The problem you run into is that the main argument in most conspiracy theories is by it’s nature un-provable. The point of the Bill Gates theory is the cover-up, the lack of evidence is their proof. There’s no way to argue against.
It’s a guilty pleasure of mine to read what flat-earthers are saying online. The only time I find it worthwhile to interact is when they pose a supposedly unanswerable question that they think proves their point. “Well if the Earth is spinning as fast as they say, why doesn’t everything fly off?” or “Why doesn’t the atmosphere escape out into the vacuum of space?” (That one fascinates me because wouldn’t a flat earth have the same problem?). I just post the scientifically accepted answer and move on. It scratches my itch to correct people, but doesn’t get me in an argument.
If I don’t understand viruses or radiowaves, then all I have left is the assumption that there are rich and powerful people with inscrutable motives trying to destroy the Earth.
Why do you think comic book super hero movies are so popular?
Sorry, out of f*cks to give. Kindness is out of stock as well.
My morning email contained this one, from a person: Watch “Why Face Masks DON’T Work, According To SCIENCE” on YouTube…by Ben Swann, the Pizzagate guy. I can’t even
You might as well try to teach your dog how to do calculus.
This boils down to a basic, under-appreciated law of learning: if you can’t explain something (given space to do so), it’s because you don’'t understand it well enough.
Like the guy says in that camping movie Alive, “what one man can do, another man can do”. If you managed to learn a thing, then so can anyone else, but they might need to come to it from a different angle. If you can only explain it the exact way you learned it, that might not succeed, but if you understand it well enough to come at it from any angle then you will be able to find a way to fit it in their brain.
What you often see in internet arguments is that Person A doesn’t understand something very well, and feels smart because they’ve thought for themselves and found some dodgy theory; meanwhile, Person B also doesn’t understand it very well, and feels smart because they’ve deferred to the experts without thinking about it. Both these people have something to learn from the other, but neither should be trying to teach the other about the subject at hand.
I’m fairly well-read, old, and diversely educated (and an Associate of the Royal College of Science So There), and all that tells me is I’m no guru on most topics. So if I were talking to someone otherwise unobjectionable who thought aliens built the Pyramids or the Earth were flat, I wouldn’t try to “correct” them. I’d probably encourage them to say more, not as a trap, but because hearing ideas I don’t already believe is inherently more interesting than hearing my ego-hooves clattering all over someone’s hobby.
Even if it was something like anti-vax, I’d try to actively lean into the medical-skepticism side, and encourage them to learn more about where the medical consensus is coming from. There’s nothing wrong with questioning received wisdom. The point is, if you questioned it enough, in mile after mile of rigorous research papers, for centuries, you’d end up with a corpus much like the one doctors are referring to when they say “the best option we know of is to vaccinate your kids”. But if people need to see the working, then fine, they should see the working.
I have used exactly this approach just recently and it was great to see them try to convince me that they were at all critical in their thinking, when of course they scream from the mountaintop how people believe anything and they are the only people who question things (“Open your eyes!”). It was ever very satisfying. I usually also compliment them on how thorough they are with their research and then ask them, “just as a thought exercise, what are the counter arguments to your belief” and they usually just stop talking.
How ironic that these idiots are familiar with every turd-myth as if reading from a script.
I don’t get it.
A lot is hidden in being given space. I have managed to explain some fairly advanced mathematics to people who were interested in learning it, and at the same time struggled to explain high school algebra to people who weren’t. Think that’s because I don’t understand the latter as well, or because I wasn’t getting a fair chance to convey that understanding? And which of the two do you think is going to be relevant when talking with conspiracy theorists?
I have had some friends that turned conspirator theorist. I cut the wires: was a though decision, because before they become conspirational theroist they were nice guys, but having to hear their stories was unpleasant.
It also doesn’t translate well to social issues.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it .” - Upton Sinclair
Nope. Just no way. I tried again and again to be kind, accomplishing nothing. I’ve some friends among conspiracy theorists; one of them -who is also a military obsessed fascist/racist- went on a rant about covid 19, Bilderberg et al. while we were eating at a restaurant with other people, then started to complain loudly about meat not properly cooked.
He’s a long time friend and I do my best not to offend him, but he’s getting worse every year; I think there’s something very wrong with him, and his wife agrees.
But all the respect I have for him vanishes when I hear the same nonsense from others. Those people can’t be brought to simple reasoning; it’s like they desperately needed to identify in a bunch with common ideas about a common enemy, no matter how absurd it may seem.
Might be that they literally feed from feeling threatened?
That’s just what the big gracchus boingboing complex wants us to believe!
Flagged as false flag!
We should try these on Siri.
If a person persists in clinging to a comprehensively disproven belief like flat-earth theory, it’s usually not because they never met anyone who understood the subject matter well enough to explain it to them. It’s usually because the person clinging to the disproven theory was unwilling to give those refutations the consideration they deserved.
Um, you mean the idea that the fossil fuel industry is trying to destroy Earth is ‘just a theory’?
My grandfather always said “a person convinced against their will is of the same opinion still”.
My last conversation with a conspiracy theorist neighbour ended with me patting him on the shoulder, smiling, and saying “well I disagree with absolutely everything you’ve said but I respect your concern, skepticism and questioning of authority”.
Sometimes they can come around.
“How do we know something is true” is a question I often feel like asking children of all ages!
