I don't think any serious scientists are 100% sure of anything. If they are, they weren't paying attention in school.

@skado headlined in either Time or Life or maybe both, as a Eureka moment in science...Male scientists trumpeting that although you seem shattered that your formerly fabulous son is now hearing voices and starting acting upon them, but it's Your fault, lady. A "fabulous" moment in conclusion-drawing when in fact nobody knew sh*t.

@annewimsey1

So... science is useless.

@skado not at all, what a peculiar conclusion.
Almost as peculiar as concluding schizophrenia is caused by some woman not being perfect according to....who?

@annewimsey1
My sentiments exactly.
Almost as peculiar as concluding bad parenting has no possible ill effect on children.

I would say it's equally bogus, but I wouldn't call it a conspiracy theory, and I wouldn't guess it's caused by insecure attachment in childhood. In fact it might be caused by the very opposite - secure attachment. When people place unwavering faith in social systems, whether deserved or not, it may be because the family unit in which they grew up was very dependable.

A "conspiracy theorist" is a person who habitually suspects a group of powerful people are conspiring - planning amongst themselves - to manipulate, control, or harm the theorist, usually for the purpose of gaining more power, money or status.

The habitual conspiracy denier doesn't think conspiracy theorists are powerful, or conspiring amongst themselves to control the population. They just think the theorists are ignorant and fearful, and don't want to be associated with them. So it's more a product of tribalism, or virtue signaling, or just lazy thinking, than conspiracy theorizing.

Conspiracy is one of, if not the, single most frequently committed crime on the books. Every day, somewhere, somebody is planning with another person to do something that is forbidden by law. And often, they at least attempt to carry it out. To suspect people of doing that is perfectly consistent with reality.

There are many famous crimes in the history books that were the product of conspiracy among a relatively small handful of individuals. But none that I am aware of, that involved thousands of people from all over the globe, working in concert to defraud the whole human population.

By definition, 9/11 was a conspiracy. Multiple individuals, whoever they were, obviously planned it and executed the plan. It simply could not have been done by a lone individual, and it was, by any definition, a crime. The development of mRNA Covid vaccinations and their implementation around the world? Probably not. Chemtrails? Probably not. JFK assassination? Possibly.

Saying conspiracies never happen is at least as disconnected from reality as saying everything is a conspiracy. But I think they come from different causes in the human psyche.

@skado To answer my own question, I call it conscious misinformation and misdirection. Fauci claiming "eating bats at Wuhan markets" is a classic example. He knew full well early on it was an artificially made virus and went into "cover thy arse" mode

Only the ones wearing the tin foil hats are serious conspiracy theorists. Non serious answer.

@puff

I know it's comforting to feel we know what's going on, but I have no way of knowing what might have been in the mind of an individual I have never met. There are so many contingent factors that we know absolutely nothing about. When I see someone who is certain they know what they have no way of knowing, I see a person who is in great need of certainty. It's reasonable to be suspicious, and reasonable to inquire, but unless you have inside information, witnessed it with your own eyes, etc. it's not realistic to be certain.

@skado You need only look. There is hard evidence eg emails/ information that were suppressed. The fact Pitzer intended to secrete trial data for the vaccine for 75 years raises many alarms. Not science aka knowledge which is for all, not a select few.

@puff

For anything a person is predisposed to believe, there is always enough circumstantial evidence to make it look like a certainty. I can't argue the Fauci case one way or the other, because I know I don't know. If he committed a crime, let the courts deal with it. If you think all the judges in all the courts are "in on it" then I have a nice bridge you might be interested in for a great price.

@puff
Privately funded research belongs to the funders. They have every right to protect their methodology from competitors. Not generous, but pretty much normal business practice.

@skado The word "Science" comes from Latin for "Knowledge". Science is the sum of human knowledge, constantly changing and being added to.
Privately funded research that belongs to the funders is not science. They may employ the scientific method of discovery but that is as close as they get. Science demands to be questioned and challenged. If it can't be independently challenged and tested by a third party, it is not science. It is a product for sale.

@puff

Maybe so, in an ideal world, but in capitalism, refusing to give away information you paid big bucks to obtain is not "hard evidence" that a crime has been committed. That's not even circumstantial evidence. I would expect it to be standard procedure, however we choose to define the word science,

@skado "Experts" claim ownership of science which is total BS. Everybody employs the scientific method of discovery everyday whether consciously or not. We all do "science" and it is owned by none. It is merely how we assess something is "known" rather than an assumption or belief.
I always thought science would kill religion, but now understand that religion must be bought into science in order to kill it. I think this will be done with empathy, for which I am certain there is a spectrum in humans (other life as well, but first things first ). Once we can measure this, which will need sensors not developed yet, religion will die as they all claim to "know" all about empathy.
My favourite inspirational quote of all time is from Nicholas Tesla. Something like "Once science looks to the non-physical, our knowledge aka science, will advance in leaps and bounds"............something like that.