Sheer frustration, I should think. It's not universally true, but what we've seen, over and over, is that a lot of conspiracy theorists will be given an inch and take . . . well, a mile isn't near long enough. An AU?

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

The typical (or stereotypical, if you prefer) conspiracy theorist argues more from rhetoric than from reason. That is, if a debate ensues he will try to win it by manipulating the debate framework so that he can't possibly lose. That usually means avoiding a meaningful test of the ideas, achieving at worst a stalemate that can continue going around and around. For example, see the 500 or so posts by Bart5050 on the subject of UFOs.

The rules at BAUT are designed to force a test of the ideas, not of the ability of their proponent to suck them away from scrutiny. They don't impede people who really do have a point to make and who want the opportunity to make it. The rules are only a problem for people who are trying to sneak their way through a debate.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

The Godlike Productions forums aren't strict. Then again, those forums are... well, let's just say that whatever conspiracy you can make up, there will be somebody there who would support it.

__________________
Spread the Love!

Makes sense to me. Half the time I think the people arguing for certain conspiracy theories are actually arguing against them in a deeply ironic way.

__________________
http://truthahol.com

Took the words right off my screen.

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

lurner: Makes sense to me. Half the time I think the people arguing for certain conspiracy theories are actually arguing against them in a deeply ironic way.

Yes, I agree. I probably misunderstood your comment earlier: when you said "CT forum" I wasn't sure whether you were referring to skeptic boards like BAUT where conspiracy theories are dissected and tested, or advocacy boards like Godlike Productions where conspiracy theories are propounded, compounded, and praised.

Each has a set of rules appropriate to its agenda. Skeptics want ideas to stand or fall on their merits. Conspiracy theorists generally want certain ideas to be treated favorably.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I guess citing "Bad Science..." won't cut it, or that this is just censorship.
BS of course, has the connotation of Bull**** - another reason why censorship will rule again...

The thing is, Phil and Fraser get to decide what goes on their board. You don't. You can start a board yourself and say whatever you want, or you can find a board that will let you say it, but in the end, what we're allowed to discuss here is at Phil and Fraser's discretion.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

I disagree strongly with the implied characterization. Truthbox, you seem to want to paint it as if discussion here can be cut off with a call to the board's version of a scientific fact. Were that true, it would be small-minded at best. However, were such a policy true it would also be quickly clear to anyone browsing the board.

The people here make a very strong effort to reference to available literature, experiment, and real-world examples. To reference papers in reputable journals, standard textbooks, and classroom answers. If you disagree with a board regular on some matter of against-the-mainstream science, you can have a fair degree of confidence you are disagreeing with the general consensus in that field -- not the limited opinion of a single person on an enforceadly parochial board.

__________________
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

If you want to search through the old topics, you can see that the science was discussed, and discussed again, and yet again, and still again, and dozens of times after that.

Aside from not being astronomy or space related, it quickly became a stale topic. As with you, I had the impression that many of the people were more interested in getting on a soapbox than actually discussing the technical aspects of the subject, so there really was little point in continuing on the topic.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Can you be more specific without being profane or obscene?

This board is family friendly.

__________________
Olsen the moderator.

what will BAUTforum do when in 2012[1984] plenet X (NIBURU) (gog)(INGSOK) which is realy (M@RS) (M@Gog) attacks Earth, using the Vega (II minute) topsecret (NATZI) beacons broadcasting (HATE) using a low frequency signal from Machines placed secretly on the moon and on Cydonia by (firstCONTACT) men in black astroNOTs while the world watched a fake moon/mars landings (Why have ! when you can have @ at twice the price) and working from central command @rea 51 room 101 their fearless leader GOZER the gozIRiAN arrives a near miss to Earth and meets all the covert agent bigfoots at the Boheemian Grove in their Gillie suits and his mountian like ships open and a dark smoke cloud is full of (Demons) (UFO) (ALEINS)(LOCUST) all ruled by the dark big vater (Devil) (nG.zODg) and he tells the (m@sions) (N@S@ )(#@@) who he created by comunication through Bacon wormholes and John D mind control with UFO cropcircles primers. HE commands the WORLD to bow to his feet and worship and Tellss all the Lucifer warshiping saten loving(NUMBER OF HIS NAME) manturian (presidential) conspiracy election runers to activate their 666 homing beacons which make them mindless Zombies and WAITs for the rapture (Teleporter)(Photon belt) of EnLITEnment to take them away..and begins his NEO ORDER. of the ages (AQUARIUS) .. with earthquakes using the underground tunnels and a third of the Trees Burned from Global warming and random tidlewaves smash into cities... But, the only place on earth where he wont have power is in USA, because the president is not Squawking and cant be controled and rebels agianst the Fire SALE of his world and orders all the HARP Technology built by Tesla when his death was faked and he joined the secret revolution awaiting the coming of the Gr@ys and the Turnover of the World to the false Light.. But like in "War of the Worlds" and "Independece Day" he the presedent and a few rag tag band defeat the evil and cause NIBURU to flee the earth and We WIN the war... yeah Tesla..

