Re: Wanna Conspiracy Debate?

Postby Big-Will » Mon Jul 09, 2012 4:58 am

Alrighty, thread locked. Since RedStone2 didn't come here to discuss South Park, I don't see a reason to keep him around, but I will anyway.
The South Park Scriptorium
The South Park Scriptorium on Facebook

Favorite Character: Butters
Need to look for something on the board? Use the search links below: US version

Return to “Off Topic Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests