What's a healthy way of engaging someone who's in a Conspiracy Theory rabbit hole?

[Leo Gura]

@Parththakkar12 @DrewNows

You two are skating on thin ice.

If I see any more subtle conspiracy spreading out of you two, you'll be banned.

Stop spreading bullshit. Stop encouraging the consumption of bullshit.

[Danioover9000]

@Parththakkar12 Could you tell me the difference between conspiracy theories and speculating?

[Parththakkar12]

1 hour ago, Dryas said:

One thing, though. Does this also mean that one could not really explain why they reached the conclusion that they did?

They will be able to explain why. It will be different reasons for different people, because our minds are different.

26 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Parththakkar12 Could you tell me the difference between conspiracy theories and speculating?

It is a speculation up until you honestly investigate them. Once you reach your conclusion, that's when you will be clear on whether it's true or false.

The first step to doing this investigation is to admit to ourselves that they are indeed speculations, i.e. neither true nor false for us as of yet. If we assume that they're true or false without investigating them, we will get defensive and insecure about our positions. Those who assume they're true become the prototypical 'conspiracy theorist'. Those who assume they're false will demonize the prototypical 'conspiracy theorist'.

OP's question was 'How do we engage with someone who is in the Conspiracy rabbit hole'. Being in the conspiracy rabbit hole is not equivalent to assuming they're true. It could mean they're assuming they're true, it could also mean they're doing an honest investigation. Either way, if we want to engage with them, we must first resolve our resistance to conspiracy theories, then do the honest investigation. That way you'll have done your homework before engaging with them and you won't get heated in that engagement.

[Danioover9000]

@Parththakkar12

7 minutes ago, Parththakkar12 said:

They will be able to explain why. It will be different reasons for different people, because our minds are different.

It is a speculation up until you honestly investigate them. Once you reach your conclusion, that's when you will be clear on whether it's true or false.

The first step to doing this investigation is to admit to ourselves that they are indeed speculations, i.e. neither true nor false for us as of yet. If we assume that they're true or false without investigating them, we will get defensive and insecure about our positions. Those who assume they're true become the prototypical 'conspiracy theorist'. Those who assume they're false will demonize the prototypical 'conspiracy theorist'.

OP's question was 'How do we engage with someone who is in the Conspiracy rabbit hole'. Being in the conspiracy rabbit hole is not equivalent to assuming they're true. It could mean they're assuming they're true, it could also mean they're doing an honest investigation. Either way, if we want to engage with them, we must first resolve our resistance to conspiracy theories, then do the honest investigation. That way you'll have done your homework before engaging with them and you won't get heated in that engagement.

   Ah ok. So a speculation is neither true nor false, until we do the investigation Is there a difference between old and fresh speculations? Is the conspiracy part like a speculation with fear attached to it?

[Mannyb]

@Leo Gura chill out bro, we love you 

[Parththakkar12]

5 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

Is there a difference between old and fresh speculations?

Could you elaborate on what you mean? I didn't fully get you.

6 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

Is the conspiracy part like a speculation with fear attached to it?

As I said, it's a speculation until you've investigated it. As far as fear is concerned, I think you'll feel fear if you're speculating or assuming. It's the uncertainty that causes fear.

It's the ghost chasing you that causes you fear. When you face your fear and look at the ghost, that's when you'll know whether ghosts exist or they don't! If you see that they do exist, you get the choice to fight the ghost. If you see they don't, then you'll be sure that they don't. Then you won't have a fear of ghosts anymore.

[Consept]

@DocWatts Im sorry bro but you havent really had your question answered in this thread. Same thing has happened to me ive had a few friends that have gone down this rabbit hole, what tends to happen is that peoples barrier for asserting something is true or not completely goes out the window once they allow a speculation to be true, then you get a mix of anchoring bias and confirmation bias. All this is brought about by uncertainty which has obviously been exacerbated by the current world events. It is very frustrating to have people around you believe this stuff so i completely sympathise. 

The best resources ive found include the book 'Escaping the Rabbit Hole' by Mick West, he literally talks you through how to talk to a friend that is lost in the rabbit hole and includes a lot of compassion and understanding so its a really good guide. He also runs the website - https://www.metabunk.org/home/ which actively debunks conspiracy theories and has appeared on Joe Rogan so you can search him out there. 

Rebel Wisdom have also done a few videos on conspiracy theories looking at them from a meta perspective which ive found quite interesting as well - 

 

[No Self]

Hello everyone, long time lurker but first time poster. I am facing the same predicament as the OP so had to chime in. This is a huge topic but I want to share some of my current research.

According to psychological research, the attraction of conspiracy theories relates to anxiety and a loss of control. By demonising an outgroup as evil and assigning them blame for all bad events, a simple us-versus-them narrative replaces the infinitely complex mess that is reality (as far as the mind is concerned). Note that the various historical acts of violence against Jewish people have all been preceded by stressful times and an uprising of conspiracy theories. 

Another factor is a lack of a sense of belonging to a group/community in our socially-detached modern times. By having a common enemy (Illuminati, round-Earthers, normies, Lamestream Media, Deep State, Hillary's e-mails...), a brotherhood/sisterhood bond is formed and gives people an almost family-like connection. This also benefits from the traumatic bonding and sense of victimhood whenever educated people mock their world view. Indeed, we want a tribe more than we want mere intellectual integrity.

Consider also the crude brilliance of the tactics used. Whenever efforts are made to suppress the spreading of dangerous lies, conspiracy theorists will view this as proof that the wicked media is censoring their truth under the direction of the Deep State. If no such effort is made, the lies of the day spread like wildfire online and they are empowered regardless. Reminds me of a certain president who will either win, or will declare the election as rigged. 

In my opinion, social media is by far the biggest driver of this insanity. Social stressors in society merely create the perfect storm of background conditions. Companies like Facebook derive a maximum of revenue when users spend lots of time on the site consuming a mixture of content and advertisements. The so-called 'brain hacking' algorithms achieve maximum user engagement by progressively feeding more extreme content, and enabling echo chambers which drift further and further from a balanced world-view. Anyone with the slightest insecurity is going to be vulnerable to radicalisation in some form.

None of this answers the OP's question. I haven't seen my friend in some time, and currently cannot due to the pandemic, but I will either have to avoid discussing these topics to avoid losing her altogether, or else artfully try and challenge her views. It is not easy as I find myself getting somewhat triggered by it all. I have a very strong aversion for harmful bullshit which probably stems from my own mother being emotionally unavailable when I was young, due to her Catholic fanaticism.

This article is helpful: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/people-drawn-to-conspiracy-theories-share-a-cluster-of-psychological-features/

Another one: https://www.businessinsider.com.au/famous-facebook-and-google-investor-condemns-brain-hacking-2017-8?r=US&IR=T

Hope this helps.

[Jacobsrw]

9 hours ago, Parththakkar12 said:

@DocWatts You're not gonna like my answer. The answer is to look at your resistance to conspiracy theories. Why are you so scared of them? What is it about the theories themselves (or the people who believe them) that terrifies you so much?

Then the next step would be to consider them with an open mind. As Leo said in his last video on openmindedness, consider them with an open mind without having to fully believe them. If you really want to honestly conclude that they are indeed BS, you will have to consider the possibility that they could be right first. Then you can do an honest investigation to figure out what's what. A lot of the judgement and hatred comes from the fear 'What if they're right?'.

If you're able to prove them wrong, you will not be scared of them anymore. However, if you're proven wrong by them, well..... that's a potential consequence you'll have to be prepared for before you do the investigation.

This is great, however, you may be undermining confirmation bias.

In any case, this is how an adequate inquiry should begin. But since we are a biased by default just from the very fact we have pre-existing positions, this will inevitable corrode the investigative process. To truly be impartial you must be un-programmed. Otherwise how do you exactly know the information you have selected to examine is not fraught with an underlying prejudice? You don’t. Every action is biased. The question is to what level of integrity does the bias operate? That question is almost always answered with bias. So you must tread very carefully when seeking to deduce certain areas of exploration.

[Jacobsrw]

10 hours ago, DocWatts said:

I have a friend of mine who's fallen down a right wing conspiracy theory rabbit hole: everything from Plandemic, to Black Lives Matter being a conspiracy funded by George Soros to install a Bolshevik style government in America. This is someone who wasn't really overtly political a few years ago, and who I consider to be a decent guy overall. I guess my question is has anyone found a healthy way of engaging with someone who's fallen into a Conspiracy Theory rabbit hole, in a way where they won't get immediately defensive when the subject is broached? I realize there are healthy and unhealthy manifestations of different political views, and I see what my friend has fallen into as very toxic (and not to mention really off putting to other people).

