Submitted by CartesianClosedCat t3_yrtt9q in philosophy
CarlJH t1_ivxwi1o wrote
“Everyone believes in at least one or a few conspiracy theories.”
I am getting pretty tired of this bullshit. Do I hold some beliefs in some conspiracy? Sure, I'll cop to that. But it requires some dishonest equivocation to make that stick.
First, there is a large gap between "belief" and "Knowledge." I "believe" that today is going to be slightly warmer than yesterday, based on what I saw on my weather app yesterday. If it turns out that it's actually colder today, then I am not going to defend that belief, I'm going to discard it. In other words, I treat my beliefs as provisional, as most of us do. In contrast, an Evangelical Christian does not treat his belief in his salvation as provisional, yet because the English language doesn't make a distinction between the two uses of the word "belief" we somehow end up in the same epistemological category. My "faith" in the accuracy of Yahoo Weather is not of the same character and degree as that of the Evangelical's belief in eternal salvation.
Whatever "belief" I hold in a conspiracy theory is just my best guess based on what I know to be true, and other beliefs which I hold, some strong (my belief in the universality of gravity, or the earth's shape*), other's casual (my belief that large news media outlets make editorial decisions in accordance with the values of their owners). So, sure, I believe in some conspiracy theories, but my belief in them is subject to change as I learn more, or as my beliefs in other supporting ideas to that theory change.
The discussion is confusing enough without muddying the waters with sloppy language and easy equivocations.
​
[* largely spherical]
iiioiia t1_iw3h1tx wrote
> “Everyone believes in at least one or a few conspiracy theories.” > > > > I am getting pretty tired of this bullshit. Do I hold some beliefs in some conspiracy? Sure, I'll cop to that.
Did you just acknowledge something is true, and then call it bullshit?
> But it requires some dishonest equivocation to make that stick.
Your acknowledgement of its truth didn't contain any dishonest equivocation that I can notice.
> In other words, I treat my beliefs as provisional...
One example is not sufficient to prove a claim of comprehensiveness (which seems like what you are implying).
> ...as most of us do
This is necessarily extremely speculative, so stating it as if it is factual kind of casts doubt on the claim you just finished making to some degree.
> In contrast, an Evangelical Christian does not treat his belief in his salvation as provisional....
You have no way of knowing this without invoking the supernatural.
> So, sure, I believe in some conspiracy theories, but my belief in them is subject to change as I learn more, or as my beliefs in other supporting ideas to that theory change.
Your ability to execute this without flaw in an absolute sense or in comparison to all conspiracy theorists is unknown and unknowable.
> The discussion is confusing enough without muddying the waters with sloppy language and easy equivocations.
Or telling persuasive stories based on one's subconscious heuristic perception of reality, but here we are. Us humans sure have our work cut out for ourselves!!
CarlJH t1_iw7k1i0 wrote
Either you didn't understand what I wrote or you are arguing in bad faith. I can't tell.
My point, which you are either unable to understand or simply refuse to accept, is that the word "belief" encompasses a wide range of things, some weakly held beliefs and others that are given the weight of fact. To treat both senses of the word as the same thing is sloppy thinking at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst, and the term for such a fallacy is "equivocation."
I like to take a bath in hot water, I make coffee with hot water. If I took a bath in water that was the same temperature that I made coffee with, I would end up in the hospital. "Hot" encompasses a range of temperature.
If you are unwilling to accept that some beliefs are held more strongly than others, then we really can't have an intelligent discussion about this.
iiioiia t1_iw7kwee wrote
You didn't address anything I said.
CarlJH t1_iw80adr wrote
Because you either didn't understand what I wrote or you are arguing in bad faith. Nothing you said has any bearing on the gist of my post.
iiioiia t1_iw8134m wrote
> Because you either didn't understand what I wrote
That is not a good reason for not addressing what I wrote.
Sir: if you do not respond to what I say, I am unable to take your seriously. Sorry!
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments