Conspiracy theories and the conspiracy mindset

Quote from BigBananaMess : You are entitled to your opinion, however it is at odds with TP Charter. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. It is very rare to get someone to change their opinion so keep that in mind when replying and strive for clarity of your opinion, not trying to show them why their opinion is wrong. ^ Note the Charter says everyone not those deemed worthy by skiman. There seems to be a belief among some participants in this forum that a topic is an opportunity to browbeat others into agreement. Instead of getting angry when that doesn't happen, try focusing on clarifying your own opinion(s).

The point of this thread is to discuss whether the charter should be amended. It doesn't matter what the charter says now.

Quote from andyfico : Then you want to transform TP from an open debate forum to an exclusive group that shuns opposing views because we feel they are wrong. I don't believe that this would be in keeping with the spirit of the SD forums founding fathers.

No. You're making a common mistake. Such discrimination has nothing to do with shunning opposing views or feeling someone is wrong. It's the method of disagreement and debate which is at issue. Debate is more than people with differing opinions. It's not volley after volley of "Yes." "No." "Yes." "No." "Yes." "No." It's more than people asserting different conclusions.

It's about exploring the reasons for conclusions and testing one construction against another.

I'm often more satisfied debating a person with whom I share a conclusion, but with whom I disagree upon the body of reason that leads to that conclusion.

Quote from skiman : I'm often more satisfied debating a person with whom I share a conclusion, but with whom I disagree upon the body of reason that leads to that conclusion.

So, you only want to debate people who agree with you. How do you propose to rewrite that into TP Charter?

if you have time to listen, here's a great episode of point of inquiry concerning the influx of of conspiracy theorists in the modern day gop:

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/dav...d_science/

Quote from BigBananaMess : So, you only want to debate people who agree with you. How do you propose to rewrite that into TP Charter?

Sure, that's what I said. Exactly.

Quote from barnz008 : The philosophy of inductive analysis, quantification and observation in attempt to further the best guess possible with the best tools posible. Bacon was a philosopher. The *best* science begins with a philosophy and ends with *better* question. The product can never be the truth. If you want to know the truth, you need to look inside, not outside. Everything is Zen, bitchez.

Danger Will Robinson! Danger! Please define: "truth"

Quote from andyfico : Then you want to transform TP from an open debate forum to an exclusive group that shuns opposing views because we feel they are wrong. I don't believe that this would be in keeping with the spirit of the SD forums founding fathers.

there's a big difference between shunning opposing viewpoints and shunning people who don't know what logical thought or debate practices are.

Quote from barnz008 : The philosophy of inductive analysis, quantification and observation in attempt to further the best guess possible with the best tools posible. Bacon was a philosopher. The *best* science begins with a philosophy and ends with *better* question. The product can never be the truth. If you want to know the truth, you need to look inside, not outside. Everything is Zen, bitchez.

sounds like you're just calling truth something else. Godel's incompleteness aside, basically you're admitting science is a pursuit of better answers to (hopefully) better questions. And if you ask good questions, you find out cool stuff about the universe.

Quote from Xygonn : Progress. Useful understanding. Maybe that's just because I'm an engineer more than a scientist Science doesn't tell us what we should do. It tells us what we can do. It tells us what the physical results of some action will be (with some confidence) even if we haven't done that thing before.

progress towards what? truth, imo.

Quote from skiman : Sure, that's what I said. Exactly.

perhaps you should provide some examples. what you think of as exemplary debate and what you think of as hogwash and idiocy.

Quote from bonkman : perhaps you should provide some examples. what you think of as exemplary debate and what you think of as hogwash and idiocy.

People tend to take that sort of thing personally.

Quote from skiman : People tend to take that sort of thing personally.

paraphrase

And let's reword it as "good and bad debate"

Quote from bonkman : paraphrase And let's reword it as "good and bad debate"

It's more rare than it should be that two or more parties are actively trying to debate the same issue, but we have had in recent memory what are earnest, sometimes fruitful debates on natural rights and gun control.

Contrast these good-faith discussions against this thread, which despite pan-political consensus on basic facts and basic arithmetic, dragged on and on as a gruesome spectacle of senseless intransigence. Reminding me of the heroin thread of yore.

Quote from bonkman : progress towards what? truth, imo.

Progress towards better quality of life. Without science, you are basically stuck in a cave, or best case, planting crops and praying for rain.