Or conspiracy **hoax**.
Real conspiracies, like COINTELPRO, the Watergate break-in, the Iranian Shia conspiracy to overthrow the Shah and the UK-US conspiracy to overthrow democracy in Iran and install the Shah, are simply described as conspiracies.
Hoaxes are, just, hoaxes.
Well there are real conspiracies, like the Watergate scandal, Mk Ultra, the buisness plot, cointelpro, enron, gulf of Tonkin, the bombing of Cambodia, project mockingbird, the assassination of black panthers by the police, operation sunshine(very gruesome), so on and so forth.
Now that doesn't mean that the government is putting chemicals in the water to turn the frogs gay, but pollution from chemical plants do cause far larger numbers of frogs to be born female.
Conspiracies are very much still at play today, such as Donald Trump's alternative electors in Georgia, and J6.
The reason people don't trust the powers at be is because they have legitimate reason not to. But too many have kneejerk conspiracy ideation, when it should be something you build evidence of first.
>mental masturbation
Read the comments in this thread. Endless arguments about words such as 'theory', 'hypothesis' and 'conspiracy' with no fruitful results.
Theory can also be synonymous with "explanation." When talking about conspiracy theories, researchers tend to use it in that way. Much like germ theory and the theory of gravity refer to fields of study filled with various explanations, so does a conspiracy theory.
For context, I Did my doctoral work on conspiracy beliefs and had to dig into the difference between a conspiracy, a conspiracy theory, and a conspiracy belief. It's a rich discussion out there and the folks doing the research have come up with good reasons for the term.
A conspiracy is a secret agreement between two or more actors to achieve a malevolent goal. 911 was a conspiracy by Bin Laden and his people.
A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or phenomenon that says a conspiracy was in place. But that conspiracy is either unevidenced, contradicted by evidence, or failing to produce evidence it would leave behind. 911 being done by the Bush administration is a conspiracy theory because it is contradicted by evidence.
A conspiracy belief is when someone believes a conspiracy or conspiracy theory. It's the act of thinking one of the above is true and real. People can hold conspiracy beliefs that are based in evidence (e.g. that Watergate happened)
Conspiracy Thinking is when someone's default mode of operating is to presuppose and assume conspiracies for most or all notable events. They likely have a "monological belief system" which is a fancy way of saying that they create conspiracy theories like mad libs anytime an event happens. As soon as something bad goes down they explain it as an act by "them" to forward "their goals."
Conspiracy theories are unscientific by nature. "Experiments have revealed that feelings of anxiety make people think more conspiratorially. Such feelings, along with a sense of disenfranchisement, currently grip many Americans, according to surveys. In such situations, a conspiracy theory can provide comfort by identifying a convenient scapegoat and thereby making the world seem more straightforward and controllable." From scientific American.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/people-drawn-to-conspiracy-theories-share-a-cluster-of-psychological-features/
That's not true. A hypothesis is just a proposed testable explanation for some phenomenon. You can form a hypothesis from a position of ignorance. You're thinking of a theory or law.
"That's the entire point of the scientific method."
No it's not. The point is to arrive at a reliable explanation for a how nature works. The scientific method is iterative, it's not a strict linear process. You can make a hypothesis from a position of ignorance, and then gather evidence afterwards through testing it.
> You can make a hypothesis from a position of ignorance, and then gather evidence afterwards through testing it.
I have never seen anyone say doing science like a lawyer (make an argument and then gather evidence for it) is anything but bad science.
https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/science-fair/steps-of-the-scientific-method
"I have never seen anyone say.."
Good scientists can think for themselves.
Break down what you're saying. This wouldn't be scientific?
Someone with no knowledge of rocks or physics proposes the hypothesis: "if I drop this rock, it will float in the air."
They test it by dropping it.
Result: they record that it doesn't float in the air.
They repeat the experiment multiple times, and record their results.
Conclusion: hypothesis not supported.
(Now what you're saying comes into play)
Then, using evidence gathered from the previous research, they form a new hypothesis called "gravity" to explain their previous hypothesis not working
.....ect
See what I'm saying? Theres no logical contradiction in doing it in that order. As long as the reliability, rigorousness, and humility/honesty thresholds are met; you get to the exact same place.
Only their second one. (Gravity makes rocks fall)
They didn't have any evidence for the first hypothesis (if I drop this rock, it will float in the air).
Their first evidence that rocks fall, only came after they tested the 1st hypothesis by dropping the rock.
