Science has proven itself more useful than faith because it relies on empiricism- nothing can be known unless there is sufficient evidence to prove it to be so. Now, take conspiracy theories, which rely on facts. Sure, the facts may be wrong, skewed, exaggerated, misinterpreted, but most of them are based on some part of history, some bizarre corner of human civilization that seems odd or unbelievable to most people.
Events in the past are not as empirical or testable as hard science, so some history is taken on faith. Look at a history book, and you have descriptions of events we believe to be true based on historical research, forming the most likely explanation. Of course there are always anomalies, quirks, and oddities that history books fail to mention. For some reason, mentioning these oddities becomes incongruous with the currently accepted view in education, thus conspiracy theories are merely a collection of bizarre, odd, and hard to believe data.
The number of presidents and politicians involved in Freemasonry, Bohemian Grove, Skull and Bones? Don't worry about it. The coincidences and conflicts of interest surrounding 9/11? Who cares. The Holocaust? Just accept what you're told. UFOs? Don't touch the subject. Of course belief plays a part, just as historians believe their view of history. But does keeping pleasant facts and ignoring oddities make mainstream history any more truthful?
History is subjective. You can't do an experiment with some historicaly document to say "the Holocaust is 99% certain to have occurred". Such numbers simply don't exist.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-30 20:08
So History is not really science. It might count as a social science, but that's just an easy elective with no real point but to get credits.
Name:
Anonymous2008-07-01 5:51
personally, I sleep through social science. The teacher rocks. :)
Name:
Anonymous2008-07-01 22:30
I've yet to see ANY conspiracy theory stand up to ANY amount of scrutiny. People come up with these elaborate conspiracies because they're bored, uneducated, too lazy to do a shred of research, racist, etc, etc, etc. I think a lot of it comes from people being disappointed with the way their lives have turned out and are looking for excitement or someone to blame or something.
Every single one of the "facts" that I've seen presented are either blatant lies, rumors, or worse. Most of which based on a staggering amount of ignorance and a stunning refusal to address the real facts.
If you can provide a real argument for your theory, with facts and evidence to support it AND address the mountains of facts and evidence against it, I'll listen.
Anyway, what I originally wanted to say is that I fail to see what your point was with the whole conspiracy theorist view of history rant. Your High School history textbook isn't going to go into the details of every little event. Shit, I remember entire wars being covered in a paragraph or less.
Most conspiracy theories contain large quantities of "and then of course the Bilderbergers/Jews/Blackwater/insert yer favorite villain here hid all the evidence and altered historical records, but EVERYTHING YOU KNOW IS WRONG, and the lack of evidence is proof I'm telling the truth!"
In other words, "this claim is not testable."
The scientific method certainly does have a way of dealing with non-testable claims. They are meaningless noise, net information content: nil.
Name:
Anonymous2008-07-03 23:22
Yet there is always speculation of history, such as whether kosher laws were intended to prevent trichinosis, or because pigs ate too much grain, or other theories that are only plausible but never provable since we can't go back and observe. History is not science.
Name:
Anonymous2008-07-04 0:16
>>7
But at least there are SOME facts to support those hypotheses (History has very very few actual theories, but many hypotheses), whereas conspiracy theories have NONE. Also, you won't find a single actual historian or archaeologist who isn't EXTREMELY critical and tentative when speaking about details like that. Compared to conspiracy theorists who are always dead certain despite anything to back them up, just like a certain other large group of idiots.
It isn't "ignored" at all. It's rehashed on the news every so often and developments are covered and talked about for days afterwards, not to mention all the books about it on the bestseller lists. WTF are you even talking about? That just because people aren't talking about a single issue 24/7 they're ignoring it? Come off it.
Also, LOL Fox "News".
Name:
Anonymous2008-07-04 22:01
Yet people call certain bits of information "conspiracy theory" if they happen to be brought up in a conspiracy theory. Yes, the overarching conspiracy theory may be deeply flawed, but that doesn't address the facts and events of history that haven't been satisfactorily debunked.
When a conspiracy becomes known, it becomes history. There has never been, and will never be, a conspiracy. Ever. Just retards doing retarded, fucked-up shit that they need to have themselves, and their family, punished for. Yes, if your daddy made millions ripping off little old ladies, then you should lose that money.
>>13
What about that Fawkes guy? I'm pretty sure that was a conspiracy.
Name:
Anonymous2008-07-08 16:38
Science - Empiricism.
REAL Science - Rationalism.
Sorry, i had to answer your ''because it relies on empiricism''.
Well, empiricism isn't a correct way to view the world, I'd say.
For example. Hume said:
''Even if everytime you dropped a rock, it fell on the floor, you don't know if next time it will rise to the ceiling''.
This is the basis of Empiricism, basicly. But there is a little problem:
Physics can actually prove you that a rock will ALWAYS fall whenever you drop it, due to gravity, and they can prove it mathematicly, without having to drop one. This kind of science is effective, because the only way you can prove it wrong, is by telling the other what is WRONG in the theory.
Otherwise, in empiricism (or experimentalism) you can simply prove someone wrong by trying again, and having different results. Why? Nobody knows.
So, are we smarter now for that? Not really.
I think this way: It's more important to know how a car in fact works, than how you drive it''.
In empiricism, you are interested in knowing how you drive it. You just need to know that.
In rationalism, you can't drive the car without actually knowing how it works. You have to know what you're talking about in a deep way.
This is why I don't like Chemistry\Medicine\Biology and even Genetics (which is a ''science'' based on probabilities, which is a part of mathematics that I find disgusting, due to its innacuracy). I pretend to follow Physics, lol.
Anyway yeah, history has actually covered maaaaaany facts. Most of them really important. By the way, Freemasonry isn't and never was negative to history, and they always wanted to stay covered. They have (and had) many enemies.
About Conspiracy Theories. Some can be dumbshit, some others not. We do never know. But they are always interesting to ear. There is always something to learn from them. But no one is capable to prove them, that's the problem.
>>15
There is nothing wrong with Newtonian physics, except for the fact that it doesn't factor in relativistic effects correctly. Rationally speaking, it is a self consistent model of the universe. Empirically speaking, it phails, except as a first order approximation.
Name:
Anonymous2008-07-08 18:52
>>15
Maybe your house falls off a cliff the next time you try, smarty pants. Absolute certainty is an enemy of science.
Name:
Anonymous2008-07-08 22:28
Conspiracy theorists are the scourge of the internet.
Well, one of them.
Name:
Anonymous2008-07-08 23:38
But once you say nothing is certain then a whole can of "anything is possible" ideas are invented, from the paranormal, UFOs, religion, pseudoscience, all in the name of "reality can work in any way."
"
Physics can actually prove you that a rock will ALWAYS fall whenever you drop it, due to gravity, and they can prove it mathematicly, without having to drop one. This kind of science is effective, because the only way you can prove it wrong, is by telling the other what is WRONG in the theory."
No, that's stupid. It can't prove anything about the real world, you can only prove things about your model.