the·o·ry [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
noun, plural the·o·ries.
a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
A theory has to be based on something, really. Otherwise, it's just somebody flapping their jaw about what they made up in their own head.
I'm not sure what your point is, but I think I agree with you. Are you saying that there are outlandished, almost baseless theories advanced by people with one agenda or 'nuther (including the possible agenda of didinfo)? Yep. Every cotroversial field has that problem. (Ufolgy has more than its fair share.) But once people begin listening to info, they learn to separate the wheat from the chaff.
I do not question Alex's intentions. I question his judgement on how he addresses the term. I feel the term should be embraced because...
Very good thread you sent me to! I didn't read the whole thing, but here's something that caught my eye.
(The phrase I underlined better pertains to this thread.)
"The purpose of this article is to redress a number of general myths concerning so-called 'conspiracy theories', repeated by media organisations and other self-proclaimed guardians of the orthodoxy, as well as people who have been erroneously convinced that conspiracy theories are intellectual aberrations rather than the acknowledgment of
a common historical and social phenomenon.
This document does not claim that every event is the product of a conspiracy. It remains true, however, that conspiracies are far more common than admitted by the establishment. Whether conspiracy or coincidence was involved, we believe that the matter should be arbitrated by evidence rather than falsehoods on the alleged motives or state of minds of alternative researchers."
Innyway, Back to that "because" thang:
This was in that thread, too:
" 'Conspiracy theory' is usually used as a pejorative label, meaning paranoid, nutty, marginal, and certainly untrue. The power of this pejorative is that it discounts a theory by attacking the motivations and mental competence of those who advocate the theory. By labeling an explanation of events 'conspiracy theory,' evidence and argument are dismissed because they come from a mentally or morally deficient personality, not because they have been shown to be incorrect. Calling an explanation of events 'conspiracy theory' means, in effect, 'We don't like you, and no one should listen to your explanation.'
--And that brings us back to a point I was trying to make earlier; that the term is an intellectually dishonest ploy that attempts to attack the messenger rather than the message. My idea is to give the term more legitimacy, thereby taking the teeth out of the "sneer" ploy.
Howdy, y'all! I'm new, here. I read the comments under the articles on the InfoWars page, and I wasn't sure what I'd find when I got here. I'm very pleased to see that y'all can can talk about stuff in a civil manor!