151–160 of 201 posts
I read it somewhere that the best way to respond to conspiracy theorist is to make a more outlandish claim: - Moon landing was fake. - You believe in the Moon?!
I read it somewhere that the best way to respond to conspiracy theorist is to make a more outlandish claim: - Moon landing was fake. - You believe in the Moon?!
I find the best option is simply asking someone (or yourself for that matter) 'what evidence would you need to see for you to change your opinion on X?'
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh and didn't the WMD fraud come out internally ? Tell me one NASA or JPL scientist officially on the mission who is claiming that it was fake ? Stop being contrarian for the sake of it .
> Stop being contrarian for the sake of it . That would eliminate the need for this website almost entirely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But from their point of view, were you totally serious, or was it obvious that you were just taking an absurd stance for the sake of an extreme counter-example, tongue in cheek?
I had to sound serious. I argued the whole night that New York is not a real city, and is a fictional place created by Marvel, like Gotham is created by DC. Nothing would convince me otherwise. Satellite images? Fake! Maps? Obviously fictional, like maps of middle earth. Videos? All filmed in Toronto!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To cause the desired effect. It's the most effective technique to stop people from looking at something. Consider why this purely technical, on-topic and perfectly NIST sourced comment was flagged: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23419760 screenshot: http://v6y.net/1592547475.screenshot.png
I assume it was flagged because unless you're already a true believer, "look! this falling building is falling according to the laws of physics" is not a very strong argument.
7 @ g for 2.25s is a verifiable fact from one of the most prestigious standards making bodies on the planet. There are tutorials on reproducing that NIST measurement.
You seem to be not surprised it's flagged, and you bring up belief. Why?
Believer of what? Argument of what?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cults are cheap, they come and go. Religion - a true one, that's what counts. Cults we've had in the high school, nobody remembers them after a while.
Survivorship bias? Or am i just missing the joke here?
I read it somewhere that the best way to respond to conspiracy theorist is to make a more outlandish claim: - Moon landing was fake. - You believe in the Moon?!
The best way is to use the Socratic method, if you have a lot of time. If you throw enough wilful ignorance, compliments, kindness, genuine interest and an endless amount of questions at someone, you’ll eventually get them arguing with them selves. It’s really the only way to move someone, because you’re not really convincing them of anything, they are doing that themselves. Of course in the modern day and age, such…
That's probably the most succinct description of rhetoric using the Socratic method I have seen to date; highlighting the way its used in effective discourse is as a guide to a conclusion rather than an argument. Very well put.
> Of course in the modern day and age, such a conversation is rarely going to happen.
Agreed. But even in Plato's time this was rare, too. Which is why The Republic was written the way that it was: a Philosophical discourse approached with this method in mind told via (hypothetical?) dialogue(s) amongst other Philosophers and eventually members of the State to reveal a premise that most could arrive on their own with enough inquiry as to the onerous Nature of the State--even in it's ideal portrayal of the coming Golden Age of the Hellenic Era ushered in by Alexander--and 'good.'
It could have been written merely as proofs with the elucidation of its applications and usecases, as was typical of the time, but instead it took the time to navigate the reader on the likely rebuttals and discourses one may encounter when exploring the Nature of the topic.
To this day I think it stands the time as the most seminal work(s) on Anarchism, it took me 5 readings of all of the books: the first being when I was a sophomore in High School still exploring the ideology and the last being after the death of Grothendieck. Which is probably contrary to what Plato wanted as he himself was an aristocrat who benefited greatly due to his status and standing in Athenian Society that was only possible because of the centralized power of the Athenian-Polis.
All of Plato's work before or since were not comparable and Diogenes, who Plato referred to as 'Socrates gone mad' but also one of the most dedicated Moral Ethicists to have ever existed in my view, was there to remind him of the futility of it.
I read it somewhere that the best way to respond to conspiracy theorist is to make a more outlandish claim: - Moon landing was fake. - You believe in the Moon?!
The best way is to use the Socratic method, if you have a lot of time. If you throw enough wilful ignorance, compliments, kindness, genuine interest and an endless amount of questions at someone, you’ll eventually get them arguing with them selves. It’s really the only way to move someone, because you’re not really convincing them of anything, they are doing that themselves. Of course in the modern day and age, such…
Didn't they come back with lunar soil samples? Armstrong reply was brilliant, but I would have also added: "here's some samples we took by ourselves, feel free to meet us at xyz lab and analyze them". And btw, who the heck allows a negationist like that one to teach children?
They would have you believe that the United States Government perpetrated a gigantic fraud on its citizenry. Well, it certainly wouldn’t be the first time that happened, by any government. The “Weapons of Mass Destruction” lie could be described using the exact same sentence, and that wasn’t even twenty years ago. Not defending the moon landing doubters, or conspiracy theorists in general, but: the proper response to…
The lie was specifically about nuclear weapons and the stockpiles of uranium Iraq supposedly was hiding (they weren't.)
Saying they didn't have WMDs completely wipes out the history of Iraq using tons of chemical weapons against Iranians in the Iran Iraq war.