Conspiracy theories

[The Bobster]

Do conspiracies ever exist? Is it ever reasonable to posit a conspiracy theory? Has there ever been a case where a conspiracy theory had merit?

 

Would ethnic bias and nepotism be considered a conspiracy?

 

Would toeing a party line be a conspiracy?

 

Do people ever use the term "conspiracy theory" as if all conspiracy theories are automatically wrong and can't be discussed, and if so, how does this make sense? Do they apply the term selectively to certain groups, and perhaps ironically, when there possibly is a conspiracy?

Edited December 20, 2016 by The Bobster

[swansont]

Do conspiracies ever exist? Is it ever reasonable to posit a conspiracy theory?

 

Would ethnic bias and nepotism be considered a conspiracy?

 

Would toeing a party line be a conspiracy?

 

 

The Watergate fiasco involved a conspiracy. So yes, they exist. The key there is that actual evidence was found — connections were established, paper trails existed — to uncover it. Other people have been convicted of conspiring to do things.

 

Coordination is required for something to be a conspiracy. But I suspect here you are looking for something with a much wider scope. Not simply a conspiracy of a few people to engage in a specific criminal act. The reason that those are unlikely is that it's hard for that many people to keep their mouths shut about what's going on.

[The Bobster]

The Watergate fiasco involved a conspiracy. So yes, they exist. The key there is that actual evidence was found connections were established, paper trails existed to uncover it. Other people have been convicted of conspiring to do things.

 

Coordination is required for something to be a conspiracy. But I suspect here you are looking for something with a much wider scope. Not simply a conspiracy of a few people to engage in a specific criminal act. The reason that those are unlikely is that it's hard for that many people to keep their mouths shut about what's going on.

 

So it would be entirely inappropriate to shut down a discussion where somebody brings up a case of ethnic bias in academia as a conspiracy theory for two reasons.

 

Ethnic bias, possibly subconscious, isn't a conspiracy.

 

Shutting down discussion before considering evidence clearly isn't the sign of somebody interested in evidence. It's the action of a closed minded bigot.

 

bigot

ˈbɪɡət/

noun: bigot; plural noun: bigots

 

a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.

 

How ironic.

Edited December 20, 2016 by The Bobster

[swansont]

So it would be entirely inappropriate to shut down a discussion where somebody brings up a case of ethnic bias in academia as a conspiracy theory for two reasons.

 

 

 

Ethnic bias, possibly subconscious, isn't a conspiracy.

 

Shutting down discussion before considering evidence clearly isn't the sign of somebody interested in evidence. It's the action of a closed minded bigot.

 

When one use phrases like "ethnic subversion" one is implying a widespread conspiracy, with no evidence. Further, the alleged conspiracy had nothing to do with the premise that someone cherry-picked data. Almost as if the scientific discussion were merely a ruse to discuss the alleged conspiracy.

 

And we're not going to have that.

 

bigot

ˈbɪɡət/

noun: bigot; plural noun: bigots

 

a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.

 

How ironic.

 

 

My intolerance is for those who break the rules. I suspect playing games with semantics isn't going to help your cause when the other moderators review this. If anything, it will result in you losing any benefit of the doubt at all in deliberations.

[Delta1212]

When one use phrases like "ethnic subversion" one is implying a widespread conspiracy, with no evidence. Further, the alleged conspiracy had nothing to do with the premise that someone cherry-picked data. Almost as if the scientific discussion were merely a ruse to discuss the alleged conspiracy.

 

And we're not going to have that.

 

 

 

My intolerance is for those who break the rules. I suspect playing games with semantics isn't going to help your cause when the other moderators review this. If anything, it will result in you losing any benefit of the doubt at all in deliberations.

You're a rulebreakerist, swansont.

[The Bobster]

When one use phrases like "ethnic subversion" one is implying a widespread conspiracy, with no evidence. Further, the alleged conspiracy had nothing to do with the premise that someone cherry-picked data. Almost as if the scientific discussion were merely a ruse to discuss the alleged conspiracy.

 

And we're not going to have that.

 

Oh, there's a mountain of evidence. It's just you locked the thread before I could post any. Perhaps I wasn't surprised. Still, organised fraud in academia is a valid topic. At least on a science board with intellectual integrity it would be. Extremely important issue. Touchy though right? Kind of scary.

 

And no, ethnic subversion isn't necessarily a conspiracy. It can be more organic, even subconscious. But then, it can be a conspiracy. "Conspiracy" isn't some magic word you can use to dismiss any organised activity. It really doesn't matter whether you call it a conspiracy or not.

 

Of course the pseudoscience is certainly linked to the ethnicity. You think it's a coincidence that Boas stacked the board with Jews pushing Marxist pseudoscience? He could have done that with Japanese Buddhists or Bangladeshi Muslims? Just a coincidence I suppose. Marxist theories which fracture White ethno states are of no political relevance to Jews?

 

My intolerance is for those who break the rules. I suspect playing games with semantics isn't going to help your cause when the other moderators review this. If anything, it will result in you losing any benefit of the doubt at all in deliberations.

 

 

What hypocrisy! It's you that is playing games with semantics, thinking labelling something a "conspiracy" makes it magically disappear without looking at any evidence.

[Delta1212]

If you want to post a personal theory of any kind, you need to provide the evidence for it. If it was locked before you could provide any, then you didn't provide it in the first place and were breaking the rules.

 

It's not physically possible to lock a thread before the evidence for the theory being presented is provided if you are going about creating threads the way you are supposed to.

Edited December 20, 2016 by Delta1212

[The Bobster]

If you want to post a personal theory of any kind, you need to provide the evidence for it. If it was locked before you could provide any, then you didn't provide it in the first place and were breaking the rules.

 

It's not physically possible to lock a thread before the evidence for the theory being presented is provided if you are going about creating threads the way you are supposed to.

 

My OP contained two claims and two pieces of evidence. That's more than some people post. Usual tack is to challenge claims/evidence. Let's not be dishonest here, we know why the thread was locked.

[swansont]

 

Oh, there's a mountain of evidence. It's just you locked the thread before I could post any. Perhaps I wasn't surprised. Still, organised fraud in academia is a valid topic. At least on a science board with intellectual integrity it would be. Extremely important issue. Touchy though right? Kind of scary.

 

 

 

Well, gosh, maybe you should have made your case with the original post, and not tried to kill two birds with one thread. If you had focused on the subject described by the title of that thread, maybe you would not be in trouble with the rules. Maybe.

 

My OP contained two claims and two pieces of evidence. That's more than some people post. Usual tack is to challenge claims/evidence. Let's not be dishonest here, we know why the thread was locked.

 

Yes, we do. Because you brought bigotry into the discussion. No secret there.

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

It's intellectually dishonest to start a discussion with the intent to re-direct it towards your personal agenda. Let's please avoid this as a tactic in your already failing discussion strategy.

 

Please note that you seem to think you're being controversial, but all you're doing is breaking our rules and claiming we're wrong. If you continue like this, there's not much staff can do help you stay. Just sayin'.