The people who don't know the answer tend not to speak up, while the people who think they know everything will never shut up about it. So it is they that get noticed more.

Is being a conspiracy theorist, or a believer, like a religion? Truth doesn't matter, but dogma does?

That sure seems to be the case for a lot of people who are convinced that their theory is correct rather than merely worth considering.

This makes a lot of sense. The Dunning-Kruger effect is extremely rampant on certain subs.

QED /u/trywhen

Exactly.

If you are on a conspiracy theory site, it's pretty much assumed that all statements are hypotheses and not statements of fact.

People could state "I don't know for sure, but I think..." before they say something but it would get very repetitive and serve no use.

It's merely assumed that when someone says "Putin is taking over crimea to access oil rights in the black sea." that what they are really saying is "I believe that Puting blah blah blah".

"Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk."

--Thoreau

A common tactic of shills, or those who mean to discredit you, is the "solve the crime" gambit. Basically, if you take a position that the 'approved' version of events is questionable, your opposition proceeds to try to force you to furnish every detail of how it must have really happened. The end result, is that you get so mired down in bickering over the minutae of the sequence of events, that the original argument is completely lost.
For example, I've seen forum threads run 28 pages with arguments over what temperature thermite burns. I've seen 20 page threads arguing seating capacity on a Boeing 757. I've seen links to entire chapters of Physics textbooks reviewed, dissected, and parsed.

Point being, it's perfectly fine to say "I don't know". If you're of the opinion that Something is Rotten in Denmark -- sing your song, baby. Don't get sidetracked trying to figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

It seems like with science, as with reality, if you have an explanation for something, you will provide evidence.

If you can disprove the "official story" of anything, you will be able to provide proof, that is both verifiable, and peer reviewed.

Nobody here bitches about the "official story" about the theory of gravity, or germ theory. (Or maybe they do, anti-vaxxers).

Actual science would require actual work, where as most people who don't understand or believe the "official story" are not the type of minds to be able to actually disprove it.

It's not a judgement, but I'm not going to listen to my nephew when he says the tooth fairy is real because he got a fiver underneath his pillow.

You're getting it backwards, though.

if you have an explanation for something, you will provide evidence.

I don't have to be right, for you to be wrong.

It's not a judgement, but I'm not going to listen to my nephew when he says the tooth fairy is real because he got a fiver underneath his pillow.

My point, exactly, is that there is five dollars under the pillow. The onus is not on your nephew to explain how it got there.

We aren't discussing gravity here. Or germs. The scientific definition of "theory" doesn't apply to current (or not-so-current) events. I doubt you're intentionally trying to obfuscate things, but the gulf between "theory" and "explanation" is signifigant. If I find a trout in my milk, as the saying goes, and you provide an explanation, I'm not obligated to furnish a complete re-enactment of how it got there, down to every detail, just because I find your explanation lacking.
Put another way, if you piss on my leg and tell me it's raining -- it isn't necessary for me to prove how many pints of ale you may have drank the night before.

I don't have to be right, for you to be wrong.

... you realize this means neither of us are right? So what exactly are you standing on with a statement like that?

We aren't discussing gravity here. Or germs. The scientific definition of "theory" doesn't apply to current (or not-so-current) events.

The scientific definition applies to everything. It is the difference between a theory, a hypothesis, and a wild guess. It's very important to make a distinction between the different levels of evidence.

Put another way, if you piss on my leg and tell me it's raining -- it isn't necessary for me to prove how many pints of ale you may have drank the night before.

This is a pretty piss poor example. (Puns!)

I'm pissing on your leg, you can literally see it happening before your eyes. Why exactly would you have to furnish the details of what I drank, and how exactly does that relate to the point you are trying to make?

Please help me here.

The topic of this thread (your thread) is Why is it so hard to say "I don't know"?

You've answered your own question. I think I've made myself pretty clear, but here you are, three days later, still parsing my posts and being generally pedantic about the whole thing.
Why is it so hard to say "I don't know"? Because posters like you make it that way, frankly.

You haven't said anything like "I don't know" yet. You are exactly the type of poster that requires this type of question.

You don't know enough to be definitively right, but you can't admit that you don't know.

I think I've made myself pretty clear, but here you are, three days later, still parsing my posts and being generally pedantic about the whole thing.

Isn't that the /r/conspiracy way?

Plus why would time matter? I don't spend all my free time on Reddit, so my responses might not be at your leisure.

You've wasted enough of my time. Good luck to you.

Thanks for responding this far, at least. Despite what you might think, I actually appreciate anyone willing to respond to me, even if they just want to call me a dick/troll.

I disagree. It's one thing to say that the approved version of events has holes in it. But it isn't enough, because all versions of all events have holes in them, if you look hard enough - and conspiracy theorists are typically looking very, very hard.