Having had the night to think about it, I concede you're right: if we were to study the claim that god exists, we would have no evidence, merely the claim. So then we'd have to start testing the elements of the claim that should produce evidence if there was a god.
Nice lol, I didn't think of that. That would have been a much easier way to put it.
Now that I think about it, I guess extending on your line of thinking, finding out if big foot is real could have been an example too
The term conspiracy theory literally started out as a political weapon... it has never been anything else, really... not to say that what we think of as conspiracy theories don't exist, but the term has always been used to diminish and deflect from valid concerns, at least as much as it has been used to describe organized bodies of quackery.
I mean, some of them certainly were that from the beginning, but most of them were just fun and interesting stories about aliens, monsters, cover ups and so fourth. Nowadays they are mostly used as a cover for antisemitic, homophobic and transphobic dog whistles.
They always have been. Nothing changed except they became more mainstream due to social media and people like Alex Jones.
I used to enjoy them when I was younger as it was a bit of fun, didn't believe any of them but it was interesting. As I got older I started to notice how many of them were anti-semitic in nature. They'd be talking about the weirdest shit and nearly always manage to shoehorn some shit about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Same. It was fun when conspiracy theories were "us against them"... now they're "us against each other," cause "them" is now "us," and all of a sudden, I don't find it so fun anymore...
> The term conspiracy theory literally started out as a political weapon...
Really? All the way back [in 1863](https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-new-york-times-first-use-of-conspir/96772461/)? Talk about the long game.
And I'm sorry, but "conspiracy theorists" did it to themselves. In the same way that once-medical categories for mental disability became slurs, their behavior is what turned "conspiracy theorist" into a negative label.
If they manage to get the term off the ground, look for their new attempt at not sounding insane, "investigative researcher," to go the same route.
I don't think the author is asserting that the two words were never put together before CIA initiative, but feel free to need glib misinterpretations to deny history that doesn't suit your present worldview
Honestly, yes, that is a more correct usage of the terms. In cases where people have actually conspired then conspiracy theory would be fitting, and in cases where people have not conspired or we don't know then hypothesis would be accurate.
Except a hypothesis is discarded when disproved, whereas conspiracies by their nature have hidden components, so their advocates refuse to accept evidence disproving them - they've got the built-in "that's what they want you to think" reflexive self preservation argument.
I’d be more concerned with the ridiculous assertions that theories are the highest form of knowledge and the questionable delineation between theory and hypothesis in the relevant contexts.
No, a scientific law is the highest form of scientific knowledge.
I think 'conspiracy hypothesis or theory would work depending on the situation. Basically is there a 'floated' conspiracy, or a proven conspiracy?
I guess Nixon and Watergate would be a conspiracy theory, because that was proven to have happened. A conspiracy hypothesis would be like "the queen of England is a reptilian shape shifter"
> No, a scientific law is the highest form of scientific knowledge
No, scientific laws are just useful mathematical relationships. Most - if not all - of them are strictly false.
No, a scientific law is a statement that describes an observable occurrence in nature that appears to always be true.
Whether that statement is expressed mathematically or not is optional
Logically, they wouldn't be strictly false, they would be strictly possible and/or strictly contingent.
Newton's laws: strictly falsified, but still a useful approximation in many circumstances.
Ideal gas law: strictly false, but a useful approximation most of the time.
Kepler's laws: strictly wrong, but a useful approximation most of the time.
We could kerep going, but the fact is that most if not all scientfic laws are useful approximations that are known to be strictly incorrect (though they were not usually known to be wrong when initially formulated).
A law being supplanted doesn't mean that they weren't thought to always be true when they were made, and so the highest form of scientific knowledge at that time.
Stop making up your own definition for the word. Your definition describes the result of a scientific law being supplanted, not what a scientific law actually is. That's like saying a scientific theory is a strictly false approximation just because there have been wrong theories before. That's not what theory is, that's a possible result of the scientific process.
Scientific laws don't get supplanted unless there is a more useful approximation.
Newton's laws still get used, as do ideal gas laws and Kepler's laws. Becase they are still useful approximations.
I'm not making up my own definition, you just don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
"Scientific laws don't get supplanted unless there is a more useful approximation. "
And? Yeah that's how science works. Scientific theories ALSO don't get supplanted unless there's a more useful one.
"Newton's laws still get used, as do ideal gas laws and Kepler's laws. Becase they are still useful approximations."
And? Some facets of those laws still always appear to be true, so they're strictly not 'strictly false'. Concepts from alchemy are still relevant to modern chemistry. That doesn't change the fact that alchemy was the best explanation for it's time.
