How do you attempt to rationalise with the completely irrational?

[rogue06]

Remember the scientific method and rationality are racist...

scientists and scientific organizations, perhaps, science - no.

Um...

Apparently a few years ago Brown University was teaching this

captured.jpg

And then there is this

81ac7cf2-c065-45ab-93b9-76007c2efc99.jpg


So it looks like seer is correct

[Charles]

Um...

Apparently a few years ago Brown University was teaching this

[ATTACH=CONFIG]47008[/ATTACH]

And then there is this

[ATTACH=CONFIG]47009[/ATTACH]


So it looks like seer is correct

Or, perhaps both seer and Brown University (or perhaps rather one or more teachers at the university. How does a university teach?) were wrong while Ox is right when he claims that science is not racist.

[whag]

What was the message to her that only she understood?

[Whateverman]

Or, perhaps both seer and Brown University (or perhaps rather one or more teachers at the university. How does a university teach?) were wrong while Ox is right when he claims that science is not racist.

You're all right, sorta (except the part about science actually being racist; that's just dumb).

There are theories / arguments that foundational things like logic, science and math are inherently biased. These arguments have existed for as long as things like logic, science and math have existed - and thus are as shocking as bread. I remember reading a book that argued the English alphabet was sexist, in the sense that it is structured according to a male way of thinking (linear).

Beyond that, these subjects are taught as little more than concepts worth considering. It's good to understand the arguments, but no one is going to change logic, science or math.

[seanD]

I think he was just stupid and couldn't think of anything else to say. If I believed a theory that he was sending her a specific message only she understood, I'd have a theory queued up so when someone asked me about it, I'd at least have something that gives a reason why I believe that theory.

[Mountain Man]

In scientific debate, unsupported claims aren't called "hoaxes." The term "hoax" has historically been used to convince Christians that evolution is a hoax when it's actually the most successful scientific theory, confirmed strongly by genetics and fossil evidence.

Thank you for the lesson in semantics.

Now back to our regularly scheduled program...

[whag]

I think he was just stupid and couldn't think of anything else to say. If I believed a theory that he was sending her a specific message only she understood, I'd have a theory queued up so when someone asked me about it, I'd at least have something that gives a reason why I believe that theory.

[seanD]

That Trump "weirdly" communicates to his twitter followers is quite a leap from he knew Maxwell and so he was sending her a cryptic message in prison only she understood.

[whag]

That Trump "weirdly" communicates to his twitter followers is quite a leap from he knew Maxwell and so he was sending her a cryptic message in prison only she understood.

[seanD]

Everyone knows he knew her. "I wish her the best" alone would be a pretty good indication.

[whag]

Everyone knows he knew her. "I wish her the best" alone would be a pretty good indication.

59CB5F6A-E0F1-4797-ABC1-4BD596EB6FA5.jpeg

[seer]

Or, perhaps both seer and Brown University (or perhaps rather one or more teachers at the university. How does a university teach?) were wrong while Ox is right when he claims that science is not racist.

That is what this whole thread was about.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...-Are-Racist-If

[Mountain Man]

Everyone knows he knew her. "I wish her the best" alone would be a pretty good indication.

What was the context of that statement? Because I wonder if it was just good old fashioned New York City sarcasm.

[shunyadragon]

He's more drug-addled and inane than just irrational.

A logical fallacy. Can you guess.

This thread probably belongs in Philosophy.

[MaxVel]

I came across this during my news trawling.

It is laughable but also quite terrifying that people can believe such absolute nonsense.

From the BBC news website

QAnon, coronavirus and the conspiracy cult

A bizarre conspiracy theory has surged in popularity in the US since the pandemic, according to exclusive research seen by the BBC.

QAnon and its believers say that Donald Trump is here to save the world from an evil cabal of paedophiles and it’s had a surprising level of interest around the world from Brazil to Germany, the UK and Indonesia.

And this week Twitter announced it would delete 7,000 QAnon-related accounts, saying it hoped the action would help to prevent "offline harm".

BBC Population Correspondent Stephanie Hegarty has spoken to QAnon followers and their families to find out why this cultish conspiracy has gained so much traction.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-53...onspiracy-cult

So...

From what I little know of QAnon, it's a bunch of very cryptic, anonymous posts that people across a bunch of internet blogs, boards and forums try to interpret and relate to current events, particularly American politics. AFAIK there's not any real wide agreement among QAnon readers exactly who is the source, or what exactly the posts (known as 'drops', I think) refer to.

The BBC piece makes very little reference in any depth to the details of the claimed conspiracy theory. It doesn't seek to find the best representatives of those who believe the claimed theory.

I googled some of the people in the piece, and looked at the first results.


Emma Ailes (Journalist) seems to have mainly specialised in articles on rape victims and the justice system. Not sure how that gives her the ability or background to investigate this aspect of current American political culture. Maybe she has done other work more relevant...?

Two of the experts interviewed are:

Travis View: A journalist (?) whose main claim to fame is his role in a podcast dedicated to refuting QAnon. It's claimed that he is sponsored by George Soros, a known opponent of QAnon.

I can't put much weight on what he says since he is clearly anti-QAnon, and no representation from a credible pro-QAnon source is given to balance the piece.


Aoife Gallagher: A journalist who works for Storyful (Owned by Murdoch's New Corp) and appears to be left-leaning.


There's limited interaction of substance with QAnon supporters / believers. The main person interviewed is presented in a way as to make him look less credible than the other, anti-QAnon sources. (The short snippets, him looking a bit loopy, the reference to him being a musician and the kooky-looking music video). Other people are anonmyised people complaining about the affect QAnon has had on their relatives - none of which addressed the truth or otherwise of what those people believe, or even if the complainers actually understand what their relatives believe, and why.


Overall: A left leaning and biased puff piece that doesn't really substantiate anything much. No reference to anything actually posted by QAnon, no substantial interviews with a range of QAnon supporters.


The article claims:

QAnon and its believers say that Donald Trump is here to save the world from an evil cabal of paedophiles and it’s had a surprising level of interest around the world from Brazil to Germany, the UK and Indonesia.

yet completely fails to back that up as (a) being what QAnon actually says, (b) what QAnon believers actually believe, and (c) false.


Frankly, that claim reads to me like a strawman, designed to present QAnon and QAnon believers in the worst possible light. The accompanying piece is lightweight and biased fluff, which doesn't bring us any real understanding of QAnon or it's believers.


QAnon might be absolute nonsense, but the BBC piece doesn't give us any worthwhile insight into what QAnon really is, what it claims, or the evidence (if any) for it, or why QAnon supporters believe it, although it purports to. That makes it pretty much absolute nonsense as well.


To forestall the inevitable objection: I am not a QAnon supporter / believer.