EVE Search - Conspiracy theory?

All Channels

Out of Pod Experience

Conspiracy theory?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Nebulous Minmatar Mirkur Draug'Tyr Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.12.07 11:08:00 - [1] If you read the words in the subject title what does it say to you? It Basically says that any conspiracy exposed is only theory! This in itself makes the two words when used together a conspiracy within itself, it is amazing the influence the norm has on these sort of things, it's also amazing how the powers that be have even casted doubts in our minds when they fail at gagging people that expose conspiracy's by then labelling them as conspiracy theory's. Something for you to all think about, when you watch a "conpiracy theory" film/documentary remember that it is not what you are watching, you are watching a film/documentary about conspiracy's, it is for you as an individual to decide if it is theory or not based on the evidence in front of you, if you allow it to be labbeled as a theory before you even start then the doubt of what you are about to see is already imprinted into your head.
Shanzem Minmatar DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.12.07 11:11:00 - [2] Edited by: Shanzem on 07/12/2008 11:11:32 Theory Fact In fact, Gravity is only a theory. -------------------------------------------
ReaperOfSly Gallente Zetsubou Corp	Posted - 2008.12.07 11:12:00 - [3] I don't understand. What's wrong with calling them theories? Unless they've been proven, they ARE theories. ____________________
Shanzem Minmatar DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.12.07 11:13:00 - [4] Originally by: ReaperOfSly I don't understand. What's wrong with calling them theories? Unless they've been proven, they ARE theories. pretty much, -------------------------------------------
ReaperOfSly Gallente Zetsubou Corp	Posted - 2008.12.07 11:15:00 - [5] Off topic, but does anyone find it wierd that Neb's sig says "Thukker Tribe" when he's actually a Sebiestor? ____________________
Nebulous Minmatar Mirkur Draug'Tyr Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.12.07 11:16:00 - [6] Originally by: Shanzem Edited by: Shanzem on 07/12/2008 11:11:32 Theory Fact In fact, Gravity is only a theory. I see your point, but if something is classed as fact or theory then that should be decided by the individual, a conspiracy is naturally called a theory! That is unfair, if all conspiracies where labelled conspiracy "facts" and then people had to decide if that was right or not, then there would be an outcry. Simple fact is that they should just be called "conspiracy" films/documentaries, not fact or theory used at the begining.
Nebulous Minmatar Mirkur Draug'Tyr Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.12.07 11:18:00 - [7] Originally by: ReaperOfSly Off topic, but does anyone find it wierd that Neb's sig says "Thukker Tribe" when he's actually a Sebiestor? Sebiestor is a "bloodline" not a "tribe", some people actually still do roleplay in EVE believe it or not
Polkageist Minmatar No Limit Productions OWN Alliance	Posted - 2008.12.07 21:30:00 - [8] alot of the times you ask someone to educate themselves in the critique in ex the 9/11 massmurder. They reply "i dont believe in conspiracy theories".
Sokratesz Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.12.07 22:22:00 - [9] Originally by: ReaperOfSly I don't understand. What's wrong with calling them theories? Unless they've been proven, they ARE theories. Speaking purely scientific, they are hypotheses* *This to prevent silly misuses of the word theory like in the 'theory of evolution' by creationists. Wyvern & Chimera fitting flowchart
ReaperOfSly Gallente Zetsubou Corp	Posted - 2008.12.07 22:32:00 - [10] Originally by: Sokratesz Originally by: ReaperOfSly I don't understand. What's wrong with calling them theories? Unless they've been proven, they ARE theories. Speaking purely scientific, they are hypotheses* *This to prevent silly misuses of the word theory like in the 'theory of evolution' by creationists. I'm a mathematician, no a scientist. "Hypothesis" means something quite different to me. ____________________
goodby4u Valor Inc.	Posted - 2008.12.08 07:32:00 - [11] Originally by: Sokratesz Originally by: ReaperOfSly I don't understand. What's wrong with calling them theories? Unless they've been proven, they ARE theories. Speaking purely scientific, they are hypotheses* *This to prevent silly misuses of the word theory like in the 'theory of evolution' by creationists. Well evolution is still a theory, atleast to me it is(not because im a religious person, I believe in it)I hate to make anything scientific fact in my mind until I can prove it over and over again. Gravity is a theory aswell, but I can prove gravity exists by jumping up and down over and over again, what can I do to prove evolution? Look at some fossils? But as for the op, they are theories because they arent fact as of yet, it has to go through tons testing to be proven(something like this becoming scientific fact to a person such as me is almost impossible.) I hope the above makes sense as I am currently nearing drunkenness.