"...you just don't know what the fuck you're talking about."
Except I LITERALLY do lol, because I LITERALLY gave the LITERAL definition of what an SL is... "a statement that describes an observable occurrence in nature that appears to always be true."
That definition (ie. the real definition) that I gave, isn't logically equivalent to the one you proposed. Again, you're describing a history-effect of using science; not what an SL actually is.
If you want my advice, you're never going to be a good scientist (amateur or professional) if you can't handle constructive criticism when you make a mistake. Especially considering that you could've found out what a SL means if you just did a 5 minute Google search.
> And? Yeah that's how science works. Scientific theories ALSO don't get supplanted unless there's a more useful one.
Relativity supplanted Newtownian physics as a scientific theory.
The relationships are well-defined.
But Newton's laws still get used *despite us knowing they are wrong and having a more accurate explanation*.
Because they are a *useful approximation* not the *most accurate understanding we have*.
Work on your reading comprehension: no wonder you don't understand scientific laws if your reading ability is this poor.
And don't tell me what makes one a good scientist or not when you don't have any clue what the fuck you're on about.
Of course. Conspiracy theory as an umbrella term encompasses everything from big foot to the realities of corporate malfeasance. The CIA, so it is said, deliberately lumped fictional with non-fictional in order to obscure the darker realities of the world.
What was it that Jefferson said? All corporations are a conspiracy against the laity. This is basic truth that if one thinks about, makes perfect sense.
All corporations sell products and are innately biased toward defending the integrity of said product, using all wealth at their disposal... And enough wealth makes mercenaries out of all men..
Like tobacco salesmen and the doctors and scientists who were convinced to advocate the health benefits of smoking. Probably many of them didn't consciously lie about their statements, they honestly believed the nonsense data they stood behind.... Because money has that effect.
Anyways, back to the original point... Very often conspiracy theories are hypothesis of criminal activity by wealthy, well connected and organized men. Making them very difficult to prove and often, the very act of a real accusation can be considered criminal due to libel laws and such.
So.. they become merely fun entertainment and fantasy. Divorced from action... Because if many of these conspiracies were true, from 9/11 to vaccine induced autism... The gravity of the crimes is so great that it would, if popularly known, probably cause a rebellion.
I ascribe to a variety of theories considered conspiratorial which are well grounded in the scientific literature. And as mentioned I know they aren't popularly considered true due to ramification to the state economic and military well being.
>vaccine induced autism
This is actually a really simplistic and deconstructive view of the argument, being: Mercury adjuvants have been shown to have a correlation to increased autism diagnoses nationwide.
Mercury adjuvants, of course, are used in many vaccines.
I could argue for or against the notion of vaccines causing autism due to adjuvants or autoimmune screwups. I won't here.
All I will say is in my own existence I err on the side of caution. Yay for the precautionary principle...
Well due to the alleged skeptical nature of the forum.
Is this really the place to discuss how humanity has been rendered universally retarded due to the sophistry of satanists?
Sure, it's a forum for analyzing claims, is that the claim you are making?
That vaccines have caused humanity to become universally retarded due to the willful machinations of the sophistry of Satanists?
No... the incorrect use of the word is an intergal part of describing this thing built on conjecture, misinformation, disinformation, and just plain incorrectness.
A conspiracy theory is rooted in paranoia. There is no science to it. However, there are a few conspiracy theories that turned out to be true, maybe 1 in 1 million.
I think that kind of depends. An hypothesis is an individual vonjecture, whereas some (maybe most, I don't know) conspiracy theories are pretty complex with many separate, interconnected claims being made.
Not sure off the top of my head if there's another term that might b3 a better fit, but if I come up with something good I'll update.
The conspirators aren't doing science, so we should not provide a semblance of validity to their hair-brained ideas by applying scientific labels to their absurdities.
I do believe we should rename conspiracy theory. My suggestion would be 'buffoon notion'.
Yup. That is a fundamental thing they always get wrong. They don't have a theory, only a hypothesis.
And whenever they disprove their own hypothesis they never end up changing something about it
Are theories actually considered the highest form of knowledge in science?
A theory is essentially an explanation of a given number of facts. The theory itself can't technically be proven 100% true, just more or less statistically likely to be true.
I guess it just depends on how we're using the word knowledge. To me, knowledge is something that is true and known to be true, not just the most likely explanation. I'm not trying to downplay the explanatory power of a good theory.