I'm very well aware of Spiral Dynamics, but there's a difference between understanding a model on an intellectual level, and actualizing it in a way where you can employ it successfully in day to day interactions. I know the answer here is probably that he needs to move from an unhealthy and toxic version of Red to stage Blue, but what would that look like on a practical level? Has anyone found successful examples of what that would look like in their own lives?

Invite a friendly discussion that goes beyond merely conspiracy theories. You must first learn about what’s underlying ones operating position before you can meaningfully discuss it.

Almost always, people refrain from critiquing their own position, so instead do it from the other end. Ask about what they value what their parents believe, what they have believed in the past, what the fear and what they cherish. Understanding these facets can explain many underlying processes that governs ones worldview. Inquire into what led them into such positions before the adopted them. Many peopel rarely know to begin with. 

You should already be doing these types of inquiries into you own beliefs as well.

Not all conspiracy theories, but many of them are used to export responsibility and defend ones ego. Very few conspiracy theories value self responsibility for an issue. It’s always an outside entity at fault.

Edited August 16, 2020 by Jacobsrw

[Virtually]

15 hours ago, DocWatts said:

I would think that you what you would want is some sort of integration between intuition, emotional awareness, and study of the external world, informing each other in some sort of feedback loop.

That's exactly how some researchers in cutting edge cognitive science are starting to frame the cultivation of wisdom, one example is John Vervaeke and his work, which deserves more attention in my opinion

Edited August 16, 2020 by Virtually

[Parththakkar12]

7 hours ago, Jacobsrw said:

This is great, however, you may be undermining confirmation bias.

In any case, this is how an adequate inquiry should begin. But since we are a biased by default just from the very fact we have pre-existing positions, this will inevitable corrode the investigative process. To truly be impartial you must be un-programmed. Otherwise how do you exactly know the information you have selected to examine is not fraught with an underlying prejudice? You don’t. Every action is biased. The question is to what level of integrity does the bias operate? That question is almost always answered with bias. So you must tread very carefully when seeking to deduce certain areas of exploration.

Your intuition will tell you where you're being biased and where you're headed in the right direction. The closer you are to the truth, the more peaceful and at ease you will feel about it because the Absolute Truth is peace.

[Consept]

1 hour ago, Parththakkar12 said:

Your intuition will tell you where you're being biased and where you're headed in the right direction. The closer you are to the truth, the more peaceful and at ease you will feel about it because the Absolute Truth is peace.

Sorry but I disagree with this, there's a lot of people that believe things, religion, magical thinking, political ideologies etc that they would say 100% gives the peace and its their intuition that has led them there, but their beliefs are provably false or at the very least their beliefs contridict someone else's who also believes in the same way. 

I think what your not taking into account is how strong confirmation bias and other bias' are. In terms of working out whether something is true not, yes intuition can be a factor but if its the only or main factor I think you'll run into problems. For example if I have an intuition a particular girl likes me, even if she outright rejects me I may do some mental gymnastics in my head and say 'oh maybe she didn't want to seem so easy, I'll keep pursuing in a different way'. Because I'm so invested in the outcome I'm biased in the face of real world data, which was the rejection, I cant let go of my initial intuitive feeling so ill look for and probably find some justification that it could be true but ultimately I'll never get the girl. 

I think this is the issue with conspiracies, they promote intuition, which should be just a factor to the most important and main factor. I suspect they do this because if they went the purely scientific route it just wouldn't work 

[Epikur]

Quote

People Drawn to Conspiracy Theories Share a Cluster of Psychological Features

Baseless theories threaten our safety and democracy. It turns out that specific emotions make people prone to such thinking

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/people-drawn-to-conspiracy-theories-share-a-cluster-of-psychological-features/
 

One perspective for its power seems to be that evolutionary people in the past had a better chance to survive if they had a bit more paranoia. He might be wrong with his fears many times but he needs to be right one time to survive. 