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2008.12.08 08:44:00 - [12] Originally by: Polkageist alot of the times you ask someone to educate themselves in the critique in ex the 9/11 massmurder. They reply "i dont believe in conspiracy theories". There is an extreme correlation between belief in 9/11 conspiracy theories and being a **ing idiot. In fact, I hate to even dignify them with the term "theory", perhaps "paranoid drug-induced delusions" would be more appropriate. Originally by:** goodby4u Gravity is a theory aswell, but I can prove gravity exists by jumping up and down over and over again, what can I do to prove evolution? Look at some fossils? When a doctor tells you that you need new antibiotics because bacteria develop resistance over time, do you accept the advice, or do you ignore it? If you accept it, you have accepted proof of evolution. Of course while you personally may not be able to perform the required experiments to verify evolution, there is a staggeringly vast amount of research available from people who have done it, and it all supports the theory. It's not like gravity is really any different. Sure, you've experienced falling, but have you actually calculated the falling time to verify that the accepted value of 9.81m/s^2 is correct? Have you performed the experiments to verify the general formula of Gm1m2/r^2? -----------
HankMurphy Minmatar Pelennor Enterprises	Posted - 2008.12.08 08:45:00 - [13] All it takes is one person to be unsatisfied with the testing/proofs and have the ability to pose a counter theory to keep a fact (or law) from being such. Usually, significant testing/experimentation or proofs combined with mass acceptance by leaders in a field will shift something from the theory bin to the bin of fact or law (or vice versa). Look at the relativity. It's both labeled as theory AND law in the scientific community depending to whom you talk to. This is despite the fact its technically a theory. There was a time when it could have been considered a law, but now that newer theories including aspects of quantum mechanics can put doubt on the certainty of the theory (or at least observable possibilities to it's exceptions) it is NOT law. But what is a theory? Well, if you can pose the question or a claim with some amount of supporting evidence (however weak), you have yourself a theory. All that being said. I have no **ing clue what the OP is going on about. ---------- Seasons Greetings and have a Happy Alvis Time
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2008.12.08 08:52:00 - [14] Originally by: HankMurphy All it takes is one person to be unsatisfied with the testing/proofs and have the ability to pose a counter theory to keep a fact (or law) from being such. Actually this is 100% wrong. Scientific laws and scientific theories are entirely different things. One does not become the other just because it has more or less proof. Please do a little research into the subject before trying to be an expert. -----------
KingsGambit Caldari Knights	Posted - 2008.12.08 09:01:00 - [15] The difference the OP is trying to highlight is a subtle but important one. A conspiracy is a plot of some kind, which you can usually consider as having failed to be to covered up. Though it can take on whatever form, I think generally it would be applied to someone(s) in power abusing it, a government organisation pursuing an agenda without making it public knowledge and most likely not in the public's best interest. By adding the word 'theory' after, it cheapens the word 'conspiracy', and immediately to our minds goes from the aforementioned nefarious plot to a fireside tale whispered by tin-foil hat wearers or splashed over tabloids. We, the masses, laugh and wonder how anyone could believe such rubbish. By calling it a conspiracy theory, to most people's minds, of a sudden something potentially quite bad gets twisted around so the joke's on us for almost believing it -------------
Sokratesz Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.12.08 11:35:00 - [16] Originally by: Merin Ryskin Originally by: Polkageist alot of the times you ask someone to educate themselves in the critique in ex the 9/11 massmurder. They reply "i dont believe in conspiracy theories". There is an extreme correlation between belief in 9/11 conspiracy theories and being a **ing idiot. In fact, I hate to even dignify them with the term "theory", perhaps "paranoid drug-induced delusions" would be more appropriate. I don't do drugs but certain parts of the official story sound so tremendously implausible that I will not be surprised when in fifty years they find out it was a great heist. Originally by:** Merin Ryskin Originally by: goodby4u Gravity is a theory aswell, but I can prove gravity exists by jumping up and down over and over again, what can I do to prove evolution? Look at some fossils? When a doctor tells you that you need new antibiotics because bacteria develop resistance over time, do you accept the advice, or do you ignore it? If you accept it, you have accepted proof of evolution. Of course while you personally may not be able to perform the required experiments to verify evolution, there is a staggeringly vast amount of research available from people who have done it, and it all supports the theory. It's not like gravity is really any different. Sure, you've experienced falling, but have you actually calculated the falling time to verify that the accepted value of 9.81m/s^2 is correct? Have you performed the experiments to verify the general formula of Gm1m2/r^2? Exactly. Contrary to what some (mostly creationist or other politically right winged) people want you to think, evolution can and has been proven many many times over, one simple way is to ask the North-American cattle farmers. If you're interested in reading more on the proofs, this would be a great place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment and https://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/
