Innovative way to seperate Conspiracy fact from fiction

My theory, should anyone pursue it, would be able to cure the problems of conspiracy theories. Most are fiction and bare little truth on their subject. My approach will allow users to differentiate the topics to weed out the false theories and bring forth the most logical without ever getting in harms way. Here is the theory that I have deemed:

Systematic Confliction Theory....


The theory is rather simplistic and anyone could have possibly thought of this, rather I have yet to see someone speak of it. Basically, the theory involves analyzing theories, whether they are contemporary or not and comparing them with other existing theories. If one theory conflicts with the other, then one will be false and considered inconclusive. While this may seem easy, the process becomes more complex...
As theories are analyzed and compared, one will notice that if choosing a different topic each time, they most likely will result in different outcomes, eventually cancelling a "proven" theory. This system is made to be somewhat like a web-based system. Eventually, if the theory is correct, by using different starting points, one or two theories will be proven to be true as cancellations have been made. The reason this has not worked efficiently is because for one person to analyze and compare all theories would take much time. Hence, if multiple users, such as members of this site, work cooperatively, theories can be dismissed simply based on the relevenace of another and hence, turn up, what I like to call, a "positive" theory.
All a reader must do is start researching a theory, say for instance "Omega Agency" (a rather large and complex theory) and retain as much information on this topic as possible. Remember, the information does not have to be proven factual, only relevent to it's own story. Then, do the same for another topic, say "FEMA". After analyzing both, one will be able to find conflicts among the two topics and eventually prove one "Positive"

If this theory does prove to work, All I wish is that I am recognized for it's development. Hopefully, someone will pursue this theory and find that it will, at least, prove some theories wrong.

[edit on 8-3-2005 by demogorgon]

Where did Systematic Confliction Theory come from?

It was that demogorgon dude.

Should be a discussion provoking introduction.

Welcome. Hope you get the chance to look around ATS. Enjoy.

[edit on 8-3-2005 by RANT]

Thank you very much friend, I feel welcome already!

Seems simple. Good to have a good theory and a new member on board. Even though I'm not exactly someone who's been here very long either.

hmmmm.....shouldn't it be more of a "process" instead of a theory????

And welcome to the site!!!

Thanks for the welcomes... Much appreciated..

Yes, it would be a process, only it's a theory because it hasn't been proven yet!

I am just curious if anyone is willing to pursue this technique.. Maybe for only two topics to see how it works... Anyone? (looks around)... anyone?

How about the collapse of the twin towers? Seems so many members have been arguing whether they collapsed under intense heat or some other method. This certainly seems like a hot topic lately, especially with the recent PM article.

This jsut sounds like inductive research into conspiracy theories....which is probably a good idea.

I agree. However, do you believe that the research should be by people who are not biased?

Biased or not, shouldn't matter.... the information in the topic should cancel out information in another topic.. The information is there to disprove another, only problem is that it's usually overlooked.

Everyone is bias to a extent, i dont mind if a member of the KKK came on here to try to prove that the white was is gods chosen people......aslong as he had proof to back up his statements.

The problem is in gaining revelant data. What one gets told and what is real is two different things. Misinformation would confuse even that theory.

Welcome aboard will be interesting to hear more of your theories and exactly how this one tests out.

demogorgon says:

"... If one theory conflicts with the other, then one will be false and considered inconclusive.'

I would say, rather, that "... if one hypothesis conflicts with another, then at least one and possibly both are false and both should be considered inconclusive."

The problem with that is that one of the two could possibly be 100 percent conclusive: like the "theory" of a round earth with no major hollowness, nor huge chunks being missing--we never hear that one because we already believe the facts, and yet there are two other threads out there about the earth being not what it is, but a hollow ball with a inner society, or something close to the shape of a parachute....to call the worlds being basically a sphere inconclusive based on the fact that's there's other threads out there with opposing theories is a bit wrong. At that point, you ha e to weigh the value of the information, something we do daily, anyway.....