You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Conspiracy Theory: An open discussion
I wouldn't agree with that definition. You should know that you can't trust Wikipedia since it's been compromised.
Firstly a conspiracy theory is not a fear - and in short the rest is rubbish.
You should go to a more reliable source for definitions.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy%20theory
Definition of conspiracy theory
: a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators.
First Known Use of conspiracy theory
1871, in the meaning defined above
Apologies, I posted this and then was waylaid by RL work. Good thing about Steem even comments are considered posts we can continue if you want. I'll upvote- for what my vote is worth :-) on new comments.
I'm not sure I can get behind that definition. We can't trust Merriam-Webster as it has been compromised.
How do we know a conspiracy exists if it's a secret plot, until it's actually uncovered with empirical and verifiable evidence? Those accused of the conspiracy coming forward, confirming and releasing data. How do we know?
I think "fear of" is still valid. Many of the conspiracies use fear tactics to solidify support for the theory; the government is out to get you, this or that will harm you, they are watching. Do they not?
"I'm not sure I can get behind that definition. We can't trust Merriam-Webster as it has been compromised."
I find that statement somewhat disingenuous. After all, a conspiracy theory is obviously a theory about a conspiracy. You hardly need a dictionary to define it.
As for the fear factor:
While fear might be associated with a conspiracy theory as it could be with just about anything else e.g. a doughnut.
Yet there's no way that fear would be would be cited as being one of the primary defining charistics of a doughnut.
The same applies to conspiracy theories.
Also, a conspiracy theory doesn't nessarily involve "a Government"
Correct, not all conspiracies are government focused, but most are and typically the government ones bubble to the top as the "enemy within" or "enemy above" and are more pervasive. That comment really was meant to be disingenuous. I don't think Merriam-Webster has been compromised, nor is Wikipedia. I was using it to highlight your deflection and rationale of the Wiki definition. Presenting "you can't trust Wikipedia since it's been compromised" as an argument has no merit(absence of proof) as to the validity of the Wiki definition(dismissed as a conspiracy.) If you removed that dismissal I would have agreed and continued on the premise that the "fear' portion of the definition was not warranted.
Scientifically, a theory is a proven hypothesis. We get to the theory by presenting and establishing verifiable, reproducible evidence. It seems that many conspiracy theories are supported more so by faith of the believer or a systemic extension of one conspiracy in confirmation bias.
What level of evidence is needed to establish a conspiracy theory?
It's true that in the strict sense of the word a theory is a proven hypothesis. However in modern parlance outside of the scientific realm, the words theory and hypothesis tend to be synonymous and interchangeable.
Here's just one example of Wikipedia being compramised.
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/techwatch/corinne-weaver/2018/12/04/reliable-source-hacked-wikipedia-swaps-trumps-picture
By Corinne Weaver | December 4, 2018 2:44 PM EST
Wikipedia is considered by many in the media to be “the Internet’s greatest store of knowledge.” But what happens when that knowledge is compromised?
That's a good question, but the fact is that nothing is ever truly established. In fact it's doubtful as to the meaning of "established" in this context.
I don't think that there's much further with this. I think we should call it a day if you don't mind.