All that to say theory is a better word to describe a possible conspiracy, because it is just an explanation of the facts. The problem is just that they usually skip all the facts that run counter to their theory because they're crazy, gullible, or malicious.
> Are theories actually considered the highest form of knowledge in science?
Absolutely: a theory is a well-corroborated explanation for a large set of observations. That's the most science can ever do.
Science deals with evidence not absolute certainty.
Yeah, you are right about science dealing with evidence and not absolutes. It's been a few years since I was on a science kick and I've been down a philosophy rabbit hole.
I do ultimately think theory still works fine to refer to conspiratorial explanations.
As far as accuracy goes, theory (the colloquial definition) is just the best word. I would say that most people who can be mislead by the term theory, are probably people who don't even know the academic definition of theory or are conspiracy theorists themselves. So the only people who would use a different term are the people who don't need it, and the people who do would probably see it as a conspiracy to make them look crazier, which it technically would be lol.
> most people who can be mislead by the term theory, are probably people who don't even know the academic definition of theory
The problem is, you just described a supermajority of the population.
I don't believe a supermajority of people think a scientific theory and a conspiracy theory are the same thing, even if they can't tell you the definition. Despite how crazy the world is right now, most people aren't conspiracy theorists, though the amount of conspiracy thinking that is starting to eat away all sides of politics is concerning.
> I don't believe a supermajority of people think a scientific theory and a conspiracy theory are the same thing,
No, but their lack of understanding of the distinction makes some percentage of them more likely to fall into a conspiracy theory rabbit hole.
Improving their understanding of science would obviously help but most people are intellectually lazy and don't really care so the practical measure to improve things would seem to be to reduce ambiguity in language for them.
I'm not sure the word theory is the problem, it's their observation of a given set of facts and the narrative used to explain them. Even people with a good understanding of science can fall into conspiracy thinking, not because they don't understand science but because of certain beliefs they have about how certain facts can be explained, or how best to explain them. And that generally has more to do with things that aren't hard sciences, but rather social interactions (if we're excluding things like flat earth, etc.)
No, because a hypothesis can be falsified. *Theory* is actually the correct term because it is a conclusion about how the world works. Conspiracy theorists skip over hypotheses completely, because “hypothesis” implies an acknowledgment that the data might prove you wrong.
I’m not pandering to anybody. A theory and a hypothesis are just different (but related) things, not necessarily strict rungs on a ladder. A hypothesis is always an “if/then” statement, while the theory is just the “then.” The problem with a conspiracy theory is that there never was a hypothesis in the first place. Conspiracy theorists pick a conclusion and work backwards from there.
Two different uses of the word "theory." In science, the word describes a collection of established principles, e.g., germ theory or music theory. No one is doubting germs or music exist in those cases. The lay definition "an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action" is still valid outside of science, just as the words culture, family, and unionized have different meanings.
You are dead-on correct, but I wouldn't be so generous, because a Hypothesis is a statement that is created for the purpose of being tested.
I would suggest words like "Speculative" or "Unverified", down the spectrum to "Manipulative", "Fabricated", and "Nonsense".
Nope. It should be called precisely what it is... Factually unfounded paranoid mental masturbation. FUPMM for short!
>FUPMM Netflix called, they don't like this new name imitating their signature sound
It just rolls off the tongue.
How about Mental Masturbation of Factually Unfounded Paranoia? Pronounced mmmm-fup
Or conspiracy **hoax**. Real conspiracies, like COINTELPRO, the Watergate break-in, the Iranian Shia conspiracy to overthrow the Shah and the UK-US conspiracy to overthrow democracy in Iran and install the Shah, are simply described as conspiracies. Hoaxes are, just, hoaxes.
Well there are real conspiracies, like the Watergate scandal, Mk Ultra, the buisness plot, cointelpro, enron, gulf of Tonkin, the bombing of Cambodia, project mockingbird, the assassination of black panthers by the police, operation sunshine(very gruesome), so on and so forth. Now that doesn't mean that the government is putting chemicals in the water to turn the frogs gay, but pollution from chemical plants do cause far larger numbers of frogs to be born female. Conspiracies are very much still at play today, such as Donald Trump's alternative electors in Georgia, and J6. The reason people don't trust the powers at be is because they have legitimate reason not to. But too many have kneejerk conspiracy ideation, when it should be something you build evidence of first.
>mental masturbation Read the comments in this thread. Endless arguments about words such as 'theory', 'hypothesis' and 'conspiracy' with no fruitful results.