conjunction junction whats your function

Note: All puctuation misspelling and Capitalization is intentional. ITS a ConsPIRACY!!!

Whoa. Were any conspiracy theories left out of that post?

Ahh, okay. I was gonna complain about that.

__________________
Spread the Love!

There's a potato shaped moon orbiting Jupiter. Will that do you? I personally like them scalloped.

A "potato shaped moon"? I didn't know potatoes had such a well defined shape.

__________________
Spread the Love!

I had a moon-shaped potato once.

__________________
Relight the Firefly!

"It is quite clear that Occam's razor does not sharpen in your pyramid." (Nicolas)

"Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." (Paul Simon)

"K, here's what we've got: the Rand Corporation, in conjunction with the saucer people under the supervision of the reverse vampires." Milhouse from the Simpsons.

Thankfully with his inclusion of the "saucer people" we can still safely post his conspiracy theorem:

"are forcing our parents to go to bed early in a fiendish plot to eliminate the meal of dinner. "

You know, the downside to the "Astronomy only" dictum is that now the pages are filled with UFO threads. Can't we at least get some variety; Hollow Earth, or Geocentrists (or are those more at home in ATM?)

__________________
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

That would be Amalthea. I think "potato-shaped" is a valid description.

__________________
"Transport of the mails, transport of the human voice, transport of flickering pictures - in this century, as in others, our highest accomplishments still have the single aim of bringing men together." St. Exupery

I had a potato recently which was shaped like a vampire. I didn't think anybody would believe me so I took a photograph of it before it was cooked. But it didn't show up on the film.

We had a veggy Vampire who was attacking our potatos and sucking all the plant juices out of them. We finally caught him and killed him by driving a steak through his heart.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunnicula
Bevare.

Hello,

It looks like this thread up & died without CTs. The mess of debate gloves were on, yet there was no one to fight. As a former sciencey-pants, I have a question, which has to do with perception. I'm aware this thread has a new containment field of space and astronomy, so I'll do my best to be in the big yard without being zapped by the fence...

Debate is possible when certain ground rules are laid, otherwise it's incoherent, silly or irrational. JayUtah is on to something here when he says that CTs manipulate the debate framework. Why shouldn't the debate framework be manipulated?

The SPs ['sciency-pants'] have such a fixed rigid view, inculcated by years of training in Newtonian or entry-level Bohrian principles, that it's no use trying to consider other avenues of inquiry. A debate is supposed to bear fruit, i.e. truth and deeper understanding, well, at least ideally. Also, consider if you're an SP, then the system statistically-speaking probably worked well for you, with an education, hard work, reliable parents, etc.

Don't get me wrong. You SPs make my buses run, space photos clear, eyeglasses lightweight etc. Yet there is also consciousness, soul, sentience, 'seeing' and knowing - big puzzles all, all undefined. Also, so many people experience profound injustice, for no reason, every day, thanks to SPs, e.g. depleted uranium, pathogens and God know what else. (I research exotic weapons as a civilian advocate.)

People have a right to question whether a government is withholding facts, or acting in the public interest. Same for the activities of SPs. Why not? Further, what if SPs tend to argue with only 10% of the available facts? Evidence and testimony are routinely withheld and disinfo'ed - or do you think the alphabet agencies are looking after you, as a good parent might?

The debate is: do you trust your government to divulge all facts to you? A lot may be known about space and other matters that's withheld? Do you understand yourself as a viewer - or are you still sitting on the false throne of 'objectivity'? Are you truly the pristine lens, an unscathed purely rational being?

In human consciousness and perception, if a phenomenon or experience doesn't fit the framework, it's invisible, at least until there's a critical mass of people wondering IF it's really seen. Then there's movement toward understanding. Hang on to your hats. A big bang is coming...

So, JayUtah et al. Perhaps what you consider 'sneakiness' is a form of awareness that is absent from your view. Just a thought. I understand impatience with scientific inaccuracies, but snottiness runs both ways.

