Is "Healthy Scepticism" a Barrier To Conspiracy Research?

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
it is clear that skepticism means different things to different people

Indeed. If so, what would be the point in placing the word "healthy" in front of it then? I mean if it already is not clearly defined and agreed upon, why make it even harder?

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: Dark Ghost

The problem is that "healthy skepticism" is a decent scientific tool applied too much to real world matters. It allows the ignoring of evidence because of prior beliefs and twisted facts. No better example than government and science continuing to say that alien UFOs cannot exist here at our doorstep simply because of our prior assumptions about our history, religions, physics and primary place in the universe cannot allow it.

And this statement reveals why healthy skepticism is necessary. It demonstrates a lack of concision and an overburdening of assumptions. The writer assumes that UFOs are of alien origin, and that a failure to make that assumption is the result prejudice. Every account, whether of UFOs, bigfoot, or even mundane events like crime or interpersonal interactions, needs to be evaluated among many axes. How reliable is the reporter? Is the account first hand? What are the possible interpretations? Which are the most likely? Ultimately, it is sometimes necessary to conclude that something is inexplicable. Jumping to conclusions closes the mind to new possibilities that might arise.

Edit: OK I REALLY am taking a break now because I am now responding to the wrong people. BBL.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: namelesss
If skepticism is 'healthy', as you suggest, then if it finds trouble with 'conspiracy research', then the problem is with the 'research'.

I think you missed the point of the opening post.

I was referring to people avoiding doing research on conspiracy topics on the assumption that "Nuh, the Official Version seems right to me, I don't need to verify it..." being used as an excuse not even do any research into the events as they were presented. In other words: 'Healthy' Scepticism = being sceptical on everything except stories that are conspiratory in nature — i.e. when it comes to being sceptical of Official Stories of significant world events of the modern era.

I do understand what you are saying, thus, in that light, I won't quibble over a small point of logic.
On point, I think the 'official versions' illustrate the common propaganda knowledge of that which is often heard repeated, forms a 'belief', and an
emotional defense thereof.
Not being readily open to new Perspectives demonstrates sever lack or a proper education, such as that which teaches that ALL Perspectives are 'valid', and ALL Perspectives are of the One unchanging Universal Reality/Truth!
Rather than being egoically threatened by other Perspectives, we can learn to, thus, expand our notions of Reality.
But the end of the Aristotelian adversarial dualist line of 'thought' is painful, an attack on the 'self'.
Most consider other Perspectives an 'attack of the self', to one degree or another.
Those who thrive on 'conspiracies' are doing the perceiving of Reality as only they can!
Those who can only barely figure how much cheese to put on their nachos have their unique Perspectives.
All together, ALL is Known!
We cannot expect others to all agree with us, simply because of this little Universal Law that I stumbled upon;
"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" - First Law of Soul Dynamics
Guaranteed, that if you see your bit of Reality one way, there is a Perspective seeing the exact opposite!
One Reality! *__-

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
it is clear that skepticism means different things to different people

That is probably the heart of the matter.

For some, being skeptical of government stories is a bad thing. One should believe what the government says because it is always honest. Functionally, that is delusional thinking, but practiced by many, conditioned behavior in a way.

Genuine skepticism should be extended to all sources and statements until a reputation for each source is developed.

originally posted by: Salander
That is probably the heart of the matter.

For some, being skeptical of government stories is a bad thing. One should believe what the government says because it is always honest. Functionally, that is delusional thinking, but practiced by many, conditioned behavior in a way.

Genuine skepticism should be extended to all sources and statements until a reputation for each source is developed.

Very well put.

What is so strange about the "healthy sceptics" I am talking about is that they will STILL mention elements of a conspiracy — mention the global banking system, mention how Republican vs. Democratic is a sham and nobody even looks at who is behind pushing the representatives of each party (Trump vs Hilary at pre-election time) and other views that are in favour of some type of deception by powers that cannot be seen etc. and then refuse to even consider an event like 9/11 and the resulting official story might be worth looking into. So they don't. THAT would be unhealthy scepticism — I can ALWAYS trust the media, government and authoritative bodies!

It's strange indeed.