Still not a âNo true Scotsmanâ fallacy unless I appealed to the purity. Iâm saying what was presented as a âconspiracy theoryâ was not a âconspiracy theoryâ but the ramblings of a madman / crackpot.
Second point. I never made a generalized statement about âconspiracy theoristsâ. Again negating your âNo true Scotsmanâ claim. If I said something like âAll conspiracy theorists are Xâ you may be on to something.
Do you even understand the logical fallacy? Or did it just sound good in your head before you banged it out on the keys?
Itâs a theory, and itâs about a conspiracy, ergo itâs a conspiracy theory.
You may prefer not to use the term to describe bad theories about conspiracies, just as some people may prefer not to use the term to describe good theories about conspiracies, but either way thatâs just a preference.
You have either misunderstood the âno true Scotsmanâ thing, or youâre just overusing it. The word âtheoryâ has a definition. You posted it yourself. Even those two examples that you just posted fit just fine. And the definition can be applied here.
What youâre doing here is simply drawing two circles labelled âgovernment narrativeâ and âconspiracy theoryâ, and lumping every person who doesnât fit into the former into the latter. The word âtheoryâ has lost all meaning.
In case youâre still struggling to see my point, ahem, I. Never. Said. All. Conspiracy. Theories. Are. Wrong.
Iâm just saying theyâre not all right. Itâs really bizarre to me that I need to go out of my way to explain that, but humans are what humans are.
I can read it. Itâs hard to tell what the first one is suggesting, but the second is clear enough. Hypothesis: stripping costs to the bone results in lower end-user costs. Proof: businesses that strip costs to the bone frequently offer much lower end user costs, while businesses that do not make that a business priority tend to have higher end user costs. Itâs not rocket science; itâs a workable first-order theory.
Even in the colloquial sense, a âconjectureâ must have something behind it. Hereâs a conjecture: âif everyone takes the vaccine, the virus will go away and we can all get our freedoms backâ. Proof: none. Hypothesis was faulty, not a useful theory.
Yes. Obviously. A theory - as per the definition - has some real-world utility. Although colloquially âtheoryâ gets conflated with âhypothesisâ and âconjectureâ, the fundamental characteristic of all of these things is that they have some demonstrable point of contact with reality - either present reality, or future reality.
That is quite literally the dictionary definition. A theory is a hypothesis that (a) is falsifiable, (b) has been subjected to some attempt at falsification and (c) has shown to remain congruent with observations.
The wild handwaving that youâre attempting to bring in is best characterized by the phrase ânot even wrongâ:
If I say âI have a theory that lizard people are controlling the Earthâ, itâs unfalsifiable. It is merely an opinion. A brainfart. I am using the word âtheoryâ inappropriately. The â5G and celltowersâ thing falls into the same category, although you can at least point out that itâs physically impossible from first principles (not quite the same thing as âfalsificationâ).
Sure, when politicians throw the phrase âconspiracy theoryâ around, they intend it as an insult. They intend for it to mean âpeople who are making unfounded claimsâ. People who are making founded claims are lumped in with the same.
You guys are defining âtheoryâ too narrowly. I have a theory you are all just taking the piss.
I asked Google Bard:
Whether itâs semantically wrong to say âThat is not a conspiracy theory, he is just a crack-pot with an opinionâ depends on the specific context and how you define âconspiracy theory.â Hereâs a breakdown:
Arguments for it being semantically wrong:
Not all fringe beliefs are conspiracy theories: Conspiracy theories specifically involve secret plots or actions by powerful actors. A random, unfounded opinion wouldnât necessarily qualify.
Dismissive terminology: Calling someone a âcrack-potâ is dismissive and potentially offensive, regardless of the validity of their beliefs. It shifts the focus from the belief itself to the person holding it, hindering productive discussion.
Oversimplification: The statement implies a dichotomy where only âcrack-potsâ hold fringe beliefs, ignoring the complex social and psychological factors that can contribute to their formation.
Arguments for it not being semantically wrong:
Broad definition of conspiracy theory: Depending on the definition, some might argue that any unconventional or unsupported belief about powerful actors could be considered a conspiracy theory.
Emphasis on lack of evidence: The statement could be interpreted as highlighting the lack of credible evidence behind the belief, regardless of whether it technically fits the definition of a conspiracy theory.
Informal setting: In casual conversation, strict semantic accuracy might not be the primary concern. The statement could simply be conveying the speakerâs disbelief and dismissal of the opinion.
Ultimately, whether the statement is âsemantically wrongâ depends on your specific definition of âconspiracy theoryâ and the intended meaning in the context. Itâs important to consider the potential for offensiveness and oversimplification, and strive for nuanced communication when discussing complex topics like fringe beliefs.
Maybe we just need to not take decades to arrest tyrants? If governments and people claiming science were all out in the open and laid out the situation honestly, these conversations wouldnât be happening. But, they werenât. So, they are.
I donât mind being mocked because I regard ad hominems as an unwitting declaration of intellectual bankruptcy. I was just curious why you guys havenât realized that too by now and moved on to doing something more useful with your . . . knowledge.
Mockery is not equivalent to an âad hominemâ. Weâve given you intellectual arguments and you ignored them. In any case, the primary component of this âhealthâ movement was moral bankruptcy. You canât really rationalize goodwill to others. While people were busy pretending to talk about science, evil walked abroad, and you went along with it. Thatâs why youâre being mocked. When governments hurt people, you applauded. There is no scientific paper explaining why this is wrong.
As for intellectual bankruptcy, youâve made no secret of your wish to remain entirely ignorant of any of the facts surrounding COVID or the related âtherapeuticsâ. That, apparently, makes you intellectually superior to people who have put in thousands of man-hours reading up on those facts - as openly disseminated by governments and the health authorities that you revere. And youâre being mocked for that, too.
As I said, we have. Weâre trying to make sure that when this happens again - which it will - the big players (a) have fewer footsoldiers prepared to go around kicking peopleâs heads in (b) they have fewer levers of coercion available to them and (c) people like yourself are mocked mercilessly, removing your own power to coerce others over the cliff.
There wonât be anyone going to jail for what happened during âCOVIDâ. Thatâs not the way the world works. Things have to get really bad for people to accept the pain of insurrection - which inevitably results in complete chaos. Ordinary people do not think in terms of what they can get away with; they follow the law, even when the law takes them for fools.
Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error. â Thomas Jefferson
