Ebola watch

Anything at all (keep it clean) goes here that does not fit in to any of the other forums.

Moderator: eeuunikkeiexpat

User avatar
greg~judy
Rank: Chile Forum Citizen
Posts: 2982
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 2:00 pm
Location: citoyens du(h) monde

Re: Ebola watch

Post by greg~judy » Sun Nov 02, 2014 10:21 pm

john wrote: Yes, conspiracy theories and rampant cynicism have clouded the judgement of normally rational people. The sign of the times.
~
we're not too sure how to interpret that one...
should we now view that john might deem ANYONE who accepts any credence in "conspiracies"...
might then display "rampant cynicism and clouded judgement" and might have become "irrational"...

well, that's quite a "cynical, clouded, irrational, <opinionated> judgement" in itself --- isn't it...?

please consider this...
we either recognize that "conspiracies" have and do and will actually exist in this world = YES...
or that "conspiracies" have never existed, do not exist, will never exist in this world = NO...
are "conspiracies" merely a matter of black/white --- unfortunately not...

we must first eliminate the "black" side - instantly dismiss~demolish that NO camp...
REAL "conspiracies" have existed and have manifested since time immemorial...
the fact that conspiracies have existed, do exist and will exist in this world is undeniable...
that said, there will always be some who perversely persist in their right to denial...
any "deniers" could certainly inform themselves with their own diligent research...
but they are in "denial" --- and thus do not wish to experience any cognitive dissonance...

regards the current ebola debacle...
g~j's jury is still out...
there are far too many elements there that need clarification, rather than more obfuscation...

but we'll say this...
when individuals in positions of power~control <government, military, corporate>...
make decisions and implement policy in some demonstrably opaque~covert fashion...
decisions and policies where misinformation, disinformation and omission are rife...
decisions and policies that have potentially significant effects on the populace...
decisions and policies that ultimately favor~benefit those in power~control...
decisions and policies that ultimately prove to be odious~detrimental to the populace...
well, we hold such actions and behavior as absolutely and undeniably "conspiratorial"...

whatever - each to his/her own...
make up your own definition of what a conspiracy is...
then put it to the test...
:idea:

and fwiw --- we'll leave you with this poignant point...
:alien:
Scientific Study Reveals Conspiracy Theorists the Most Sane of All

If you’re a conspiracy theorist, then you’re crazy, right?
That’s been the common belief for years, but recent studies prove that just the opposite is true.

Researchers — psychologists and social scientists, mostly — in the U.S. and United Kingdom say data indicate that, contrary to those mainstream media stereotypes, “conspiracy theorists” appear to be more sane than people who accept official versions of controversial and contested events.

The most recent study was published in July 2013 by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent in the UK. The study compared “conspiracist,” or pro-conspiracy theory, and “conventionalist,” or anti-conspiracy, comments on news websites.

The researchers noted that they were surprised to find that it is now more conventional to leave so-called conspiracist comments than conventional ones. “Of the 2174 comments collected, 1459 were coded as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist,” the researchers wrote.

‘The research showed that people who favored the official account <conventionalist> were generally more hostile

So, among people who comment on news articles, those who discount official government accounts of events ...outnumber believers by more than two-to-one. That means the pro-conspiracy commenters are those who are now expressing what is considered conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters represent a small, beleaguered minority that is often scoffed at and shunned.

Perhaps becoming frustrated that their alleged mainstream viewpoints are no longer considered as such by the majority, those who are anti-conspiracy commenters often showed anger and disgust in their posts.

“The research… showed that people who favoured the official account ... were generally more hostile when trying to persuade their rivals,” said the study.

Also, it seems that those who do not believe in the conspiracies were not just hostile but fanatically attached to their own conspiracy theories as well.

In short, the new study by Wood and Douglas suggests that the negative stereotype of the conspiracy theorist — a hostile fanatic wedded to the truth of his own fringe theory — accurately describes the people who defend the official account <conventionalist>, not those who dispute it.
Things are not what they appear to be: nor are they otherwise.
--- Surangama Sutra
“If we want everything to stay as it is, everything will have to change."
--- Giuseppe Tomasi di Lamedusa

john
Rank: Chile Forum Citizen
Posts: 6130
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 1:11 am
Location: Viña del Mar, Chile

Re: Ebola watch

Post by john » Sun Nov 02, 2014 11:21 pm

greg~judy wrote:
john wrote: Yes, conspiracy theories and rampant cynicism have clouded the judgement of normally rational people. The sign of the times.
~
we're not too sure how to interpret that one...
should we now view that john might deem ANYONE who accepts any credence in "conspiracies"...
might then display "rampant cynicism and clouded judgement" and might have become "irrational"...