HankMurphy Minmatar Pelennor Enterprises	Posted - 2008.12.08 12:11:00 - [17] Edited by: HankMurphy on 08/12/2008 12:15:24 Originally by: Merin Ryskin Originally by: HankMurphy All it takes is one person to be unsatisfied with the testing/proofs and have the ability to pose a counter theory to keep a fact (or law) from being such. Actually this is 100% wrong. Scientific laws and scientific theories are entirely different things. One does not become the other just because it has more or less proof. Please do a little research into the subject before trying to be an expert. Yeah, i'll get right on that. How about you educate us all? Maybe my wording isn't perfect but i know full well the difference between a theory and law. What makes a law a law outside of repeated proofs and acknowlegement by the professional community. A law is a FACT to the furthest extent of knowledge and proven using all known methods. Or are you saying that once a law is considered so by a scientific community, that there is no possible way that a new science or more advanced application not previously known cannot refute the FACT at a later time? If you have scientific, mathematical (or whatever) evidence that a theory may not be true, it certainly cannot be a law. If you have a sound argument AGAINST it, how the hell can it be a fact/law? Originally by: Sokratesz Exactly. Contrary to what some (mostly creationist or other politically right winged) people want you to think, evolution can and has been proven many many times over Here is a good one. Why is it called the theory of evolution and not the law of evolution? Is it because it cannot be proven beyond any reasonable argument? Is it the wording of the theory itself? Is it the scientific communities refusal to consider it a law due to social norms? ---------- Seasons Greetings and have a Happy Alvis Time
cold lazarus Amarr Imperial Shipment	Posted - 2008.12.08 12:36:00 - [18] Originally by: Nebulous Originally by: ReaperOfSly Off topic, but does anyone find it wierd that Neb's sig says "Thukker Tribe" when he's actually a Sebiestor? Sebiestor is a "bloodline" not a "tribe", some people actually still do roleplay in EVE believe it or not Get back to washing my ships slacker!
Lord Zoran House of Tempers	Posted - 2008.12.08 12:50:00 - [19] wut wut?
HankMurphy Minmatar Pelennor Enterprises	Posted - 2008.12.08 13:02:00 - [20] Originally by: Lord Zoran wut wut? in the butt ---------- Seasons Greetings and have a Happy Alvis Time
Sokratesz Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.12.08 13:02:00 - [21] Originally by: HankMurphy Here is a good one. Why is it called the theory of evolution and not the law of evolution? Is it because it cannot be proven beyond any reasonable argument? Is it because it cannot be proven period? Is it the wording of the theory itself? Is it the scientific communities refusal to consider it a law due to social norms? edit: A law and a theory are nearly identical. Both can be, for all intents and purposes, fact. It is both possible for a theory to become a law (depending on the depth of the theory) and for a law to be proven otherwise (and thus by it's complexity) become a theory. dont believe me? do your own research. It's not 'called' the theory of evolution. Only creationists stress it in that way in an attempt to create controversy where there is none. Evolution is an observed, well-documented process described by the theories that Darwin pioneered and that have been revised and refined over the past 150 years. Wyvern & Chimera fitting flowchart
Dantes Revenge Caldari	Posted - 2008.12.08 13:12:00 - [22] Originally by: Sokratesz Originally by: ReaperOfSly I don't understand. What's wrong with calling them theories? Unless they've been proven, they ARE theories. Speaking purely scientific, they are hypotheses* It wouldn't make sense to put it together with the word conspiracy in this context since the word 'conspiracy' would imply the same meaning anyway. Just by stating that something is a conspiracy denotes a statement with no grounding in truth anyway unless it's proven which then makes it 'corruption'. -- There's a simple difference between kinky and perverted. Kinky is using a feather to get her in the mood. Perverted is using the whole chicken. All this has happened before and will happen again
