Why Do Conspiracies Have so Much Appeal?

[ProfWag]

[Indigo Child]

I think what I find preposterous is your claim to being a critical thinker

Click here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mztfFdpd1Rk

[ProfWag]

[Indigo Child]

Not reviewing evidence is not science.

You don't do science, you do rhethoric. It makes no difference how evidence
is presented: it can be documented, it can be visual, audio.

I always review evidence no matter what the source. You do not, you quibble
over meanings of terms, set up double standards, or attack the source.

Look it is clear to all of us honest people. You don't care about evidence. Your
sole aim is to deny the paranormal or conspiracy or anything which goes against
the status quo. You worship authority.

[ProfWag]

[really?]

[Indigo Child]

I think it is pretty reasonabe that if somebody asks for evidence, and
you produce it, that they review it.

I have shown mysef to be very consistent in reviewing evidence when
skeptics provide skeptic web sites or biased web sites. I have never dec-
lined any evidence or denied evidence. I will always engage it.

I do think this will be a healthy habit for you guys to develop, and it will
lead to more productive discussions between us.

[Craig Browning]

[really?]

[Craig Browning]

[really?]

[Craig Browning]

Again, a stock reply and more importantly a dodge and parry maneuver... you've learned the game well.

Without exception, every time throughout history, "Proof" is brought about the cynic not only denies it, but will go out of its way to discredit said proofs... they've even been caught red-handed changing research data if and when it supports the claims of the Psychic or whatever, rather than humbling themselves honorably and admitting that "more" exist around the issue than they originally believed or considered. Many noted scientists have done exactly that and were met with the sort of political stigma and gossip I mentioned above -- the skeptics going out of their way to "prove" that person to be a fraud or whack-job... even when they applauded his previous contributions to physics, chemistry or whatever their specialty might have been. This is a fact that can be seen time and again via news stories as well as various posts of gloating scattered about the net.

As I've stated before, I no longer jump through hoops for bullies... I'm not a circus animal or a pooch that does tricks on command.

[really?]

[Craig Browning]

It is even harder these days in that the wheelchairs haven't enough power to make the jump

[Scepcop]

Perhaps an equally valid question is:

Why do some people have a psychological block against conspiracies and cannot even think about them or assess them at all?

It does seem that some people have a need to believe in conspiracies and see them quickly while connecting dots, while others have a psychological block and never see them anywhere. There are highly intelligent people on both sides.

The ones with a block will never consider a conspiracy, and if you show them evidence or give them a great film to watch that shows a lot of evidence, they will simply not be interested and make excuses to get out of assessing it. I know some of these people. When you give them evidence of a conspiracy at work, they don't assess it or tell you what they think, they simply say "This subject just doesn't interest me" and conveniently avoid it. I don't see why. Mysteries and puzzles are always fascinating to me. But some just tune it out, even if they don't ridicule it, they always find an excuse to not pay any attention to it, or they act like they have zero interest in even pondering the subject at all. Some of these people are very intelligent and deep in other areas, but when conspiracies come up, there is some block in them.

Why is that I wonder?