Don't expect me to take a conspiracy seriously, unless its proponents can come up with an alternative scenario which fits the data better than the approved version, or at least until they can establish beyond reasonable doubt that the approved version in unsustainable. Holes that have credible. non-conspiratorial explanations e.g. the BBC pre-announcing the collapse of WTC 7 just don't count. And their explanation must be able to stand up to the same intense scrutiny they apply to the approved version.

If there's a trout in my milk, it really isn't up to me to explain how it is the trout came to be there.

The point is, there's a trout in my milk.

I agree - but that would fall into the category of "establishing beyond reasonable doubt that the approved version is unsustainable." However, I would not be satisfied at all with acknowledging my milk is fish-flavored and leaving it at that. To me, that's the START of the inquiry, not the end of it, and I wouldn't be happy until I reached a satisfactory explanation.

Also, I'm not seeing many trout here, probably because that's the nature of conspiracy theories. What we see here tends to be much more speculative, so should be treated as such, and questioned, every bit as much as the approved version. If it can't stand that, it's really no better.

Truth should always be the driving force in most conspiracy theorists quest.

Having the ability to say one doesn't know opens up the discussion. Having the ability to admit when one is wrong is evidently a sign of weakness.

I wish I could agree more. It seems like both sides are so invested in their positions they can't admit when they don't have an answer for something.

If you want an extreme example of this, just search out the flat earth society. I still think it's more of a logical test then people actually believing the earth is flat, but they do help you understand the type of arguments you use.

I wish I could agree more.

You do not know how to simply say: I Do Not Know.

It really is that easy.

You posit the fucking question and refuse to accept your own damned truth.

Every now and again: I don't fucking know but tell me what you think, believe, discern, perceive, imagine is conversation.

At some junction you can formulate your own hypothesis.

As for me, I'll chill with the one that consistently says I don't know.

You posit the fucking question and refuse to accept your own damned truth.

Maybe you missed this, but I was agreeing with you completely.

I know it's hard to read tone over the internet, but this seems overly hostile.

i know... that i know nothing.

i agree. i dont know. i see similarities between the "conspiracy community" and a regular guy watching cnn, nbc, fox. seems like both sides dont question their sources enough.

Completely normal people believe conspiracies. I get along with, and are friends with these people.

I have a cousin who believes that every disease known to man is already cured, but the health industry keeps it from us to make money.

check out a recent freakonomics podcast on this very topic it is quite interesting, it boils down to how we are raised and trained (school environment) to always take a shot at "knowing" something, because we are generally punished for that more consistently then we are for guessing and being wrong.

There's this woman that has credentials out her wazoo. She has no way to classify or determine what she is witnessing (because her government destroyed a a crime scene...) she witnessed unusual events. She gives unusual names to shit she can't explain.

She repeatedly says: I don't know!

To date, I've never heard Jones say I don't know!

I've not heard one other person, as bold as her!

I've never heard Jones explain WTF happened to to the rest of the WTC Plaza Buildings! Cylindrical holes in buildings that were never hit by jets and there's no debris remnants inside or outside.

There's been this one person all along that consistently said: I don't know!

Smart people can be wrong too, do you know that?

I'm fully aware that some very smart people are so ignorant that they fail to collaborate. Unfortunately, I'm not smart enough to show them their flaws.

This represents you completely, but a symptom of it is the fact that you can't recognize it.

Thank you kindly for your internet analysis. I'll foward it to my round file post haste!

[deleted]

You are preaching to the choir here. Honestly, I see this every day.

If there's a trout in my milk, it really isn't up to me to explain how it is the trout came to be there.

The point is, there's a trout in my milk.

I agree - but that would fall into the category of "establishing beyond reasonable doubt that the approved version is unsustainable." However, I would not be satisfied at all with acknowledging my milk is fish-flavored and leaving it at that. To me, that's the START of the inquiry, not the end of it, and I wouldn't be happy until I reached a satisfactory explanation.

Also, I'm not seeing many trout here, probably because that's the nature of conspiracy theories. What we see here tends to be much more speculative, so should be treated as such, and questioned, every bit as much as the approved version. If it can't stand that, it's really no better.

Completely normal people believe conspiracies. I get along with, and are friends with these people.

I have a cousin who believes that every disease known to man is already cured, but the health industry keeps it from us to make money.

Smart people can be wrong too, do you know that?

I don't have to be right, for you to be wrong.

... you realize this means neither of us are right? So what exactly are you standing on with a statement like that?

We aren't discussing gravity here. Or germs. The scientific definition of "theory" doesn't apply to current (or not-so-current) events.

The scientific definition applies to everything. It is the difference between a theory, a hypothesis, and a wild guess. It's very important to make a distinction between the different levels of evidence.

Put another way, if you piss on my leg and tell me it's raining -- it isn't necessary for me to prove how many pints of ale you may have drank the night before.

This is a pretty piss poor example. (Puns!)

I'm pissing on your leg, you can literally see it happening before your eyes. Why exactly would you have to furnish the details of what I drank, and how exactly does that relate to the point you are trying to make?

Please help me here.

Thank you kindly for your internet analysis. I'll foward it to my round file post haste!