Go Back   Club Conspiracy Forums > General Conspiracy Discussion > Social Engineering
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 10-21-2009, 10:27 PM
BlueAngel BlueAngel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 10,799
Default Re: The Great "HIV" Hoax


Quote:
Originally Posted by EireEngineer View Post
As if Eyekon, or yourself, are experts from reading WOO websites on the internet. See you next Tuesday.
As if I have ever claimed to en expert on any subject because of anything I've read on an internet site.

Why don't you try posting FACTS instead of FICTION.


Last edited by BlueAngel : 10-21-2009 at 11:58 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 10-22-2009, 02:07 AM
Out of the Box Out of the Box is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 518
Default Re: The Great "HIV" Hoax

Quote:
Originally Posted by EireEngineer View Post
First of all, its interesting that you say that their work "cannot be published". Obviously you were able to read them, so they must have been published somewhere.
These cannot publish in mainstream journals because of the controversial nature of their studies, but they can publish in books or some journals that are not mainstream. Most people (scientists and laymen alike), however, ignore studies that are not published in mainstream journals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EireEngineer View Post
If they are testable, the peer review process will fairly quickly eliminate those ideas that are not tenable, and give at least preliminary confirmation to those that are.
To be able to be subjected to the standard process of peer-review, you first have to be able to publish in peer-reviewed journals. The problem is that many controversial theories are not allowed to be published there not because of the quality of their studies but because of the controversial nature of their studies. As such, these studies are ignored by academia while there should at least be attempts to debunk them scientificly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EireEngineer View Post
There is nothing "mainstream" or "non-mainstream" about the process, except of course for those that prefer to forgo the process altogether, like many of those in the flat earth/alternative medicine/conspiracy crowd.
The people I mentioned do actively try to get their studies publicated in peer-reviewed journals but they're simply not allowed to. You seem to imply these people choose to stay outside of mainstream science but it's the other way around. It's mainstream science that ignores them due to the controversial nature of their studies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EireEngineer View Post
As for your assertion that I will swallow anything thats mainstream, that is a strawman of epic proportions
I wasn't referring to you but to the kind of people most common among self-proclaimed "sceptics" as I'm pretty sure BlueAngel beliefs you're one of them. If you think I was talking about you, I guess you do indeed fit the description.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EireEngineer View Post
especially since it seems that many in the "Woo" crowd will swallow anything they see on the internet.
True. There's but a small amount of people who're truely sceptical and question both mainstream knowledge and controversial knowledge. Dogmatism and narrowmindedness are common on both sides. Didn't I already mention that before?

Quote:
Originally Posted by EireEngineer View Post
The burden of proof for what I will believe is fairly simple, and to a certain point follows closely the scientific method, albeit in somewhat abbreviated form.
1. The idea must be testable and capable of falsification.
2. The idea must conform with what we know about workings of the universe, or be specific in how it modifys our knowledge.
3. The idea must be capable of independant verification.

Until the "Woo" crowd starts observing these principles there will always be skeptics around to challenge them.
I've encountered many so-called "sceptics" who betray those principles and I've also encountered many so-called "conspiracy theorists" who follow those principles. You like to pretend it's all black-and-white with "sceptics" being rational science-oriented people and "conspiracy theorists" being gullable tin foil hat morons. That's simply idiotic.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 10-22-2009, 09:08 AM
EireEngineer's Avatar
EireEngineer EireEngineer is offline
Woo Nemesis
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Grapevine, Texas
Posts: 583
Default Re: The Great "HIV" Hoax

That is a prime example of a strawman. I have never asserted the "all" members of the conspiracy movement are kooks, any more that all skeptics are purely rational. However, many of the arguments that the conspiracy/alt medicine/flat earth crowd are tendentious, working backward from a pre-concieved conclusion. What is more, many of them are backed by untestable hypotheses, and when evidence to the contrary is posited they resort to special pleading to counter it. There are many threads on this site that avoid this kind of logical fallacy, and I have for the most part let them alone. For those that do, however, there will always be someone to point out the mistakes. Its called the marketplace of ideas, and dissent only leads to an improvement of the concept.
__________________
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 10-22-2009, 09:56 AM
Out of the Box Out of the Box is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 518
Default Re: The Great "HIV" Hoax