well, that's quite a "cynical, clouded, irrational, <opinionated> judgement" in itself --- isn't it...?
Perhaps it is. However, I'm not persuaded that undesirable societal circumstances (in the vast majority of cases) are indicative of conspiratorial machinations. For me, philosopher Karl Popper, in one of his seminal works (Conjectures and Refutations), captures the essence of the matter in the following declarative statement:

"…the conspiracy theory of society cannot be true because it amounts to the assertion that all events, even those which at first sight do not seem to be intended by anybody, are the intended results of the actions of people who are interested in these results…"
One must care about a world one will not see.
--- Bertrand Russell

User avatar
greg~judy
Rank: Chile Forum Citizen
Posts: 2982
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 2:00 pm
Location: citoyens du(h) monde

Re: Ebola watch

Post by greg~judy » Mon Nov 03, 2014 12:12 am

john wrote: ...I'm not persuaded that undesirable societal circumstances (in the vast majority of cases) are indicative of conspiratorial machinations. For me, philosopher Karl Popper, in one of his seminal works (Conjectures and Refutations), captures the essence of the matter in the following declarative statement:

"…the conspiracy theory of society cannot be true because it amounts to the assertion that all events, even those which at first sight do not seem to be intended by anybody, are the intended results of the actions of people who are interested in these results…"
~

well 1st - the term "vast majority of cases" is certainly not appropriate...
might you be "persuaded" if the wording was changed...
...that undesirable societal circumstances (in some percentage of cases) are indicative of conspiratorial machinations
:?:

then 2nd, we'll have to differ regards popper's inclusion of "all" events...
that's a far too simplistic appraisal that immediately negates certain distinctions...

we must really make a distinction between some force majeure "events"...
those major, significant natural "events", associated with major human impacts...
arguably, force majeure cannot be "controlled" by anyone <except mother nature>...
even for the multitude of less severe, daily, natural "events"...
one certainly cannot call our earth~mother a conspirator...

but these are distinct from other "events" - those that occur solely in the realm of "human" interactions...
"events" that will always involve some kind of human planning, human initiation and human implementation...
we hope it can be accepted as a truism, that human actions are <more often than not?> self-serving...

we see popper's "at first sight" argument leads to a logical fallacy...
because it presupposes some kind of omniscience in interpreting "intentions"...
that if "first sight" doesn't demonstrate anything immediately "obvious"...
ergo, it should never play out - that people accept any "intended results" with "disinterest"...

sorry, that dog don't hunt...

salud y suerte...
:alien:
Things are not what they appear to be: nor are they otherwise.
--- Surangama Sutra
“If we want everything to stay as it is, everything will have to change."
--- Giuseppe Tomasi di Lamedusa

Vicki and Greg Lansen
Rank: Chile Forum Citizen
Posts: 2275
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:02 pm

Re: Ebola watch

Post by Vicki and Greg Lansen » Mon Nov 03, 2014 12:17 am

john wrote:And the hysteria continues…

Tucson Pastor checked for Ebola at 2 AM because congregant had "Ebola Symptoms"

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/0 ... tail=email

Cold and flu season is going to be so interesting!

Andres
Rank: Chile Forum Citizen
Posts: 2706
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 3:09 am
Location: Ex Chile; returned to Oz

Re: Ebola watch

Post by Andres » Mon Nov 03, 2014 7:57 am

john wrote: Perhaps it is. However, I'm not persuaded that undesirable societal circumstances (in the vast majority of cases) are indicative of conspiratorial machinations. For me, philosopher Karl Popper, in one of his seminal works (Conjectures and Refutations), captures the essence of the matter in the following declarative statement:

"…the conspiracy theory of society cannot be true because it amounts to the assertion that all events, even those which at first sight do not seem to be intended by anybody, are the intended results of the actions of people who are interested in these results…"
you have a propensity to quote and link false claptrap such as this; patently false
Chile: My expectations are low. Very low.
I accept chaos. I'm not sure whether it accepts me.

john
Rank: Chile Forum Citizen
Posts: 6130
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 1:11 am
Location: Viña del Mar, Chile

Re: Ebola watch

Post by john » Mon Nov 03, 2014 12:21 pm

Andres wrote:
john wrote: Perhaps it is. However, I'm not persuaded that undesirable societal circumstances (in the vast majority of cases) are indicative of conspiratorial machinations. For me, philosopher Karl Popper, in one of his seminal works (Conjectures and Refutations), captures the essence of the matter in the following declarative statement:

