The All-Purpose Conspiracy Test

EGarrett · 8th October 2006, 09:38 AM

I use this line of questioning to silence 9/11 CTers whenever they get on my nerves...then I realized when trying to sort out the JFK stuff that it works equally well.

1. Are the "theorists" proposing an alternate explanation for what happened?
2. Does that have less holes than the current explanation?

Unless you can honestly answer "yes" to both questions...you have a woo-woo theory. Not proposing an alternate explanation is a textbook definition of whining, and proposing one with more holes is just plainly irrational.

On the other hand, if you can answer "yes," then you have a legitimate explanation that should probably replace the real explanation...but in reality those probably do replace the old explanations very quickly.

I find this works equally well in 9/11, JFK, God, and many other areas where people have silly versions of events that they try to promote not by supporting their side, but by poking holes in the sensible version.

Anyway, does it seem good? Maybe someone can help me simplify it or refine it more?

Oliver · 8th October 2006, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by EGarrett

I use this line of questioning to silence 9/11 CTers whenever they get on my nerves...then I realized when trying to sort out the JFK stuff that it works equally well.

1. Are the "theorists" proposing an alternate explanation for what happened?
2. Does that have less holes than the current explanation?

Unless you can honestly answer "yes" to both questions...you have a woo-woo theory. Not proposing an alternate explanation is a textbook definition of whining, and proposing one with more holes is just plainly irrational.

On the other hand, if you can answer "yes," then you have a legitimate explanation that should probably replace the real explanation...but in reality those probably do replace the old explanations very quickly.

I find this works equally well in 9/11, JFK, God, and many other areas where people have silly versions of events that they try to promote not by supporting their side, but by poking holes in the sensible version.

Anyway, does it seem good? Maybe someone can help me simplify it or refine it more?

Hello Garett, may i invite you to a very special CT´ist that would like to hear your objections?

"Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers?"
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57426

EGarrett · 8th October 2006, 10:33 AM

Well, why are people playing into that person's hands?

All CTists/Creationists/JFKers/etc can do is sit on their ass and try to poke holes in the sensible explanation. They cannot support their own version of events because it's made of paper.

That's why you just ask them the two questions. Do they have an alternate explanation, and why is it more sound then the official?

Since they're proposing the theory, the burden of proof is on them, anyway.

A CTer only bothers you as much as you let them...

Anti-sophist · 8th October 2006, 10:38 AM

They aren't trying to "explain" it, they are just showing the "official" version can't be right, and we need an "independant investigation".

By freeing themselves of the burden of actually trying to explain the evidence, themselves, with a narrative of their own, they are able to just take pot shots from the back-line. It is, fundamentally, terrible science.

Finding holes in a theory doesn't make it wrong. It just means it's not perfect. We are well aware of the holes in almost every accepted theory in science, today, and so claiming that a theory must be perfect to be useful, is, in a word, psuedoscience.

Oliver · 8th October 2006, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by EGarrett

Well, why are people playing into that person's hands?

All CTists/Creationists/JFKers/etc can do is sit on their ass and try to poke holes in the sensible explanation. They cannot support their own version of events because it's made of paper.

That's why you just ask them the two questions. Do they have an alternate explanation, and why is it more sound then the official?

Since they're proposing the theory, the burden of proof is on them, anyway.

A CTer only bothers you as much as you let them...

I personally think that many people in here would like to see that someone proofs any conspiracy theory. I also love CT´s - as long they are mysterious and not explainable. (Anyone saw a "undebunkable" CT?)

But as long the "Debunkers" can disproof them there is nothing much left to believe in most CT´s - no matter if i would like to see one true CT or not.

c4ts · 8th October 2006, 04:13 PM

Actually I think they can support their own version of events, but they conceal it from the audience. I think if they were more straightforward they would sound a whole lot less plausible. On the other hand, they might not know, and this could be why so many CT's have to rely on other CT's.

T.A.M. · 9th October 2006, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by EGarrett

I use this line of questioning to silence 9/11 CTers whenever they get on my nerves...then I realized when trying to sort out the JFK stuff that it works equally well.

1. Are the "theorists" proposing an alternate explanation for what happened?
2. Does that have less holes than the current explanation?

Unless you can honestly answer "yes" to both questions...you have a woo-woo theory. Not proposing an alternate explanation is a textbook definition of whining, and proposing one with more holes is just plainly irrational.

On the other hand, if you can answer "yes," then you have a legitimate explanation that should probably replace the real explanation...but in reality those probably do replace the old explanations very quickly.

I find this works equally well in 9/11, JFK, God, and many other areas where people have silly versions of events that they try to promote not by supporting their side, but by poking holes in the sensible version.

Anyway, does it seem good? Maybe someone can help me simplify it or refine it more?

While I like the above, and it seems to work, your application is flawed, in the sense that you are relying on the CTist to be rational, which I find with most the Twoofers, not to be the case. Most of them would simply answer "yes" to both questions, regardless of whether it was true or not.

TAM

EGarrett · 9th October 2006, 04:12 PM

Quote:

While I like the above, and it seems to work, your application is flawed, in the sense that you are relying on the CTist to be rational, which I find with most the Twoofers, not to be the case. Most of them would simply answer "yes" to both questions, regardless of whether it was true or not.

TAM

Indeed, I find you have to chase them with the question.

defaultdotxbe · 9th October 2006, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by EGarrett

Indeed, I find you have to chase them with the question.

yeah, i asked killtown for an explnantion of what he thought happened in shanksville, he said a 757 didnt crash, i pointed out that an explanation shoudl focus on what DID happen, rather than what didnt, he replied "only in JREF world" which still has me rather confused as to how these people function in the real world

Dog Town · 9th October 2006, 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by EGarrett

Indeed, I find you have to chase them with the question.

This reminds me, of an NFL linebackers description, of how to cover Barry Sanders." If you miss him the first time, don't chase him... stay where you are, he'll be back in a second".

T.A.M. · 9th October 2006, 05:43 PM

yes it is kind of discussing JFK assassination with there theory being.

"Oswald didnt act alone" and that is all that matters, except in JREF world...ummm no, I think the REST OF THE WORLD would like to know, if Oswald didnt act alone, THAN WHO ACTED WITH HIM.

jeez loiuse

TAM

stateofgrace · 9th October 2006, 05:47 PM

I have been shown also the one question that simply stops them in their tracks and they never answer.

“Could you explain, in no great detail, and just generally what you think happened on 911?”

I have seen this question asked a few times, it never receives an answer, other than the usual “We Don't know, so we are asking questions" or” This is why we need a reinvestigation" drivel.

The simple fact is that neither two of them have support the same theories, they simply pick the ones they like.Also they know if they come out and post a thesis it leaves them wide open to be labelled loonies.

jon · 9th October 2006, 06:40 PM

I'm not sure that this isn't being *slightly* too hard on CT. 'Just' picking holes in official explanations can, in itself, be useful - for example, if a suspect being interrogated by the police is alleged to have fallen down the stairs, twice, landed on several officers' fists, then grabbed three guns and shot himself three times in the head from different angles, picking holes in that explanation could be useful

However, picking holes here would serve a purpose - to get an investigation which reveals a more accurate version of what happened, to build a better theory of what took place, etc. So picking holes in existing theories can be a good first step. The real problem comes when - like with CTs (or ID believers) - you're 'just asking questions', but doing everything possible to avoid an answer that might spoil your game.

Look at James Ridgeway's book on the 9/11 Commission, in comparison with David Ray Griffin's. They both ask critical questions of the 9/11 Commission Report. Griffin, though, just asks streams and streams of (often really bad) questions, and appears to have strenuously avoided doing any research that might run the risk of finding answers. Ridgeway asks a few questions, picks holes in some aspects of the Report, and then (with a reasonable degree of success) develops a better way of answering his questions than is found in the Report.

Dog Town · 9th October 2006, 07:10 PM

Quote:

I'm not sure that this isn't being *slightly* too hard on CT. 'Just' picking holes in official explanations can, in itself, be useful - for example, if a suspect being interrogated by the police is alleged to have fallen down the stairs, twice, landed on several officers' fists, then grabbed three guns and shot himself three times in the head from different angles, picking holes in that explanation could be useful

Yes, and those holes would make sense in the whole picture of what occurred!
The CT holes are nothing but bad science, combined with fiction! None of it adds up.

EGarrett · 10th October 2006, 10:23 AM

I'm with Dog Town on this.

In the example you used, jon, there is an alternate explanation that has far fewer holes then the given one.

jon · 10th October 2006, 11:05 AM

Sure, but finding genuine (rather than made up) holes in an official story can be a good start. The example given was deliberately exaggerated, but I'd argue it's possible to believe that an official story doesn't make sense without knowing what did happen. Of course, this should then lead to a process of investigating what did happen - and either finding a better explanation, or accepting the official version.

8th October 2006, 09:38 AM	#1
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	The All-Purpose Conspiracy Test I use this line of questioning to silence 9/11 CTers whenever they get on my nerves...then I realized when trying to sort out the JFK stuff that it works equally well. 1. Are the "theorists" proposing an alternate explanation for what happened? 2. Does that have less holes than the current explanation? Unless you can honestly answer "yes" to both questions...you have a woo-woo theory. Not proposing an alternate explanation is a textbook definition of whining, and proposing one with more holes is just plainly irrational. On the other hand, if you can answer "yes," then you have a legitimate explanation that should probably replace the real explanation...but in reality those probably do replace the old explanations very quickly. I find this works equally well in 9/11, JFK, God, and many other areas where people have silly versions of events that they try to promote not by supporting their side, but by poking holes in the sensible version. Anyway, does it seem good? Maybe someone can help me simplify it or refine it more?
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	__________________ EG Last edited by EGarrett; 8th October 2006 at 09:42 AM.