Quote:
Originally Posted by EireEngineer View Post
That is a prime example of a strawman. I have never asserted the "all" members of the conspiracy movement are kooks, any more that all skeptics are purely rational.
You said :

Quote:
Originally Posted by EireEngineer
As for your assertion that I will swallow anything thats mainstream, that is a strawman of epic proportions, especially since it seems that many in the "Woo" crowd will swallow anything they see on the internet. The burden of proof for what I will believe is fairly simple, and to a certain point follows closely the scientific method, albeit in somewhat abbreviated form.
1. The idea must be testable and capable of falsification.
2. The idea must conform with what we know about workings of the universe, or be specific in how it modifys our knowledge.
3. The idea must be capable of independant verification.

Until the "Woo" crowd starts observing these principles there will always be skeptics around to challenge them.
I'm not sure how you define "the Woo crowd", but thusfar your context seems to imply it is a reference to "conspiracy theorists". If this is not a reference to "conspiracy theorists" please explain who you consider to be part of the "Woo crowd" or use a more common term. It is a term I've never heard or read before.

Anyway, you did explicitly say that the "Woo crowd" does not observe the principles supposebly held dear to you, while you (implicitly) suggest that so-called "sceptics" do observe those principles considering you didn't care to mention them and you singled out the "Woo crowd".

Quote:
Originally Posted by EireEngineer View Post
However, many of the arguments that the conspiracy/alt medicine/flat earth crowd are tendentious, working backward from a pre-concieved conclusion.
First of all, there's no reason to mention "conspiracy", "alternative medicine" and "flat earth" theory in one breath as these are completely different areas. Also, the first two areas both vary from plausible to outer fringe making it quite absurd as well to put all these people and theories in one category. I already explained this in a previous comment and find it quite offensive to be put in the same category as "flat earthers", "David Icke fanatics" or "Creationists" just because I reject the mainstream account in certain areas (eg. certain specific historical events).

Further, I've seen so-called "sceptics" behave in exactly the same way. Many of them also start with a pre-concieved conclusion and work backwards towards their arguments. Similarly, I've encountered so-called "conspiracy theorists" who do base their conclusions on the evidence rather than vice versa. You like to pretend that having pre-conceived conclusions is typical for "conspiracy theorists" but I've seen it on both sides at varying degree and in some fields of expertise I've seen it even far more among the so-called "sceptics".

Quote:
Originally Posted by EireEngineer View Post
What is more, many of them are backed by untestable hypotheses
Many are. Many others are not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EireEngineer View Post
when evidence to the contrary is posited they resort to special pleading to counter it.
You'll find the same behavior among so-called "sceptics" as I explained earlier. Such pathetic behavior is NOT exclusive to so-called "conspiracy theorists" and at least as common among those dedicated to "debunking conspiracy theorists". In fact, I've encountered dozens of self-proclaimed sceptics who are no less narrowminded and gullible as your average "David Icke fanatic".

Quote:
Originally Posted by EireEngineer View Post
There are many threads on this site that avoid this kind of logical fallacy, and I have for the most part let them alone. For those that do, however, there will always be someone to point out the mistakes. Its called the marketplace of ideas, and dissent only leads to an improvement of the concept.
I couldn't agree more. However, by only criticising so-called "conspiracy theorists" and pretending this behavioral flaw does not exist among so-called "sceptics" you're portraying a black-and-white view of reality and you're offending those "conspiracy theorists" who do not fit those criteria.

Last edited by Out of the Box : 10-22-2009 at 10:05 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 11-06-2009, 06:11 AM
Out of the Box Out of the Box is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 518
Default Re: The Great "HIV" Hoax

Still no response?!?
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 11-06-2009, 08:20 AM
EireEngineer's Avatar
EireEngineer EireEngineer is offline
Woo Nemesis
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Grapevine, Texas
Posts: 583
Default Re: The Great "HIV" Hoax

Quote:
Originally Posted by Out of the Box View Post
You said :



