First, my apologies if some of this is obscure. I assumed you had some knowledge based on things that you stated, and it appears that my assumption may have been absolutely wrong.
To the first question: Using the term "world leaders" implies public faces, who don't own the media and would not be able to sabotage a word without damaging their face. So "almost" to the first half, and "no" it was not people in general. Media has been distorting the phrase "conspiracy theory" for at least 4 decades, and demonizing anyone investigating conspiracies for the same length of time. Long ago I thought it was odd that I was noticing this trend and no media sources covered it. The book I mentioned above explains the same thing from a over a decade earlier, and explains why better than I will do here.
The book I mentioned above contains thousands of facts and evidence in addition to the authors logic and opinion. The author was demonized and declared a "conspiracy theorist" by media who attempted to dissuade people from reading the book. After they saw the public reaction they went to the silent treatment and ignored the books (demonizing the book increased readers). The book never received advertising, was not rated, and still sold many millions of copies. That said, you won't hear about it from anyone in media or academia which is worth pondering by itself.
I don't believe Bush would be a leader in a conspiracy, but he surely has knowledge of a conspiracy. Also, you are implying past tense with "was", and the conspiracy did not go away or even slow down after Bush left office. You are also off on what the conspiracy is. The book title I mentioned above summarizes investigations that go back for nearly 100 years. The author cites hundreds other books and sources for information. If you have not read it, it's very much worth the read especially if you believe you are knowledgeable on conspiracies. The original release date was prior to Nixon leaving office, and it's worth starting there. I know they have released updated versions, but I have not read them. I have read most of the books that this author points to in his work as references because it was difficult to believe many of the things he claimed were facts were really factual. Everything I tried to debunk was valid.
To make sure I'm not being misleading, the media that has been demonizing the term is US media. I hear that other countries do the same, but can not confirm or deny any such action since I have no first hand evidence. The book mentions mostly events and people in the US, but there are some references to other countries and people.
Bah, hopefully you can decipher this properly since I missed a symbol up top and the quotes are off. If you can not, let me know and I'll re-post with a correction.
No, I won't attempt to teach the basics of rhetoric and logic here, I studied them for years in a formal environment as opposed to you pointing to Wiki articles for fallacy definitions.
I'm sure you're well aware, then, of the argument-from-authority fallacy. I dare not link to Wikipedia, of course. That would make me a bumbling amateur, right?
Attempting to nitpick the name of the fallacy won't change the fallacy from true to false either, so it's a poor argument all around.
I wasn't being obtuse. I really don't get you.
Herd immunity does not claim 100% is needed, so you are again using fallacy arguments. You said yourself that some people can not be vaccinated so you provide an impossible condition and you know it.
Well, you not being vaccinated probably means one more potential carrier, right? ('Probably' because of the chance it wouldn't have worked on you.) The only way this doesn't affect me is if I'm 100% guaranteed to be immune. (Or, I suppose, if I'm 100% guaranteed never to meet you, or if I'm already infected.) I don't see that I can be missing much here, but if this reasoning is unsound, please point out in what way.
You not getting a vaccination doesn't affect me much, sure, but without 100% effective vaccinations, it surely has to affect me some non-zero amount. (The impossibility of 100% effective vaccinations doesn't affect the reasoning here.)
I was not unclear with what you replied "What?' to, so try and work on your reading and comprehension skills.
Condescension doesn't strengthen your position, but I thought it was clear: I don't know where you're getting this from: the irrational and fallacy ridden separation you attempt to make between people that "can't" and people that "won't" get vaccinated. I certainly wasn't trying to make any such distinction.
Regarding the facts, then: thereseemsto be a 1 in 1,000,000 risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome, and it's also not good for people with severe egg allergies. Regarding whether flu shots have saved lives, this source says it's unclear. (It's still possible it's saved many people from a few unpleasant days of flu, mind, and that alone could make it worthwhile.)
Even if you're right that flu shots in particular aren't worthwhile, vaccinations have proven themselves on other diseases. I don't think anyone would argue that flu shots are the most important vaccination.
I'm sure you're well aware, then, of the argument-from-authority fallacy. I dare not link to Wikipedia, of course. That would make me a bumbling amateur, right?
As stated, nitpicking a fallacy name does not make a fallacy true. A fallacy is still a fallacy, and falsity is still falsity. Faulty logic most often can be described using numerous "named" fallacies depending on the point of reference. Continuing to debate the point will never make faulty logic good logic, it's nitpicking and diversionary.
Well, you not being vaccinated probably means one more potential carrier, right? ('Probably' because of the chance it wouldn't have worked on you.) The only way this doesn't affect me is if I'm 100% guaranteed to be immune. (Or, I suppose, if I'm 100% guaranteed never to meet you, or if I'm already infected.) I don't see that I can be missing much here, but if this reasoning is unsound, please point out in what way.
You just said probably, which is a correct statement. Then again you claim you want a 100% guarantee. No such guarantee is possible no matter what the circumstanc
No, I won't attempt to teach the basics of rhetoric and logic here, I studied them for years in a formal environment as opposed to you pointing to Wiki articles for fallacy definitions. Attempting to nitpick the name of the fallacy won't change the fallacy from true to false either, so it's a poor argument all around.
Herd immunity does not claim 100% is needed, so you are again using fallacy arguments. You said yourself that some people can not be vaccinated so you provide an impossible condition and you know it.
I was not unclear with what you replied "What?' to, so try and work on your reading and comprehension skills.
To your last point, you can use internet searches to try and back false claims so you can surely use internet searches to find information regarding the risks associated with vaccines of all sorts, including "Flu". Further internet searches should lead you to scientists and doctors that question the benefits. I refuse to do the work for you when you are arguing something irrational and illogical (see my first post).
If we spend time to mimic natural compounds, claiming they don't exist is a false statement correct? I'm not saying Rhino horn powder gives you virility, I'm talking about proven and known natural remedies of which there are a great many. Further, a great many of these are being studied this very day so that we can determine methods of mimicking them.
Why do you have to go to an absurd method of claiming man made is better? This is exactly what you did by claiming that a person has to chew bark. 2,500 years ago we knew how to process Willow bark and leaves into a powder that worked as well, or better, than any man made compound today, which we call "aspirin".
We don't end up making natural medicine "better", we make it more cost effective to produce, process, and distribute. This is absolutely not the same thing as making it "better", because you are providing a subjective view from only one participant in the chain. Better for a company is not necessarily better for a consumer.
Looking at the harm these low costs have caused, such as abuse of antibiotics reducing their effectiveness, or organ damage from consuming man made compounds, the "better" is not just subjective but wrong.
Where we may come to an agreement is whether or not certain made man made drugs do not exist in nature. I'll agree with that point without too much fuss.
I spelled the dilemma out very clearly, and you responded to exactly that dilemma. I get the feeling you are feigning ignorance, but I'll play along for a minute.
GP stated that he was at a higher risk because someone did not get a vaccine.
That, is a false dilemma. He is at _NO_ higher risk because someone does not get a vaccine, and neither is anyone else that receives a vaccine.
The Herd immunity you claimed backed this false dilemma does not do so in any way shape or form. Herd immunity states that people not receiving vaccines are safer when others receive them.
You then pump out ad hominem, straw men, and red herrings to repeat the same false dilemma that you claimed not to see.
I won't even touch the irrational and fallacy ridden separation you attempt to make between people that "can't" and people that "won't" get vaccinated because their impact (bidirectionally) is "EXACTLY"exactly the same!
So for the 3rd time, if you wish prove that the dilemma is real show me facts to back your claim. Don't continue to spread horse shit and ad hominem. You won't find any such facts by the way, but you will of course stumble on propaganda pieces spewing similar irrational and fallacy ridden garbage.
For what it's worth, I'm not against all vaccines. As a veteran I have had more than most people will ever hear of, and take no issue because it was MY decision and MY risk. I should have no right to make you get vaccinate for the Plague, because it's an extremely risky vaccine.
I'm anti Flu vaccine because the results don't offset the risk and the benefits of a Flu vaccine are extremely questionable. I'm all for the Polio vaccine, because the results do offset the risk. Not all vaccines are the same, not all results are the same, and not all risks are the same.
When we hear benefits of all vaccines we receive horribly distorted information. Polio was cured at least as much by increased sanitation as it was by the vaccine. People getting the Flu stopped dying because we understand hydration and temperature regulation today better than we did 40 years ago (my grandfather died of influenza in the 50s). Vaccine makers insinuate that the only reason things get better is due to their wonder medicine, which is not just an unsubstantiated claim but completely false.
We would agree except for the word "intentionally".
I think the "intentional" issue is easy to resolve, and a book I read long ago describes the problem in an easy way. "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" is a marvelous book. My summary will not be as good as the authors, but should drive the point.
When it comes to politics, government, and massive corporations there are two ways to view their actions. First is the "accidental theory", where we like to claim "Bush didn't know what would happen if he bombed Iraq.". Second, is the intentional theory where "Bush knew every possible outcome from bombing Iraq, and the most likely outcome is the one he desired."
Considering that we know how many consultants these people employ, how many marketers, media moguls, and quite frankly how intelligent these people are: Which is the most likely theory?
I used Bush intentionally here, because while he played an idiot to media and the populace he is in fact extremely intelligent. His GPA from college back that claim, and the people consulting him are not dolts either.
What you describe following is an adaptation of Socrates's "The Allegory of the Cave" which I am an advocate of using on all sorts of occasions. Yes, people are prone to sit in filth if that's what they know. Not that it's healthy, but people find comfort in a stable environment. Even when the environment is unhealthy.
If Socrates realized this 2,500 years ago do you think people have not learned to take advantage of that fact?
The goal for Philosophers should be to show people that they are indeed living in an unhealthy cave, then teach them how to break out and find better stability.
I gave a generalization which not only covered "muddying the waters" but "poisoning the well". I could have been more specific, but didn't see the need at the time.
Good grief, I provided a link to the Wiki which exactly backs my statement, and you got it wrong.
Plant extracts, including willow bark and spiraea, of which salicylic acid was the active ingredient, had been known to help alleviate headaches, pains, and fevers since antiquity. The father of modern medicine, Hippocrates (c. 460 - c. 377 BC), left historical records describing the use of powder made from the bark and leaves of the willow tree to help these symptoms.[140]
Yes it does relieve pain, yes it does reduce swelling, yes it does relieve fevers, and we have known it's properties for at least 2,500 years.
Herd immunity does not make the dilemma true, so you either missed what I said or are choosing to ignore what I said and divert the topic elsewhere (again). Since you will probably argue, as you already have, I'll quote the first paragraph of the article you claim makes the dilemma true.
Herd immunity (or community immunity) describes a form of immunity that occurs when the vaccination of a significant portion of a population (or herd) provides a measure of protection for individuals who have not developed immunity.[1] Herd immunity theory proposes that, in contagious diseases that are transmitted from individual to individual, chains of infection are likely to be disrupted when large numbers of a population are immune or less susceptible to the disease.
Nowhere in this theory does it claim that an un-vaccinated person increases the risk for a vaccinated person. The theory claims that vaccinated people can act as a firewall for those that are not vaccinated. I'll give you another quote which states this very clearly under the "mechanism" portion of the document.
Vaccination acts as a sort of firebreak or firewall in the spread of the disease, slowing or preventing further transmission of the disease to others.[3] Unvaccinated individuals are indirectly protected by vaccinated individuals, as the latter are less likely to contract and transmit the disease between infected and susceptible individuals.[2]
Can you show me any study which backs the dilemma I said was false? I won't hold my breath, because twice now false information has been presented to back the false dilemma.
My point makes perfect sense, because it's wrong to claim that there are no natural remedies. A great number of remedies are exactly a mimicker of natural compounds. I gave aspirin and antibiotics as examples of "natural medicine".
