I'm kind of referring to how it comes about that the majority can come to believe that something is necessarily and only a conspiracy, when epistemically the true state of affairs is not only known.

I believe it is due to this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect

....combined with the power of mass media, and the possibility that the mass media is not completely independent (it is not difficult to identify instances of coordinated distribution of not-necessarily-factual claims of conspiracy theories across multiple supposedly independent channels).

> “Everyone believes in at least one or a few conspiracy theories.” > > > > I am getting pretty tired of this bullshit. Do I hold some beliefs in some conspiracy? Sure, I'll cop to that.

Did you just acknowledge something is true, and then call it bullshit?

> But it requires some dishonest equivocation to make that stick.

Your acknowledgement of its truth didn't contain any dishonest equivocation that I can notice.

> In other words, I treat my beliefs as provisional...

One example is not sufficient to prove a claim of comprehensiveness (which seems like what you are implying).

> ...as most of us do

This is necessarily extremely speculative, so stating it as if it is factual kind of casts doubt on the claim you just finished making to some degree.

> In contrast, an Evangelical Christian does not treat his belief in his salvation as provisional....

You have no way of knowing this without invoking the supernatural.

> So, sure, I believe in some conspiracy theories, but my belief in them is subject to change as I learn more, or as my beliefs in other supporting ideas to that theory change.

Your ability to execute this without flaw in an absolute sense or in comparison to all conspiracy theorists is unknown and unknowable.

> The discussion is confusing enough without muddying the waters with sloppy language and easy equivocations.

Or telling persuasive stories based on one's subconscious heuristic perception of reality, but here we are. Us humans sure have our work cut out for ourselves!!

I am relentless in my pursuit of justice for all of humanity.

Also: did you notice that you didn't answer my question? It isn't only conspiracy theorists who are typically unable to defend their facts, it is almost all people, due to the manner in which the human mind evolved, combined with culture and educational curriculum.

Can you give a hint as to what your philosophy is, or should I private message you?

What caused so many people to have essentially identical forms of interpretation though? Is it purely organic, or might journalism have played some role in this outcome?

>1. Jan 6th conspiracies among Republicans allow the holder to avoid unpleasant facts about Trump or some of his supporters. These would be difficult to reconcile with their worldview but conspiracy theories provide a way out. Claims about voting help them too.

This is true of the other side as well, but to differing degrees and in differing ways, and the interest levels in the truth seem very similar.

Not to worry though, pre-planted memes (subconscious heuristics that control reality perception) to the rescue: "both sides", "false equivalency", etc.

Humans are a very interesting species - so much potential, but trapped in a self-reinforcing cycle of wilfull delusion and silliness.

At the time that you composed this message, did you realize that you are projecting your heuristic based beliefs onto millions of people that you've never met, and did you notice that there are a variety of other cognitive errors in your text?

Conspiracy theorists are surely dumb, but all people are, and are unable to realize it. And if anti-conspiracy theorists refuse to improve, why should conspiracy theorists improve?

> Oh, if only there is a non governmental organization that is funded by taxpayers but totally impartial and will simplify the facts about policies, laws, budgets, big projects for the voters and inform them better?

There are various organizations like this here and there:

https://www.democracy-international.org/direct-democracy

https://compdemocracy.org/about/

They haven't amounted to much so far, but who knows what the future holds.

> You're not protecting your integrity, or furthering your own projects toward certain aims, by taking an anti-participatory stance in electoral systems. On the contrary, you are eliminating what little effect your actions do have on the system.

If one's actions are limited to only not voting....but it can be one small piece of a much larger initiative to eventually overthrow the archaic system of "democracy" that has humanity locked in a local maxima.

> That this article doesn't even talk about the system is silly. I don't know how anyone can expect to work out the ethics of actions within a system without considering the structure of the system.

It's like the giant elephant in the room that not only do people not see, but they are strongly averse to discussing.

Propaganda works.

Consider yourself lucky then! 😂

Actually j/k, you may like it.

I do intend to get to your three comments, one of these days!!!!

remindme! 8 hours

https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/yl9csx/how_to_have_better_arguments/iv8fu07/?context=3

https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/yl9csx/how_to_have_better_arguments/iv7iva0/?context=3

https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/yl9csx/how_to_have_better_arguments/iv7iuuk/?context=3

It is the best we have done, but is it the best we could have done?

And if we never ask ourselves such questions, and take them seriously, might it be possible that the best that we do do is always below what we could have done?

For some context: as a thought experiment, consider two streams of reality: the current one, versus one where the scientific method wasn't discovered, wasn't widely adopted, wasn't taken seriously, etc. Might there be a substantial difference between these two realities in the year 2022?

Most people seem to pray to The Science and The Democracy nowadays in my experience.

> No

It seems like the two of you mostly agree, no?

> Why do you sneer at the process that has resulted in immense wealth and better lives for billions of people?

I am suspicious of anyone who speaks of their industry and every single practitioner within it as being purely rational, or essentially flawless. Of course, this "wasn't what you meant", but that's kind of my complaint.

Another aspect: presumably you're on Hacker News - I've observed people there "telling it how it is" for way over a decade, so I have a decent amount of exposure to how (a substantial sampling of) tech people think across a wide variety of ideas (including how thinking styles change depending on the topic), and how confident they can be in various beliefs (perceived as knowledge) they hold.