KingsGambit Caldari Knights	Posted - 2008.12.08 13:17:00 - [23] Originally by: Sokratesz Exactly. Contrary to what some (mostly creationist or other politically right winged) people want you to think, evolution can and has been proven many many times over, one simple way is to ask the North-American cattle farmers. Have you ever seen evolution? I know I haven't. There is evidence to support the theory but ultimately that is still what it remains. I also understand that Darwin's theory of evoution as he described it has been found to be inaccurate, as other evidence supports (the general gist of it is that he described evolution as a gradual change over time which has been found to be untrue. What was found was that for great periods of time nothing would change whatsoever, then suddenly at once there would be great amount of change in a short time eg. between 1 generation and the next). Evolution remains a theory, not scientific fact, regardless of whether it is more or less plausible than any other theory. You can rightly say you believe in it, but noone on Earth can prove it for fact, just as with the big bang theory. At the moment people simply believe the theory because men we trust to be smarter than us tell us so. But then they're also the same people that tell us grapefruits cause cancer and that fish have feelings too And to another above poster, yes I have personally proven gravity. It's a bit of a silly analogy to make as gravity is here, now, and quite quantifiable and provable. Evolution is not. Here's one for you all to get you thinking. Why does the 'big bang' have to be seperate from God creating Earth? Is it not entirely possible that God said 'let there be light' and after a big bang, there was light? I personally don't see that the two are mutually exclusive in any way whatsoever....and the same with evolution too. -------------
Sokratesz Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.12.08 13:17:00 - [24] Originally by: Dantes Revenge Originally by: Sokratesz Originally by: ReaperOfSly I don't understand. What's wrong with calling them theories? Unless they've been proven, they ARE theories. Speaking purely scientific, they are hypotheses* It wouldn't make sense to put it together with the word conspiracy in this context since the word 'conspiracy' would imply the same meaning anyway. Just by stating that something is a conspiracy denotes a statement with no grounding in truth anyway unless it's proven which then makes it 'corruption'. True, but they are hypotheses in the sense that they are assumptions on how something happened or is happening and can be proven true or false. Wyvern & Chimera fitting flowchart
Sokratesz Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.12.08 13:18:00 - [25] Edited by: Sokratesz on 08/12/2008 13:18:29 Originally by: KingsGambit Originally by: Sokratesz Exactly. Contrary to what some (mostly creationist or other politically right winged) people want you to think, evolution can and has been proven many many times over, one simple way is to ask the North-American cattle farmers. Have you ever seen evolution? I know I haven't. There is evidence to support the theory but ultimately that is still what it remains. I also understand that Darwin's theory of evoution as he described it has been found to be inaccurate, as other evidence supports (the general gist of it is that he described evolution as a gradual change over time which has been found to be untrue. What was found was that for great periods of time nothing would change whatsoever, then suddenly at once there would be great amount of change in a short time eg. between 1 generation and the next). Evolution remains a theory, not scientific fact, regardless of whether it is more or less plausible than any other theory. You can rightly say you believe in it, but noone on Earth can prove it for fact, just as with the big bang theory. At the moment people simply believe the theory because men we trust to be smarter than us tell us so. But then they're also the same people that tell us grapefruits cause cancer and that fish have feelings too And to another above poster, yes I have personally proven gravity. It's a bit of a silly analogy to make as gravity is here, now, and quite quantifiable and provable. Evolution is not. Here's one for you all to get you thinking. Why does the 'big bang' have to be seperate from God creating Earth? Is it not entirely possible that God said 'let there be light' and after a big bang, there was light? I personally don't see that the two are mutually exclusive in any way whatsoever....and the same with evolution too. No. 'In 2008, Lenski and his collaborators reported on a particularly important adaptation that occurred in one of the twelve populations: the bacteria evolved the ability to utilize citrate as a source of energy. ' Mutations are only malign, species do not change. Uh-huh. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment Wyvern & Chimera fitting flowchart
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.	Posted - 2008.12.08 13:37:00 - [26] Originally by: Shanzem Edited by: Shanzem on 07/12/2008 11:11:32 Theory Fact In fact, Gravity is only a theory. No, Gravity is a fact. There is a Theory of Gravity, describing how it operates. Not quite the same thing, as I would have expected a genius too good for his birthland to have know.
