http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-people-believe-conspiracy-theoies/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-people-believe-conspiracy-theoies/

time cube has never been met with contradictory evidence.

check

Why is it that some conspiracy theorists cant take any evidence that contradicts their view?

Big levels of assumption with your title dude. Lot's of researchers want both sides of the argument. I enjoy ufology subjects as an example, but i don't claim to know or believe in one definitive truth or argument about the subject.

A UFO is a bad example because a UFO is unidentified, so why should it there for be an alien? Appeal to ignorance fallacy?

A UFO is a bad example because a UFO is unidentified, so why should it there for be an alien?

I think there's only one of us being ignorant.

We cant suddenly make a claim of something with no proof.

Show me one ounce of proof, that cant be faked in some way, that aliens exist.

Show me one ounce of proof, that cant be faked in some way, that aliens exist.

That wasn't my point in my original comment.

Conspiracy theorist assume all the time....the government caused 9/11, bigfoot is real, tupac isnt dead, aliens exists....

These are all MAJOR assumption with no credible evidence.

*Some conspiracy theorists assume. Only some and that's my point, you can't say that everyone who questions something believes the same theory about something because they don't.

Do you think 9/11 is a conspiracy?

I believe that people weren't told the whole truth most definitely. That doesn't mean that I'm in agreement with everything that every 9/11 conspiracy theorist believes.

If you don't see 911 fuckary evidence you need to upgrade your brain.

You don't claime to know or believe in one definitive truth on the subject of 'ufology' (sarcastiquotes), yet you're sitting here defending the most irrational one..

UFO literally means "Unidentified Flying Object". If you see something you know is an alien craft, that's not a UFO anymore now is it?

Further, if you see a group of childs balloons filled with neon gas released into a thunder storm, you'll see floating 'orbs' of brightly colored lights, flashing about. The neon will receive charge from the air and energize, causing it to light up (this is how neon signs work: electric charged gas).

They'll move very erratically (being in a storm and just balloons) and from a distance, you might not make out what they are (but you'll see them because again, bright flashing lights in the sky).

They're "UFOs", definitively. But that doesn't mean it's an alien.

Give me strength. I was using my own interest as an example about how a lot of 'conspiracy researchers' don't dismiss contrary evidence to a conspiracy as in the OPs original question.

I was using my interest in UFOs to explain that i don't necessarily believe in ET hypothesis and look at all sides of the argument.

I was using my interest in UFOs to explain that i don't necessarily believe in ET hypothesis and look at all sides of the argument.

Actually, you were just calling someone ignorant:

I think there's only one of us being ignorant.

A UFO is a bad example because a UFO is unidentified, so why should it there for be an alien?

OP assumed that i think UFOs mean Alien. That's why he was being ignorant and you both completely missed my point.

You used the term 'Ufology'. That's a decent assumption on the part of OP. Go google 'Ufology'. See what comes up.

I'll answer it for you: Alien shit. Alien shit comes up.

Ufology is pseudoscience. It masks itself as scientific when in reality, it's just superstition. Using the 'ology' suffix is an attempt to sound scientific. It's a load of horsecrap.

I'm not about to call you ignorant for not thinking like I do, but I want you to be aware of what 'ufology' is. Trust me: It's not generally accepted as 'the study of unidentified and classified test aircraft'. Because that's what most UFOs are in most cases: just normal aircraft that a typical person doesn't recognize.

There's a reason why the 'flying wing' designs being tested in secret just also happened to be the exact same shape as the 'Alien UFOs' being reported. Because they were the same thing.

Wikipedia:

Ufology is the study of reports, visual records, physical evidence, and other phenomena related to unidentified flying objects (UFO). UFOs have been subject to various investigations over the years by governments, independent groups, and scientists. The term derives from UFO, which is pronounced as an acronym, and the suffix -logy, which comes from the Ancient Greek λογία (logiā).

No 'Alien Shit mentioned'.

Same page:

In addition to UFO sightings, certain supposedly related phenomena are of interest to some in the field of ufology, including crop circles,[42] cattle mutilations,[43] and alien abductions and implants.[44] Some ufologists have also promoted UFO conspiracy theories, including the alleged Roswell UFO Incident of 1947,[45][46] the Majestic 12 documents,[47] and UFO disclosure advocation.[48][49]

Skeptic Robert Sheaffer has accused ufology of having a "credulity explosion".[50] He claims a trend of increasingly sensational ideas steadily gaining popularity within ufology.[50] Sheaffer remarked, "the kind of stories generating excitement and attention in any given year would have been rejected by mainstream ufologists a few years earlier for being too outlandish."[50]

Likewise, James McDonald has expressed the view that extreme groups undermined serious scientific investigation, stating that a "bizarre 'literature' of pseudo-scientific discussion" on "spaceships bringing messengers of terrestrial salvation and occult truth" had been "one of the prime factors in discouraging serious scientists from looking into the UFO matter to the extent that might have led them to recognize quickly enough that cultism and wishful thinking have nothing to do with the core of the UFO problem."[51] In the same statement, McDonald said that, "Again, one must here criticize a good deal of armchair-researching (done chiefly via the daily newspapers that enjoy feature-writing the antics of the more extreme of such subgroups). A disturbing number of prominent scientists have jumped all too easily to the conclusion that only the nuts see UFOs".[51]

You're right, that wikipedia page doesn't talk about aliens at all.

certain supposedly related phenomena are of interest to some in the field of ufology

Supposed. But those elements have noting to do with flying.

Well they certainly have to do with Ufology: It's right there in the wikipedia for 'ufology' that, by the way, you initially referenced. Not me.

So you're backpedaling from your own reference now? Can I still use it? Because it's pretty friggin' damning to your argument that 'Ufology has nothing to do with aliens'.

