How do you respond to people asking for proof?
0 2013-01-20 by [deleted]
I seem to see a common argument that conspiracy theorists never provide proof of their assertions but rather just try to pick apart the official story.
I would counter that picking apart the official story is often the only available option as most "evidence" has either been classified or destroyed.
Edit: Welcome Conspiratards!
50 comments
87 [deleted] 2013-01-20
[deleted]
25 DragonSlayerYomre 2013-01-20
People need not worry, rest assured, shills do NOT exist.
I, for example, am most definitely and positively, not a shill.
10 [deleted] 2013-01-20
I can vouch for this guy.
7 lolasaurusrex1234 2013-01-20
Fuck you guys. I exist.
1 neonazishill 2013-01-20
Yeah, but you are just a double agent shill and that's the worst kind of shill
86 abittooshort 2013-01-20
You could, y'know, provide some?
Otherwise it sounds no different to a Creationist rambling how they know how the world was created only 6,000 years ago, by God, and they know it's true because they just believe.
Failing that, throwing silly names like "shill", "Zionist" or whatnot seems to be the popular retort around here. I mean, calling the other guy names is a kind of proof, right?
50 those_draculas 2013-01-20
proof is for shills and Zionist.
50 robtheviking 2013-01-20
Without proof, I can make any claim I want! Does it make it correct? Probably not. Hey OP, I saw you molest an underage child. Now YOU want evidence for my claim? Fuck that, you're a shill.
problem?
3 PrinceBarrington 2013-01-20
Underage child?
20 minno 2013-01-20
Redundant, but not incorrect.
6 robtheviking 2013-01-20
Emphasis
2 Hamlet7768 2013-01-20
To distinguish from manchild?
1 Tony_AbbottPBUH 2013-01-20
the age of consent in some places is below the age where a person is considered an adult so it isn't totally redundant
19 Samccx19 2013-01-20
I dunno, fucking provide some? Infowars.com doesn't count.
18 GitEmSteveDave 2013-01-20
I made this comment.
Well, how can you "prove it"? You can look up the ip address or check my webcams, or my ISP, just ask me, etc...
BUT, you can also "pick apart" the "official story" of me making this comment. How do you KNOW it was me that made the comment? Perhaps my computer was hacked with a trojan and someone remoted into my computer and made it. Conspiracy. Why was what I wrote written that way? If you check my previous comments, the cadence doesn't match, and I made spelling errors I don't normally make. Conspiracy. My ISP won't release my records. They must be hiding them. Conspiracy. My webcams just happened to be down at www.GitEmSteveDave.com during when I wrote this comment. Conspiracy. Even if I say that I did write it, people can say that I am only saying that because I am being forced to. Conspiracy.
So picking apart the story isn't the only available option, it actually CREATES the conpsiracy.
2 [deleted] 2013-01-20
[deleted]
12 GitEmSteveDave 2013-01-20
I'm just pointing out that picking apart something that is a fact can lead to conspiracies that could have happened.
14 might_is_right 2013-01-20
Burden Of Proof:
the claim that whatever has not yet been proved false must be true (or vice versa). Essentially the arguer claims that he should win by default if his opponent can't make a strong enough case.
There may be three problems here. First, the arguer claims priority, but can he back up that claim ? Second, he is impatient with ambiguity, and wants a final answer right away. And third, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#burden
20 Nabkov 2013-01-20
Eextraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
The theorist is the one who is positing a state of affairs other than the orthodox picture of how things are (orthodox as in normal, not as in related to Jews, to be clear) and so they need to provide some evidence.
Now, this doesn't necessarily have to be entirely 'proof' (as in outside or reliable sources) if it has sound and logically valid argumentation, but there has to be some source or basis of factual to the argument. You can't have a priori arguments for conspiracy theories.
-1 might_is_right 2013-01-20
I'm sure there must be an objective a priori truth to consider.
-3 friedsushi87 2013-01-20
That's why they're theories. They lack the evidence to be proven.
Conspiracy theories aren't conspiracy fact.
5 Nabkov 2013-01-20
I think that's quite a lazy use of theory. If we want to have a solid theory, which we can convince others with, it ought to have some standards of coherency. It should appear to be consistent internally within itself, as well as with an external state of affairs. i.e: it should make sense, and have some factual evidence to it. Otherwise it's just fiction. You can have some gap in proof easily, as long as you give a sensible explanation for why that gap arises.
Then again, my definition of a hard fact is quite limited: things which by virtue of themselves are true (aka analytic truths) like '1+1=2', or 'all bachelors are unmarried men'. Everything else is based on the most advanced observations we're capable of making, which can still be mistaken, and so can only be called theory.
We can however, prove that a theory is consistent with our observations, which is as close as we can get to fact.
4 [deleted] 2013-01-20
Provide some.
/thread
/sips coffee
2 SinkVenice 2013-01-20
I cannot believe this is even a question.
Really? Really????? Fucking Really??????????????
OMFG.
