When do conspiracy theories change and simply become conspiracy fact?

[Splott Dave]

Ignoring the latest round of controversial 'terror attacks' I am researching well known 'conspiracy theories' and presently looking at the assassination of JF Kennedy in Dallas, in light of some fairly new information which has appeared on the internet recently.

It did get me thinking and this board is a reasonable barometer of current trends of thinking on all sorts of issues. So my question is when do conspiracy theories change?

[Rjk]

When there is evidence that stands up to scrutiny, not just wild speculation.

[Barry Dragon]

If you or Mrs R say it they are wacko theories. If most other people say it then it's true.

There is no firm way. I would say conspiracy theories don't become facts. conspiracy facts turn into theories. The problem comes when people start looking into it and then talk about it. Facts are changed and merged and factual theories become lunacy. It then becomes wacko theory.

[Splott Dave]

If you or Mrs R say it they are wacko theories. If most other people say it then it's true.

There is no firm way. I would say conspiracy theories don't become facts. conspiracy facts turn into theories. The problem comes when people start looking into it and then talk about it. Facts are changed and merged and factual theories become lunacy. It then becomes wacko theory.

I would have thought that the very absence of facts is one that lends itself to theory, but the very presence of facts in and of themselves surely leans towards theories being proven. After all that's what scientists are doing all of the time. First establishing a theory then spending time proving the theory in the light of more factual information about it coming to light.

[Rjk]

I would have thought that the very absence of facts is one that lends itself to theory, but the very presence of facts in and of themselves surely leans towards theories being proven. After all that's what scientists are doing all of the time. First establishing a theory then spending time proving the theory in the light of more factual information about it coming to light.

When challenging a scientific theory is usually try to disprove it, not look for supporting evidence.

[Splott Dave]

When challenging a scientific theory is usually try to disprove it, not look for supporting evidence.

I agree but it works both forwards and backwards as it is after all the same process. but my original question related to that of conspiracies. Do you think that with fresh information on one you are more likely to change your views and regard what you previously thought of as a 'conspiracy theory,' to one where you were persuaded could be 'conspiracy fact'?

[Rjk]

I agree but it works both forwards and backwards as it is after all the same process. but my original question related to that of conspiracies. Do you think that with fresh information on one you are more likely to change your views and regard what you previously thought of as a 'conspiracy theory,' to one where you were persuaded could be 'conspiracy fact'?

Of course, if the evidence stands up to scrutiny.

I've done this kind of thing before and the evidence I've been presented with was really quite weak when not viewed with a large dollop of confirmation bias. Often those who think themselves as more open to these things seem completely unable to assess a document in its individual merits if it happens to sit well with their general view of the world, just as much as people who believe everything in the papers and on the tv

[Splott Dave]

We're two City supporters Barry, not Thelma and Louise...

[Mrs Steve R]

We're two City supporters Barry, not Thelma and Louise...

You said we were Thelma & Louise last night


Things don't become facts until they are on Snopes

[Splott Dave]

You said we were Thelma & Louise last night


Things don't become facts until they are on Snopes

I said a lot of things last night which I won't be saying again and I did a lot of things last night that I won't be doing again.

[Mrs Steve R]

I said a lot of things last night which I won't be saying again and I did a lot of things last night that I won't be doing again.

Were you drunk or what? I thought it a little odd when you said "We'll do the Thelma and Louise thing tomorrow.."

[Splott Dave]

[QUOTE=Mrs Steve R;4655205]You said we were Thelma & Louise last night


That was before the unfortunate incident in your new hot tub...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dIfP1QjPME

[Heathblue]

Come across this video this morning

[Rjk]

Come across this video this morning

In the hierarchy of conspiracy theories presented here today I find the twin towers ones the least convincing.

[Splott Dave]

Come across this video this morning

Here's an update to accompany the video of 9/11.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-911...ttacks/5303012

[lardy]

Here's an update to accompany the video of 9/11.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-911...ttacks/5303012

"9/11 was an important landmark for Global Research. Our website was launched on September 9, 2001, two days prior to 9/11. Our coverage of 9/11 was initiated on September 12, 2001."

Rather ironic as this is the kind of coincidence that conspiracy theorists love

[Rjk]

"9/11 was an important landmark for Global Research. Our website was launched on September 9, 2001, two days prior to 9/11. Our coverage of 9/11 was initiated on September 12, 2001."

Rather ironic as this is the kind of coincidence that conspiracy theorists love

It also says that Bin Laden can't have had anything to do with the attack, as he was in hospital on that day.

[goslow]

It also says that Bin Laden can't have had anything to do with the attack, as he was in hospital on that day.

Oddly enough some years ago splott bin david recommended watching a documentry on al jazeera about bin liner,according to his close associates he had no long term health problems

[Splott Dave]

"9/11 was an important landmark for Global Research. Our website was launched on September 9, 2001, two days prior to 9/11. Our coverage of 9/11 was initiated on September 12, 2001."

Rather ironic as this is the kind of coincidence that conspiracy theorists love

I actually prefer looking at evidence until logic and rational thinking dictate a conclusion. As the evidence slowly builds, it becomes less and less logical to stick to a view which increasingly relies on belief of a narrative, rather than simple facts and logic.

[Splott Dave]

"9/11 was an important landmark for Global Research. Our website was launched on September 9, 2001, two days prior to 9/11. Our coverage of 9/11 was initiated on September 12, 2001."

Rather ironic as this is the kind of coincidence that conspiracy theorists love

Possibly so, but my interest is in the area of conspiracy facts.

[Mrs Steve R]

...and so it begins.

[Packerman]

...and so it begins.

at least this shit is in the boondocks

[Splott Dave]

...and so it begins.

In fairness the thread was not about the best central defenders that we've ever seen at City...

[Mrs Steve R]

at least this shit is in the boondocks

What are boondocks?

In fairness the thread was not about the best central defenders that we've ever seen at City...

Who would you say if it was?

[Splott Dave]

What are boondocks?


Who would you say if it was?

Personally, for me it would be Pontin and Dwyer who were probably a little before your time.