Theory can also be synonymous with "explanation." When talking about conspiracy theories, researchers tend to use it in that way. Much like germ theory and the theory of gravity refer to fields of study filled with various explanations, so does a conspiracy theory. For context, I Did my doctoral work on conspiracy beliefs and had to dig into the difference between a conspiracy, a conspiracy theory, and a conspiracy belief. It's a rich discussion out there and the folks doing the research have come up with good reasons for the term.
What did you land on for the difference between the terms?
A conspiracy is a secret agreement between two or more actors to achieve a malevolent goal. 911 was a conspiracy by Bin Laden and his people. A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or phenomenon that says a conspiracy was in place. But that conspiracy is either unevidenced, contradicted by evidence, or failing to produce evidence it would leave behind. 911 being done by the Bush administration is a conspiracy theory because it is contradicted by evidence. A conspiracy belief is when someone believes a conspiracy or conspiracy theory. It's the act of thinking one of the above is true and real. People can hold conspiracy beliefs that are based in evidence (e.g. that Watergate happened) Conspiracy Thinking is when someone's default mode of operating is to presuppose and assume conspiracies for most or all notable events. They likely have a "monological belief system" which is a fancy way of saying that they create conspiracy theories like mad libs anytime an event happens. As soon as something bad goes down they explain it as an act by "them" to forward "their goals."
Conspiracy theories are unscientific by nature. "Experiments have revealed that feelings of anxiety make people think more conspiratorially. Such feelings, along with a sense of disenfranchisement, currently grip many Americans, according to surveys. In such situations, a conspiracy theory can provide comfort by identifying a convenient scapegoat and thereby making the world seem more straightforward and controllable." From scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/people-drawn-to-conspiracy-theories-share-a-cluster-of-psychological-features/
No. A hypothesis is a testable claim that will be kept or discarded based on the evidence. Perhaps Conspiracy Claim.
Or dillusion or narrative
No, because a hypothesis is based on evidence. A conspiracy theory should be called a conspiracy shitpost.
That's not true. A hypothesis is just a proposed testable explanation for some phenomenon. You can form a hypothesis from a position of ignorance. You're thinking of a theory or law.
A hypothesis is an attempt to explain evidence. That's the entire point of the scientific method.
"That's the entire point of the scientific method." No it's not. The point is to arrive at a reliable explanation for a how nature works. The scientific method is iterative, it's not a strict linear process. You can make a hypothesis from a position of ignorance, and then gather evidence afterwards through testing it.
> You can make a hypothesis from a position of ignorance, and then gather evidence afterwards through testing it. I have never seen anyone say doing science like a lawyer (make an argument and then gather evidence for it) is anything but bad science. https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/science-fair/steps-of-the-scientific-method
"I have never seen anyone say.." Good scientists can think for themselves. Break down what you're saying. This wouldn't be scientific? Someone with no knowledge of rocks or physics proposes the hypothesis: "if I drop this rock, it will float in the air." They test it by dropping it. Result: they record that it doesn't float in the air. They repeat the experiment multiple times, and record their results. Conclusion: hypothesis not supported. (Now what you're saying comes into play) Then, using evidence gathered from the previous research, they form a new hypothesis called "gravity" to explain their previous hypothesis not working .....ect See what I'm saying? Theres no logical contradiction in doing it in that order. As long as the reliability, rigorousness, and humility/honesty thresholds are met; you get to the exact same place.
The phenomenon of the rock falling is the evidence they're basing their hypothesis on.
Only their second one. (Gravity makes rocks fall) They didn't have any evidence for the first hypothesis (if I drop this rock, it will float in the air). Their first evidence that rocks fall, only came after they tested the 1st hypothesis by dropping the rock.
Having had the night to think about it, I concede you're right: if we were to study the claim that god exists, we would have no evidence, merely the claim. So then we'd have to start testing the elements of the claim that should produce evidence if there was a god.
Nice lol, I didn't think of that. That would have been a much easier way to put it. Now that I think about it, I guess extending on your line of thinking, finding out if big foot is real could have been an example too
Definitely. The term "conspiracy theory" has been hijacked and turned into a political weapon that is eroding public trust.
The term conspiracy theory literally started out as a political weapon... it has never been anything else, really... not to say that what we think of as conspiracy theories don't exist, but the term has always been used to diminish and deflect from valid concerns, at least as much as it has been used to describe organized bodies of quackery.
I mean, some of them certainly were that from the beginning, but most of them were just fun and interesting stories about aliens, monsters, cover ups and so fourth. Nowadays they are mostly used as a cover for antisemitic, homophobic and transphobic dog whistles.