I'm not sure how you define "the Woo crowd", but thusfar your context seems to imply it is a reference to "conspiracy theorists". If this is not a reference to "conspiracy theorists" please explain who you consider to be part of the "Woo crowd" or use a more common term. It is a term I've never heard or read before.
OK, how about the Alternative Medicine/Flat Earth/Conspiracy Theory crowd. Woo-Woo is a term skeptics use to describe any of the myriad pseudo-science that is out there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Out of the Box View Post
Anyway, you did explicitly say that the "Woo crowd" does not observe the principles supposebly held dear to you, while you (implicitly) suggest that so-called "sceptics" do observe those principles considering you didn't care to mention them and you singled out the "Woo crowd".
In general, yes that has been my observation, though I will admit so seeing some pretty poor logic out of skeptics too. Albie is a prime example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Out of the Box View Post
First of all, there's no reason to mention "conspiracy", "alternative medicine" and "flat earth" theory in one breath as these are completely different areas. Also, the first two areas both vary from plausible to outer fringe making it quite absurd as well to put all these people and theories in one category. I already explained this in a previous comment and find it quite offensive to be put in the same category as "flat earthers", "David Icke fanatics" or "Creationists" just because I reject the mainstream account in certain areas (eg. certain specific historical events).
It has been my observation over the years that there are many commonalities between these groups. Namely, rabid denial of even basic evidence to the contrary, tendentiousness, and the common use of logical fallacy in their arguments. I will concede the point that many in the skeptical movement are just as bad, but it is a lower percentage then you will find in the woo crowd.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Out of the Box View Post
Further, I've seen so-called "sceptics" behave in exactly the same way. Many of them also start with a pre-concieved conclusion and work backwards towards their arguments. Similarly, I've encountered so-called "conspiracy theorists" who do base their conclusions on the evidence rather than vice versa. You like to pretend that having pre-conceived conclusions is typical for "conspiracy theorists" but I've seen it on both sides at varying degree and in some fields of expertise I've seen it even far more among the so-called "sceptics".



Many are. Many others are not.



You'll find the same behavior among so-called "sceptics" as I explained earlier. Such pathetic behavior is NOT exclusive to so-called "conspiracy theorists" and at least as common among those dedicated to "debunking conspiracy theorists". In fact, I've encountered dozens of self-proclaimed sceptics who are no less narrowminded and gullible as your average "David Icke fanatic".



I couldn't agree more. However, by only criticising so-called "conspiracy theorists" and pretending this behavioral flaw does not exist among so-called "sceptics" you're portraying a black-and-white view of reality and you're offending those "conspiracy theorists" who do not fit those criteria.
As I said, i agree with you on this, to a point. Certainly people like albie dont help our side in the least.
__________________
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 11-09-2009, 01:42 AM
Out of the Box Out of the Box is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 518
Default Re: The Great "HIV" Hoax

Quote:
Originally Posted by EireEngineer View Post
OK, how about the Alternative Medicine/Flat Earth/Conspiracy Theory crowd. Woo-Woo is a term skeptics use to describe any of the myriad pseudo-science that is out there.
Not all "alternative medicine" and "conspiracy theories" are pseudo-science. That's where you're wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EireEngineer View Post
It has been my observation over the years that there are many commonalities between these groups. Namely, rabid denial of even basic evidence to the contrary, tendentiousness, and the common use of logical fallacy in their arguments. I will concede the point that many in the skeptical movement are just as bad, but it is a lower percentage then you will find in the woo crowd..
Not in my experience. If you visit a "skeptic" forum and attempt to prove that 9/11 was an inside job or that Hitler was not responsible for the murder of 6 million Jews (*), the vast majority of responses are strawman arguments and insults. It's the very reason I'm no longer active on that sort of forums.



--------------------------------------------------

(*) Hitler used concentration camps for much the same reason Roosevelt did : to lock up people considered a threat to national security. Forensic tests, Red Cross reports and other evidence shows that there were indeed large death tolls in some of the German concentration camps, however the main killers in these camps were typhus and typhoid. When the allies were carpet bombing German infrastructure, resources could no longer reach these camps making it impossible to stop the pandemic. The film The Relief of Belsen gives some insight in what really took place and is based on the testimonies of the British soldiers as they liberated Bergen-Belsen.
As rumours existed among Jews that Hitler was killing people with gas chambers, this was soon incorporated in black propaganda, linked to the high death toll and even made it to the Nuremberg show trials. However, there is no evidence that a single concentration camp inmate was ever gassed by the Germans. Neither is there any evidence that Hitler planned to kill all Jews. In fact, the claims that Hitler was exterminating Jews was largely forgotten until the Six Day war when zionists started using it for their own propaganda and the Holocaust Industry developed.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 11-09-2009, 08:22 AM
EireEngineer's Avatar
EireEngineer EireEngineer is offline
Woo Nemesis
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Grapevine, Texas
Posts: 583
Default Re: The Great "HIV" Hoax