Edited August 16, 2020 by Epikur

[Parththakkar12]

1 hour ago, Consept said:

Sorry but I disagree with this, there's a lot of people that believe things, religion, magical thinking, political ideologies etc that they would say 100% gives the peace and its their intuition that has led them there, but their beliefs are provably false or at the very least their beliefs contridict someone else's who also believes in the same way. 

Proof is a fundamentally circular concept. The notion of proof holds only within the context of materialistic science, because you have experimental evidence to back it up.

There are multiple ways of interpreting the data. For example, a climate change activist would look at some data on climate change and see that as a sign that our world will end in 10 years if nothing is done. But a fossil-fuel corporation's CEO will look at the same data and say 'It's not that big of a deal. I have my lawyers ready to protect my company from lawsuit.' All of these are rationalizations. Here's my claim - If both sides accessed their intuitions and self-reflected, eventually they'd arrive at the same answer and they'd agree on the truth they arrive at. All conflicts must eventually be resolved in a Universe that is One.

1 hour ago, Consept said:

I think what your not taking into account is how strong confirmation bias and other bias' are. In terms of working out whether something is true not, yes intuition can be a factor but if its the only or main factor I think you'll run into problems. For example if I have an intuition a particular girl likes me, even if she outright rejects me I may do some mental gymnastics in my head and say 'oh maybe she didn't want to seem so easy, I'll keep pursuing in a different way'. Because I'm so invested in the outcome I'm biased in the face of real world data, which was the rejection, I cant let go of my initial intuitive feeling so ill look for and probably find some justification that it could be true but ultimately I'll never get the girl. 

Confirmation bias is mental rationalization, which is different from intuition. Your ego will use this mental tool to escape unsavory realities. Your intuition, on the other hand, will guide you to face those unsavory realities. Your example is one of a rationalization.

Your intuition will not compromise with your ego, much less favor it. It will make you do things that your ego thinks are bad for it. Intuition is prior to your ego, as it is the Universe talking to you. So it will inevitably lead you to self-reflect.

1 hour ago, Consept said:

I think this is the issue with conspiracies, they promote intuition, which should be just a factor to the most important and main factor. I suspect they do this because if they went the purely scientific route it just wouldn't work 

Intuition is prior to science. Science is the product of the intuition of people like Newton, Einstein, Pythagoras, Western philosophers, etc.

Edited August 16, 2020 by Parththakkar12

[Consept]

37 minutes ago, Parththakkar12 said:

Intuition is prior to science. Science is the product of the intuition of people like Newton, Einstein, Pythagoras, Western philosophers, etc.

Intuition will give you a hypothesis, all the people you mentioned wouldve no doubt had 100s of hypothesis that they wouldve believed were true initially but once they looked further into it and tested it etc they wouldve thrown out until it boiled down to a few theories that they were known for. 

My friend has a strong intuition that the shape of the earth is flat, i have a strong intuition that its not flat. To work out what is true we would have to have some kind of way to figure it out beyond intuition, it doesnt necessarily have to be science but it has to be something other than intuition because many intuitions will be in conflict with each other. 

Scientific proof is not circular, you may argue that its limited in that it can only measure the material world but in most cases for conspiracy that it was we're talking about and in fact most conspiracies are backed up (insufficiently) using some kind of scientific method. Something like religion is circular in that the bible is true because its the word of God and because its the word of God whatevers in the bible is true. 

Im sure theres some conspiracies you dont believe but they couldve been reached by the same intuition as others, however your intuition tells you theyre not true. As someone looking at all these different people saying different conspiracies are true and false how would you ever know what is true or false just going off intuition? 

Heres a good example of what people having different intuitions looks like - 

 

Edited August 16, 2020 by Consept

[Parththakkar12]

56 minutes ago, Consept said:

Intuition will give you a hypothesis, all the people you mentioned wouldve no doubt had 100s of hypothesis that they wouldve believed were true initially but once they looked further into it and tested it etc they wouldve thrown out until it boiled down to a few theories that they were known for. 

Intuition is an inner knowing. It's not speculation. They knew their theories before they were able to prove them! Proof is what you need to convince other people of your theories. When you're able to debate with them and answer their tough questions, that's when your theories have the potential of becoming the new 'truth', which is the new standard of 'proof'.

Let's not forget that the scientific materialist paradigm is a paradigm, that too one which is constantly evolving. There aren't these rigid fixed standards of 'proof' even in science. A good example is that Galileo's telescope was shunned by the church as an 'Instrument of the Devil' well before it was accepted.

Being a revolutionary intellectual is a very very dirty business. You will almost never be able to convince the status-quo of your ideas. A lot of times they'll shun you your whole life, then you die, then they'll recognize your greatness and foresight 500 years later. You are on the leading edge of thought, and you have nothing but your intuition showing you the way.

Your intuition will not show you the Absolute Truth in the form of ideas, because the Absolute Truth is incommunicable. Rather, your intuition will serve as a guidance system for your mind to get the answers to its questions. Once all the questions are answered, there will be nothing but peace.

56 minutes ago, Consept said:

My friend has a strong intuition that the shape of the earth is flat, i have a strong intuition that its not flat. To work out what is true we would have to have some kind of way to figure it out beyond intuition, it doesnt necessarily have to be science but it has to be something other than intuition because many intuitions will be in conflict with each other. 

How do you know it's their intuition talking? They may say it's their intuition saying that the earth is flat, but is it really? Or is it a rationalization? You can use your intuition to closely observe your interactions and intuit the answers to these questions.

In a Universe based on Oneness, the intuitions of two beings cannot conflict with each other. My experience says that it isn't possible. If there is a perception of conflict, at least one party is deluding themselves.

Now there is potential for gaslighting. This is because human beings are very good at being inauthentic. So we can fake confident behavior very easily. There is a big difference between fake confidence and real confidence. Fake confidence will show up as aggressive, agitated defense of one's position. Real confidence will show up as a stable knowing, where you aren't doubting yourself.

56 minutes ago, Consept said:

Scientific proof is not circular, you may argue that its limited in that it can only measure the material world but in most cases for conspiracy that it was we're talking about and in fact most conspiracies are backed up (insufficiently) using some kind of scientific method. Something like religion is circular in that the bible is true because its the word of God and because its the word of God whatevers in the bible is true.

Oh yeah proof isn't circular within the scientific materialist paradigm! But if you look at proof fundamentally, as it is, it is circular.

56 minutes ago, Consept said:

Im sure theres some conspiracies you dont believe but they couldve been reached by the same intuition as others, however your intuition tells you theyre not true. As someone looking at all these different people saying different conspiracies are true and false how would you ever know what is true or false just going off intuition? 

Here's the kicker - There is no such thing as 'true' or 'false'. These are distinctions created by the mind. The materialist paradigm seeks to establish a monopoly over the truth, like so many other paradigms do.

Here's another kicker - If I say 'Statement X is true', Statement X is true for me. No amount of proof will convince me otherwise. This is because Truth is fundamentally Infinite, so it includes everything. So when I say statement X is true, I'm technically right! I'm just not saying the whole truth.

This is assuming Statement X is not a part of the materialist paradigm. If it is, it can be disproven using scientific experiments and sensory data. If it isn't, it can't. For example if I say 'A sphere has 4 sides', that can be disproven by sensory data. However, if I say 'Nazis are evil', good luck disproving that!

Thus, your beliefs determine what's 'true' or 'false'. In such a situation, you get to choose what you'd like to believe is true vs false. This becomes logically tenable. Because your mind creates reality, it is in fact helpful to be able to choose what you'd like to believe. Your mind is not meant to defend someone else's definition of 'truth', rather it is meant to define it's own truth according to what it wants.

Edit: The materialist paradigm is able to give us the convenience of consensus, because our sensory realities generally agree with each other. A schizophrenic's sensory reality will not agree with that of the mainstream. That is why they will be labeled as mentally ill by the consensus.

This is what 'proof' is based on in science. 'Anecdotal evidence' is dismissed as unimportant as the consensus reality is more important than integrating all perspectives. This fundamentally disrespects the Truth of Oneness.

Edited August 16, 2020 by Parththakkar12

[Consept]

24 minutes ago, Parththakkar12 said:

This is what 'proof' is based on in science. 'Anecdotal evidence' is dismissed as unimportant as the consensus reality is more important than integrating all perspectives. This fundamentally disrespects the Truth of Oneness.

The truth of Oneness would be that there are no distinctions and everything is one therefore any further discussion past silence is meaningless, however what we're talking about is relative truth, which as you say creating a method that we can come to some consensus about what is relative true as oppose to whats relatively untrue. If i have an undetermined amount of tic-tacs in a packet and i want to find out how many are in there, counting them would be a better method than using intuition. Yes the ultimate truth might be that the seperation of each tic-tac and everything else in the world is an illusion and that we and all matter are just one, but in terms of a relative truth for the material plain that ultimate truth is not practical if im trying to work out how to divide the tic-tacs fairly lets say. 

So in a sense youre correct in that there is no true or false but in terms of engaging in the world we can create criteria to work out why one thing might be relatively true as compared to another. This doesnt have to be limited to a scientific paradigm but should definitely include it as well as intuition and other things. For me this is the crux of not going down false narratives for example, what good would it do me to become a jehovahs witness based off intuition, many people join because they just feel its true, many people join cults because they feel God is speaking to them, so critical thinking is essential not so much to assert anything is true but to know when something is obviously false. 

33 minutes ago, Parththakkar12 said:

Intuition is an inner knowing. It's not speculation. They knew their theories before they were able to prove them! Proof is what you need to convince other people of your theories. When you're able to debate with them and answer their tough questions, that's when your theories have the potential of becoming the new 'truth', which is the new standard of 'proof'.

I would disagree, as i said all the people youve mentioned have been demonstrably wrong many times and its not just because their ideas werent accepted as many of their radical ideas were accepted at the time. He himself later admitted he was mistaken, this is the base of scientific investigation, the fact that you can be wrong, the initial intuition is a speculation that then you go about proving whether its right or wrong. For every one theory that breaks through there are 1000s that are proved wrong by the very people who had the initial idea. The idea cant be right just because youve had it. Ive had many business ideas that hit me like a bolt of lightening but then when i started looking into them a realised they werent feasible, if i had just gone with them because of intuition i wouldve lost out. 

39 minutes ago, Parththakkar12 said:

Here's another kicker - If I say 'Statement X is true', Statement X is true for me. No amount of proof will convince me otherwise. This is because Truth is fundamentally Infinite, so it includes everything. So when I say statement X is true, I'm technically right! I'm just not saying the whole truth.

Saying a statement is true because you believe it doesnt really make sense in that 'you' are are tied to a statement being true. Ultimately 'you' dont exist so its your ego that is attaching to a belief. Ultimately all is one is the only truth, but we are talking about relative truths and thus just having a belief in something does not make it relatively true. We would have to come up with a criteria that we can both agree on to say that something can be true otherwise it makes no sense, you might as well say nothing is relatively true, which you can do but i dont see how it furthers our knowledge. 

You might believe in pizzagate but your evidence is not really enough, thats fine but you cant say that its true just because you believe it (circular logic). You may say potentially it could be true but thats about it. 

[Parththakkar12]

30 minutes ago, Consept said:

The truth of Oneness would be that there are no distinctions and everything is one therefore any further discussion past silence is meaningless

I'd frame it differently in this context - The truth of Oneness is that distinctions are imagined by the mind. We still have the option of doing the discussion past silence, we still get to decide whether it's meaningful or meaningless.

33 minutes ago, Consept said:

however what we're talking about is relative truth, which as you say creating a method that we can come to some consensus about what is relative true as oppose to whats relatively untrue.

Yes. We are talking about relative truth. Relative truth is subject to what you want to believe.

34 minutes ago, Consept said:

If i have an undetermined amount of tic-tacs in a packet and i want to find out how many are in there, counting them would be a better method than using intuition. Yes the ultimate truth might be that the seperation of each tic-tac and everything else in the world is an illusion and that we and all matter are just one, but in terms of a relative truth for the material plain that ultimate truth is not practical if im trying to work out how to divide the tic-tacs fairly lets say. 

Okay. The human body is oriented towards a 3D sensory reality. We will always have a part of us that believes the materialist paradigm, cuz the survival of the human body depends on us believing in it.

