There is a legal principle that if a statement is wrong in part, it is wrong in the whole. That is, logically speaking, a good maxim for single arguments. For example if I say 2+1 = 4, then you can know that my equation of (2+1)x(3+4)=28 was solved incorrectly.
However, this maxim of “wrong in part, wrong in whole” does not apply for separate arguments. If in separate debate I say 3x3=9, you can’t use as proof that 3*3 =/= 9 because I had said 2+1=4. Doing so is called the “genetic fallacy”.
Now, that I have made clear the issue with simple examples, let us expand the topic to conspiracy theories. And there are a lot of them, aren’t there?
Bigfoot and cryptids; Freemasonry; Rothschilds and Jew banking stuff; Holocaust; Alien abductions; Election theft; Hitler escaped to Argentina; Weather control; Covid; Fluoride; Various shades of 9/11 from inside job to controlled demo; moon landing was fake; Flat earth; Kennedy was killed by the CIA; Etc. etc. etc.
If someone on the board thinks that 9/11 was an inside job, but say, NOT a controlled demolition, one should debate 9/11 data with the person. Here is where if you can show someone’s theory is wrong in part, then more likely than not it is wrong in whole.
But what happens if someone agrees with you that 9/11 was a controlled demo, but thinks that the moon landing was not faked? Here, because they are separate topics, using someone’s belief that the moon landing happened has zero weight on if 9/11 was a controlled demo.
In fact, you look like a fucking moron for saying to someone who thinks that aliens abductions occur (when you don’t) that their take on covid as a depopulation scheme is wrong only because of their take on aliens. Whinny soy boy faggots will disregard Joe Rogan saying the sky is blue because it came from Joe Rogan. How about skeptically looking up at the sky after hearing such, or at a minimum, not engaging if you aren’t sure. If you are not well informed on a topic, nothing prevents you from not debating it.
You should take each topic INDIVIDUALLY. I know people who are the “right side” of things on most issues (at least to me) but who think Freemasonry is just a club for guys to get together, with nothing sinister at all. While Freemasonry is evil, I am not going to throw out data the guy presents on covid because he says his uncle is a Freemason and that it just a social club; I take his data on covid and evaluate it as it relates to covid. Likewise I have a friend who thinks that 6 million Jews were gassed and that covid tyranny is a lead up to this happening again. Avoid bullshit purity tests and take the guy’s support fighting covid tyranny and debate the Holocaust separate. Ya dig?
There is, perhaps, one exception to this rule about weighing evidence for each topic separate...if you are making the case that the conspiracies are linked. Then you debate the linkage: is it the FBI, the Deep State, or your own take that Obama is pulling the strings. But that is not what is happening on this board. Instead you get bullshit purity tests. Let me tell you, mon ami, nobody on earth will align with ALL your views unless that person is in the mirror.
So, in sum, debate each topic separately, don’t assume because they disagree with you in X that their opinion is invalid on Y.
This is a common woke tactic. They’ll try to create guilt by association or to discredit using this genetic fallacy. I’ll admit though that i use peoples beliefs about certain topics to inform what i choose to discuss with them.
The woke tactic is bullshit and very transparent.
Ex: A person can be a total racist mysoginist ass and be a genius of a scientist.
The reality for this community, however, is that if someone does not understand basic fundamentals of math and logic, anything built upon those fundamentals that they say must be bullshit.
Ex: A person that does not understand basic physics or calculus talking about advanced propulsion, the cosmos, the earth, etc. is just parroting bullshit they have not the intelligence to evaluate or they are making up bullshit themselves.
I once met a man who was convinced that running an engine on air pressure would result in perpetual motion. At some point it's reasonable to lower your estimation of someone's ideas based on track record, drug usage, self promotion, etc.
You may have a point, but that's not what's going on. People are using purity tests. Worse, they make a "one conspiracy to rule them all" theory like something out of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings.
Fail to see that the Zurich Gnomes/Jews/Illuminati/Rothchilds/Freemasons/Satanists are the man behind the curtain for 9-11/moon landing/rise of the Taliban/Covid/election fraud (you can mix and match as desired) and you're accused of being a shill.
Purity tests are for people who want to build a group of mindless followers.
You write like a bot - no offense. But you should tidy this up a bit.
If you can make this a little clearer to follow it would be clearer what you mean.
It seems like all you wanted to say is that if someone believes one thing incorrectly - do not assume they do not understand something else well.
I wrote it on my phone. It flows different when you use two thumbs.
You are missing a key principle before you even began.
2+1=4 may be incorrect. But that doesn't mean your conspiracy is wrong from the start. 2+something does equal 4. The conspiracy is often just there. You are made to get it wrong because you are given incomplete, wrong, or even actively deceptive information. The conspiracy question is not 2+1=4. It is we know 2 exists and we know 4 exists, but we need to know what the 1 is. What is the one, is the conspiracy from the beginning. I can very well as say 2+1=4 and still be mostly right. I can say the CIA killed Kennedy and say so because of the Civil Rights movement, be wrong that it was the Civil Rights movement and still be 100% correct about the CIA (2) and who killed Kennedy (4) and just be missing it was over civil rights (1) when it was actually over his plan to name the Jew (2). I was still very right over the CIA and Kennedy.
Great addition!
Thanks.
That's eliding into inductive reasoning, with all the problems therein.
Sticking with the algebraic examples, if we are solving to find an unknown, say 2+X=4 then we are debating what X is. Solving for X would be saying Kennedy was killed (2) by a conspiracy (4) but who was involved in the conspiracy (x) is the question, which in this case would be the CIA is my answer.
To your example about Kennedy; if I say a conspiracy killed Kennedy but provide the wrong group (Casto was upset), or an unsupported one (the Mafia did it), or one that is disprovable (aliens decreed it), then that is evidence that I am incorrect about how it was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy.
Which is my entire point. You are not incorrect that a conspiracy that killed Kennedy. That is correct, and always will be. No matter how far off base you are on the (x), the 2 and the 4 remain correct, so the fallacy of "This person is incorrect here so must always be incorrect" is just a way to silence the opinion you are not supposed to hear. "See, he is wrong about 1, so 2 and 4 must be given no credence! Ignore the glass window no one dying bothered to punch out. Ignore the mass and inertia vs structure and collapsing from within. Ignore that every single parent at Sandy Hook worked for the federal government and almost all of them were SAG members. Because (x) is wrong, thus 4 cannot be right and 2 cannot be a part of it"
If I have the theory, and a key point of it is can be proven to be wrong, then I need to revise my hypothesis. There are all sorts of intermediary variables one needs to consider, and perhaps you missed one that is related to causality.
You proving that Aliens didnt make the CIA kill Kennedy doesn't prove the CIA didn't kill Kennedy. That is still the real point.
Pretty much. But if someone could show good evidence that the CIA wasn't involved, I also should revise my theory.
Here is a classic example. If a major part of my theory is that increased murder rates are correlated with ice cream sales, and therefore, that ice cream causes murder, it might be useful if someone points out that ice cream sales increase with temperature, and that the murder rate also goes up with the temperature. I thus revise my theory that hot temperatures make the murder rate go up because people are outside and interacting more. How on earth can ice cream cause people to commit murder?
Using math to support your statement will drastically alienate around 78% of the users here. :D Just a thought. They don't care that it is simple, they just hate math. Also, those who understand logic and math already agree with your statement.
Such people who will blame you for another topic actually exist? :D I mean, I know they exist but do you think they will read your post and agree? :D :D :D It is not wrong that you are writing it, but there is no chance that would reach the ones who commit this mistake, wouldn't you agree? Good post though, to be honest. But futile. I mean look through the comments - either they agree and probably even add some more info, or they completely block out. :D :D :D Well, there is only one who blocked out but it is funny as hell. :D
You seem to have the qualification I seek about a special project involving proper logic and potentially math. It doesn't require more than observation and your personal opinion on topics. However, it aims to have a correct view on specific things that we can discuss, if you have interest. Think it over and let me know, if you want to know more details.
Thanks for the word of confidence. I'm pretty busy with my current side gig. I just post here in between projects at my 9-5. I probably should just start a blog. Does this site allow PMs? If it does, hit me up, I'm curious, but I can't promise anything.
Excellent. I've just sent a message.
Yea, probably.
A minor point, considering your whole post but one that I am fucking sick of hearing for years:
Bigfoot et. al. is not a conspiracy.
No serious person in the cryptid or bigfoot communities think that we cannot find bigfoot because of a conspiracy to hide them. There is no conspiracy, there is only mystery. Science does not acknowledge bigfoot because a specimen has never been collected and conclusive proof has never been established. That is not a conspiracy, that is the scientific method (which has been otherwise abandoned lately with covid).
/end rant.
I would say it's fine to use the term when it comes to certain cryptids like Bigfoot, but I understand where you're coming from.
I mean it kinda falls under the umbrella, but not when people (shills) constantly say:
"I'm sick of hearing about Covid, NWO, Great Reset, Ghislaine Maxwell, and all the other MAJOR CONSPIRACIES THAT ARE ACTUALLY HAPPENING... lets talk about Bigfoot."
Its like, motherfucker, no one is conspiring to hide Bigfoot other than Bigfoot!
That, sir, was the best comedy I heard all day. And you're quite correct.
Thanks.
Bigfoot is interesting as hell, too much anecdotal evidence for centuries to say it is just bullshit, but if we can find bacteria at the bottom of the ocean or random new species of tiny beetles in the Amazon, crazy that Bigfoot cannot be found conclusively.
Hoaxes obviously do not help, but in this era where surveillance infrared and thermal cameras being as accessible as they are to the public that the creatures cannot be found.
Anyway, never mad to see a cryptid post.
The question isn't the topic, it's the person. If you say 2+1=4, and then say 3x3=9, I'm going to find a second source on that 3x3=9 answer.
Don't waste time trying to figure out if a liar is lying this time.
The math where we have an objective answer is just an example. People say 2+1=4 all the time when they make theories unsupported by evidence, like Epstien committed suicide and wasn't killed.
Certainly, if a known fraudster says X, be MORE skeptical than if you hear it from someone with a good track record.