Studying Conspiracy Theorists - Page 2

Another very interesting quote about this enlightening subject:

 They even cite a book chapter in which the authors make the link that conspiracies are specifically used to rhetorically challenge science when one lacks adequate data.

Did you know a second study was done on the Kennedy assasination and it did result in finding a conspiracy?

Look it up sometime.

Using established criteria to identify conspiracist ideation, we show that many of the hypotheses exhibited conspiratorial content and counterfactual thinking.
 

And really, it doesn't matter what subject these conspiracy theorists are talking about, the tactics remain the same! This is great stuff!

It matters a great deal to those who have working open minds.

Oh, this is another great link! I can see how it is related to my original topic, I'm sure others will be able to make the same correlation. It is called the "Denialism Blog" and this is a post called: CrankHOWTO

A must read for OT'ers of dog board!

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/05/31/crank-howto/
 

Who wants to know how to be an effective crank?

Well, I’ve outlined what I think are the critical components of successful crankiness. Ideally, this will serve as a guide to those of you who want to come up with a stupid idea, and then defend it against all evidence to the contrary.

Here’s how you do it:

 

↵Where have I seen this in action before?
 

It’s also important during your research of this new idea, never to be worried about preserving the original intent of other authors you quote or cite. If any words they say can be construed to mean something else, that’s ok too. Academic license is part of academic freedom.

Wow life is too short for this.....So much bickering I forgot what the topic even was.

Well, it isn't hard to figure out this thread is about exposing conspiracy theorists for the stereotypes that they truly are. They aren't genius really, but maybe just expert at being disingenuous.

Old pix but sooo true !!