posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 03:44 PM
I don't know that this is a *conspiracy* site. To me, it's always been a site that seeks to "deny ignorance", as the slogan goes. That means, in
my opinion, to seek the truth, whether the truth is a conspiracy or whether the truth is that a conspiracy isn't happening.
Most of the conspiracy theories discussed here are incorrect. How do I know this? Because so many of them are completely contradictory to others.
If one is correct, then there are several others - sometimes dozens of others - that cannot be correct. For instance, if some theory about 9/11 is
true, then most of the others must be untrue. Proving one, rules out many others. The problem we face isn't in coming up with conspiracy theories.
Our problem is knowing which are accurate, and hich are not. Separating the wheat from the chaff.
To me, this site is about seeking the truth, with a focus on the possibility - the *likelihood* - that sometimes conspiracies are behind what's going
on. However, that doesn't mean that each post must announce a fully-formed, complete theory. Asking questions, even when no theory is imagined, is
an important part of the process. Again using 9/11 - I don't know what the truth is about what happened, but I can say that the "official" version
is unsatisfactory. Must I have a theory at hand, just to point out that there's a problem with the official explanation? I think not.
I agree that this site is *supposed* to be about acceptance, insofar as we are to accept others with whom we disagree. I do NOT agree that we are to
accept every conspiracy theory - in fact, I believe we are not to accept any theory until there has been sufficient evidence to show that it is a
reasonable one. The fact that some official version of an event is false, doesn't prove any other theory. The fact that we can't explain some
phenomenon, doesn't mean that any particular theory about it is right.
As far as this not being a "political" site, true. However, it is impossible to discuss conspiracies of the government, without introducing
politics. The government is composed of politicians, who are known not to be 100% honest in all cases. (Translation: if their lips are moving,
they're lying). Politics is built into any conspiracy theory involving the government. And really, it's just about impossible to discuss politics
without someone getting all ballistic over it. That's one reason someone said that forbidden topics are politics, religion, and secx - too emotional
for consistent, rational discussion.
And yet, that's mostly what we discuss here (well, two out of three, anyway). Politics and religion. Emotions and poor reasoning are inevitable.
Sure we need to try to keep it rational and calm, but we're taking about things some people have extreme feelings about. You're going to get some
I think, too, that many of the discussions about religion that seem not to include a conspiracy angle, actually do. They are often in the stage of
questioning the official story, without yet having a reasonable conspiracy theory to offer. So someone points out inconsistencies about some
religion, but doesn't clearly say, "so this is a conspiracy, and they're trying to do X". Maybe they don't have any idea what they're trying to
do, but are simply pointing out a flaw in the religion's claims. The theory may develop later. Or someone might be able to satisfactorily answer
the question in a way that removes that objection.
The point is, a conspiracy theory has a certain life cycle or way of growing. First, there are questions about something. Then there may be attempts
to change the official story to explain these questions. Often those changes aren't enough to do it, so the questions remain. People come up with
alternative explanations that seem to cover the facts, including the questions being asked. However, there is almost always more than a single
possibility, meaning you might get dozens of possible theories. Then you work to weed out the ones that aren't satisfactory, asking even more
questions, challenging "facts", identifying fraud, error, logical fallacies, and so on. Since we're almost always working with incomplete data -
and since there is often a coverup going on - we need to be flexible and open to possibilities.
But each stage of this process, including the very beginning stage where all we have are questions without a theory, are vital. You can't just tell
people they can't discuss something without having a theory about it. Of course we can. That's how every conspiracy theory starts. We wonder why
this happened, if such-and-such is really true. We question the answers, seek to find others that fit better. No one has a theory all figured out
right away. It needs to grow as the information grows.
This can be a frustrating process, because we want answers. But we need to make sure that our answers are true. Otherwise we're replacing one fairy
tale with another. How is this any better? One part of discussing conspiracy theories it to ask the same hard questions about each theory, that we
ask about the "official" story. What makes it even harder for us is that we've got to ask these questions about many explanations, not just the
official one. And, if we are intellectually honest, we've got to ask these questions about our favorite theory, no matter how much we may love that
one. In fact, I'd say we've got to be most skeptical about the theory we most like, since there is a natural tendency to go easy on that one.
So I'm all for asking questions, even when no one has a conspiracy theory about it. I'm all for treating *every* explanation, not just the
"official" one, with serious skepticism, approaching it with the attitude of "guilty until proven innocent". In my opinion, no theory should be
accepted without there being powerful evidence that it is closer to the truth than whatever explanation currently is in place. Certainly I disagree
that any theory should be taken on faith or accepted because it is somehow agreeable to us. And I disagree that we shouldn't discuss a topic unless
we have a conspiracy theory about it.