Q&A: An Ignoramus of Religion-Theory
An Ignoramus of Religion-Theory
Question
Hello,
What is the proper path for an ordinary person in matters that are disputed between researchers and the “cranks”?
Let me explain.
I’ve come across quite a few videos presenting debates between various doctors and the like, where, for example, one presents physical findings that in his opinion prove that Yigal Amir did not murder Rabin (or at least was not the only shooter), and opposite him is someone who claims this is a crazy delusion. In another debate, one person challenges his colleague to present him with *measurable* proof (I have no idea what that means) for the earth being spherical, and in response he doesn’t get a serious answer but rather mockery. NASA’s moon landing did happen, didn’t happen …etc., etc. In all kinds of such debates, usually there are proofs/difficulties from the side of those labeled as cranks, and mockery from the other side.
So as a simple person, I really do rely on the theories that most researchers agree on and don’t pay much attention to claims that sound far-fetched. But I’m bothered by the question: why don’t they address them substantively? Could it be that they really have no answer and are trying to hide their embarrassment, or are they simply tired of responding to nonsense?
Answer
Sometimes it’s this, and sometimes it’s that. Sometimes there are claims that really are not worth addressing, and so people mock them. Sometimes the mockery comes when there is no substantive answer. There is no simple way or simple criterion to distinguish between the situations. If you don’t know, then don’t form an opinion.
Discussion on Answer
As stated, the question is not well defined, and I cannot discuss it.
It reminds me of this (I don’t agree with every word there): https://www.hidabroot.org/article/1150305.
Obviously every case has to be judged on its own merits, but in general there are several kinds of arguments that recur in many conspiracy theories, and there is no need to address them separately in each individual case. 1) A belief that there is a conspiracy of silence among people who are hiding the lie, without any clear reason that would explain such a conspiracy of silence. 2) A clear division between “good guys” and “bad guys,” where the “bad guys” are not sinners out of appetite but rather out of spite or from an ideology of doing harm, and they even make sure to impose fear on those who know they are wrong. 3) Linking together different issues that are not really connected to one another through those same “bad guys” (“The supporters of vaccines are the very same people pushing the lie that the earth is round and forbidding the use of invited in order to track everyone,” and the like—along the lines of “he is Pharaoh, he is Agag, he is Haman”). 4) Presenting complex matters as simple, with the claim that the side that is wrong holds its position either out of wickedness or out of fear or out of brainwashing. 5) A proliferation of explanations (different ones…) for why the accepted approach is wrong, while the person holding a given explanation claims it is obvious that things are as he says. He may “recruit” to his side the “quantity” of people who hold that the accepted explanation is wrong, while ignoring the fact that they also do not agree with his explanation. 6) Selectively recruiting statements by experts (scientists, etc.) in favor of the conspiracy while ignoring the context, or simply misunderstanding what was said (due to lacking basic concepts in the field)