It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Wikipedia Defines Conspiracy Theories as Weak Ideas

page: 1
34
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:
+10 more 
posted on Dec, 18 2016 @ 02:32 PM
link   

A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy without warrant ... conspiracy theories rely on the view that the universe is governed by design, and embody three principles: nothing happens by accident, nothing is as it seems, and everything is connected. Another common feature is that conspiracy theories evolve to incorporate whatever evidence exists against them, so that they become, as Barkun writes, a closed system that is unfalsifiable, and therefore "a matter of faith rather than proof".

Source: en.wikipedia.org...

Given that the definition of conspiracy theory is apparently a faith-based accusation resting principles like "nothing happens by accident" and "nothing is as it seems" its no wonder that conspiracy theories are looked at as a joke and conspiracy theorists are looked at as jokers. It would seem that "conspiracy theories" is used most often to mean "weak accusations of people in power" and "conspiracy theorists" to mean "people who have weak accusations against those in positions of power".

However, I don't think that any person who would define them self as a conspiracy theorist or offering a conspiracy theory agrees in the slightest that their ideas are weak or that their ideas are faith-based. Therefore, the "conspiracy" label today (and perhaps as always) amounts to an ad hominum attack on investigative journalists, and otherwise as a logical fallacy against an idea whereby an idea is automatically false because it is an accusation against a person in a position of power, automatically making the allegation false according to the bad argument.
edit on 18-12-2016 by fractal5 because: Quotation Marks (ex tag)




posted on Dec, 18 2016 @ 02:38 PM
link   
That wiki needs to be edited to show the true definition of a Conspiracy theory. Completely flat out wrong.



posted on Dec, 18 2016 @ 02:38 PM
link   
I think the best possible positive spin on conspiracy theories is skepticism. Sometimes people aren't afraid of power, they just question what they see. That in itself is normally a temporary process until they find the truth, or one that satisfies them.



posted on Dec, 18 2016 @ 02:45 PM
link   
That is not how the Law defines it.

If someone is engaged in a criminal conspiracy, they are guilty of crimes committed by its members.



The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act or simply RICO, is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. The RICO Act focuses specifically on racketeering, and it allows the leaders of a syndicate to be tried for the crimes which they ordered others to do or assisted them in doing, closing a perceived loophole that allowed a person who instructed someone else to, for example, murder, to be exempt from the trial because he did not actually commit the crime personally.

wiki / R I C O act


If the secret rulers of this country didn't want conspiracy to be taken seriously, they shouldn't have made a law designed to take down such conspiracies.


Mike Grouchy



posted on Dec, 18 2016 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Many conspiracy theories are weak ideas. They are grounded in fantasy.

Some conspiracy theories seem to be more plausible and worth a look.



posted on Dec, 18 2016 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi
Many conspiracy theories are weak ideas. They are grounded in fantasy.

Some conspiracy theories seem to be more plausible and worth a look.


And many people who are the targets of conspiracy theories, especially politicians, always say they are grounded in fantasy. It's a natural defense used by those with criminal misconduct lurking very near to themselves.



posted on Dec, 18 2016 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: fractal5

That definition has been edited at least 500 times since February, 2015, by random people giving their opinion of the definition.

I'm sure now that this thread has brought it to the attention of people here, it will be changed many times again within a day or so.

Anything on Wikipedia is only as reliable as the last random person to edit the information.



posted on Dec, 18 2016 @ 02:55 PM
link   
I made this following the debate style & reasoning schema of one "TOTOVADER" whom I used to debate 9/11 with eons ago.

edit on 18-12-2016 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2016 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Ironically I happen to believe that those three principle listed here "nothing happens by accident, nothing is as it seems, and everything is connected" are absolutely true but as universal principles, in every aspect of life. That doesn't necessarily imply a personal evil intention as in conspiracies, so connecting the two seems to me dishonest. Sometimes things are just not what they seem, and sometimes yes, there are people or forces hiding their intentions behind lies.
Whatever seems suspicious to people will ignite their imagination and a search for the truth.
By contrast a society who believes that "everything is exactly as it seems", especially as presented by media, that things are "separate or disconnected" so no further investigation is ever needed, and "accidents happens" as in "it's nobody's fault" is the wet dream of those in power.
And of course no conspiracy theory was ever proven to be true..or worse...
Ah, Wikipedia...


edit on 18-12-2016 by WhiteHat because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2016 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: fractal5

There's a lot of conspiracy theories that fit that description perfectly.

Is the gulf of Tonkin considered a conspiracy theory now?

Once a conspiracy is substantiated it stops being a conspiracy theory, doesn't it?



posted on Dec, 18 2016 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

How would you differentiate the conspiracy theories regarding 9/11?

Someone discussing "Vigilant Guardian" is a lot different to someone discussing holograms.



posted on Dec, 18 2016 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

To "Skeptics" there is only the Official Version, by & large. Note the capitol "S", that is to denote a social group not just a mere position on a talking point. These are the people that are the crowd in the Randi forums. Apparently they're the ones left in the 9/11 Forum here. I'm not sure if that's even the actual universal thinking, or if people just find them not worth dealing with. The hologram people (along with the Skeptics) definitely did destroy the 9/11 Truth Movement. It was the original "Troll Movement" that I noted, the No Planers. The Skeptics loved the No Planers because it gave them endless fodder to smear the entire movement with, and keep the discussions wrapped around baloney and away from topics such as 9/11 Geopolitics (which they derail those discussion at all costs in my experience).

Other what I call "troll movements" include environmentalists in general with BP Doom Monger fanatics in particular (which surely would include the Fukushima crowd, although I had my fill the the BP people and dodged Fukushima almost entirely), and nowadays the SJW's. Their debate styles are virtually indistinguishable from my view.

And as such my skeptinazi debate flowchart there could effortlessly be reframed around those fronts.

edit on 18-12-2016 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2016 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: fractal5

Maybe I'm mistaking?

I was under the impression that wikipedia is written by a whole host of individuals---> seeking to betray my trust?

Or is it to gain my trust?



posted on Dec, 18 2016 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I tapped out of the whole 9/11 thing a while back.

My current view is the people who did it might have a good reason.
That way I can annoy both the Skeptics and the CT'ers.



posted on Dec, 18 2016 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: fractal5

wait a minute, are they in that statement defining Wikipedia?


they lost my vote, as if they had one
edit on 18 12 2016 by Dr UAE because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2016 @ 03:31 PM
link   
So can we brand wiki as fake news ?

This war on information is starting to take its toll....sad day's indeed



posted on Dec, 18 2016 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

It gets scrubbed quite a bit, especially on certain topics. Like with religious stuff you get every side in the duking it out I presume with about equal footing. But if its something deemed "conspiracy theory" the Skeptics get two votes on how it plays out. Kind of thing.



posted on Dec, 18 2016 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

nop its not sad days




posted on Dec, 18 2016 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I might make a t-shirt that has " skeptics rule " written in large txt on the front...I might even get few sales from the crew here 😉



posted on Dec, 18 2016 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Well, there are conspiracy theories and then there are conspiracy theories. That Wiki definition is correct when referring to conspiracy theories concocted out of thin air, paranoia or delusions which are all too common. It is wrong in regards to conspiracy theories for which evidence exists and beg to be researched.

I don't think it truly matters what the opinion of anti-conspiracy theorist's is to be honest. Those theories with substance will eventually prove themselves over time and the other will become obviously the product of overactive imaginations or unfounded paranoia.

Those theories that come from delusional and often mentally ill people are in a class of their own and are obviously false to pretty much everyone.




top topics



 
34
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join