HankMurphy Minmatar Pelennor Enterprises	Posted - 2008.12.08 13:40:00 - [27] Originally by: Sokratesz Originally by: HankMurphy Here is a good one. Why is it called the theory of evolution and not the law of evolution? Is it because it cannot be proven beyond any reasonable argument? Is it because it cannot be proven period? Is it the wording of the theory itself? Is it the scientific communities refusal to consider it a law due to social norms? edit: A law and a theory are nearly identical. Both can be, for all intents and purposes, fact. It is both possible for a theory to become a law (depending on the depth of the theory) and for a law to be proven otherwise (and thus by it's complexity) become a theory. dont believe me? do your own research. It's not 'called' the theory of evolution. Only creationists stress it in that way in an attempt to create controversy where there is none. Evolution is an observed, well-documented process described by the theories that Darwin pioneered and that have been revised and refined over the past 150 years. With respect, i agree with you and the the question wasn't rhetorical. The only reason it is called the theory of evolution is because of the wording of the thing itself. Because of the scope of the statement, it is simply not a simple enough statement to be considered a LAW. It is a truth, it is a fact and.... it's a theory. Originally by: KingsGambit Have you ever seen evolution? I know I haven't. I'm not going to lie and say i've observed it first hand in action. However there are various bacteria and viruses that you can observe evolving generation to generation. It can and has been done. I'm not telling you this is proof you came from a monkey (though it is what i personally believe and is a logical conclusion). ---------- Seasons Greetings and have a Happy Alvis Time
Cpt Hound Republic Military School	Posted - 2008.12.08 13:55:00 - [28] Edited by: Cpt Hound on 08/12/2008 13:55:22 Quote: I'm not telling you this is proof you came from a monkey (though it is what i personally believe and is a logical conclusion). One thing that annoys me greatly. We did not come from monkeys, we humans and monkeys had the same ancestor.
Sokratesz Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.12.08 13:57:00 - [29] Originally by: Cpt Hound Edited by: Cpt Hound on 08/12/2008 13:55:22 Quote: I'm not telling you this is proof you came from a monkey (though it is what i personally believe and is a logical conclusion). One thing that annoys me greatly. We did not come from monkeys, we humans and monkeys had the same ancestor. Another thing that needs to be carefully worded to prevent confusion ;) Wyvern & Chimera fitting flowchart
Chaos Incarnate Faceless Logistics	Posted - 2008.12.08 14:40:00 - [30] Originally by: KingsGambit Have you ever seen evolution? I know I haven't. Mainly because you and I lack the equipment, testing, and methods to properly characterize it - you can't just run outside with a video camera and watch evolution happen in the woods. I've never seen electrons with my own eyes, but others can use an understanding of their flow to make cool things like the interwebs possible. Quote: I also understand that Darwin's theory of evoution as he described it has been found to be inaccurate, as other evidence supports (the general gist of it is that he described evolution as a gradual change over time which has been found to be untrue. What was found was that for great periods of time nothing would change whatsoever, then suddenly at once there would be great amount of change in a short time eg. between 1 generation and the next). You're talking about punctuated equilibrium, but it's mainly a minor clarification from the original theory. Heck, for comparison, atomic theory in the same time frame has gone through any number of revisions that are too headache-inducing to count Quote: Evolution remains a theory, not scientific fact, regardless of whether it is more or less plausible than any other theory. You can rightly say you believe in it, but noone on Earth can prove it for fact, just as with the big bang theory. At the moment people simply believe the theory because men we trust to be smarter than us tell us so. Scientific theories do not turn into facts, laws, or anything else. In common language, theory means 'guess' or 'educated guess'. In science, a theory is a validated how-and-why explanation of phenomena and data (as opposed to a hypothesis, which isn't validated). Theories don't turn into facts because they're explanations of current data, not data itself That said, evolution is both fact and theory; the history of biological evolution and the generation of a wide variety of species is factually supported by a wide variety of evidence, and is accurate. The theory of evolution expresses how evolution works as a process - mutation and natural selection, gradually or punctuated equilibrium, etc. Quote: Here's one for you all to get you thinking. Why does the 'big bang' have to be seperate from God creating Earth? Is it not entirely possible that God said 'let there be light' and after a big bang, there was light? I personally don't see that the two are mutually exclusive in any way whatsoever....and the same with evolution too. It's possible, but I find no real way you can reconcile a literal view of Genesis with the basic reality of the universe. There's a wide variety of scientific inaccuracies that don't really make sense in a modern understanding, but given the oldschool views of a flat earth, the sphere of stars, and the firmament, seem to work wonderfully _____________________ Accepting applications for my new CCP hero. Applicant must be willing to fight for the rights of the faceless, ie, me

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.