Skeptic Project

Okay, so my best mate has been into CTs for about two years. It has now become what we spend 75% of our time talking about, and it is what brought me into this online community. Our email exchanges today got a bit more direct and personal and I hope it doesn't undermine our frienship.

Here's a sample (and yes, it is a quiet day in work!):

i enjoy these rants/debates

First off, i don't accept that you are open minded or on the fence about chemtrails, i think you believe them with a passion, i might be wrong but thats the feeling i get from you. Also, you don't seem to acknowledge the problem with thinking about different explanations for the same phenomena. Either elevated aluminum levels in certain samples is evidence of chemtrails spraying aluminum or it is not. Either certain bacterium being identified in our blood stream is evidence of biological agents being sprayed or it is not. In both cases, actually, it isn't, but chopping and changing between the two is further evidence that there is no robust evidence for either one.

Humouring me?? makes no sense Jon. why would you humour me now when you have been exposing me to the awful 'truth' over the past two years. I debunked the fuck out of chemtrails, you had no where to go with the argument so you changed the debate. That's what i think happened. I don't understand why you think I cant handle the 'truth' and that's why i disagree with you. My eyes are open. I'm aware of the lessons of history and I can see the harm governments are causing all around the world as we speak. I just don't buy in to your brand of the 'truth' because I have spent quite some time looking into it and it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

All the evidence you continue to cite is weak, not hard evidence. Send anything fresh over to me and I will show you why.

Your analogy about past atrocities supporting your current notion of the truth is shoddy and much more 'disgusting' than Paul Nurses comparing climate change consensus to medical science consensus. There were atrocities in the past, and there continue to be them to this day. There have been worse genocides than the holocaust since WWII, all over the world. If you are intersted in history, go and study the social, political, economic and psychological variables that precipitate genocides, and use this knowledge to make predictions about the future. Don't use past atrocities in an intellectually lazy and ignorant way by saying 'bad shit happened in the past, so my theory on the way bad shit is happening now must be true'. Its laughable and offensive in equal measures.

Regarding the inherent excitement associated with Conspiracy Theories. The mind works in unusual and counter intuitive ways. The need for control sometimes drives people to eating disorders (as they rigidly control their diet) regardless of the fact they ending up losing control and sometimes die beacuse of it. Our emotional needs drive us to do things despite them being unhelful, scary or dangerous. A child from an abusive family will sometimes be compelled to ellicit violence from their parents, as this feels safergetting battered than not knowing when it will come. A more releveant analogy from psychology is from paranoid delusions - the disorder that makes some people believe they are being targeted by a persecuter despite there being no evidence (from most other peoples perspective) to support this. One psychological theory suggests that these beliefs, which cause extreme fear, distress and disfunction are the result of an emotionally defensive process, by which people who have very low self-esteem are constantly attributing anything bad that happens in the world to dark and unknown forces - it protects them from the idea that they have some role to play in their destiny, which would bring with it a sense of failed responsibility, shame and guilt. It also bolsters self-esteem as their beliefs, although scary and depressing, are grandiose, in that they are one of the few with this secret knowledge, and that the rest of the population, although more successful than them, are ignorent and blind. Now, in no way I am saying you have paranoid delusions, but it is an example of how, despite your beliefs being scary and depressing to you, they can still be unconsciously maintained by certain factors.

I agree that social action can be a powerful tool for change. This is also a lesson from history, but it is also going on right now in Tunisia and Egypt. That doesn't mean the way you are doing it, or the things you are doing for are just or righteous. Infact I would argue that your time, attention and energy is being wasted when there are so many just causes you could be doing something about. Watching youtube, posting pictures in facebook and debating with me about it isn't going to change shit, it also happens to fit quite nicely with your current lifestyle, so I hardly think you are on some kind righteous mission to free the world of evil.

Also, I will hold my hands up and say I will look like a right nob if there turns out to be evidence for a global program of chemical spraying, which if it is happening, hard evidence WILL eventually come out. You, however, will not only look like a nob, but have wasted your life, if by 50 years old you are still watching youtube and making the same old predictions that still haven't happened.

Last point now about scientists which I think is very very important. Fisrt of all, you should know that I am actually classed as a scientist because of my psychology doctorate. Now, i am not saying this to be cocky or to claim i know more than you in this area. In fact I am using it to demonstrate that someone can be a scientist and still have quite limited insight into the high end science of a specific area.

Science and research is actually one of my weakest points in terms of my training, but it does give me an insight into acdemia and the scientific process. There is almost always differences of opinion in scientific comminities. Active scientists (unlike me) are extremely competitive and would prey to discover something new or, alternatively find conclusive evidence against an established theory. It is one way they can be sure to make their name. There are always renegades in science, attempting to do this, and this is one reason why there are so many dissenting voices in the different fields of science. When alternative ideas gain credence and respect from other scientists, there become two (or more) dominant theories on how to explain the same phenomena, and there is then different camps that develop, all of which are recognised and well respected, and all of which do further research to try and demonstrate which theory is most useful. When a scientist develops an alternative theory that is not validated and respected by other scientists (which is easily done through application of the scientific method), they become known as fringe eccentrics or charlatans, and lose the respect of the rest of the community. They are still scientists, and they still have their qualifications, but that doesn't mean what they are saying is based on sound science. I have noticed how common it is for CTers to dismiss all of the scientific community (apart from the very few that provide 'evidence' for their cause) by saying they are bent or sheep - but this just is not how it works - sure there are some like this, and some examples of foul play, (there is in every community) but the scientific community as whole is structured around demonstratable evidence. There is too much incentive to demonstrate a new theory - infact the financial incentive you refer to often works the other way. If Liverpool University demostrate some tentative results relating to a new theory (which costs nothing to do because PHD students do major research projects as part of their training), then the University could attract millions of pounds in research grants to do further testing on a bigger scale. Honeslty, what you are saying about the way science works, does not, on the whole, stand up!

By the way, the same could also be said, to a lesser extent for politics. If Farrage, Nik Griffin, George Gallaway or some other dissenting politician could demonstrate hard evidence that the current government is allowing spraying, or some other massive controversy, they would do so, because the incentive to galvanise the public behind their cause would be too great. They don't do it cause there is no HARD evidence. The ones that do profess to know secrets, have no hard evidence, and just so happen not to be in a prominent position in politics anymore.

Please listen to what I am saying and try to integrate this into your current belief system. Dont just dismiss it outright.

You wrote to much, he'll ignore 98% of it.

At at certain point you need to concentrate on single claims and make him embarrassed at how crap his argument is.

@ed, i think ur right. We had public facebook debate just focusing on chemtrails and i wiped the floor with him. Focusing on specific pieces of evidence and doing it on a public forum, where our mates can see was helpful.

@mat, i am starting to think its time to do this. Last night my wife said that my mate's wasting his life trying to prove this crap, but i was t risk of wasting my life tryin to disprove it!

Same situation man. My best friend is going crazy over these kind of conspiracy theories. What I learned to do to avoid these debates and keep our friendship really, was to just go along with it. That's really all you can do with CTs. Nothing you say or show will ever change their mind.

^I love how the people who don't take a ton of time to learn can claim to have secret knowledge that college educated folks don't. It's hearing crap like this that makes me glad for Muertos's job, since he has such a good write-up on this crap and how academics LOVE going against the grain.

Well, they have yet to present evidence that academia is controlled by the gubbermint.

It is hilarious how it is easier for some to believe that WTC collapsed due to pillars being cut and termite - than to believe the buildings are not best suited as plane catchers :-)