How much intellectual capacity does it take to both not understand what a "signature" is and use this to divert the point? Not a whole lot. For what it's worth, my signature has been the same for about 10 years and I have no interest in changing it because it shows me who I am dealing with intellectually.
You cover things very well, but I'd like to make an addition to your repertoire. Does fluoride cause cause the calcification of the pineal gland? We have evidence that this is true, though there could obviously be additional factors involved. The theories try to address why someone would intentionally harm others, but the theories do not change the effect of calcification.
To make matters worse we often see obnoxious theories introduced to confuse issues and maintain a status quot.
The best example of this is not in medicine but easily demonstrates the problem. Look at "Global Warming" as a prime example of the Government funding both sides of the debate, and the impact of that debate. The impact of that debate is that nothing has been done to resolve any issues. Polluters are still polluting, Dumpers are still dumping, Petroleum is still being used at higher and higher rates, and _nothing_ is being corrected.
So you are petitioning to get vitamin A and D removed from Milk, all sorts of vitamins and minerals removed from cereals and oatmeal? Are you further demanding that vitamin A fortified Rice should be killed? Will you refuse to allow a pregnant woman or an elderly person to take vitamins because it's a scam, even though a doctor will highly recommend it and even provide prescription vitamins?
You can't have it both ways without suffering extreme cognitive dissonance. If vitamin supplements do nothing, then they do nothing and we have wasted millions of man hours studying nutrition and health. If they do something, then they all do something. Obviously different concentrations would have different impact, but vitamins from GNC would not be a scam if you believe vitamins from Bayer work.
I really don't think you should be worried about how much other people understand, because the science behind nutrition very much backs adding vitamins and minerals to diets. We have had a good amount of success with this method too. I know people that eat very little fruit that don't have scurvy or rickets.
Aspirin a man made synthetic compound mimicking the pain relieving properties of willow bark? I believe that every anti-biotic we use today is also a mimicker of natural remedies. Numerous plants have known medicinal properties, such as coagulants, anti-coagulants, antiseptics, anti-fungus, anti-bacterial, numbing, etc.. etc..
If you drink Milk purchased in a store you get Milk fortified with Vitamin A and Vitamin D. We are trying to fortify Rice with Vitamin A for mass consumption. Pregnant women are given massive amounts of prescription vitamins, and we know that certain deficiencies cause health problems like gout, rickets, scurvy, immune deficiency, and more. If you believe a recent report regarding vitamins this is obviously a waste of time because artificial sources of vitamins are all useless (This was all over the TV news a few months back).
So while I believe you have a point regarding false claims, but take issue with you doing so in only one direction. I also take issue with you requesting "reputable journals" when you know none exist. You state right after you make that request that there is no evidence in any journals and even provide a reason why the data is lacking.
Perhaps I'm twisting your point a bit, if I am my apologies. I'm astounded at how many people simply don't get that the US position on drugs and medications purely backs money making operations. Often times their own work gets contradicted by themselves to further a different portion of their funding (see the vitamin example above). People for the most part completely miss that part, don't do any research to find contradictions or problems, and both ends of the spectrum end up providing false information.
People claiming there are no natural remedies are not telling the truth, intentionally or otherwise. There are a great many natural remedies, but they are not as profitable to make, and not as easy to provide to the masses. Looking at the abuses to antibiotics and various pain relievers over the last 30 years, the mass distribution and low cost has not necessarily a good thing.
Finally, I agree that people make false claims regarding natural remedies, making them more than what they are. At the same time you can't honestly deny that Companies/Corporations make false claims regarding their products. Countless class action lawsuits back the latter fact. People don't know who to trust, and quite frankly you can't blame them. The FDA stopped being an agency looking out for the best interest of our citizens long ago.
Then those are not "cures", please read the definition. I believe I get your point, but trying to redefine words is not the best way of making a point.
Apologies for what appears to be ranting, I'll rewrite my statements with a keyboard that I can type on and a screen I can see better.
Wait, are you claiming that the only valid medicine is man made synthetic compounds? Surely that is what your generalization is implying. It is cheaper to make pain killers than harvest tree bark, but there are at least two I can think of off the top of my head with proven pain relieving properties in their bark. We know of natural anti-biotics, antiseptics, antistringents, blood thinners, coagulants, etc... You really need to fix your generalization.
I said it was a false dilemma and showed logic to back my statementt. You go off on a tangent standing up straw men that have nothing to do with the false dilemma I argued against.
If you wish to argue that it is a real dilemma lets see your arguments. If you can't, then I am correct.
Wait, are you claiming that the only. Slid medicine is man made synthetic compounds? Surely that is what your generalization is implying. It is cheaper to make pain killers than harvest tree bark, but there are at least two I can think of off the top of my head with proven pain relieving properties in their bark. We know of natural anti-biotics, antiseptics, antistringents, blood thinners, coagulants, etc... You. Red to fix your generalization.
You do know what a false dilemma is don't you? If John Doe decides not to get vaccinated and you get vaccinated, how are you at risk? John gets polio and you do not, there is no issue.
If you wish to argue the money issue that also does not exist. Are you really going to argue about your tax helping someone while ignoring what your tax dollars are being spent on? War, big brother keeping tabs on you and denying basic rights to you and everyone else in the world?
tax money is the only point you could argue honestly, but if you do you are picking a small and.insignificant battle in the grand scheme of the
World and. Society.
Apologies for not addressing this completely in a single thread, but this seemed to be worth separating.
There was a Philosophy student in NZ who studied conspiracy theory formally as part of his phd. He did a weekly radio spot on the university radio station which I used to listen to (via podcast) every week. It was fascinating and very informative and he was quite funny also.
My googling shows that surprisingly he is still going strong and now has his phd!:) "Conspiracy Corner with Dr. Matthew Dentith"
He is very much a "conspiracy theorist" in the academic sense.:)
Thanks for the name, I'll find the name and give a read and listen. I don't agree with many modern Philosophers, including the name I dropped above. That does not mean I can't enjoy certain points they make, or the dialogue they present.
The person I knew who was a conspiracy theorist in the nut-job sense and simply watched a lot of youtube videos of the likes of David Ickle. I knew a lot about him from Dr Dentith's show which enabled me to call her out on her complete and utter shite in a very informed way which she was not used to as almost know one knows of his work. When she was highly selective of his theories (e.g. leaving out lizard people and moon bases) I merely made sure that people listening were educated on the full body of his work.
I see this too, but will give a point to ponder and a question. If a thing wakes a person up, should you take issue? Personally I don't bother trying to dismiss people when they discover the land outside their cave. Some people are absolutely beyond help, but others just need a nudge in the right direction to see where people like Ickle are wrong.
I don't personally enjoy Alex Jones for example. That said, he has done quite a bit to wake people to the cave the Government has been putting them in. When people have their eyes open a bit, you can start to point them to better sources of information and methods of solving the problem (Solutions are not in Alex's repitoire.
Thanks for the courteous response, and no need to apologize. I was more trying to satisfy all questions regarding my claim to being a Philosopher, and did not really take offense. Many people have a belief that without a PHD a person can not be a Philosopher. Additional clarity was added to the answer for your question in an effort to satisfy other people's potential questions.
You comments are very clear and my thanks for taking that time. I think we agree the sole issue is simply the term "conspiracy theorist" and the baggage that term has. In fact I think we don't really disagree on anything, its just a misunderstanding of terminology.
Regardless of what the term COULD or arguably SHOULD mean, the common definition is more or less as I described above. One can argue till they are blue in the face that the world should change their definition of a word or phrase but ultimately word definitions are a "majority wins" situation.
I am happy to admit conspiracies exist (As I state explicitly in my previous post) and there are people who study conspiracies with intellectual rigour and who are certainly not the people who I am referring to - see my aside at the end for evidence of this.
We would probably agree then, that the term "conspiracy theorist" has been intentionally sabotaged as has the term "conspiracy". This is something that should bother people very much, and the only way to get rid of the false stigma that has been placed on the terms is to open those points to public debate. If enough people start to openly discuss conspiracies for what they are, the stigma will start to diminish.
As I stated in my first response, I love conspiracy theories. Most can be dismissed within a few minutes of study, but we still are required to do the study. Study makes us wiser people, so why would anyone complain about someone wanting to be a student? That said, a good number of conspiracy theories hold a lot of weight and can not be dismissed so easily. We can say further that a few of those hold a tremendous amount of factual backing and can not be dismissed at all.
If people label me anything, I tend to laugh (such as a person above regarding 9/11). These people never question anything handed to them by a perceived person in authority, and remain ignorant. I surely can't wake everyone up to a different reality than the Government(s) are handing them, but I have woken up more than my share of people and take every opportunity to try and wake people.
Re-reading your post again there is a point I missed interpreting. I also stated that "conspiracy theorist" should not be a bad term, as it has become due to propaganda.
Your closing paragraphs is correct. Conspiracies do exist. The definition of "conspiracy theorist" is what is incorrect, because in it's essence anyone studying a valid conspiracy also falls into the generalized definition you provide. That generalization has the effect of dissuading people from investigating _all_ conspiracies.
First, to your point of being a Philosopher. I have studied Philosophy in addition to other closely related subjects (economics, sociology, psychology) for 35 years so yes I have lifelong study. At least from the point of being mature enough to study these subjects with any purpose. It should go without saying that I'm quite a bit older than 35. Maybe one day I'll have a PHD, but don't feel that's a real, or valid, measure of being a Philosopher. Socrates and Plato obviously lacked any such degree and I would put especially Socrates at the very top of the list of Philosophers. Many modern Philosophers, such as Stefan Molyneux also lack the paper. If there is no requirement for a Philosopher to hold a piece of paper, there is no point in providing a list in all of the various Philosophers through both modern times and history did not or do not hold said paper.
To be very clear on the point, a Philosopher values education and will have as much as possible. Having a PHD is not required for either being educated or being a Philosopher. I do hold a degree in Mathematics, and another in Liberal Arts, but obviously my studies have not been limited.
This would obviously be a different situation if I had stated "I am a Sun Certified Developer" where I would have to hold such a document, or more to the point of education claimed to hold a PHD.
On the remaining statements, I never attempted to define anything except for what the State and State propaganda describes as "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist". I have no idea why you decided to invent so much other dialogue in your response.
Breaking down my statements to individual components I have what follows.
I pointed out a fact that conspiracies do exist. You don't argue this point, and I'm sure we could both agree that this is verifiable fact.
I pointed out how people investigating conspiracies have been vilified. I believe you realize this, which is why you deny the label in your statement I quoted (and quote again below).
I pointed out that extremely abstract and easy to disprove theories have been pushed to persuade people that all conspiracies are false. This is verifiable in many measures, just as we can verify conspiracies do exist.
Lastly, I said that your this statement "But where will they be in 5-10 years when they are better at hiding their activities? I am not saying I know and I am not a conspiracy theorist but to be honest whatever it is it looks pretty grim." you would match the current State definition of a conspiracy theorist due to your first sentence. Even if you discount the label in the second sentence, the first is enough to potentially gain the label today.
But where will they be in 5-10 years when they are better at hiding their activities? I am not saying I know and I am not a conspiracy theorist but to be honest whatever it is it looks pretty grim.
Yes you are, and you should not be that worried about it. I realize that media propaganda has people believing "conspiracy theory" is a bad term, and "conspiracy theorist" is an evil person, but logic and rational thinking should show you the truth. The truth is that the propaganda is wrong, and meant to keep you from looking at what these people are doing. The truth is also that conspiracies do happen, and it's high time for people to really focus on that point.
As a Philosopher I love conspiracy theories and study them all to some degree. Mostly to prove them wrong, but when you start to study something amazing happens. You realize that some of the theories are true and just lacking proof. Some things are buries, and other conspiracy theories are invented as cover to real stories and real conspiracies.