The question is - What do you want in this specific situation? If you want to see how many tic-tacs are there, then the INTUITIVE way would be to use your senses and count them. Keep in mind that counting, as a method of determining how many of something we have, has also been intuited by someone! If we try to use some other method, that would not be intuitive because it wouldn't be pragmatic. The Universe is Infinitely Intelligent, therefore Infinitely Pragmatic. Your Intuition is the most Pragmatic thing there is! When you have a how-question, your intuition will come up with the most pragmatic way you know to do it.

40 minutes ago, Consept said:

I would disagree, as i said all the people youve mentioned have been demonstrably wrong many times and its not just because their ideas werent accepted as many of their radical ideas were accepted at the time. He himself later admitted he was mistaken, this is the base of scientific investigation, the fact that you can be wrong, the initial intuition is a speculation that then you go about proving whether its right or wrong. For every one theory that breaks through there are 1000s that are proved wrong by the very people who had the initial idea. The idea cant be right just because youve had it. Ive had many business ideas that hit me like a bolt of lightening but then when i started looking into them a realised they werent feasible, if i had just gone with them because of intuition i wouldve lost out. 

The Universe is in a process of Self-discovery or knowing itself. The way you discover yourself is through investigation. The Universe is constantly in a process of growing and learning about itself. Therefore, the Universe does not know whether a specific idea is true or false. However, the Universe will use it's Infinite Intelligence to find The Best, most Pragmatic ideas and techniques to know itself. So the ideas your intuition will come up with may not be the best, or the truest themselves. But, those ideas will be the most Pragmatic and Efficient way for you to find the Truth, or the Best Way.

43 minutes ago, Consept said:

Saying a statement is true because you believe it doesnt really make sense in that 'you' are are tied to a statement being true. Ultimately 'you' dont exist so its your ego that is attaching to a belief. Ultimately all is one is the only truth, but we are talking about relative truths and thus just having a belief in something does not make it relatively true. We would have to come up with a criteria that we can both agree on to say that something can be true otherwise it makes no sense, you might as well say nothing is relatively true, which you can do but i dont see how it furthers our knowledge. 

You might believe in pizzagate but your evidence is not really enough, thats fine but you cant say that its true just because you believe it (circular logic). You may say potentially it could be true but thats about it. 

My point is that if I hold on to a belief that 'Statement X is true' and Statement X is outside the context of the materialist paradigm, you will not be able to prove me wrong. Proof doesn't work outside the materialist paradigm. And if proof doesn't work, who is the arbiter of relative truth? Yourself!

If I believe in Pizzagate, I believe I have enough evidence. Who decides what counts as 'enough evidence'? Moreover, who decides what counts as 'evidence'? How much evidence do you need to be convinced of something? This is specific to you.

Now how do you resolve this conflict? You will have to use your intuition to closely observe yourself and them to determine where their beliefs come from, where your beliefs come from, why they're holding on to a belief, why you're holding on to your belief, etc. This will have to happen once you've dis-identified from your perspective and are looking at both perspectives impartially. This is what I've been advocating for.

[Consept]

44 minutes ago, Parththakkar12 said:

My point is that if I hold on to a belief that 'Statement X is true' and Statement X is outside the context of the materialist paradigm, you will not be able to prove me wrong. Proof doesn't work outside the materialist paradigm. And if proof doesn't work, who is the arbiter of relative truth? Yourself!

Proof doesnt work outside of a materialist paradigm but if we're talking about conspiracy theories they are within the materialist paradigm, so to prove a conspiracy theory you would need proof as you would be the one asserting something not me. In the absence of proof you couldnt say that something is true. There is no arbiter but whatever you count as enough proof to be considered relatively true would then have to be applied to everything, so for example if you say that belief and intuition in the bible is enough to say that creationism is true you would then have to concede that if someone has belief and intuition in the Bhagavad Gita then multiple Gods are also true, obviously this can not hold up. If you are thinking critically and not tied to any belief or bias you will accept that this method of getting to a relative truth will not really work. 

 

52 minutes ago, Parththakkar12 said:

Now how do you resolve this conflict? You will have to use your intuition to closely observe yourself and them to determine where their beliefs come from, where your beliefs come from, why they're holding on to a belief, why you're holding on to your belief, etc. This will have to happen once you've dis-identified from your perspective and are looking at both perspectives impartially. This is what I've been advocating for.

In general i agree with you on this but i dont see how you can come to believe most conspiracy theories if you follow this method