Comment by Loquebantur
3 hours ago
A podcast manages to convince you, but you cannot tell what exactly the issue is that renders "anything even adjacent" logically impossible?
What about the possibility of being fooled the other way around, along with the majority? Truth isn't decided by majority vote after all.
Sure. But often one of the two sides has an obvious agenda.
I thought of James Randi and "spoon bender", Uri Geller. I suppose if you're cynical enough you can presume that both are desperate for airtime, self-promotion and we should therefore be skeptical of both.
Randi though for me has much less to gain in exposing frauds.
Being convinced without the ability to explain the argument is troubling.
But more importantly, mainstream scientists have the "obvious agenda" (well documented by now) to avoid ridicule and mockery. So if you're willing to weaponize ridicule and mockery, you can successfully suppress scientific investigation into whatever areas you choose.
Let's not forget, the CIA invented the very term "conspiracy theory" to suppress investigation into illegal intelligence activities.
I mean, at some point we are convinced as a convenience. You can use mathematical formulations describing _how_ a motor works without understanding why they are true. Similarly, I don't believe that there is a grand conspiracy involving chemtrails, even though I haven't proven that all the theories I've heard are false. I'm just fairly confident that this _could_ be done, given enough time and resources. But practically, I have to get on with my life.
2 replies →