Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
but whether he has a history of lying or not is a matter of public record.
But what if the public record is not considered reliable, and is often contradictory on the topic? That is par for the course with conspiracists, which is why pointing to the facts on public record has no power to change their minds.

It's true that it is possible to start out from different assumptions and, using perfectly valid logical syntax, reach widely diverging conclusions. But for that to qualify as reasonable, the assumptions have to be not too divorced from reality.
Reality is what one can touch and see (etc.) One does not touch or see the facts reported in the public record, one only touches or sees what is _written_ (etc) in the public record, and what is written in reports referring to the public record (etc).

There is no divorce from reality as such in any case. A (hypothetically rational) conspiracist accepts what is written in the public record, thus accepting reality (so far, just like you or I), but does not infer (unlike you or I) that the facts referred in the public record are generally true events.

This is not out of lack of logic (again take a hypothetical rational conspiracist) but out of a working assumption that the record is unreliable or deliberately misinformation. Nothing in the public record contradicts the working assumption (how could it?), therefore this assumption is not revised.

--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$

by martingale on Sat Jan 24th, 2009 at 04:52:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It still falls to Occam's Razor. While not a part of formal logic per se, it certainly is a part of what I'd consider a rational and reasonable mindset.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Jan 24th, 2009 at 04:54:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The question I find intriguing is not the logicality or otherwise of a set of beliefs, but their functionality.  Why is it in someones interests to believe (say) that science is all a conspiracy.  I can see why climate change deniers don't want to have to give up their SUVs, but belief systems are ,ore difficult to explain on those terms.

The importance of wanting to beling to a tightly knit group - ideally contra-defined to a hostile world will obviously appeal to a paranoid mindset, but it doesn't explian the content of those beliefs that the group hold dear.

notes from no w here

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Sat Jan 24th, 2009 at 05:35:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
sorry other belief systems

notes from no w here
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Sat Jan 24th, 2009 at 05:37:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
*That* is a good question. I doubt there are universal answers, and you've already said that much anyway.

For the case of denying science, I think that people sometimes get carried away. Science gives absolute answers, but only on a highly restricted set of questions. There is a discipline in not answering questions whose answer is unknown, and by extension, not asking questions whose answer is expected to be unobtainable. Many people cannot or won't accept this discipline, and prefer to complete their knowledge on the "big" questions with beliefs rather than leave some questions unanswered.

Which leaves a fascinating ancillary problem: where do the "big" questions come from and why won't they go away? I suspect that kids don't come up with these questions on their own, but rather absorb them and their "importance" from contact with adults, which leads to pressure to resolve them.

--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$

by martingale on Sat Jan 24th, 2009 at 06:06:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Frank Schnittger:
 Why is it in someones interests to believe (say) that science is all a conspiracy.

Firstly, they enjoy the drama. Worrying that the world is going to end makes life more exciting than the day job.

Secondly it 'proves' that they're not really as stupid and powerless as science makes them feel.

Also, it's very rare for hardcore CT followers to be even slightly literate in basic science. Facts and paranoia look indistinguishable to them, because they don't have the background to tell them apart.

See this thread for a depressing example.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun Jan 25th, 2009 at 07:10:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
My point is that the "content" - such as it is - may very well be amplified noise. Reasonable hypothesises come and go. Neuroses accumulate.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Jan 28th, 2009 at 11:27:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series