Conspiracy theories and the conspiracy mindset

those are applications of science. Technology as a whole is an application of science. Do you feel that the purpose of science is to drive technology forward? Or is that simply a byproduct of what happens, like ceramics technology advancing as a byproduct of our desire to go to the moon?

I hold that it is a byproduct. Theoretical physicists don't care if their work has any application to quantum computing or faster-than-light travel. They just want to unravel the universe. Engineers can then try to play with their findings in order to make Star Wars.

Clearly, some conspiracies are legitimate.

Like I said, maybe it's because I'm an engineer. If there is no potential use, I'm not interested. The number of scientists attempting to unravel the universe are far outnumbered by the number of scientists trying to cure diseases, develop new materials (usually for some particular use but with ancillary benefits), develop better power/electricity production cycles and tools, etc. Calculus is not the point of calculus. Pointing a rocket at the moon is the point of calculus. Likewise knowledge is not the point of science. It is the application. Without applicability there is no meaning. So yes, I am saying technology is the point of science.

which do you believe are legitimate?

I won't say all of these are legit (or count as conspiracies

If someone demonstrates that they are incapable of recognizing the difference between fact and opinion, and can't form a mature argument or resort to baseless attacks, that person gets ignored. And it's not about ignoring dissenting opinions, because there are plenty of people I consider to be on the "other side" of many of my opinions that aren't ignored. It's all about how you conduct yourself in a debate.

which ones will you say are legit and count as conspiracies?

Newton invented calculus to shoot rockets at the moon? I don't think so -- he did it so he could understand how and why the planets moved the way they did. Einstein didn't develop relativity just so GPS could help you get home. He did it because he wanted to understand the cosmos.

And I'm not sure about your assertion. Many biologists will say things like "what I'm studying could lead to breakthroughs in ____ medicine" but the questions they'll be looking at are along the lines of "how does this protein cascade work?" or "how do histones know where to bind DNA?" Perhaps it is engineer bias?

MKULTRA and Tuskeegee I know are legit from my own research. The other ones I haven't done my own investigating, so I'd be completely trusting the journalists. All of them in the first link are legitimate conspiracies. The second link is a bit more iffy.

Would you consider the Vietnam war a conspiracy because of the Gulf of Tonkin incident? What about the Iraq war because of the lies told to Congress by multiple people? What about Operation Northwoods? Operation Paperclip?

I was going to post this article in the current iteration of the "Global Warming is nonsense! A tabloid says so!" thread but I realized that it's application is far more broad and relevant to TP.

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/the...iracy_meme

It seems like more and more often, posters resort to (cling to) claims of conspiracy. This could be about global warming, war, the President enacting a gun ban, 9/11, or even something silly like the sinking of the Titanic.

Is it trolling to resort to conspiracy theory tactics? Clearly, some conspiracies are legitimate. This article explores a bit how to tell the difference. Should we start warning/banning posters who repeatedly post possibilities of a theory as fact? What if they continue to do so after the theory (or aspects of it) are demonstrably shown to be false? Or, should we accept this as a legitimate debate tactic since we are indeed choosing to spend time on TP and could always just browse other areas of SD?

Conspiracy theorists (or at least most of them) actually believe in the conspiracy and are very seldom swayed. Even if you "prove" to the general public that the conspiracy theory is wrong, very often the conspiracy theorists are truly still unconvinced. How can you warn/ban someone for arguing for what they truly believe in?
There are some conspiracy theorists here on TP that spam threads with their message every 30 seconds. They should be warned/banned for the spamming but not because they believe something different. From reading your posts in the GW threads, it seems to me that you have a hard time accepting that other people don't believe what you believe. Is this why you are proposing warning points for conspiracy theorists?

Great article. Bookmarked, thanks.

I think everyone needs to understand Dawkin's work on memetics and do some self-exploration in their own lives to see if they're the product of what's rattling around in their minds, or if what's rattling around in their minds is a product of them. In other words, are you a host or a real thinker?

One thing is for sure, science is NOT about discovering the truth. Anyone trying to convince you otherwise has something to sell.

hmm...that's a good question. Not sure. I'd need to think about it.

hmm...that's a good question. Not sure. I'd need to think about it.