I can see by your coat my friend you're from the other side. Just one thing I got to know. Who won?
I'm going to check it out later this evening
Our primary claim is that conspiracy theories
typically stem not from irrationality or ment al illness of any kind but from a “crippled
epistemology,” in the form of a sharply limited number of (relevant) informational
sources. Those who hold conspiracy theories do so because of what they read and hear. In
that sense, acceptance of such theories is not irrational from the standpoint of those who
adhere to them. There is a close connection, we suggest, between our claim on this count
and the empirical association between terrorist behavior and an absence of civil rights
and civil liberties.
When civil rights and civil libert ies are absent, people lack multiple
information sources, and they are more li kely to accept conspiracy theories.
For starters I don't throw the term "epistemology" often in casual conversation so I had to refresh my own understanding of it.
From Greek ἐπιστήμη (epistēmē), meaning "knowledge, science", and λόγος (logos), meaning "study of") is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope (limitations) of knowledge. I vaguely recall running across the term, but that that's been a few years.
Now they blame a “crippled epistemology,” in the form of a sharply limited number of (relevant) informational sources. Those who hold conspiracy theories do so because of what they read and hear.
In lieu of the fact most major governments now have the desire, evidenced by pending legislation, to censor the internet; this would seem to go against the findings of this University of Chicago Law School Law & Economics Research Paper.
By limiting information, are they not actually feeding the conspiracy "monster"?
I did notice they qualified the term with the statement "limited number of (relevant) informational sources." In other words, relevant to their own interests in order to mold public opinion in a fashion they are comfortable with.
Now certainly a lot of people get the ideas about conspiracy theories from second hand what they read and hear sources. For myself and a lot of people it in some cases is first hand.
For example, I've worked in civil engineering for a number of years. On 9 1 1 The second I got home that night and saw the footage, I knew instantly and without doubt we were fucked.
Those buildings were demolished, I know a demo operation when I see one, and I'm qualified to make the observation that indeed it was demolition.
End of story, I don't really discuss it because knowing what I know as fact, coupled with the aftermath reaction that consists of an all out war on civil liberties, it's still too emotional.
I have a few more things I could get into as far as conspiracy, UFO's etc, but they are best saved for other threads.
My point is, not all conspiracy theorists get their ideas from Jessie Ventura or Alex Jones. To some of us, it comes first hand. This paper turns a blind eye to this, and is just flawed logic to do so.
I have a suspicion this paper was obviously not taken too seriously by anyone in government policy making. It states:
"When civil rights and civil liberties are absent, people lack multiple information sources, and they are more li kely to accept conspiracy theories."
The current intrusive policy with regard to civil rights, coupled with the desire to narrow information sources could lead one to believe they are actually attempting to bolster conspiracy theories.
More to come...
Definitions by google:
A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.
The action of plotting or conspiring.
A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be...: "Darwin's theory of evolution"
A set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based: "a theory of education"; "music theory".
A belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for an unexplained event.
So while any other theory is a supposition, system of ideas or set of principles intended to explain something, a conspiracy theory is a belief. Also the definition of conspiracy doesn't include anything about 'some covert but influential organization'. Fascinating.
What politics from both sides wants to teach us is that things are never complex. If you have your little package and something doesn't fit into that package, You don't know what to make of it so you want to dismiss it or then you will have to do the work of reconsidering your assumptions. - Michael Malice
DISCLAIMER / Terms of Service (TOS):
Kritterbox.com - Socialize anonymously, commentary, discussion, oddities, technology, music and more! This website is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. kritterbox.com shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, those resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether or not advised of the possibility of damage, and on any theory of liability, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this site or other documents which are referenced by or linked to this site.
This website exists solely for the purposes of exchange of information, communication and general entertainment. Opinions from posters are in no way endorsed by kritterbox.com. All posts on this website are the opinion of the authors and are not to be taken as statements of fact on behalf of kritterbox.com. This site may contain coarse language or other material that kritterbox.com is in no way responsible for. Material deemed to be offensive or pornographic at the discretion of kritterbox.com shall be removed. kritterbox.com reserves the right to modify, or remove posts and user accounts on this website at our discretion. kritterbox.com disclaims all liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of any material on this website. Fictitious posts and any similarity to any person living or dead is coincidental.
All users shall limit the insertion of any and all copyrighted material to portions of the article that are relevant to the point being made, with no more than 50%, and preferably less of the original source material. A link shall be visible in text format, embedded directly to the original source material without exception.
No third party links, i.e. blogs or forums will be accepted under any circumstances, and will be edited by staff in order to reflect the original source of copyrighted material, or be removed at the sole discretion of kritterbox.com.
Fair Use Notice:
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science, and technology. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for educational and/or research purposes.
This Disclaimer is subject to change at any time at our discretion.
Copyright © 2011 - 2017 kritterbox.com