Slashdot Mirror
First, my apologies if some of this is obscure. I assumed you had some knowledge based on things that you stated, and it appears that my assumption may have been absolutely wrong.
To the first question: Using the term "world leaders" implies public faces, who don't own the media and would not be able to sabotage a word without damaging their face. So "almost" to the first half, and "no" it was not people in general. Media has been distorting the phrase "conspiracy theory" for at least 4 decades, and demonizing anyone investigating conspiracies for the same length of time. Long ago I thought it was odd that I was noticing this trend and no media sources covered it. The book I mentioned above explains the same thing from a over a decade earlier, and explains why better than I will do here.
The book I mentioned above contains thousands of facts and evidence in addition to the authors logic and opinion. The author was demonized and declared a "conspiracy theorist" by media who attempted to dissuade people from reading the book. After they saw the public reaction they went to the silent treatment and ignored the books (demonizing the book increased readers). The book never received advertising, was not rated, and still sold many millions of copies. That said, you won't hear about it from anyone in media or academia which is worth pondering by itself.
I don't believe Bush would be a leader in a conspiracy, but he surely has knowledge of a conspiracy. Also, you are implying past tense with "was", and the conspiracy did not go away or even slow down after Bush left office. You are also off on what the conspiracy is. The book title I mentioned above summarizes investigations that go back for nearly 100 years. The author cites hundreds other books and sources for information. If you have not read it, it's very much worth the read especially if you believe you are knowledgeable on conspiracies. The original release date was prior to Nixon leaving office, and it's worth starting there. I know they have released updated versions, but I have not read them. I have read most of the books that this author points to in his work as references because it was difficult to believe many of the things he claimed were facts were really factual. Everything I tried to debunk was valid.
To make sure I'm not being misleading, the media that has been demonizing the term is US media. I hear that other countries do the same, but can not confirm or deny any such action since I have no first hand evidence. The book mentions mostly events and people in the US, but there are some references to other countries and people.
Bah, hopefully you can decipher this properly since I missed a symbol up top and the quotes are off. If you can not, let me know and I'll re-post with a correction.
No, I won't attempt to teach the basics of rhetoric and logic here, I studied them for years in a formal environment as opposed to you pointing to Wiki articles for fallacy definitions.
I'm sure you're well aware, then, of the argument-from-authority fallacy. I dare not link to Wikipedia, of course. That would make me a bumbling amateur, right?
Attempting to nitpick the name of the fallacy won't change the fallacy from true to false either, so it's a poor argument all around.
I wasn't being obtuse. I really don't get you.
Herd immunity does not claim 100% is needed, so you are again using fallacy arguments. You said yourself that some people can not be vaccinated so you provide an impossible condition and you know it.
Well, you not being vaccinated probably means one more potential carrier, right? ('Probably' because of the chance it wouldn't have worked on you.) The only way this doesn't affect me is if I'm 100% guaranteed to be immune. (Or, I suppose, if I'm 100% guaranteed never to meet you, or if I'm already infected.) I don't see that I can be missing much here, but if this reasoning is unsound, please point out in what way.
You not getting a vaccination doesn't affect me much, sure, but without 100% effective vaccinations, it surely has to affect me some non-zero amount. (The impossibility of 100% effective vaccinations doesn't affect the reasoning here.)
I was not unclear with what you replied "What?' to, so try and work on your reading and comprehension skills.
Condescension doesn't strengthen your position, but I thought it was clear: I don't know where you're getting this from: the irrational and fallacy ridden separation you attempt to make between people that "can't" and people that "won't" get vaccinated. I certainly wasn't trying to make any such distinction.
Regarding the facts, then: there seems to be a 1 in 1,000,000 risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome, and it's also not good for people with severe egg allergies. Regarding whether flu shots have saved lives, this source says it's unclear. (It's still possible it's saved many people from a few unpleasant days of flu, mind, and that alone could make it worthwhile.)
Even if you're right that flu shots in particular aren't worthwhile, vaccinations have proven themselves on other diseases. I don't think anyone would argue that flu shots are the most important vaccination.
I'm sure you're well aware, then, of the argument-from-authority fallacy. I dare not link to Wikipedia, of course. That would make me a bumbling amateur, right?
As stated, nitpicking a fallacy name does not make a fallacy true. A fallacy is still a fallacy, and falsity is still falsity. Faulty logic most often can be described using numerous "named" fallacies depending on the point of reference. Continuing to debate the point will never make faulty logic good logic, it's nitpicking and diversionary.
Well, you not being vaccinated probably means one more potential carrier, right? ('Probably' because of the chance it wouldn't have worked on you.) The only way this doesn't affect me is if I'm 100% guaranteed to be immune. (Or, I suppose, if I'm 100% guaranteed never to meet you, or if I'm already infected.) I don't see that I can be missing much here, but if this reasoning is unsound, please point out in what way.
You just said probably, which is a correct statement. Then again you claim you want a 100% guarantee. No such guarantee is possible no matter what the circumstanc
No, I won't attempt to teach the basics of rhetoric and logic here, I studied them for years in a formal environment as opposed to you pointing to Wiki articles for fallacy definitions. Attempting to nitpick the name of the fallacy won't change the fallacy from true to false either, so it's a poor argument all around.
Herd immunity does not claim 100% is needed, so you are again using fallacy arguments. You said yourself that some people can not be vaccinated so you provide an impossible condition and you know it.
I was not unclear with what you replied "What?' to, so try and work on your reading and comprehension skills.
To your last point, you can use internet searches to try and back false claims so you can surely use internet searches to find information regarding the risks associated with vaccines of all sorts, including "Flu". Further internet searches should lead you to scientists and doctors that question the benefits. I refuse to do the work for you when you are arguing something irrational and illogical (see my first post).
If we spend time to mimic natural compounds, claiming they don't exist is a false statement correct? I'm not saying Rhino horn powder gives you virility, I'm talking about proven and known natural remedies of which there are a great many. Further, a great many of these are being studied this very day so that we can determine methods of mimicking them.