Dont forget racist. More of them are racist than not these days as well.
They always have been. Nothing changed except they became more mainstream due to social media and people like Alex Jones. I used to enjoy them when I was younger as it was a bit of fun, didn't believe any of them but it was interesting. As I got older I started to notice how many of them were anti-semitic in nature. They'd be talking about the weirdest shit and nearly always manage to shoehorn some shit about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Same. It was fun when conspiracy theories were "us against them"... now they're "us against each other," cause "them" is now "us," and all of a sudden, I don't find it so fun anymore...
> The term conspiracy theory literally started out as a political weapon... Really? All the way back [in 1863](https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-new-york-times-first-use-of-conspir/96772461/)? Talk about the long game. And I'm sorry, but "conspiracy theorists" did it to themselves. In the same way that once-medical categories for mental disability became slurs, their behavior is what turned "conspiracy theorist" into a negative label. If they manage to get the term off the ground, look for their new attempt at not sounding insane, "investigative researcher," to go the same route.
Bingo https://utpress.utexas.edu/9780292757691/
That's what it was coined to do. By people the public cannot trust. https://utpress.utexas.edu/9780292757691/
Did they [have a time machine?](https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-new-york-times-first-use-of-conspir/96772461/)
I don't think the author is asserting that the two words were never put together before CIA initiative, but feel free to need glib misinterpretations to deny history that doesn't suit your present worldview
Conspiracy delusion. That's the most they deserve.
Honestly, yes, that is a more correct usage of the terms. In cases where people have actually conspired then conspiracy theory would be fitting, and in cases where people have not conspired or we don't know then hypothesis would be accurate.
Santa Claus is a theory, most everything else is a conspiracy conjecture, or thought experiment at best.
Except a hypothesis is discarded when disproved, whereas conspiracies by their nature have hidden components, so their advocates refuse to accept evidence disproving them - they've got the built-in "that's what they want you to think" reflexive self preservation argument.
Conspiracy theories are typically not falsifiable, so that sort of precludes them from being hypotheses.
No they are falsifiable but you cannot convince the Conspiracy proponents that this is the case.
Conspiracy conjecture.
I’d be more concerned with the ridiculous assertions that theories are the highest form of knowledge and the questionable delineation between theory and hypothesis in the relevant contexts.
Heard of the theory of relativity, the theory of evolution, the theory of gravity,
This isn’t even an argument. Have you heard of facts, laws, principles etc.?
In Germany reputable media uses the term "conspiracy myth" since a few years
No, a scientific law is the highest form of scientific knowledge. I think 'conspiracy hypothesis or theory would work depending on the situation. Basically is there a 'floated' conspiracy, or a proven conspiracy? I guess Nixon and Watergate would be a conspiracy theory, because that was proven to have happened. A conspiracy hypothesis would be like "the queen of England is a reptilian shape shifter"
> No, a scientific law is the highest form of scientific knowledge No, scientific laws are just useful mathematical relationships. Most - if not all - of them are strictly false.
No, a scientific law is a statement that describes an observable occurrence in nature that appears to always be true. Whether that statement is expressed mathematically or not is optional Logically, they wouldn't be strictly false, they would be strictly possible and/or strictly contingent.
Newton's laws: strictly falsified, but still a useful approximation in many circumstances. Ideal gas law: strictly false, but a useful approximation most of the time. Kepler's laws: strictly wrong, but a useful approximation most of the time. We could kerep going, but the fact is that most if not all scientfic laws are useful approximations that are known to be strictly incorrect (though they were not usually known to be wrong when initially formulated).
A law being supplanted doesn't mean that they weren't thought to always be true when they were made, and so the highest form of scientific knowledge at that time. Stop making up your own definition for the word. Your definition describes the result of a scientific law being supplanted, not what a scientific law actually is. That's like saying a scientific theory is a strictly false approximation just because there have been wrong theories before. That's not what theory is, that's a possible result of the scientific process.