Signed,
a woo-woo

The SPs ['sciency-pants']...

Name-calling is always a good way to begin a discussion.

...have such a fixed rigid view, inculcated by years of training in Newtonian or entry-level Bohrian principles, that it's no use trying to consider other avenues of inquiry.

Or so conspiracy theorists wish to believe. Conspiracism is most often an ego-reinforcement mechanism. The conspiracist believes himself far above the crowd because he has not been burdened by "rigid" training or external attempts to guide and "restrict" his thinking, therefore his self-proclaimed open-mindedness is expected to trump anything brought up by the Establishment.

This conceptual framework allows the conspiracist to believe that objection to his claims derives from an institutional unwillingness to consider novel alternatives rather than a simple unwillingness to grant credibility to something that demonstrates no evidentiary merit.

People have a right to question whether a government is withholding facts, or acting in the public interest.

People have a duty to do so. But if your worst fears are realized and the government are acting like despots, then uninformed criticism simply plays into their hands. It allows them to characterize their critics as ignorant wags and to dismiss the critcism without discussion. Only informed questions have the power to keep authority in check. I don't subscribe to the belief that any challenge to authority is automatically valid simply because it challenges authority.

Further, what if SPs tend to argue with only 10% of the available facts? Evidence and testimony are routinely withheld and disinfo'ed

I don't understand. Are you proposing a hypothetical question, or are you accusing "sciency-pants" of routinely arguing with only 10% of the facts? Are you accusing "sciency-pants" of the suppression and disinformation you allege?

The debate is: do you trust your government to divulge all facts to you?

That's what the conspiracists fervently want the debate to be about. I don't trust anyone to divulge facts that he may have motive to withhold. The difference is that I don't draw those lines of trust across pre-existing lines separating pseudoscientists from "sciency-pants," or citizenry from government. I examine all claims equally. Your approach here begs the question that pseudoscientists, conspiracists, fringe-thinkers, and the like are automatically innocent, honest, well-informed, and properly motivated.

...or are you still sitting on the false throne of 'objectivity'?

No more so than conspiracists sitting on the false throne of "open-mindedness."

Are you truly the pristine lens, an unscathed purely rational being?

Here's a better question: do you know what you're talking about? The exemplar in this case (bart5050) was simply uninformed on the subjects he wished to discuss. Very opinionated, to be sure, but also very uninformed in pertinent areas. That situation, no matter how open-mindedly approached, does not lead to the right questions.

So, JayUtah et al. Perhaps what you consider 'sneakiness' is a form of awareness that is absent from your view.

And just as name-calling is a wonderful way to begin a post, so accusing your objectors of closed-mindedness and institutional blindness is an excellent way of ending it.

I've been barraged for decades by pseudoscientists. In that time I have observed that the "sneakiness" in their approach seems more aimed at evading any sort of meaningful test of ideas, and of trying to create the illusion of prevalence in debate by manipulating its rules. Hence the rule set at BAUT: you must actually debate, not merely pretend to.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Heh, sciency-pants. That sounds more like a term of endearment to me.

__________________
Spread the Love!

First, welcome to BAUT no caste.

Second, in certain countries you have the right to question the government, or scientists, or your wife's sister (not all nations have free speech). BAUT is not a nation with a constitution. It is a website bought and paid for by Fraser and the Bad Astronomer and they have set up certain rules for their little piece of the Internet. We are, in effect, guests in their house, and thus, have to follow their rules.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

Well. I thought this thread was abandoned, so hi. I was looking for something else and stumbled upon you. Truthfully, I believed myself to be 'beaking off' in the wind!

Swift - Your comments? Understood. I didn't actually disagree with a decision about rules, though I noticed others did. As a newcomer, I'm indifferent. I just noticed that the thread kind of died without the troublemakers. (Nice signature. I plan to look up IYA 2009 next, conference name? One Earth, One Sky, that's beautiful.)

BertL - Maybe it'll be a fad... Are more than 1: sciency-pants-es?

JayUtah -

Re: unwillingness to consider novel alternatives vs. unwillingness to grant credibility to something that demonstrates no evidentiary merit.

evidentiary meritYou're right. It's not useful to frame things this way to start, i.e. rigid/open, low-minded/high. Then let's say 'different'. It takes into account ontology which suits me, because it brings more layers of facts. For instance, can dreams be included? A dream is a fact, evidenced by thousands of years of human experience. Or, maybe, first a definition of 'key facts'...

People have a duty to do so.

duty Nicely said. I agree.

