Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> Do you know the difference between a conspiracy "nut", and a rational person?

The former is trivially manipulated, can be made to believe anything by appealing to their inherent obvious biases, and will double down on their beliefs even when presented with irrefutable proof to the contrary. The latter can detect false dichotomies, understands answers are often nuanced instead of black and white, and is capable of changing their mind when new evidence comes to light.



Yes, these categories are sometimes simply separated by what they considers as "irrefutable proof".


See “The Final Experiment”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Final_Experiment_(expediti...

In particular the “Reactions” section.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Final_Experiment_(expediti...

You’ll find this bit:

> Alabama pastor Dean Odle suggested that Satan created a fireball to act as a false Sun.

That is cuckoo cuckoo bananas to a point only “conspiracy nut” applies.


See perhaps René Descartes:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_demon


That thought experiment assumes the whole world around you is a fabricated illusion. In which case it would be unnecessary for Satan to fake the Sun at that point, especially considering the pastor wasn’t even there. If everything around you is an illusion, there’s no need for 5D subterfuge chess, the devil could just fake whatever.

So no, Descartes doesn’t apply. Unless I were the one being tested (seeing as I’m thinking, and therefore am). In which case that particular lie would be especially hilariously stupid.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: