Nearly twenty years ago, a chap called Nathan Poe posted an item on a Christian forum which said:
A good rules of thumb IMHO to categorise conspiracies by weighing up the criteria:
LESS LIKELY TO BE TRUE
-All relevant information about the issue is freely available and transparent;
-Opposing experts do debate in public forums;
-Those that benefit make no effort to censor the information;
-Difficult to see that anyone is making lots of money out of this theory;
-No character attacks on those that raise questions;
-Difficult to find unsupported component claims aside from nit-picking.
These conspiracies are less likely to be true
MORE LIKELY TO BE TRUE
-Information about the issue is not easy to find and not transparent;
-Opposing experts don't debate in public forums;
-Those that benefit make efforts to censor the information;
-Someone or lots of people are making lots of money out of this theory;
-Character attacks on those that raise questions;
-Many supporting component claims turn out to be false (ie 'thoroughly tested for safety for years')
These conspiracies are more likely to be true.
When we are very fearful we are more likely to be vulnerable to believe false things and less able to objectively assess using the above criteria.
After all, opinion is in-between fact and ignorance.
What if we believe in science? Science, just a series of reasonable questions? If so.
What is “veritate” in RANZCP motto?
Are not retired psychiatrists like, Dr McLaren - Critical Psychiatry, published author, decades of experience in the field questions reasonable?
Where is the ‘truth’ in the science we are left to assume underpins this College reliance on the psychobiosocial model? Is it working?
Would McLaren be accurate if he called;
‘“nullus ex sewerage est morbus” - see work of Louis Pasteur - Scientist’. in this instance?
fiik
A good rules of thumb IMHO to categorise conspiracies by weighing up the criteria:
LESS LIKELY TO BE TRUE
-All relevant information about the issue is freely available and transparent;
-Opposing experts do debate in public forums;
-Those that benefit make no effort to censor the information;
-Difficult to see that anyone is making lots of money out of this theory;
-No character attacks on those that raise questions;
-Difficult to find unsupported component claims aside from nit-picking.
These conspiracies are less likely to be true
MORE LIKELY TO BE TRUE
-Information about the issue is not easy to find and not transparent;
-Opposing experts don't debate in public forums;
-Those that benefit make efforts to censor the information;
-Someone or lots of people are making lots of money out of this theory;
-Character attacks on those that raise questions;
-Many supporting component claims turn out to be false (ie 'thoroughly tested for safety for years')
These conspiracies are more likely to be true.
When we are very fearful we are more likely to be vulnerable to believe false things and less able to objectively assess using the above criteria.
After all, opinion is in-between fact and ignorance.
What if we believe in science? Science, just a series of reasonable questions? If so.
What is “veritate” in RANZCP motto?
Are not retired psychiatrists like, Dr McLaren - Critical Psychiatry, published author, decades of experience in the field questions reasonable?
Where is the ‘truth’ in the science we are left to assume underpins this College reliance on the psychobiosocial model? Is it working?
Would McLaren be accurate if he called;
‘“nullus ex sewerage est morbus” - see work of Louis Pasteur - Scientist’. in this instance?
fiik