Scientists show how ‘doing your own research’ leads to believing conspiracies — This effect arises because of the quality of information churned out by Google’s search engine::Researchers found that people searching misinformation online risk falling into “data voids” that increase belief in conspiracies.

  • GONADS125@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    You continue to jump to false conclusions about me, obfuscate things I’ve said, and ignore other things entirely. Disingenuous argumentative tactics.

    The experts I’m referring to are not armchair individuals. I’m referring to the scientists from France, the UK and US who participated in the studies on UAP. Also the scientists in the Galileo Project, UAPx, as well as independent scientists who have been studying the topic.

    I’m also referring to the individuals within our government who have participated in the programs or other roles within the intelligence community and have become whistle-blowers (like Luis Elizondo and Christopher Mellon–not referring to David Grusch).

    I was completely skeptical and always dismissed UFOs as crazy Dale Gribble nonsense. But when I started to actually look into it, I found enough reason to believe that a percentage of Category D UAP may represent crafts possessing breakthrough/disruptive technology. That’s not such a wild belief.

    This is a view held by many members of our government, from elected officials to those within our intelligence community privy to information neither of us have access to.

    You, on the other hand, are claiming that all of these individuals and government agencies are all completely wrong, you’re dismissing the declassified records, and dismissing the clear patterns represented in credible eyewitness accounts (some of which have corresponding data from radar and across multiple sensors).

    “If these things didn’t fit patterns, then there’s no way of studying it. But when you get reports from Australia, Japan, France, then you have to say: ‘Well either there’s a virus going around that’s causing everybody to become crazy at the same time, or there’s something to it.” - Dr. Alen J Hynek

    ODNI stated that there exists concern that a percentage of UAP represent disruptive/breakthrough technology. They also stated that some most likely do represent physical objects (not simply instrument malfunctions as you continue to assert).

    I’m not basing my beliefs off crackpots. No matter how much you try to misframe my argument and gaslight, it’s not going to work.

    My beliefs are based off of declassified government records and the statements made by credible experts and government officials, not bogus abduction stories. It’s categorically different from my brother who is unable to discern credible sources.

    Even if you disagree with my views, the sources I cited were not some wild QAnon level nonsense. The documentaries I cited were for direct quotes from primary sources. Also, I stayed the hell away from History Channel big-haired nonsense. You’re trying to frame it along those lines.

    I actually thought that I could approach my QAnon crazy brother with this, thinking it was something he’d like to talk about. But lo and behold it wasn’t crazy enough for him… He began to drone on about all these ridiculous conspiracies about different alien races working within world governments, and also god somehow…

    You’re wrong to misframe my argument in line with the QAnon conspiratorial mindset. You also just keep repeating the false claim that there are no experts taking it seriously.

    Our governments believe there may be validity, seeing as how they have continued to monitor/study UAP. Same for some scientists and even Harvard University. And again, NASA has advocated against people stigmatizing the subject as you are doing here.

    No matter how many times you falsely claim that there are merely crackpots and no experts, it doesn’t make it true. That is blatantly false.

    • jasory@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      “no experts”

      I never said that, I said that you are cherry-picking the handful of related people who agree with you, most of whom are not experts in anything relevant.

      Clearly there are going to be a handful of subject matter experts that believe claims with extraordinarily weak evidence (see Nobel disease), the game of science is not played by fishing for individuals with degrees that support your beliefs. It’s by looking at the evidence, engaging in a fair amount of epistemic and abductive reasoning and arriving at the most useful conclusion. In the case of people like you who don’t have the skillset to do so, you can defer to the consensus of relevant experts. (Eyewitnesses are not subject matter experts, and I certainly wouldn’t cite my vision as an instrument in a paper).

      “Some scientists and even Harvard”

      You realise you are talking to a physicist right? All your appeal to crackpots and generic “find more information” statements aren’t going to convince me unless you rigorously explain why you think the data is better explained by theories that you can’t formulate (nobody seems to be able to, because the theory is just “it’s beyond our understanding”, the most epistemically worthless statement ever) versus very well known sensory and psychological phenomenon.