-2 [deleted] 2013-01-20
[deleted]
2 bodhidharma6 2013-01-20
Instead of writing this a dozen times why don't you give, oh I don't know, a single example of something he's written that you found convincing.
1 [deleted] 2013-01-20
[deleted]
1 bodhidharma6 2013-01-20
I meant something within his books. What's an example of proof that he gives?
1 SinkVenice 2013-01-20
Alice Cooper?
1 [deleted] 2013-01-20
proof went poof
0 [deleted] 2013-01-20
This topic does bug me. The truth is, due to logistics, most of us are armchair researchers, so what we're really doing most of the time is just sharing thoughts and observations. This should always be condoned.
This is, imo, distinctly different from a persuasive attempt. Most of us are not trying to pushily change anyone's mind - just throwing the ideas out there and brainstorming.
If your goal is persuasion, then yeah, it behooves you to point to some concrete, in-person, non-conjecture actions that people can take to see for themselves (like "A UFO has landed at X location. Go there now and see proof for yourself - in person.")
I will say, though - too much armchairing can feel unbalanced. There comes a point where people really should get off the internet and actually investigate things in person. That's the only way to get real proof.
-8 ReptilianHybrid 2013-01-20
I completely agree. They are saying to give proof while you are trying to say their 'proof' is invalid. How would any proof you provide be any more valid or trustworthy than theirs? The only thing you can do is pick apart the inconsistencies and try to gather what is really going on. These people who are bombarding threads demanding proof and using ad hominids like calling the person crazy or paranoid, they remind me of criminals who are clearly guilty and demanding the cops to 'prove it' cockily knowing they have to prove without a shadow of a doubt in court.
10 NeilLeGrasseSagan 2013-01-20
Ad hominem. Argumentum ad hominid would be something very, very different, and probably much more amusing.
10 abittooshort 2013-01-20
Argument from closely related ape: still a better argument than dodgy Youtube videos.
7 Zagrobelny 2013-01-20
So you have no means of judging the validity or trustworthiness of a piece of evidence? Do you think every claim is equally true?
-2 ReptilianHybrid 2013-01-20
I really don't believe any source 100%. What I find compelling is identifying what is propaganda and thinking about what is it's purpose.
propaganda
propaganda
-11 SovereignMan 2013-01-20
If one could provide proof, then it would no longer be a theory.
-13 bigkaboom12 2013-01-20
If you have proof, it's not a conspiracy, it's a fact. The word "conspriracy" in itself means a lack of evidence.
17 welldam 2013-01-20
thats not what conspiracy means.
12 DragonSlayerYomre 2013-01-20
To be honest many conspiracy theories are really just conspiracy hypothesis.
Theory:
Hypothesis:
Edit: Read child comment below
2 SovereignMan 2013-01-20
Your definition of 'theory' is incorrect. You're confusing it with theorem.
Oxford English Dictionary:
3 robtheviking 2013-01-20
Lol
1 bigkaboom12 2013-01-20
I thought I'd be downvoted for this. This was in a Neil DeGrasse Tyson quote, but I guess I should have researched more.
1 giant_snark 2013-01-20
Whoever said it, used in this isolated way in this context, it conveys meaning that is wrong. Though I can't imagine an original context in which that sentence isn't wrong.
-18 NotAtLunch 2013-01-20
Get computer software and damn well make some! But better stuff than Obama got obviously.
-19 [deleted] 2013-01-20
[deleted]
12 MrMooga 2013-01-20
It's funny because your name is chemtrails
9 robotevil 2013-01-20
The whole thing? What if I only want half?
2 SpiritofGreen-light 2013-01-20
Eat half now and half later.
-35 Doc-Hopper 2013-01-20
Any opinion that is different than the "official" story is met with a demand for proof. Why is the "official" story never questioned? Funny how no one ever demands proof from outlets like Reuters, CNN or BBC...ಠ_ಠ
43 withoutamartyr 2013-01-20
Because they provide it willingly.
-22 [deleted] 2013-01-20
[deleted]
24 withoutamartyr 2013-01-20
The truth isn't a flag at the end of the race. It's not some incontrivertable piece of definitive evidence. The truth is an inference made from existing data. Assuming that news outlets are the only other alternative to arriving at that inference is fallacious.
If your theory starts on an assumption and requires hypotheticals and nonexistent evidence to support, its a bad theory. "Proof" is perhaps the wrong word for this discussion, since that implies conclusiveness. What we really want is evidence. Something to back a claim up. That's where most conspiracy theories fall flat. The evidence supplied is flimsy at best.
11 Wilwheatonfan87 2013-01-20
Because that's their own proof that they're providing whether you agree with it or not and if you disagree, then you provide your own proof.
-2 [deleted] 2013-01-20
[deleted]
1 giant_snark 2013-01-20
How many times are you going to post this? It makes you look both arrogant AND ignorant, like you have little to say AND are unwilling to say it; instead you just refer everyone to that one book you read.
3 PrinceBarrington 2013-01-20
Underage child?