Quote:
Originally Posted by Out of the Box View Post
Not all "alternative medicine" and "conspiracy theories" are pseudo-science. That's where you're wrong.
Perhaps, but the overwhelming majority of so called "alternative medicine" practices are pseudo-science at best, and charlatanism at their worst. Take acupuncture for example. I for one was hopeful that acupuncture would prove to have at least moderate efficacy for the treatment of pain. However, in every double blind study ever performed the best that acupuncture could deliver was the placebo effect. Yet acupuncturists tried to spin this as "it works". What is worse is that by promoting such therapies as valid, alt med adherents are discouraging people with real conditions from seeking real treatment, contributing to the pain, suffering, and sometimes needless death of these individuals.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Out of the Box View Post
Not in my experience. If you visit a "skeptic" forum and attempt to prove that 9/11 was an inside job or that Hitler was not responsible for the murder of 6 million Jews (*), the vast majority of responses are strawman arguments and insults. It's the very reason I'm no longer active on that sort of forums.
I suppose it depends on the quality of the information you bring to the debate, and the amount of actual research you have done. It seems that many people think that just because somebody wrote it and put it on the internet, that it has been fact checked at vetted, and therefore it should be believed.
__________________
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 11-09-2009, 11:35 AM
Out of the Box Out of the Box is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 518
Default Re: The Great "HIV" Hoax

Quote:
Originally Posted by EireEngineer View Post
Perhaps, but the overwhelming majority of so called "alternative medicine" practices are pseudo-science at best, and charlatanism at their worst. Take acupuncture for example. I for one was hopeful that acupuncture would prove to have at least moderate efficacy for the treatment of pain. However, in every double blind study ever performed the best that acupuncture could deliver was the placebo effect. Yet acupuncturists tried to spin this as "it works". What is worse is that by promoting such therapies as valid, alt med adherents are discouraging people with real conditions from seeking real treatment, contributing to the pain, suffering, and sometimes needless death of these individuals.
What about the Duesberg hypothesis on HIV and AIDS? What about Royal Rife's research? Is there sufficient evidence to dismiss these as pseudo-science? I find it hard to find any...

Quote:
Originally Posted by EireEngineer View Post
I suppose it depends on the quality of the information you bring to the debate, and the amount of actual research you have done. It seems that many people think that just because somebody wrote it and put it on the internet, that it has been fact checked at vetted, and therefore it should be believed.
Unfortunately, this is the case both for so-called "skeptics" and so-called "conspiracy theorists".
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 11-09-2009, 08:16 PM
EireEngineer's Avatar
EireEngineer EireEngineer is offline
Woo Nemesis
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Grapevine, Texas
Posts: 583
Default Re: The Great "HIV" Hoax

Quote:
Originally Posted by Out of the Box View Post
What about the Duesberg hypothesis on HIV and AIDS? What about Royal Rife's research? Is there sufficient evidence to dismiss these as pseudo-science? I find it hard to find any...
I have looked at them both and not found it convincing, but to each his own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Out of the Box View Post
Unfortunately, this is the case both for so-called "skeptics" and so-called "conspiracy theorists".
No arguments from me on that one.
__________________
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dinosaur Hoax - Dinosaurs Never Existed! rushdoony Alternate History 80 02-05-2012 09:15 AM
Moon Landing Hoax rushdoony Alternate History 17 02-01-2012 06:37 AM
http://www.gaiaguys.net/ the O.T.O Hoax General Conspiracy Discussion 17 04-30-2009 07:56 PM
The Bird Flu Hoax? Insider Opinions 0 01-30-2006 07:57 PM
Moon Hoax igwt General Conspiracy Discussion 0 11-07-2005 04:56 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:35 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.12
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.