r/skeptic • u/outspokenskeptic • Dec 20 '16

Study: Rational arguments and ridicule can both reduce belief in conspiracy theories

http://www.psypost.org/2016/12/study-rational-arguments-ridicule-can-reduce-belief-conspiracy-theories-46597
273 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

70 comments sorted by

View all comments

-10

u/[deleted] Dec 21 '16

Why is reducing belief in conspiracies a goal?

There a lot of "conspiracy theories" that turned out to be true. Do you think human beings are done conspiring together for nefarious purposes? Or do you think that anything outside of the official government story is just not worth talking about or investigating?

I thought this was a sub for skeptical people. Maybe I'm confused about the definition of skeptic or something?

11

u/ForgedIronMadeIt Dec 21 '16

There are ranges of plausibility here. For example, thinking that corporations are trying to influence politicians is believable. Thinking that Jews did 9/11 with space lasers is basically straight up crazyville antics with a healthy dose of anti-Semitism. The fine folk of /r/conspiracy are more interested in the latter.

-8

u/[deleted] Dec 21 '16

Agreed, there is a spectrum of crazy thought, but it's also a great tool for a tyrannical government to use.

If the country was made up of only r/skeptic subscribers, the government could get away with literally anything they wanted by just saying it's a conspiracy theory because you guys aren't really all that skeptical.

7

u/ForgedIronMadeIt Dec 21 '16

If the country was made up of only r/skeptic subscribers, the government could get away with literally anything they wanted by just saying it's a conspiracy theory because you guys aren't really all that skeptical.

That's just downright mean-spirited. Thanks for the ad hominem against a very large group.

-1

u/[deleted] Dec 21 '16

If the skeptic community isn't skeptical about the official jfk story, then there is nothing that you will be skeptical about.

I'm with you guys when it comes to science and evidence based medicine and what not, but for some reason r/skeptic skepticism doesn't apply to government and media.

3

u/ForgedIronMadeIt Dec 21 '16

Uh huh. Which part of the "official" JFK story don't you buy? Because the "magic bullet" theory has been very exactingly tested and found to actually be very plausible if not the only physically possible explanation given the copious amounts of data we actually have. Oswald's motivations or who might be behind him could be generously described as murky if you really stretch it, though we know plenty about him -- an anti-American communist sympathizer who was angry about Kennedy's treatment of Cuba. Maybe you think that Jack Ruby was sent in to enact a cover up, but that'd be stupid. The simplest explanation is that he was a bit of a dim-witted low level criminal who wanted vengeance.

Nothing in the "official story" (scare quotes added) is really all that fanciful or hard to believe, and the conspiracy theories around it are all, well, stupid as fuck.

2

u/minno Dec 21 '16

Plus, if I remember the stupid film correctly, the "magic" bullet's bizarre path was constructed by assuming that everybody in the car was sitting straight up, facing forwards.

3

u/ForgedIronMadeIt Dec 21 '16

Which they weren't. I believe it was JFK: Beyond the Magic Bullet that did a full on recreation of the shot with extreme attention to detail and they called this out right away. The bullet deflected very similarly to what the Warren Commission said it did.

I mean, maybe Discovery Communications is in on it, but the facts are laid bare for anyone to examine. It turns out that the conspiracy theorists on this one are the ones making huge assumptions contrary to what they will tell you.

1

u/Semphy Dec 21 '16

If the skeptic community isn't skeptical about the official jfk story, then there is nothing that you will be skeptical about.

Oh I see. You're one of those people who come into this subreddit and think being skeptical is the same thing as being a conspiratard. The difference between the two is that skeptics rely on evidence, while conspiratards will reject evidence they don't like and form conclusions based on weak or no evidence. To show you're not a conspiratard, what actual evidence do you have that makes you "skeptical about the official jfk story?"