8th October 2006, 10:33 AM	#3
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	Well, why are people playing into that person's hands? All CTists/Creationists/JFKers/etc can do is sit on their ass and try to poke holes in the sensible explanation. They cannot support their own version of events because it's made of paper. That's why you just ask them the two questions. Do they have an alternate explanation, and why is it more sound then the official? Since they're proposing the theory, the burden of proof is on them, anyway. A CTer only bothers you as much as you let them...
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	__________________ EG

8th October 2006, 04:13 PM	#6
c4ts Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Your base Posts: 8,427	Actually I think they can support their own version of events, but they conceal it from the audience. I think if they were more straightforward they would sound a whole lot less plausible. On the other hand, they might not know, and this could be why so many CT's have to rely on other CT's.
	__________________ Ha ha ha ha.... Stupid signature size limit.

9th October 2006, 04:12 PM	#8
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	Quote: While I like the above, and it seems to work, your application is flawed, in the sense that you are relying on the CTist to be rational, which I find with most the Twoofers, not to be the case. Most of them would simply answer "yes" to both questions, regardless of whether it was true or not. TAM Indeed, I find you have to chase them with the question.
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	__________________ EG

9th October 2006, 05:33 PM	#9
defaultdotxbe Drunken Shikigami Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Dark Side of the Sun Posts: 7,482	Originally Posted by EGarrett Indeed, I find you have to chase them with the question. yeah, i asked killtown for an explnantion of what he thought happened in shanksville, he said a 757 didnt crash, i pointed out that an explanation shoudl focus on what DID happen, rather than what didnt, he replied "only in JREF world" which still has me rather confused as to how these people function in the real world
	__________________ I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein

8th October 2006, 10:18 AM	#2
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Cologne Posts: 17,369	Originally Posted by EGarrett I use this line of questioning to silence 9/11 CTers whenever they get on my nerves...then I realized when trying to sort out the JFK stuff that it works equally well. 1. Are the "theorists" proposing an alternate explanation for what happened? 2. Does that have less holes than the current explanation? Unless you can honestly answer "yes" to both questions...you have a woo-woo theory. Not proposing an alternate explanation is a textbook definition of whining, and proposing one with more holes is just plainly irrational. On the other hand, if you can answer "yes," then you have a legitimate explanation that should probably replace the real explanation...but in reality those probably do replace the old explanations very quickly. I find this works equally well in 9/11, JFK, God, and many other areas where people have silly versions of events that they try to promote not by supporting their side, but by poking holes in the sensible version. Anyway, does it seem good? Maybe someone can help me simplify it or refine it more? Hello Garett, may i invite you to a very special CT´ist that would like to hear your objections? "Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers?" http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57426

8th October 2006, 10:38 AM	#4
Anti-sophist Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Posts: 1,542	They aren't trying to "explain" it, they are just showing the "official" version can't be right, and we need an "independant investigation". By freeing themselves of the burden of actually trying to explain the evidence, themselves, with a narrative of their own, they are able to just take pot shots from the back-line. It is, fundamentally, terrible science. Finding holes in a theory doesn't make it wrong. It just means it's not perfect. We are well aware of the holes in almost every accepted theory in science, today, and so claiming that a theory must be perfect to be useful, is, in a word, psuedoscience.

8th October 2006, 10:40 AM	#5
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Cologne Posts: 17,369	Originally Posted by EGarrett Well, why are people playing into that person's hands? All CTists/Creationists/JFKers/etc can do is sit on their ass and try to poke holes in the sensible explanation. They cannot support their own version of events because it's made of paper. That's why you just ask them the two questions. Do they have an alternate explanation, and why is it more sound then the official? Since they're proposing the theory, the burden of proof is on them, anyway. A CTer only bothers you as much as you let them... I personally think that many people in here would like to see that someone proofs any conspiracy theory. I also love CT´s - as long they are mysterious and not explainable. (Anyone saw a "undebunkable" CT?) But as long the "Debunkers" can disproof them there is nothing much left to believe in most CT´s - no matter if i would like to see one true CT or not.

