In Robert Matthews article “Why do people believe weird things?” his main focus is to prove to the reader that people who think weird things are not necessarily weird, or even crazy, but that they see things from a different prospective than the majority. Robert suggests that individuals can use the same evidence to make a claim, but with that evidence there can be two different viewpoints. Although in his article Robert only uses a few examples, he asserts his theory in a very persuasive manner.
Robert begins his claim by engaging the audience with his past experiences concerning conspiracy theorists. He insists that no matter what sort of evidence you provide to the contrary of someone’s belief, it will most likely be dismissed and replaced with a counter argument. For example, concerning the Apollo moon landing, Robert used to debate conspiracy theorists and refute their claims; he would state how witnesses saw the Apollo mission blast off, only to have his facts denied and be told that the witnesses were all government stooges. Robert then realized that no amount of evidence can persuade someone who is so set on their beliefs.
The majority of people label the individuals who consistently reject evidence given to them as being irrational. Robert believes that they are not irrational at all. He suggests that the issue these conspiracy theorists have is not rationality, but viewpoints. Robert believes that the reason people believe crazy things is because they see it the situation differently than most. For example, with the Apollo moon landing, conspiracy theorists see the evidence and situation so differently because they don’t trust NASA.
Robert uses the equation Odds(H | E) = LR × Odds(H) to prove his theory of trust issue...
... middle of paper ...
...t the likelihood of their being a creator with the complexity of natural systems is more likely than there not being a creator, and everything still being so complex. Robert goes onto explain how it doesn't matter how much evidence you give creationists to contradict their belief in creationism because you cannot change their likelihood ratio.
Robert shows how despite the hard evidence, two groups can still refuse to reach a consensus because of their view on the likelihood ratio and their prior beliefs. In the case of the moon landing the issue was trust, and in the case of creationism the issue was a belief in an omnipotent creator. Robert has clearly given his readers a deeper insight into reasoning and rationality.
Works Cited
Matthews, Robert. "Why do people believe weird things?" Significance 2.4 (2005): 182-184. Electronic Journal Center. Web. 2 Feb. 2014
so. Many people believe other theories which is fine but there is no doubt that this is a conspiracy
Holt, Richard. "Apollo 11 Moon Landing: Conspiracy Theories Debunked." The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group, 15 July 2009. Web. 02 Mar. 2014.
...articular. Understanding why one is not warranted in believing certain conspiracy theories will make it easier to understand why we ought to believe other things. It also gives reasons to believe that some conspiracy theories will certainly have plausibility to them. Keeley goes through with this analysis by discussing the problem of trying to define UCTs, and illustrating the challenges for finding criteria for distinguishing good theories from bad ones. He then highlights values of UCTs that make them particularly attractive and explain their popularity. He also discusses the grounds for rejecting these values, as they the very reason for UCTs being unwarranted. He discusses how directly confronting UCTs means having to decide between the almost “nihilistic” skepticism and absurdism. He concludes that it is philosophies job to look for an answer to this problem.
It addresses a dilemma similar to the chicken and the egg dilemma of which comes first. In skepticisms reasoning, belief is necessary before establishing knowledge. He argues that knowledge can be used to explain beliefs just as how beliefs can be used to justify knowledge. His ideas are valid and are apparent in society. For example, in research, Williamson’s approach is represented in the process of formulating a hypothesis. Researchers use previous knowledge to formulate a hypothesis, or belief, on the outcome of their research. All in all, Williamson’s critique of skepticism is well developed and
In William James’s “Will to Believe,” there is a strong focus on amending William K Clifford’s argument surrounding the belief. According to Clifford, belief is completely reliant on evidence. Not only is it completely reliant on evidence but on “sufficient” evidence. James quoted Clifford’s summary of belief in section 2, stating that “it is wrong always, everywhere, and for everyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” While James showed clear disagreement in Clifford’s assertion, his focus in defending the will to believe centered more on providing the individual with options while recommending the “genuine option” in terms of their will to believe.
Conspiracy theories have been created about everything from presidential assassinations, 9-11, to the deaths of many celebrities. They even date back to the 1800s but they started becoming more popular around the 1970s when the world was in so much turmoil with the Vietnam War and the many other complications of that specific decade. (Elinoff.) Theories even have revolved around wide varieties of people with characteristics like a different race, religion, culture or even countries with different types of governments. A great deal of theories have been made about so many events and different groups of people that sometimes it is hard to tell if wha...
This paper will dispute that scientific beliefs are not the right way to accept a belief and it will question if we should let one accept their rights to their own beliefs. In Williams James article Will to Believe, we accept his perspective on how we set and fix our beliefs. This paper will first outline his overview on the argument that someone does not choose their belief but rather one just has them. Following, it will outline my perspective on how we set our beliefs and agreement with purse. Then it will explain how other methodologies such as science cannot conclude to one’s true beliefs. Science has been seen as a way to perceive life and taken to consideration as the truth. This paper should conclude that humans define ourselves by
Why American’s needed a conspiracy to understand the unbelievable and how conspiracy theories reflect the anxieties and fears of nations during that period. The JFK assassination conspiracy was the start of it all and because conspiracy theories give a voice to people and a “counter history” to believe, this way of thinking will never
The clash between evolutionists and creationists seems to be far from its finale. Both sides come up with potent arguments in favor of their positions. Evolutionists stress the absence of factual evidence in favor of God’s existence, point to fossils as a proof of the evolutionary process, and name the Big Bang as the reason of the universe’s appearance and further development. Creationists, in their turn, stress that there are no intermediate links between species in found fossils, consider complexity and diversity of nature to be an indirect evidence of God’s existence, and refer to the second law of thermodynamics to argue against the Big Bang theory. However, none of the sides seem to see that both points of view can not only co-exist, but be successfully combined. Such a combination could explain everything at once.
Throughout history, people struggled to understand the world and obtain knowledge through questioning, and experiments. And, there were many cases when people reviewed the same facts, and did not come up with the same opinions and hence derived different conclusions. Therefore, conflicts occurred and some facts were not accepted by all people. For example, there are multiple debates on whether ‘the first Moon landing event’ actually took place or not. Though this event had a lot of support, the arguments by the skeptics could not be ignored. Some people questioned the video footage a...
When it comes to conspiracy theories there is a wide variety of them, but few people try to explain their appeal as thoroughly as the author Maggie Koerth-Baker through her article “Why Rational People Buy into Conspiracy Theories.” The author’s paper starts by talking about the incident at the Boston Marathon and how, even though one of the brothers had been arrested, there were still theories being created in order to explain the possible events and motives behind the attack. It is explained that the best way to determine someone’s belief in a theory is if they believe in other theories due to the fact that a conspiracy theory isn’t so much a response to a single event as it is an expression of an overarching worldview (Koerth-Baker 343).
Smith, Cara L., Judith L. Johnson, and William Hathaway. "Personality Contributions to Belief in Paranormal Phenomena."Individual Differences Research 7.2 (2009): 85-96. Academic Search Premier. Web. 11 Dec. 2013.
Many times we have been in a dilemma whether to believe or not someone who tries to persuade us for something and very often by listening his arguments and by having enough evidence we finally manage to get out of the dilemma. Nevertheless sometimes we cannot be sure about an event because although there is enough evidence, our minds cannot be persuaded. An example to justify that is the existence of the Loch Ness monster, or as it is widely known “Nessie”.
Human beings’ belief systems don’t always work according to evidence. Belief is made up of
Hollis, M., & Lukes, S. (1982). Apparently Irrational Beliefs.Rationality and relativism (pp. 149-180). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.