1
2

Burden of proof lies with those proposing something is true, not with those questioning authenticity. This is what the entire conspiracy movement is about and something this subreddit has forgotten. (self.conspiracy)

antiward が 投稿

The whole point of conspiracy theories is to demand proof for a narrative. If it can't be provided that narrative should be questioned.

For example:

Prove 9/11 wasn't an inside job - wrong, it's proving a negative

Prove 9/11 was entirely coordinated by Islamic terrorists - is valid, it's proving a positive

Prove 9/11 was performed with inside knowledge - also valid, proving a positive

Prove Hillary Clinton didn't kill anyone for political power- wrong, proving a negative

Prove Hillary killed ______ - valid, proving a positive

THIS SOLE FACT is what separates conspiracy theory from idle speculation and flawed reasoning bridging imagined gaps with imagined proof. Please, for the sake of conspiracy theorists everywhere, get a dose of skepticism.

全 11 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]NyackMatty -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

I am skeptical about this post.

[–]DocturDread 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Cute post. Trying to introduce scientific reductionism to a realm of disinformation, evidence tampering and honeypot cover stories eh? Good luck with that brother. This is the realm of speculation, testimony and personal resonance, something scientists and NASA may never understand. Instead consider that everything is possible but much is not probable. Discern and do your own research rather than limit yourself to the tiny aspect of reality that many might claim to be proven. You are all highly developed spiritual beings with powers far more advanced than our current scientific paradigm pretends to understand. Blessed be!

[–]antiward[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

That's an excellent way to wander off into your own delusional world with no basis in reality.

Which is fine. But to expect someone to follow your personal delusions is ridiculous, and exactly why so many people dismiss conspiracy theorists.

[–]DocturDread 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Reality is highly subjective. For the programmed scientific minds, Prometheus Rising by Robert Anton Wilson may help you break out of your own reality tunnel. It certainly helped me. Here is a hint: One of the primary reasons you incarnated into this reality is because you accepted someone else's reality as you own instead of discovering your own reality. You have been lied to your entire life and will be given many opportunities to challenge what you have been told to believe. Good luck my friend!

[–]iivelifesmiling 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

The scientific model include the first step: Hypothesis.

Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research.

[–]antiward[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

And a hypothesis is completely useless unless it is used to design an experiment which could provide actual evidence. To suggest that simply throwing an idea against a wall is remotely close to a scientific conclusion is COMPLETELY disingenuous.

And hypothesis is not the first step, the problem/question comes first. Most science teaching methodology nowadays also includes a "research" step to determine what other people have found and inform your design and latter steps.

[–]iivelifesmiling 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

wrong, it's proving a negative

Worth noting is that proving a negative is possible, it is just more difficult in certain circumstances. For example, I can prove that I didn't kill JFK. Just sayin'.

[–]iivelifesmiling 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

And a hypothesis is completely useless unless it is used to design an experiment which could provide actual evidence.

Exactly. Therefore you should rather ask if statements or hypotheses can ever be investigated or proven in addition to your criticism. I think we have had plenty of hypotheses proven by investigations such as hacks or undercover journalism this election cycle to at least give value to formulating ideas.

hypothesis is not the first step

Well, it depends. Darwin's theory of evolution started as a hypothesis and the same is true with Einstein's theory of relativity.

[–]antiward[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Completely agree with the first point.

But as a science teacher, the last point is not right. Darwin's theory was in response to his wondering about how this diversity could have developed. Special relativity came about partly from the thought experiment of whether the earth would continue to orbit the sun for 8 minutes after it disappeared (before we would see it dissapear, an idea with huge implications). A hypothesis without a question makes as much sense as Douglas Adams famous "42" answer to life, the universe and everything, and (in relation to your first point) is arguably untestable until it can be turned into a question for which the hypothesis is an answer.

[–]iivelifesmiling 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Actually, the famous botanist Carl Linnaeus formulated an early version of the evolutionary theory in his Nemesis Divina that Darwin must have been familiar with. There Linnaeus deliberate on his observations of how his flowers are interbreed which ultimately has him rejecting the existence of God. It is not until he sees how God punish people who behave against God's will that he regains his faith and start record how God's vengeance work by documenting case studies for his children so that they know how to toe the divine line.

But ultimately, I agree, no matter how we will attribute the hypothesis for Darwin's evolutionary theory - question and hypothesis are two sides of the same coin.