Are you proposing a hypothetical question, or are you accusing "sciency-pants" of routinely arguing with only 10% of the facts? Are you accusing "sciency-pants" of the suppression and disinformation you allege?

10% of facts What if different people argue with different sets of facts. Naturally, there will be different conclusions - and if key facts are suppressed, we're all wrong. By the way, it is a hypothetical question. It would be absurd for SPs to suppress info - that's just anathema to scientific inquiry - unless they're nuts or saints, which most of us usually are not.

...pseudoscientists, conspiracists, fringe-thinkers, and the like are [not] automatically innocent, honest, well-informed, and properly motivated.

automatically innocent Well, maybe. I guess I just like the CT crowd more. One needn't be right to be likable. It's more lively, messy, human and fun - to explore. As well, a lot of the claims make me really wonder. I expect they may for you too, but perhaps in a different way. I mean, I really wonder, the same way I did as a kid on the grass, watching the heavens or sky. It's great - simply experiencing existence - and wondering why things occur. (See Johann von Goethe. Newtonian ways hijacked the other Western scientific method - Goethe also influenced Heisenberg, Hegel, Nietzsche, Cassirer, Jung, Wittgenstein, Steiner, Mozart, Mahler, Beethoven...) I feel two historical threads of inquiry came apart some place. I don't like it. Do you practise Buddhist meditation? Maybe motivation does play a role.

Here's a better question: do you know what you're talking about?

know what I'm talking about? I don't know bart5050. I don't know if I know what I'm talking about. I don't even know what you mean. What are 'right questions' anyway - and is there a club to join for having them?? If I knew what I was talking about, I likely wouldn't feel compelled to engage here... So, sadly, I guess the answer is No.

I have observed that the "sneakiness" in their approach seems more aimed at evading any sort of meaningful test of ideas, and of trying to create the illusion of prevalence in debate by manipulating its rules.

manipulating rules I'd be relieved to negotiate new ones. The old ones clearly are divisive.

signed,
a pseudoscientist woo-woo

MY QUESTIONS:
1. In theory, is it possible that the moon is hollow? Why doesn't it spin?
2. In theory, given the compartmentalization of government alphabet agencies, is it possible that no one person would really know 'everything'? If government members themselves can't see the whole picture, how can we as civilians be expected to?
3. Given 2, isn't every opinion useful at present?
4. In theory, if the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) is very concerned about government secrecy, shouldn't I be too?
5. Is there a distinct correlation between conflict/arms and wealth? To increase wealth, is it possible that conflicts are engineered? Are space and our biosphere weapons-free areas? If so, for earth's heritage and future, should they be, via international treaties? Or does nobody give a sh*t.

Feel free to estimate probabilities and we can continue there (or not, if zero).

Oh, and hey, did you see the new Amero coins?

Oh, just proofreading.

#5 should read: 5. Is there a distinct correlation between conflict/arms and wealth? To increase wealth, is it possible that conflicts are engineered? Are space and our biosphere weapons-free areas? If not, for earth's heritage and future, should they be, via international treaties? [Comment removed for masked language — Rule 3].

correction by,
a pseudoscientist woo-woo

Moderator note: Please don't use misspellings or special characters to circumvent the board's bad language policy. — PetersCeek

It's not useful to frame things this way to start, i.e. rigid/open, low-minded/high.

It's eminently useful. I've noticed that many people who pride themselves on "free thought" and "open-mindedness" generally take no further accountability for the strength of their conclusions than to state them. I live and work in a world where people are (and must be) accountable for the strength of their conclusions and the reasoning and facts that support them. Hence I have a low tolerance for people who simply blow smoke and want that to be considered as equal in rigor to a properly-researched and studied conclusion (or inability to draw one defensibly).

By the way, it is a hypothetical question.

The question this statement answers is the only one I considered important in that paragraph. I'm not really interested in hypothetical tautologies. You're essentially saying that if some person demonstrates a lack of reason, it is right to consider him irrational. Agreed, but why belabor it? Unless you're saying that scientists habitually ignore fact, or actively suppress it, then I don't see what point you're making.

The question of which facts are salient, and which are actually facts and not assertions or interpretations, is all part of the intellectual process. Nothing to be afraid of.

I guess I just like the CT crowd more. One needn't be right to be likable.

Nor vice versa. The problem is that I don't care how likable someone is if he's selling a "factual" book that's filled with demonstrable hogwash, for the purpose of bilking people out of money. At least when it comes to the Moon hoax crowd, I have inside knowledge of how some of these kingpin authors work. They may have a lot of outward charisma, but to them what they do is a business. It's about maintaining appearances and not getting caught, and riding that wave for as long as they can. I've been privy to their statements and behavior when they think no one is watching.