"…the conspiracy theory of society cannot be true because it amounts to the assertion that all events, even those which at first sight do not seem to be intended by anybody, are the intended results of the actions of people who are interested in these results…"
you have a propensity to quote and link false claptrap such as this; patently false
I await with interest your evidence to back up your comments.
One must care about a world one will not see.
--- Bertrand Russell

Ripsigg
Rank: Chile Forum Citizen
Posts: 758
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 9:55 pm

Re: Ebola watch

Post by Ripsigg » Mon Nov 03, 2014 1:45 pm

Vicki and Greg Lansen wrote:
Spoiler Alert: From the makers of lollipops for Fukashima victims, Dr. Rima "I am Adam Lanzas doctor" and the whole false flag no children died at Sandyhook fame, and the Man Who Stares at Goats (but probably died years ago and doesn't know it) Stubblebine, along with their not currently licensed to practice law lawyer Ralph Fettucini (or something similar) have a CURE FOR EBOLA!
Please refresh me. Why is it again that you have such hatred for Dr. Rima? She came across like a crazy on the Jesse V show and it's natural to distrust anything she hawks, but your hatred seems more long lasting and more personal. Did she personally wrong you or someone you love?

john
Rank: Chile Forum Citizen
Posts: 6130
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 1:11 am
Location: Viña del Mar, Chile

Re: Ebola watch

Post by john » Mon Nov 03, 2014 3:13 pm

greg~judy wrote:
john wrote: ...I'm not persuaded that undesirable societal circumstances (in the vast majority of cases) are indicative of conspiratorial machinations. For me, philosopher Karl Popper, in one of his seminal works (Conjectures and Refutations), captures the essence of the matter in the following declarative statement:

"…the conspiracy theory of society cannot be true because it amounts to the assertion that all events, even those which at first sight do not seem to be intended by anybody, are the intended results of the actions of people who are interested in these results…"
~

well 1st - the term "vast majority of cases" is certainly not appropriate...
might you be "persuaded" if the wording was changed...
...that undesirable societal circumstances (in some percentage of cases) are indicative of conspiratorial machinations
:?
then 2nd, we'll have to differ regards popper's inclusion of "all" events...
that's a far too simplistic appraisal that immediately negates certain distinctions...

we must really make a distinction between some force majeure "events"...
those major, significant natural "events", associated with major human impacts...
arguably, force majeure cannot be "controlled" by anyone <except mother nature>...
even for the multitude of less severe, daily, natural "events"...
one certainly cannot call our earth~mother a conspirator...

but these are distinct from other "events" - those that occur solely in the realm of "human" interactions...
"events" that will always involve some kind of human planning, human initiation and human implementation...
we hope it can be accepted as a truism, that human actions are <more often than not?> self-serving...

we see popper's "at first sight" argument leads to a logical fallacy...
because it presupposes some kind of omniscience in interpreting "intentions"...
that if "first sight" doesn't demonstrate anything immediately "obvious"...
ergo, it should never play out - that people accept any "intended results" with "disinterest"...

sorry, that dog don't hunt...

salud y suerte...
:alien:
My response to your 1st statement is yes, but in a very low percentage of cases.

My response to your 2nd statement is as follows:

Rational people believe in facts, evidence, logic and supported conclusions. Conspiracy theorists believe in fantasy, supposition, conjecture, innuendo and jumping to unwarranted conclusions. While the outcome of some events may have involved convergence of interests, it does not necessarily follow that they were the result of conspiracies. I'll leave you with Sergeant Joe Friday's (Dragnet) catchphrase, "Just the facts, ma'am."
One must care about a world one will not see.
--- Bertrand Russell

Ripsigg
Rank: Chile Forum Citizen
Posts: 758
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 9:55 pm

Re: Ebola watch

Post by Ripsigg » Mon Nov 03, 2014 5:35 pm

john wrote: Rational people believe in facts, evidence, logic and supported conclusions. Conspiracy theorists believe in fantasy, supposition, conjecture, innuendo and jumping to unwarranted conclusions. While the outcome of some events may have involved convergence of interests, it does not necessarily follow that they were the result of conspiracies. I'll leave you with Sergeant Joe Friday's (Dragnet) catchphrase, "Just the facts, ma'am."
Since you have thrown out the words "facts, evidence, logic and supported conclusions" do you mind defining what you mean by each of those terms? What constitutes facts? What makes something evidence? What is a supported conclusion?