9th October 2006, 09:35 AM	#7
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	Originally Posted by EGarrett I use this line of questioning to silence 9/11 CTers whenever they get on my nerves...then I realized when trying to sort out the JFK stuff that it works equally well. 1. Are the "theorists" proposing an alternate explanation for what happened? 2. Does that have less holes than the current explanation? Unless you can honestly answer "yes" to both questions...you have a woo-woo theory. Not proposing an alternate explanation is a textbook definition of whining, and proposing one with more holes is just plainly irrational. On the other hand, if you can answer "yes," then you have a legitimate explanation that should probably replace the real explanation...but in reality those probably do replace the old explanations very quickly. I find this works equally well in 9/11, JFK, God, and many other areas where people have silly versions of events that they try to promote not by supporting their side, but by poking holes in the sensible version. Anyway, does it seem good? Maybe someone can help me simplify it or refine it more? While I like the above, and it seems to work, your application is flawed, in the sense that you are relying on the CTist to be rational, which I find with most the Twoofers, not to be the case. Most of them would simply answer "yes" to both questions, regardless of whether it was true or not. TAM

9th October 2006, 05:42 PM	#10
Dog Town Space for Rent Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Sunny blue sky, cold water. Posts: 4,462	Originally Posted by EGarrett Indeed, I find you have to chase them with the question. This reminds me, of an NFL linebackers description, of how to cover Barry Sanders." If you miss him the first time, don't chase him... stay where you are, he'll be back in a second".
	__________________ "Yes. I often wonder why it is that the nutjobs, who clearly think they're among a tiny handful of people who "get it", are wholly incapable of communicating effectively enough so that other people can understand them and "get it", too." Gee Mack, JREF 5/15/09

9th October 2006, 05:43 PM	#11
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	yes it is kind of discussing JFK assassination with there theory being. "Oswald didnt act alone" and that is all that matters, except in JREF world...ummm no, I think the REST OF THE WORLD would like to know, if Oswald didnt act alone, THAN WHO ACTED WITH HIM. jeez loiuse TAM

9th October 2006, 05:47 PM	#12
stateofgrace Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Scotland Posts: 3,847	I have been shown also the one question that simply stops them in their tracks and they never answer. “Could you explain, in no great detail, and just generally what you think happened on 911?” I have seen this question asked a few times, it never receives an answer, other than the usual “We Don't know, so we are asking questions" or” This is why we need a reinvestigation" drivel. The simple fact is that neither two of them have support the same theories, they simply pick the ones they like.Also they know if they come out and post a thesis it leaves them wide open to be labelled loonies.

9th October 2006, 06:40 PM	#13
jon Muse Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 923	I'm not sure that this isn't being slightly too hard on CT. 'Just' picking holes in official explanations can, in itself, be useful - for example, if a suspect being interrogated by the police is alleged to have fallen down the stairs, twice, landed on several officers' fists, then grabbed three guns and shot himself three times in the head from different angles, picking holes in that explanation could be useful However, picking holes here would serve a purpose - to get an investigation which reveals a more accurate version of what happened, to build a better theory of what took place, etc. So picking holes in existing theories can be a good first step. The real problem comes when - like with CTs (or ID believers) - you're 'just asking questions', but doing everything possible to avoid an answer that might spoil your game. Look at James Ridgeway's book on the 9/11 Commission, in comparison with David Ray Griffin's. They both ask critical questions of the 9/11 Commission Report. Griffin, though, just asks streams and streams of (often really bad) questions, and appears to have strenuously avoided doing any research that might run the risk of finding answers. Ridgeway asks a few questions, picks holes in some aspects of the Report, and then (with a reasonable degree of success) develops a better way of answering his questions than is found in the Report.
jon Muse Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 923

9th October 2006, 07:10 PM	#14
Dog Town Space for Rent Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Sunny blue sky, cold water. Posts: 4,462	Quote: I'm not sure that this isn't being slightly too hard on CT. 'Just' picking holes in official explanations can, in itself, be useful - for example, if a suspect being interrogated by the police is alleged to have fallen down the stairs, twice, landed on several officers' fists, then grabbed three guns and shot himself three times in the head from different angles, picking holes in that explanation could be useful Yes, and those holes would make sense in the whole picture of what occurred! The CT holes are nothing but bad science, combined with fiction! None of it adds up.
	__________________ "Yes. I often wonder why it is that the nutjobs, who clearly think they're among a tiny handful of people who "get it", are wholly incapable of communicating effectively enough so that other people can understand them and "get it", too." Gee Mack, JREF 5/15/09

10th October 2006, 10:23 AM	#15
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	I'm with Dog Town on this. In the example you used, jon, there is an alternate explanation that has far fewer holes then the given one.
EGarrett Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,979	__________________ EG

10th October 2006, 11:05 AM	#16
jon Muse Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 923	Sure, but finding genuine (rather than made up) holes in an official story can be a good start. The example given was deliberately exaggerated, but I'd argue it's possible to believe that an official story doesn't make sense without knowing what did happen. Of course, this should then lead to a process of investigating what did happen - and either finding a better explanation, or accepting the official version.
jon Muse Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 923