This is a philosophical issue that I tend to think about a lot. That is how can we know whether something is true or not. Pretty much our entire reality if not our entire reality could be a lie. Taken to the extreme this entire world could be an illusion everyone in it could be non conscious illusions or NPCs, and I may not even exist in the form I believe I do. Some people most people would still argue we have mathematical theorems but then taken to the extreme again it could be that some power or external entity alters our thoughts/my thoughts so that every time I add up basic numbers I think I got it right but really they make me get it wrong. The Philosophy I am getting at is sometimes referred to as Cartesian scepticism. Others may refer to it as Nihilism.
This is why in courts the phrase is "beyond all reasonable doubt" and not "beyond all doubt". those statements may sound similar but there is a big difference. You cannot prove someone guilty beyond all doubt that would be impossible even if you found the person with a knife in hand blood dripping from the knife caught on camera hundreds of witnesses DNA evidence and multiple records of them detailing exactly how they plan to commit this murder you would not have proven guilt beyond all doubt. You would have proven guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. I mean to illustrate maybe time traveling extra terrestrials framed him with advanced technology.
Of course by this point a few people may think I am crazy, and some may joke that I am in response to me pointing this out. Obviously it would not be a reasonable defence in court to put forward the argument that the guy was framed by time traveling aliens. Hence the guy in this scenario is found guilty beyond all Reasonable doubt. Not beyond all doubt.
But in this so called post truth era when multiple different sources claim different things and one source says we are been lied to by powerful elites or different conspiracy theories how can one know who to trust and what to trust? we are often villainised if we dont accept the common narrative or if we question it. To go back to my made up scenario of the murder with all that evidence if a source was to claim time traveling aliens I may read it for lols and giggles but I would not take it seriously.
But what if they maintained that all the witnesses were government actors, The so called DNA evidence we just had the testimony of the expert who is a paid actor and the evidence faked and film was edited by computer and the previous records of them detailing their intentions all faked. This would be dismissed by me and most sane people as too far fetched and ridiculous.
Yet if such a thing has never happened before, would you really tell me you can be sure that no government/country will do this somewhere?
Nearly everything we know we learn from reading text or listening to news that is written by other people evidence given in text form from other people everything could be fabricated. I have received scorn for been sceptical of the media narrative on Russia. To be clear I believe Putin is very evil that Russia are in the wrong and the aggressor. However I believe that because the media I see tells me that, In Russia the population believe that Russia are the good guys the victims fighting the evil west they believe this because the media they see tells them this.
ultimately everything we "know about the world" we only know from the testimony of others. When that testimony is controlled restricted and limited on what we can read/see/hear.
So how can we dismiss conspiracy theories and trust the mainstream narrative?
0 ·
Comments
We should approach everything with curiosity. Developing a curious mind is the most important outcome from the education process. Part of having a curious mind is to make your own judgement about what you read, see and hear and to ask the right questions. Does that mean we should we ignore 9r disbelieve everything in the mainstream media/narrative and believe all conspiracy theories make more sense than the consensus? Definitely not
When reading a news article for example, understanding the motivation and expertise of the writer, the reliability of the data source and quality of data analysis, the logic applied to the findings and our own biases reading the article is key, along with a bunch of other things I'm forgetting.
For example (and in my limited experience of reading it) The Daily Mail is particularly bad at data analysis and deductive reasoning and deliberately misleads their readers - which serves their motivation of selling newspapers and advertising to (predominantly) a group of biased bigots. Which i realise makes me incredibly biased against them and I wouldnt believe a word I read in that newspaper, even if could easily be proven to be true. If you ask a Daily Mail reader what the common consensus is on an issue, they'll give you a wildly different answer to somebody else.
i tend to usually start from the base which is , we are peasants, they hate us and they worship the Baphomet
there is a lot in words , spell ing , witch craft , if you look at the whole court system it is all spells , all the words are specific because they see you as already dead
you mention numbers , how do you feel about everything beeing coded , do you know the illusion on youtube , quite bizzarre ?