I get what you are saying about conspiracies, but I want to stop you before you go down a road that shows your lack of understanding of facts, evidence and supported conclusions, if it's alright by you. :alien: I think we are seeing a new form of scientific "proof" arise. What's your confidence level? At what % do you accept something as a fact or a supported conclusion? Big data is starting to show us that with more and more data to shift, predictions are getting better and better. Coincidences become predictions or supported conclusions.

Another thought on your statement, John. I suspect you don't understand the breadth and depth of conspiracies. Some are Urban legends. Many are contrived by those with ulterior motives(into selling stuff that needs fear). Others are concocted by those who are trying to explain something they don't fully understand. These types get supporters because they are telling a narrative that people want to believe. And that is the operative word: Believe. Once someone believes something, truth means nothing. That's why I discount these. They can't be proven, but moreover, people refuse to question them as much as they should.

The ones I can't and won't discount are those that come about from observations of past events and responses. With a large enough data pool(events, responses, winners, losers), I believe it is possible to prove or disprove the conspiracy.

john
Rank: Chile Forum Citizen
Posts: 6130
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 1:11 am
Location: Viña del Mar, Chile

Re: Ebola watch

Post by john » Mon Nov 03, 2014 7:27 pm

Ripsigg wrote:
john wrote: Rational people believe in facts, evidence, logic and supported conclusions. Conspiracy theorists believe in fantasy, supposition, conjecture, innuendo and jumping to unwarranted conclusions. While the outcome of some events may have involved convergence of interests, it does not necessarily follow that they were the result of conspiracies. I'll leave you with Sergeant Joe Friday's (Dragnet) catchphrase, "Just the facts, ma'am."
Since you have thrown out the words "facts, evidence, logic and supported conclusions" do you mind defining what you mean by each of those terms? What constitutes facts? What makes something evidence? What is a supported conclusion?

I get what you are saying about conspiracies, but I want to stop you before you go down a road that shows your lack of understanding of facts, evidence and supported conclusions, if it's alright by you. :alien: I think we are seeing a new form of scientific "proof" arise. What's your confidence level? At what % do you accept something as a fact or a supported conclusion? Big data is starting to show us that with more and more data to shift, predictions are getting better and better. Coincidences become predictions or supported conclusions.

Another thought on your statement, John. I suspect you don't understand the breadth and depth of conspiracies. Some are Urban legends. Many are contrived by those with ulterior motives(into selling stuff that needs fear). Others are concocted by those who are trying to explain something they don't fully understand. These types get supporters because they are telling a narrative that people want to believe. And that is the operative word: Believe. Once someone believes something, truth means nothing. That's why I discount these. They can't be proven, but moreover, people refuse to question them as much as they should.

The ones I can't and won't discount are those that come about from observations of past events and responses. With a large enough data pool(events, responses, winners, losers), I believe it is possible to prove or disprove the conspiracy.
Very thoughtful post!

Here's a brief definition of how I define a fact, evidence, logic, and a supported conclusion:

FACT
A fact is something that can be checked and backed up with evidence and verified through observation or experimentation.
EVIDENCE
Evidence is a piece of information that supports a conclusion (e.g., by example).
LOGIC
Logic is the use of valid reasoning or argumentation (e.g., a cause-and-effect explanation of an action, decision, event, or solution).
SUPPORTED CONCLUSION
It is a conclusion based on one or more premises that are supported by the evidence.

Moreover, there is an implicit burden of proof, not an appeal to emotion, on anyone making a claim of conspiracy. Conspiracy theorists are notoriously distrustful of the western media and in particular mainstream news. But, ironically, the closest to hard evidence they offer in support of their own views are invariably from underground conspiracy theory websites. The "you are being lied to" principle seems to underlie all conspiracy theories. To that I ask the question, "Why should I believe in the veracity of their version of events?"
One must care about a world one will not see.
--- Bertrand Russell

Andres
Rank: Chile Forum Citizen
Posts: 2706
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 3:09 am
Location: Ex Chile; returned to Oz

Re: Ebola watch

Post by Andres » Mon Nov 03, 2014 9:52 pm

"Facts" are not always as they seem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ui6j-j1jXcE
Chile: My expectations are low. Very low.
I accept chaos. I'm not sure whether it accepts me.

john
Rank: Chile Forum Citizen
Posts: 6130
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 1:11 am
Location: Viña del Mar, Chile

Re: Ebola watch

Post by john » Mon Nov 03, 2014 10:07 pm

Andres wrote:"Facts" are not always as they seem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ui6j-j1jXcE
An amazing demonstration of optical illusion...but, how does it pertain to this topic?
One must care about a world one will not see.
--- Bertrand Russell

Post Reply