Why do you have to go to an absurd method of claiming man made is better? This is exactly what you did by claiming that a person has to chew bark. 2,500 years ago we knew how to process Willow bark and leaves into a powder that worked as well, or better, than any man made compound today, which we call "aspirin".
We don't end up making natural medicine "better", we make it more cost effective to produce, process, and distribute. This is absolutely not the same thing as making it "better", because you are providing a subjective view from only one participant in the chain. Better for a company is not necessarily better for a consumer.
Looking at the harm these low costs have caused, such as abuse of antibiotics reducing their effectiveness, or organ damage from consuming man made compounds, the "better" is not just subjective but wrong.
Where we may come to an agreement is whether or not certain made man made drugs do not exist in nature. I'll agree with that point without too much fuss.
I spelled the dilemma out very clearly, and you responded to exactly that dilemma. I get the feeling you are feigning ignorance, but I'll play along for a minute.
GP stated that he was at a higher risk because someone did not get a vaccine.
That, is a false dilemma. He is at _NO_ higher risk because someone does not get a vaccine, and neither is anyone else that receives a vaccine.
The Herd immunity you claimed backed this false dilemma does not do so in any way shape or form. Herd immunity states that people not receiving vaccines are safer when others receive them.
You then pump out ad hominem, straw men, and red herrings to repeat the same false dilemma that you claimed not to see.
I won't even touch the irrational and fallacy ridden separation you attempt to make between people that "can't" and people that "won't" get vaccinated because their impact (bidirectionally) is "EXACTLY"exactly the same!
So for the 3rd time, if you wish prove that the dilemma is real show me facts to back your claim. Don't continue to spread horse shit and ad hominem. You won't find any such facts by the way, but you will of course stumble on propaganda pieces spewing similar irrational and fallacy ridden garbage.
For what it's worth, I'm not against all vaccines. As a veteran I have had more than most people will ever hear of, and take no issue because it was MY decision and MY risk. I should have no right to make you get vaccinate for the Plague, because it's an extremely risky vaccine.
I'm anti Flu vaccine because the results don't offset the risk and the benefits of a Flu vaccine are extremely questionable. I'm all for the Polio vaccine, because the results do offset the risk. Not all vaccines are the same, not all results are the same, and not all risks are the same.
When we hear benefits of all vaccines we receive horribly distorted information. Polio was cured at least as much by increased sanitation as it was by the vaccine. People getting the Flu stopped dying because we understand hydration and temperature regulation today better than we did 40 years ago (my grandfather died of influenza in the 50s). Vaccine makers insinuate that the only reason things get better is due to their wonder medicine, which is not just an unsubstantiated claim but completely false.
We would agree except for the word "intentionally".
I think the "intentional" issue is easy to resolve, and a book I read long ago describes the problem in an easy way. "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" is a marvelous book. My summary will not be as good as the authors, but should drive the point.
When it comes to politics, government, and massive corporations there are two ways to view their actions. First is the "accidental theory", where we like to claim "Bush didn't know what would happen if he bombed Iraq.". Second, is the intentional theory where "Bush knew every possible outcome from bombing Iraq, and the most likely outcome is the one he desired."
Considering that we know how many consultants these people employ, how many marketers, media moguls, and quite frankly how intelligent these people are: Which is the most likely theory?
I used Bush intentionally here, because while he played an idiot to media and the populace he is in fact extremely intelligent. His GPA from college back that claim, and the people consulting him are not dolts either.
What you describe following is an adaptation of Socrates's "The Allegory of the Cave" which I am an advocate of using on all sorts of occasions. Yes, people are prone to sit in filth if that's what they know. Not that it's healthy, but people find comfort in a stable environment. Even when the environment is unhealthy.
If Socrates realized this 2,500 years ago do you think people have not learned to take advantage of that fact?
The goal for Philosophers should be to show people that they are indeed living in an unhealthy cave, then teach them how to break out and find better stability.
I gave a generalization which not only covered "muddying the waters" but "poisoning the well". I could have been more specific, but didn't see the need at the time.
Good grief, I provided a link to the Wiki which exactly backs my statement, and you got it wrong.
Plant extracts, including willow bark and spiraea, of which salicylic acid was the active ingredient, had been known to help alleviate headaches, pains, and fevers since antiquity. The father of modern medicine, Hippocrates (c. 460 - c. 377 BC), left historical records describing the use of powder made from the bark and leaves of the willow tree to help these symptoms.[140]
Yes it does relieve pain, yes it does reduce swelling, yes it does relieve fevers, and we have known it's properties for at least 2,500 years.
Herd immunity does not make the dilemma true, so you either missed what I said or are choosing to ignore what I said and divert the topic elsewhere (again). Since you will probably argue, as you already have, I'll quote the first paragraph of the article you claim makes the dilemma true.
Herd immunity (or community immunity) describes a form of immunity that occurs when the vaccination of a significant portion of a population (or herd) provides a measure of protection for individuals who have not developed immunity.[1] Herd immunity theory proposes that, in contagious diseases that are transmitted from individual to individual, chains of infection are likely to be disrupted when large numbers of a population are immune or less susceptible to the disease.
Nowhere in this theory does it claim that an un-vaccinated person increases the risk for a vaccinated person. The theory claims that vaccinated people can act as a firewall for those that are not vaccinated. I'll give you another quote which states this very clearly under the "mechanism" portion of the document.
Vaccination acts as a sort of firebreak or firewall in the spread of the disease, slowing or preventing further transmission of the disease to others.[3] Unvaccinated individuals are indirectly protected by vaccinated individuals, as the latter are less likely to contract and transmit the disease between infected and susceptible individuals.[2]
Can you show me any study which backs the dilemma I said was false? I won't hold my breath, because twice now false information has been presented to back the false dilemma.
My point makes perfect sense, because it's wrong to claim that there are no natural remedies. A great number of remedies are exactly a mimicker of natural compounds. I gave aspirin and antibiotics as examples of "natural medicine".