> OK. I claim the success of the hard sciences and engineering are the proof of the scientific method.

No moving of the goalposts please.

The established point of contention is this:

>> I think Science is flawless here.

> Can you expand on this a bit?

>> So, you disregard any evidence that does not support your beliefs?

> Yes.

Usually people don't admit such flaws in such a straightforward manner, thanks for your honesty.

> Do you believe that all the behavior of any Scientist counts in the evaluation of Science in its idealized form?

Not in its idealized form....that this is how so many scientific materialists like to represent science (as opposed to its true nature) is but one part of what makes me suspicious of it as an institution that holds so much power in out culture.

> I propose the "idealized form", while leaving some room for ambiguity, is sufficiently preached in many texts that it have meaningful reference.

Exactly.

> Given its success, I think I need to turn the question back to you.

No shifting of the burden of proof please.

> Again, I'm not referring to behavior of eminent scientists when speaking outside the strict confines of their field.

So, you disregard any evidence that does not support your beliefs?

> Given that the subject of the thread is values in the normative sense, I think I need to reword that to the "effectiveness" or "truth-orientation in the instrumental sense" instead of "value"

You are welcome to rework your beliefs and restate your claims in a more epistemically sound form if you'd like.

> I think Science is flawless here.

Can you expand on this a bit?

> The value of Science itself is not in question here.

I believe this to be incorrect, as I am questioning the value of science.

And this is just one approach.

People that think metaphysical reality cannot be measured with any objectivity are way too pessimistic.

> Someone has a meaning X for their lives. How do you test it? What do you test it against?

People who work in Facebook, Google, Twitter, {CorporationX} in the AI / user profiling department may know a thing or two about that topic.

> Intentionally harming others is ubiquitously considered bad by any moral framework worth its salt.

"worth its salt" smells tautological.

> Science can provide insight into the Fact clause here. Therefore, Science helps us determine the claim.

How many scientists can realize that there are at least two problems here: the meaning of the words "is" and "wrong"?

How many people might form incorrect beliefs (say, a simplistic and inaccurate model of the complexity/truth) as a consequence of science's (potential) mishandling of such discussions (due to not having the necessary background knowledge, and not being able to realize it as a consequence)?

> I think if anything I’m better in person as words can anodyne and I would think most lack the connection and ability to transcend past a more difficult arena. In person we humanize each other and often show magnitudes higher level of normal human decency and respect.

True....but then on the other hand in person verbal communication also comes with numerous drawbacks, many of them not visible.

> I bring up the intelligence thing for two reasons. We get the often over used Dunning Kruger type effect. Let’s just refere to it as it’s colloquial understanding. While I also get those people that I know are prob smarter than me often dealing with the imposter syndrome. If I know something they don’t they attack it and feel threatened by me just the same as the anti-intellectual bunch. They’ll try to out think something from an angle they don’t know enough about. And often they get by because of this superior knowledge. Both groups to me just need to put the effort in and more than anything become a bit more emotionally self aware. Maybe that’s truly where I excel with my skill bundle. Introspection coupled with a passion to learn and share my thoughts when the time arises.

Maybe it would be useful if participants had (at least some realtime awareness) awareness of the various phenomena you describe?

> In perspective approach… I like to go back to thinking if only on the marginal gains … just as most things are slightly pushed in one direction or another.

Considering humanity has essentially zero skills (or interest) in causality: I think you might be onto something.

> I interact with people from all over the world and tend to...

This seems like a good idea....I wonder: might it be possible to scale this up? If you think about it: triviality and delusion have existed since the beginning of mankind, but the geniuses in silicon valley (with a little help from their friends in government) were able to build numerous means to increase the prevalence of these psychological phenomena to planetary scale, such that they now exert a force on almost all human endeavours. Might something similar be possible for more positive human capabilities?

> Then I’ve done my small part. So I if I can just crack that shell a touch. Even put a slight consideration of doubt on a previously narrowly conceived doubt. Well then, I feel accomplished. Shoot for the 10% change on a view and be happy with anything.

I suppose, and well done. Why such modest goals tho?

> Sometimes it does just coming down to having a real person in front of you and not allowing them to get stuck in the caricature in their head. I started seeing this problem become common in the last 6 - 8 year or so. Even people I knew would think “oh your one of those,” then we would talk and I’d take down all the straw men in the field

How long does that typically take? Have you refined your techniques over time?

Do you find it annoying that you have to repeat the process (often with the very same strawmen) for each conversation?

> It’s only through having these tough discussions in which we get to test our own ideas against other on the safer battlefield of words.

This (specific implementation/methodology) is the only way....or were you speaking colloquially? (Again: I'm thinking scale).

> It’s this hyper siloed echo chambering off in ones specialized in-group that we lose faith in others as scapegoating and disgust arises quite similar to the grand history atrocities that we should never forget

Agreed. I sometimes wonder what people would do if they were pulled out of their safe spaces and forced to show their value in an arena where all of their powers have been stripped away. Experiments suggest: not well.

> And when I ask what would you do? I’m just honestly curious and open to take tips and suggestions.

What is happening here seems like a decent start. But once again: I don't think this scales. Something additional may be needed.

And Jiddu Krishnamurti, Alan Watts, Scott Alexander, etc.