But again and to the OP's point, someone who shows an interest in a subject, whether conspiratorial or otherwise does not necessarily have to believe all elements of the subject, get it?

It's completely reasonable that one reader will believe one element of a story/claim/theory whilst utterly dismissing another element.

I like Jacques Vallée theories on UFO's BTW.

On this we agree. Wholeheartedly.

Fact still remains: Ufology carries with it the heavy connotation of aliens, and that's where this discussion arose from. You should be aware of the connotation of the words you use to describe yourself.

Terence Mckenna said it best with regards to ufology:

"The field of ufology is like a civil war in a leper camp."

Still have my curiosities and interests though but i don't believe everything i read. I certainly don't see myself as thinking the same thing as everyone else who has an interest in UFOs, or any other subject. We all see things differently to the point of OPs original question/claim.

Hold on, you're arguing on one hand that Ufology != "believe in Aliens" but you're using Terrance Mckenna quotes?

Can you answer this question point blank: Do you yourself believe aliens have ever visited this planet of Earth?

I understand if you'd rather not answer the question.

Edit, clarity: Mckenna calls himself a 'psychonaut' and a 'shaman'. The dude believes that aliens are interdimensional beings meant to guide humanity. So this is where my question arises from.

ufology != "believe in Aliens"

ufology doesn't mean that. Terence did have a UFO experience as well FYI.

I understand if you'd rather not answer the question.

*snicker*

Do you yourself believe aliens have ever visited this planet of Earth?

Yes i do.

Thank you for answering the question. I'm going to gracefully bow out of this conversation. Have a good week mr dong.

You too.

Thats right a UFO is unidentified therefore you should not then assume its something else without evidence.

Well, you shouldn't assume it's something without evidence. Something else implies a 'default assumption', which is also a bad idea.

Example, A person moves into a house and a day later the water heat goes and the landlord says, "this didnt break until you moved in.....is Post hoc ergo propter hoc A occurred, then B occurred. Therefore, A caused B.

I find it hilarious that you just jump on his premise because he's missing the word "some".

You know what is also missing? The word "all".

Straw man arguments

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

And here you are making an unsubstantiated claim.

Anyone jumping to conclusions too quickly is in danger of being led down the wrong path... this applies to anti-theorists and theorists alike. Pointing your accusatory finger at one side or the other without solid references to back up your anger/frustration just makes you look like a fool.

Anyone who claims they know absolute truth about something they did not experience or understand in person, isnt someone whos views should matter.

Which is a huge percentage conspiracy theorist.

I was referring more to people that blindly follow and believe. I know there are probably a large number of conspiracy theorists that fall into this... I am a skeptic about everything... Mostly about what i see on MSM. And even so about most conspiracy theories...

Its important to realize that some percentage of conspiracy theories could be started as dis or misinformation...

You paint with quite a broad brush, like forum spies tend to use.

A broad brush can also be used to politely avoid signaling out a specific group.

At the very least, some of the Flat Earthers & Anti-Vaxxers on this subreddit seem like they believe they are exempt from rational skepticism of their claims because they blatantly insult Redditors who do not agree with them.

Flat Earthers & Anti-Vaxxers on this subreddit

I knew it wouldn't take long for you people to equate "flat earthers" (which are massively downvoted here) with other real conspiracy theories here like sourced anti-vax posts (always upvoted). Have you fallen for those "flat earth" troll tactics or are you just lumping their tactics in with other discussions on purpose?

[deleted]

You seem very impertinent, like the way forum trolls tend to be.

You seem very defensive, like the way closed-minded basement dwellers tend to be.

You seem very offensive, like the way really shitty forum trolls tend to be.

You seem very persistent, like a Mormon going door-to-door.

A better question: "Why is it that conspiracy theorists people who believe the MSM storyline and nothing else can't take any evidence that contradicts their view?"

So question and everything & everybody except conspiracy theorists because they are magically exempt from the rational skepticism they expect applied to the MSM, eh?

No, I actually weigh all evidence, both MSM and non-MSM, and make an educated decision based on that. Most MSM drones only consume one side of the coin every time. Nice try though.

So question and everything & everybody except conspiracy theorists because they are magically exempt from the rational skepticism they expect applied to the MSM, eh?

I always think this gets taken the wrong way. Questioning is one thing, absolutely abolishing belief is another. Hell ill confess, ever since 9/11 i've been extremely suspect to any sort of 'world news event' that happens, im not saying "DUN TRUST DA NEWS! WEAR YA TINFOIL LADDIES!" im saying that, before we get the full picture, we shouldn't draw conclusions.

For instance, what OP said, sure, if their is evidence that they didn't free fall, id gladly read about it, hopefully from a trusted source and not some anonymous person on a forum. But when discussion or even just having an open mind to certain things marks you as 'crazy' or stuff like that, it really bums me out. Im not saying reptiles rule the planet and the world is flat because the moon is a giant dragon egg.

Im saying keep an open mind, read both sides, draw your own conclusion on the event, be vary of 'hugbox' syndroms. If the truth comes out, with reasonable scientific evidence to support the claim. Then fine, I was wrong on that subject, but this is what i believed at that time.

If anything it goes to show at what lengths people are willing to go now a days to shut down someone who has a different view on things than them.

If you don't see 911 fuckary evidence you need to upgrade your brain.

*Some conspiracy theorists assume. Only some and that's my point, you can't say that everyone who questions something believes the same theory about something because they don't.

I believe that people weren't told the whole truth most definitely. That doesn't mean that I'm in agreement with everything that every 9/11 conspiracy theorist believes.

Thank you for answering the question. I'm going to gracefully bow out of this conversation. Have a good week mr dong.