How much intellectual capacity does it take to both not understand what a "signature" is and use this to divert the point? Not a whole lot. For what it's worth, my signature has been the same for about 10 years and I have no interest in changing it because it shows me who I am dealing with intellectually.
You cover things very well, but I'd like to make an addition to your repertoire. Does fluoride cause cause the calcification of the pineal gland? We have evidence that this is true, though there could obviously be additional factors involved. The theories try to address why someone would intentionally harm others, but the theories do not change the effect of calcification.
To make matters worse we often see obnoxious theories introduced to confuse issues and maintain a status quot.
The best example of this is not in medicine but easily demonstrates the problem. Look at "Global Warming" as a prime example of the Government funding both sides of the debate, and the impact of that debate. The impact of that debate is that nothing has been done to resolve any issues. Polluters are still polluting, Dumpers are still dumping, Petroleum is still being used at higher and higher rates, and _nothing_ is being corrected.
So you are petitioning to get vitamin A and D removed from Milk, all sorts of vitamins and minerals removed from cereals and oatmeal? Are you further demanding that vitamin A fortified Rice should be killed? Will you refuse to allow a pregnant woman or an elderly person to take vitamins because it's a scam, even though a doctor will highly recommend it and even provide prescription vitamins?
You can't have it both ways without suffering extreme cognitive dissonance. If vitamin supplements do nothing, then they do nothing and we have wasted millions of man hours studying nutrition and health. If they do something, then they all do something. Obviously different concentrations would have different impact, but vitamins from GNC would not be a scam if you believe vitamins from Bayer work.
I really don't think you should be worried about how much other people understand, because the science behind nutrition very much backs adding vitamins and minerals to diets. We have had a good amount of success with this method too. I know people that eat very little fruit that don't have scurvy or rickets.
Aspirin a man made synthetic compound mimicking the pain relieving properties of willow bark? I believe that every anti-biotic we use today is also a mimicker of natural remedies. Numerous plants have known medicinal properties, such as coagulants, anti-coagulants, antiseptics, anti-fungus, anti-bacterial, numbing, etc.. etc..
If you drink Milk purchased in a store you get Milk fortified with Vitamin A and Vitamin D. We are trying to fortify Rice with Vitamin A for mass consumption. Pregnant women are given massive amounts of prescription vitamins, and we know that certain deficiencies cause health problems like gout, rickets, scurvy, immune deficiency, and more. If you believe a recent report regarding vitamins this is obviously a waste of time because artificial sources of vitamins are all useless (This was all over the TV news a few months back).
So while I believe you have a point regarding false claims, but take issue with you doing so in only one direction. I also take issue with you requesting "reputable journals" when you know none exist. You state right after you make that request that there is no evidence in any journals and even provide a reason why the data is lacking.
Perhaps I'm twisting your point a bit, if I am my apologies. I'm astounded at how many people simply don't get that the US position on drugs and medications purely backs money making operations. Often times their own work gets contradicted by themselves to further a different portion of their funding (see the vitamin example above). People for the most part completely miss that part, don't do any research to find contradictions or problems, and both ends of the spectrum end up providing false information.
People claiming there are no natural remedies are not telling the truth, intentionally or otherwise. There are a great many natural remedies, but they are not as profitable to make, and not as easy to provide to the masses. Looking at the abuses to antibiotics and various pain relievers over the last 30 years, the mass distribution and low cost has not necessarily a good thing.
Finally, I agree that people make false claims regarding natural remedies, making them more than what they are. At the same time you can't honestly deny that Companies/Corporations make false claims regarding their products. Countless class action lawsuits back the latter fact. People don't know who to trust, and quite frankly you can't blame them. The FDA stopped being an agency looking out for the best interest of our citizens long ago.
Then those are not "cures", please read the definition. I believe I get your point, but trying to redefine words is not the best way of making a point.
Apologies for what appears to be ranting, I'll rewrite my statements with a keyboard that I can type on and a screen I can see better.
Wait, are you claiming that the only valid medicine is man made synthetic compounds? Surely that is what your generalization is implying. It is cheaper to make pain killers than harvest tree bark, but there are at least two I can think of off the top of my head with proven pain relieving properties in their bark. We know of natural anti-biotics, antiseptics, antistringents, blood thinners, coagulants, etc... You really need to fix your generalization.
I said it was a false dilemma and showed logic to back my statementt. You go off on a tangent standing up straw men that have nothing to do with the false dilemma I argued against.
If you wish to argue that it is a real dilemma lets see your arguments. If you can't, then I am correct.
F?@" I hat this iPhone. "only valid medicine"
Wait, are you claiming that the only. Slid medicine is man made synthetic compounds? Surely that is what your generalization is implying. It is cheaper to make pain killers than harvest tree bark, but there are at least two I can think of off the top of my head with proven pain relieving properties in their bark. We know of natural anti-biotics, antiseptics, antistringents, blood thinners, coagulants, etc... You. Red to fix your generalization.
You do know what a false dilemma is don't you? If John Doe decides not to get vaccinated and you get vaccinated, how are you at risk? John gets polio and you do not, there is no issue.
If you wish to argue the money issue that also does not exist. Are you really going to argue about your tax helping someone while ignoring what your tax dollars are being spent on? War, big brother keeping tabs on you and denying basic rights to you and everyone else in the world?
tax money is the only point you could argue honestly, but if you do you are picking a small and.insignificant battle in the grand scheme of the World and. Society.
Apologies for not addressing this completely in a single thread, but this seemed to be worth separating.
There was a Philosophy student in NZ who studied conspiracy theory formally as part of his phd. He did a weekly radio spot on the university radio station which I used to listen to (via podcast) every week. It was fascinating and very informative and he was quite funny also. My googling shows that surprisingly he is still going strong and now has his phd! :) "Conspiracy Corner with Dr. Matthew Dentith"
He is very much a "conspiracy theorist" in the academic sense. :)
Thanks for the name, I'll find the name and give a read and listen. I don't agree with many modern Philosophers, including the name I dropped above. That does not mean I can't enjoy certain points they make, or the dialogue they present.