Many fans of pseudoscience automatically assume that some pseudoscientist must have pure motives, and that he's fighting against the Great Evil for purely altruistic reasons. In other words, too much pseudoscience is based on the preconception that the designated Establishment authority is evil and wrong, and that any who fight against it are ipso facto intellectually chaste and socially courageous. Few seem interested in determining whether these self-proclaimed patriots aren't the ones we should be watching out for.

I actually do spend a lot of time in the woo-woo world. By day I'm an engineer. At night I'm in the arts. Some of my best friends call themselves angel-readers and mystics. Yes, it's fun to while away a lazy summer Sunday afternoon with these people because they lead interesting and contemplative lives. But they have absolutely no investigative skills worth mentioning, and have no business trying to mount a rigorous inquiry. The useful and predictive characterization of the physical world is done by hard scientific work, not sitting around coffeehouse tables.

I don't know bart5050. I don't know if I know what I'm talking about. I don't even know what you mean.

I'm sorry; my statement was poorly phrased. You proposed that a proper discussion of things like UFO disclosure would address motive. I proposed instead that it should address fact and knowledge. I didn't mean, "do you (personally) know what you're talking about?" I mean that someone who proposes something along the lines, for example, of pilots being trained and expert observers ought to know something about how pilots are trained and whether they actually, testably, are good observers.

The problem with motive is that it can be debated ad nauseam without resolution, and fails in all cases to arrive at actuality.

The example I like to use is that of the mother who leaves her 8-year-old child alone for a while, then accuses him of stealing cookies. She can correctly point out that the child is well-motivated to steal cookies because he likes cookies. But the fact of whether cookies were stolen lies in examining the jar and counting the cookies. If no cookies are missing, then the child didn't steal them, no matter how sure the motive or how opportune the circumstance. You can't reliably assert a consequent from its admitted motive. Yet so many would-be "investigators" do exactly that and put the cart before the horse.

First determine whether something happened. Then you can try to find out why. Look at fact, not supposition or insinuation.

I hear people say all the time that I'm a "paid government disinformation agent." I.e., that I'm a liar. Now most of these people don't know the first thing about me. They don't even know my surname, let alone what I do or don't do for a living. They have absolutely no facts to support that characterization of me. It's simply a proposition they float in order to erode faith in anything I say, so that they don't have to deal with it directly.

But if I'm a liar, then it follows the things I say are lies. And if they're lies, then they should be demonstrable as such by comparing them against contrary facts. Hence the question of whether I'm a liar or not can be studied factually solely by treating what I say. But do you think I can get any of that rabble to look at my statements and consider them against competing observations? No, of course not. No one of them is really interested in testing their characterization of me, even though a method to do so conclusively is presented to them. They only want to poison the well.

I simply don't care much about discussions of motives without some fact behind it.

The old ones clearly are divisive.

Inclusiveness for its own sake is not a virtue of science. The rules at BAUT are meant to deprive litigants of any deceptive methods of faking rigor.

1. In theory, is it possible that the moon is hollow? Why doesn't it spin?

It does spin. But it is tidally locked to Earth for reasons well known to science. The data I'm aware of do not show that the Moon is hollow. If you want to discuss that, you should open an appropriate thread in one of the specialized sections.

2. In theory, given the compartmentalization of government alphabet agencies, is it possible...

I don't generally answer questions that ask only "is it possible?" The lack of impossiblity is not a subtitute for proof. Nor am I impressed with broadly painted supposition. If you have specific accusations or suspicions, state and defend them.

But in order to answer your next question I must at least address the gist of this one: no, I don't think it's reasonable that the totality of government activity can be comprehended by a single person. And that property is hardly limited to government. Any human activity of even modest complexity will remain elusive to the individual.

3. Given 2, isn't every opinion useful at present?

No. This fallacy is the cornerstone of pseudoscience: that one must allegedly know eveything in order to dismiss anything as wrong or improbable. Some opinions can be clearly wrong, even if their proponents don't realize it.

4. In theory, if the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) is very concerned about government secrecy, shouldn't I be too?

Not unless you're content to subscribe to their thinking and values. There is an aspect of moral judgment that applies to that question.

5. Is there a distinct correlation between conflict/arms and wealth?

Unfortunately I suspect these questions are out of bounds in this forum as they border on being political.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base