Are we truly denying ignorance?

Or are we spreading it?

I have noticed a lot of posters will be HIGHLY Skeptical of our government, the Bible, Science, etc; which is good.

But then they will turn right around and believe the most outlandish BS you ever heard, without the LEAST amount of proof, just because they saw it on a web site.

Are we not harming our own cause by believing EVERYTHING every kook with a web page says? I am not saying that all of them are lies, some like Stan Friedman, are IMO good respectable researchers but they are soiled by us trying to group them in with people like David Icke.

Shouldn't we apply to same skepticism to there findings as we do the Bible or the Government?

and thats why i dont post on this site that often

I think that even though there are some quite outlandish theories on the various forums its good that people have a place to come to explore their ideas and debate them.
If someone comes with a theory like "Aliens shot Kennedy!!" and people debate that then hopefully the poster can go away with another perspective on the Kennedy Assassination perhaps in the process denying Ignorance, after all thats what this site is supposed to be about.
There are some fun and weird theories out there and they are interesting in there own way, but if someone comes here with an wacky idea about a particular topic and goes away with a better understanding and appreciation of that topic, then this site has done its job.

DISCLAIMER: I in no way subscribe to the above Aliens killing Kennedy theory, although for all i know they may have.

Originally posted by Janus
I think that even though there are some quite outlandish theories on the various forums its good that people have a place to come to explore their ideas and debate them.

Me too.

Don't get me wrong I don't mind debating the most outlandish theory's but just get irrtated when people use sites like Ickes as "proof" of anything. We shoot ourselves in the foot if we dont hold our theroys up to the same judgement we hold everything else

Amuk, I agree completely. If we are not skeptics about everything we hear, then how can we test them for accuracy?

I see no difference at all between a person whe believes everything she hears on Fox TV about the Iraq war because she wants to believe in it, and a person who believes everything he reads on an Internet conspiracy forum about UFOs or underground caverns because he wants to believe in them.

People, regardless of their views, tend to look at things through a biased eye. If you really want something to be true, whether "chem-trails", UFOs, or the existence of WMDs in Iraq, you will look for articles that share your point of view, ignore those that don't, and try to convince yourself and others that you are a real "researcher" -- which, of course, you're not.

I, like everyone else, do this, and it's a constant battle to force myself to apply the same rigorous standards of skepticism to the things I want to be true as those I don't want to be true.

But if we don't do that, we're being dishonest and we're not denying ignorance -- we're spreading it.

Originally posted by Amuk

Originally posted by Janus
I think that even though there are some quite outlandish theories on the various forums its good that people have a place to come to explore their ideas and debate them.

Me too.

Don't get me wrong I don't mind debating the most outlandish theory's but just get irrtated when people use sites like Ickes as "proof" of anything. We shoot ourselves in the foot if we dont hold our theroys up to the same judgement we hold everything else

Ahhh theories and proof go together like oil and water, but i understand your point. Any argument really must be backed up by credible sources. But how do we define "credible?" One mans Kook is another mans Messiah.

Well, I'd have to say we're doing a little of both, but that's better than nothing at all.

There's always been alot of outlandish stuff here - that's just the nature of the beast. What bothers me is the quality seems to have gone downhill lately.

My biggest rant is there seems to be many topic starters that are using this site to spread their ideology and they're not really interested in discussion.

I know some people have reason to be attached to the site's motto, but the words have never really made that much sense to me. The mission of the website could be expressed in a multitude of ways and with a more encapsulating tagline than the current one.

I'm sharing arcane knowledge more than I'm denying ignorance.

- voice in the wilderness

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
I know some people have reason to be attached to the site's motto, but the words have never really made that much sense to me.

You know I was thinking the same thing. I never really liked that motto either. I'm glad you said it first though.