The person I knew who was a conspiracy theorist in the nut-job sense and simply watched a lot of youtube videos of the likes of David Ickle. I knew a lot about him from Dr Dentith's show which enabled me to call her out on her complete and utter shite in a very informed way which she was not used to as almost know one knows of his work. When she was highly selective of his theories (e.g. leaving out lizard people and moon bases) I merely made sure that people listening were educated on the full body of his work.
I see this too, but will give a point to ponder and a question. If a thing wakes a person up, should you take issue? Personally I don't bother trying to dismiss people when they discover the land outside their cave. Some people are absolutely beyond help, but others just need a nudge in the right direction to see where people like Ickle are wrong.
I don't personally enjoy Alex Jones for example. That said, he has done quite a bit to wake people to the cave the Government has been putting them in. When people have their eyes open a bit, you can start to point them to better sources of information and methods of solving the problem (Solutions are not in Alex's repitoire.
Thanks for the courteous response, and no need to apologize. I was more trying to satisfy all questions regarding my claim to being a Philosopher, and did not really take offense. Many people have a belief that without a PHD a person can not be a Philosopher. Additional clarity was added to the answer for your question in an effort to satisfy other people's potential questions.
You comments are very clear and my thanks for taking that time. I think we agree the sole issue is simply the term "conspiracy theorist" and the baggage that term has. In fact I think we don't really disagree on anything, its just a misunderstanding of terminology.
Regardless of what the term COULD or arguably SHOULD mean, the common definition is more or less as I described above. One can argue till they are blue in the face that the world should change their definition of a word or phrase but ultimately word definitions are a "majority wins" situation. I am happy to admit conspiracies exist (As I state explicitly in my previous post) and there are people who study conspiracies with intellectual rigour and who are certainly not the people who I am referring to - see my aside at the end for evidence of this.
We would probably agree then, that the term "conspiracy theorist" has been intentionally sabotaged as has the term "conspiracy". This is something that should bother people very much, and the only way to get rid of the false stigma that has been placed on the terms is to open those points to public debate. If enough people start to openly discuss conspiracies for what they are, the stigma will start to diminish.
As I stated in my first response, I love conspiracy theories. Most can be dismissed within a few minutes of study, but we still are required to do the study. Study makes us wiser people, so why would anyone complain about someone wanting to be a student? That said, a good number of conspiracy theories hold a lot of weight and can not be dismissed so easily. We can say further that a few of those hold a tremendous amount of factual backing and can not be dismissed at all.
If people label me anything, I tend to laugh (such as a person above regarding 9/11). These people never question anything handed to them by a perceived person in authority, and remain ignorant. I surely can't wake everyone up to a different reality than the Government(s) are handing them, but I have woken up more than my share of people and take every opportunity to try and wake people.
Re-reading your post again there is a point I missed interpreting. I also stated that "conspiracy theorist" should not be a bad term, as it has become due to propaganda.
Your closing paragraphs is correct. Conspiracies do exist. The definition of "conspiracy theorist" is what is incorrect, because in it's essence anyone studying a valid conspiracy also falls into the generalized definition you provide. That generalization has the effect of dissuading people from investigating _all_ conspiracies.
First, to your point of being a Philosopher. I have studied Philosophy in addition to other closely related subjects (economics, sociology, psychology) for 35 years so yes I have lifelong study. At least from the point of being mature enough to study these subjects with any purpose. It should go without saying that I'm quite a bit older than 35. Maybe one day I'll have a PHD, but don't feel that's a real, or valid, measure of being a Philosopher. Socrates and Plato obviously lacked any such degree and I would put especially Socrates at the very top of the list of Philosophers. Many modern Philosophers, such as Stefan Molyneux also lack the paper. If there is no requirement for a Philosopher to hold a piece of paper, there is no point in providing a list in all of the various Philosophers through both modern times and history did not or do not hold said paper.
To be very clear on the point, a Philosopher values education and will have as much as possible. Having a PHD is not required for either being educated or being a Philosopher. I do hold a degree in Mathematics, and another in Liberal Arts, but obviously my studies have not been limited.
This would obviously be a different situation if I had stated "I am a Sun Certified Developer" where I would have to hold such a document, or more to the point of education claimed to hold a PHD.
On the remaining statements, I never attempted to define anything except for what the State and State propaganda describes as "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist". I have no idea why you decided to invent so much other dialogue in your response.
Breaking down my statements to individual components I have what follows.
I pointed out a fact that conspiracies do exist. You don't argue this point, and I'm sure we could both agree that this is verifiable fact.
I pointed out how people investigating conspiracies have been vilified. I believe you realize this, which is why you deny the label in your statement I quoted (and quote again below).
I pointed out that extremely abstract and easy to disprove theories have been pushed to persuade people that all conspiracies are false. This is verifiable in many measures, just as we can verify conspiracies do exist.
Lastly, I said that your this statement "But where will they be in 5-10 years when they are better at hiding their activities? I am not saying I know and I am not a conspiracy theorist but to be honest whatever it is it looks pretty grim." you would match the current State definition of a conspiracy theorist due to your first sentence. Even if you discount the label in the second sentence, the first is enough to potentially gain the label today.
Is this more clear?
But where will they be in 5-10 years when they are better at hiding their activities? I am not saying I know and I am not a conspiracy theorist but to be honest whatever it is it looks pretty grim.
Yes you are, and you should not be that worried about it. I realize that media propaganda has people believing "conspiracy theory" is a bad term, and "conspiracy theorist" is an evil person, but logic and rational thinking should show you the truth. The truth is that the propaganda is wrong, and meant to keep you from looking at what these people are doing. The truth is also that conspiracies do happen, and it's high time for people to really focus on that point.
As a Philosopher I love conspiracy theories and study them all to some degree. Mostly to prove them wrong, but when you start to study something amazing happens. You realize that some of the theories are true and just lacking proof. Some things are buries, and other conspiracy theories are invented as cover to real stories and real conspiracies.