Why don't you list them for us then and give us your opinion on whether something is Provably True, Not provable but probably true, not provable but probably false, and provably false.
Let's say top 5 beliefs to keep it simple.
Here's why:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
When two parties are in a discussion and one [makes a claim] [that the other disputes], [the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim] especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.
This is also stated in Hitchens's razor, which declares that "what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence."
The claim in question:
"...most conspiracy theorists are genuinely suffering from a degree of paranoia and extreme distrust. They believe that others are lying to them, and affirmation of that belief is appealing. But they're still terribly incorrect."
The context:
>> If you want to claim that there's isn't a firm consensus around Qanon supporters about the exact definitions of this conspiracy theory, I'm still going to go ahead and say anyone in this vague ballpark is missing a few marbles. Qualifying that Conspiracy Theory != False is not a valid argument to deny that this theory, and many others, are obviously false. Debating the semantics of what a theory is or isn't to each subjective viewer is tiring and false and not a real debate.
>> I say missing a few marbles, and that's rude, because most conspiracy theorists are genuinely suffering from a degree of paranoia and extreme distrust. They believe that others are lying to them, and affirmation of that belief is appealing. But they're still terribly incorrect.
So my questions to you are:
1. How is it that you know(!) the mental state and epistemic quality of the beliefs held by not only one person, but most conspiracy theorists? (Note: you are the one who made the claim, my inability to disprove it does not constitute a proof of your assertion.)
2. Are you averse to touching upon the abstract idea I have mentioned many times: What is actually true?
These conversations are always rather ironic: right-thinking critical thinkers can regularly be observed opining at length about the intellectual inferiority of their out-groups, how they believe things without the need for evidence, how they refuse to listen to logic, how their beliefs do not stand up to scrutiny, and so forth and so on.
All of this is very often true, and perfectly reasonable criticism. But what people seem to not realize is that this behavior is not derived from <out-group membership>, but rather from a more universal place: the human mind. Challenge any individual's axioms (a self-evident truth that requires no proof), and they will exhibit the very same behavior, if perhaps with more sophistication and a better vocabulary.
If anyone was actually curious why <group x> believes what they do, or was truly concerned about the alleged "danger" they and their ideas impose upon society, you'd think they might perhaps have a little genuine curiosity about what is actually going on. However, as can be seen in this thread, there is not only no interest, but extreme aversion to touching the topic in a serious, non-rhetorical way.
Something to maybe keep in mind for the next time you find yourself criticizing those who you do not actually know much about.
My statement about mental health of conspiracy theorists is based on a journalist who interviewed dozens of conspiracy theorists and found that almost all of them had suffered an incident where they were betrayed in their personal lives and believed that most people were lying about them. I found that compelling. He wasn't god though. Maybe he was wrong.
Not quite - it can easily be assumed false - I offer this thread as evidence. And I am certainly not making that claim - it is being inferred that I am making that claim, but if you read the text I have written, you will find no sign of it. Isn't that interesting...what might be going on here?
What I am complaining about is that everything that has had a "conspiracy theory" label attached to it, is asserted as being(!) False.
> That's fine, but just because something can't be proven false, one doesn't need to assume it has merit beyond a random statement.
No one here has done that. But plenty of people have done essentially the opposite: if something hasn't been proven True (regardless of any actual effort), then therefore it --is-- False. This is such comically flawed logic, it is near impossible to believe that it is being simultaneously followed by so many people who rely upon strict logic for their daily job. I would say that this paradox hints at the potency of the power that is in play.
> My statement about mental health of conspiracy theorists is based on a journalist who interviewed dozens of conspiracy theorists and found that almost all of them had suffered an incident where they were betrayed in their personal lives and believed that most people were lying about them. I found that compelling. He wasn't god though. Maybe he was wrong.
Maybe his report didn't quite line up with reality. Are journalists ever wrong? Do stories ever appear in the newspaper that are "a little" sensationalized?
What matters, is what is true. Or, at least, that's what should matter, and what used to matter. But it seems like a new post-truth culture is developing, and that culture can be found in very high concentrations right here on HN.
No, the actual truth of what Qanon -is-, is what Qanon is. There is that which exists in reality, and then there is mankind's best efforts to measure and describe it (what you read in Wikipedia, history books, scientific textbooks and papers, etc). These things are related, but they are not the same thing.
> If you want to claim that there's isn't a firm consensus around Qanon supporters about the exact definitions of this conspiracy theory, I'm still going to go ahead and say anyone in this vague ballpark is missing a few marbles.
The difference between you and I is that I base my beliefs on what is known to be true, rather than on what others tell me is true, or on my subconscious heuristic predictions of what is true (ie: what I "want" to claim). What the "firm consensus" of what Qanon (or anything, for that matter) is may be interesting, but I am more concerned with what is actually True. If the "firm consensus" of global warming was that it's not happening, would your mind willingly accept that with no complaints? If not, why not?
> Qualifying that Conspiracy Theory != False is not a valid argument to deny that this theory
a) I have not denied this story.
b) Is "Conspiracy Theory != False, necessarily)" logically correct, or incorrect?
> and many others, are obviously false
"Obvious" falseness is a heuristic prediction - it has not been objectively established what is known(!) to be False (or True, or Unknown) in many instances - rather, it has only been asserted (typically with little if any evidence) what is False. Again, apply your same logic to climate change and see if your thinking changes.
> Debating the semantics of what a theory is or isn't to each subjective viewer is tiring and false and not a real debate.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if you took this philosophy into the workplace when implementing software, or if a new hire brought it to you.
> I say missing a few marbles, and that's rude, because most conspiracy theorists are genuinely suffering from a degree of paranoia and extreme distrust. They believe that others are lying to them, and affirmation of that belief is appealing.
You have no way of knowing what most conspiracy theorists are, or are not, or what they believe, just as a racist has no way of knowing the same about people who have a different skin color than them. This should be fairly easy to realize: ask yourself what the literal source of that knowledge is. Is it a broad, accurate survey of a large number of conspiracy theorists, or is it a subconscious heuristic operating on a dataset of some anecdotal personal experiences combined with large numbers of news articles and forum conversations that are also not based on direct evidence?
> But they're still terribly incorrect.
If you were to attempt to compile a substantial list of their beliefs and their correctness that is consistent with measurable reality, I propose that you would immediately notice a problem - a severe lack of specific content.
> This happens on every type of definition, from Feminism to Socialism, to Nazism.
Indeed it does, including right here on HN.
> If you want to have a nuanced discussion about aspects of QAnon in the context of what it means to you, you need to recognize that there's not point in pushing the brand.
Completely agree, and I do realize this, and I am not "pushing the brand" - rather, I am discussing abstract principles like the value and importance of truthfulness, and the possible consequences of a culture that decides to turn its back on such principles. These are not exactly easy conversations to have, but that's why they are so important.
> You need to state specific issues with their own identity.
Actually, this is what I am requesting of others who are asserting that reality is composed of a specific state - my disagreement should not be considered an assertion of the opposite, because it isn't - that is undisciplined, non-logical thinking. In fact, I am simply following the "critical thinking" advice suggested by the media: do not accept things you read at face value - ask questions, challenge assertions (especially those that lack evidence, especially when their proponents are opposed to discussing evidence, preferring instead to use rhetoric), etc.
> All the logic in your great wall of text is nullified
Oh? What was it nullified by?
> and is more or less amounting to a reverse straw man.
Pure rhetoric.
> Implying that an outrageous claim has merit because a severely watered down version of it might be accurate.
Implying that I have implied that is yet another example of the very thing I am protesting: a lack of concern for what is true.