[Loquebantur]

A podcast manages to convince you, but you cannot tell what exactly the issue is that renders "anything even adjacent" logically impossible?

What about the possibility of being fooled the other way around, along with the majority? Truth isn't decided by majority vote after all.

[JKCalhoun]

Sure. But often one of the two sides has an obvious agenda.

I thought of James Randi and "spoon bender", Uri Geller. I suppose if you're cynical enough you can presume that both are desperate for airtime, self-promotion and we should therefore be skeptical of both.

Randi though for me has much less to gain in exposing frauds.

[schiffern]

Being convinced without the ability to explain the argument is troubling.

But more importantly, mainstream scientists have the "obvious agenda" (well documented by now) to avoid ridicule and mockery. So if you're willing to weaponize ridicule and mockery, you can successfully suppress scientific investigation into whatever areas you choose.

Let's not forget, the CIA invented the very term "conspiracy theory" to suppress investigation into illegal intelligence activities.

[pinkmuffinere]

I mean, at some point we are convinced as a convenience. You can use mathematical formulations describing _how_ a motor works without understanding why they are true. Similarly, I don't believe that there is a grand conspiracy involving chemtrails, even though I haven't proven that all the theories I've heard are false. I'm just fairly confident that this _could_ be done, given enough time and resources. But practically, I have to get on with my life.

[Loquebantur]

Being lazy incurs costs. With regard to "conspiracies" that cost is explicitly vulnerability to them.

Neither "chemtrails", "UFOs&aliens" nor "telepathy" appear particularly "plausible". But that could just as well be a statement about your method of determining 'plausibility'?

You invoke limited personal resources to justify complacency. Likely, you estimate the costs of being wrong as negligible since you never really thought about possible implications and do not know about any being particularly relevant to you. That's an argument from ignorance.

[pinkmuffinere]

Ya, I agree, my main point is that arguments from ignorance are acceptable sometimes. My main claim to schiffern is something like "Being convinced without the ability to explain the argument is sometimes fine." As specific examples, I propose chemtrails and how-motors-work. I think it is totally acceptable to dismiss the in-depth explanation for most people, because for most people they just aren't that important.

Are you claiming that you never dismiss anything without fully understanding it? Do you completely understand all of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Baha'i, etc? I think it is possible to generate an infinite list of things you don't fully understand. And yet you of course have to take a practical stance on some of these things for your everyday life.

[robocat]

> the CIA invented the very term "conspiracy theory"

I find the best conspiracies are supported by facts

[schiffern]

Catch 22. The best way to avoid hard facts is to scare away scientists. ;)

But I agree, this is just garbage pseudoscience. I listened to the Banned & Reported episode, and TL;DR the Telepathy Tapes experiments had a non-blinded 'facilitator' touching the blindfolded 'psychic.' My mind immediately went to Clever Hans, before the podcast hosts even brought it up later in the episode.

Just watch any Derren Brown video to see how easy it is to 'cue' someone from across the room. This is James Randi 101, folks...