Scientific laws don't get supplanted unless there is a more useful approximation. Newton's laws still get used, as do ideal gas laws and Kepler's laws. Becase they are still useful approximations. I'm not making up my own definition, you just don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
"Scientific laws don't get supplanted unless there is a more useful approximation. " And? Yeah that's how science works. Scientific theories ALSO don't get supplanted unless there's a more useful one. "Newton's laws still get used, as do ideal gas laws and Kepler's laws. Becase they are still useful approximations." And? Some facets of those laws still always appear to be true, so they're strictly not 'strictly false'. Concepts from alchemy are still relevant to modern chemistry. That doesn't change the fact that alchemy was the best explanation for it's time. "...you just don't know what the fuck you're talking about." Except I LITERALLY do lol, because I LITERALLY gave the LITERAL definition of what an SL is... "a statement that describes an observable occurrence in nature that appears to always be true." That definition (ie. the real definition) that I gave, isn't logically equivalent to the one you proposed. Again, you're describing a history-effect of using science; not what an SL actually is. If you want my advice, you're never going to be a good scientist (amateur or professional) if you can't handle constructive criticism when you make a mistake. Especially considering that you could've found out what a SL means if you just did a 5 minute Google search.
> And? Yeah that's how science works. Scientific theories ALSO don't get supplanted unless there's a more useful one. Relativity supplanted Newtownian physics as a scientific theory. The relationships are well-defined. But Newton's laws still get used *despite us knowing they are wrong and having a more accurate explanation*. Because they are a *useful approximation* not the *most accurate understanding we have*. Work on your reading comprehension: no wonder you don't understand scientific laws if your reading ability is this poor. And don't tell me what makes one a good scientist or not when you don't have any clue what the fuck you're on about.
Of course. Conspiracy theory as an umbrella term encompasses everything from big foot to the realities of corporate malfeasance. The CIA, so it is said, deliberately lumped fictional with non-fictional in order to obscure the darker realities of the world. What was it that Jefferson said? All corporations are a conspiracy against the laity. This is basic truth that if one thinks about, makes perfect sense. All corporations sell products and are innately biased toward defending the integrity of said product, using all wealth at their disposal... And enough wealth makes mercenaries out of all men.. Like tobacco salesmen and the doctors and scientists who were convinced to advocate the health benefits of smoking. Probably many of them didn't consciously lie about their statements, they honestly believed the nonsense data they stood behind.... Because money has that effect. Anyways, back to the original point... Very often conspiracy theories are hypothesis of criminal activity by wealthy, well connected and organized men. Making them very difficult to prove and often, the very act of a real accusation can be considered criminal due to libel laws and such. So.. they become merely fun entertainment and fantasy. Divorced from action... Because if many of these conspiracies were true, from 9/11 to vaccine induced autism... The gravity of the crimes is so great that it would, if popularly known, probably cause a rebellion. I ascribe to a variety of theories considered conspiratorial which are well grounded in the scientific literature. And as mentioned I know they aren't popularly considered true due to ramification to the state economic and military well being.
>vaccine induced autism This is actually a really simplistic and deconstructive view of the argument, being: Mercury adjuvants have been shown to have a correlation to increased autism diagnoses nationwide. Mercury adjuvants, of course, are used in many vaccines.
I could argue for or against the notion of vaccines causing autism due to adjuvants or autoimmune screwups. I won't here. All I will say is in my own existence I err on the side of caution. Yay for the precautionary principle...
Bro you think Satan is causing autism through the covid vaccine.
I could argue that sure :) I can argue anything.
But what do you believe? Are vaccines generally safe and almost certainly have no causative effect on autism?
They're medicines greatest lifesaver that's for sure. I won't go into the cost.
Why not?
Well due to the alleged skeptical nature of the forum. Is this really the place to discuss how humanity has been rendered universally retarded due to the sophistry of satanists?
Sure, it's a forum for analyzing claims, is that the claim you are making? That vaccines have caused humanity to become universally retarded due to the willful machinations of the sophistry of Satanists?
>for or against the notion of vaccines causing autism They don't, but there is a correlation.
No... the incorrect use of the word is an intergal part of describing this thing built on conjecture, misinformation, disinformation, and just plain incorrectness.
No, they're pretty certain of it.
I prefer "Conspiracy Myth"
A conspiracy theory is rooted in paranoia. There is no science to it. However, there are a few conspiracy theories that turned out to be true, maybe 1 in 1 million.
It's insulting to give it even the tiniest bit of respect. "Bullshit" fills the bill perfectly.
No, a hypothesis is falsifiable
That's right. Most Conspiracy Hypothesis are falsifiable.
I think that kind of depends. An hypothesis is an individual vonjecture, whereas some (maybe most, I don't know) conspiracy theories are pretty complex with many separate, interconnected claims being made. Not sure off the top of my head if there's another term that might b3 a better fit, but if I come up with something good I'll update.
The conspirators aren't doing science, so we should not provide a semblance of validity to their hair-brained ideas by applying scientific labels to their absurdities. I do believe we should rename conspiracy theory. My suggestion would be 'buffoon notion'.
Conspiracy Conjecture?
Yup. That is a fundamental thing they always get wrong. They don't have a theory, only a hypothesis. And whenever they disprove their own hypothesis they never end up changing something about it
Are theories actually considered the highest form of knowledge in science? A theory is essentially an explanation of a given number of facts. The theory itself can't technically be proven 100% true, just more or less statistically likely to be true. I guess it just depends on how we're using the word knowledge. To me, knowledge is something that is true and known to be true, not just the most likely explanation. I'm not trying to downplay the explanatory power of a good theory. All that to say theory is a better word to describe a possible conspiracy, because it is just an explanation of the facts. The problem is just that they usually skip all the facts that run counter to their theory because they're crazy, gullible, or malicious.
> Are theories actually considered the highest form of knowledge in science? Absolutely: a theory is a well-corroborated explanation for a large set of observations. That's the most science can ever do. Science deals with evidence not absolute certainty.
Yeah, you are right about science dealing with evidence and not absolutes. It's been a few years since I was on a science kick and I've been down a philosophy rabbit hole. I do ultimately think theory still works fine to refer to conspiratorial explanations.
It works ok (as "theory" has a meaning outside of science), but I think it's misleading and we would probably be better served by a different term.
As far as accuracy goes, theory (the colloquial definition) is just the best word. I would say that most people who can be mislead by the term theory, are probably people who don't even know the academic definition of theory or are conspiracy theorists themselves. So the only people who would use a different term are the people who don't need it, and the people who do would probably see it as a conspiracy to make them look crazier, which it technically would be lol.
> most people who can be mislead by the term theory, are probably people who don't even know the academic definition of theory The problem is, you just described a supermajority of the population.
I don't believe a supermajority of people think a scientific theory and a conspiracy theory are the same thing, even if they can't tell you the definition. Despite how crazy the world is right now, most people aren't conspiracy theorists, though the amount of conspiracy thinking that is starting to eat away all sides of politics is concerning.
> I don't believe a supermajority of people think a scientific theory and a conspiracy theory are the same thing, No, but their lack of understanding of the distinction makes some percentage of them more likely to fall into a conspiracy theory rabbit hole. Improving their understanding of science would obviously help but most people are intellectually lazy and don't really care so the practical measure to improve things would seem to be to reduce ambiguity in language for them.
I'm not sure the word theory is the problem, it's their observation of a given set of facts and the narrative used to explain them. Even people with a good understanding of science can fall into conspiracy thinking, not because they don't understand science but because of certain beliefs they have about how certain facts can be explained, or how best to explain them. And that generally has more to do with things that aren't hard sciences, but rather social interactions (if we're excluding things like flat earth, etc.)
You are correct
Conspiracy soufflé
Hypothetically, yes.
Conspiracy bullshit works fine for me.
No. Lack of understanding and misuse of vocabulary are staples of the art.
I call it "conspiracy story".
No, because a hypothesis can be falsified. *Theory* is actually the correct term because it is a conclusion about how the world works. Conspiracy theorists skip over hypotheses completely, because “hypothesis” implies an acknowledgment that the data might prove you wrong.
Why should skeptics pander to the erroneous processes of a Conspiracy Hypothesist. (Or Conspiracy Delusionist).
I’m not pandering to anybody. A theory and a hypothesis are just different (but related) things, not necessarily strict rungs on a ladder. A hypothesis is always an “if/then” statement, while the theory is just the “then.” The problem with a conspiracy theory is that there never was a hypothesis in the first place. Conspiracy theorists pick a conclusion and work backwards from there.
No, it should be called what it is: "Ignorance" if told without an agenda, "Lie" if propagated on purpose.
It should be called a conspiracy ***DELUSION***
Two different uses of the word "theory." In science, the word describes a collection of established principles, e.g., germ theory or music theory. No one is doubting germs or music exist in those cases. The lay definition "an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action" is still valid outside of science, just as the words culture, family, and unionized have different meanings.
You are dead-on correct, but I wouldn't be so generous, because a Hypothesis is a statement that is created for the purpose of being tested. I would suggest words like "Speculative" or "Unverified", down the spectrum to "Manipulative", "Fabricated", and "Nonsense".
This is my thought as well. A hypothesis is created with the intention of testing it, but conspiracy theories are not intended to be tested.
Wikigoogle says the difference is that a hypothesis is what you have before doing any research whatsoever, so yeah sounds about right.