Mayra Flores, the first Mexican-born woman sworn in to Congress believes in Q.
(www.cnn.com)
📺 MEDIA PANIC
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (47)
sorted by:
Also, a conspiracy theory carries a negative connotation even though it is a neutral term. They use conspiracy theory to act as if it's untrue, when that's not what that phrase means
yes and no
language works by linking/connecting meanings (conceptual, emotional, intentional meanings) to verbal or written forms (words, expressions, phrases, etc).
On one level, "conspiracy theory" could be used as neutral, but in reality, it was originally coined by the Clowns and infused (connected) to that negative connotation you speak of.
If you parse "conspiracy theory" as conspiracy + theory, then sure, it's neutral. But as a whole expression "conspiracy theory", it indeed carries that negative connotation and so it actually means, in that sense, "a false theory about the existence of a conspiracy". That's the pragmatic meaning (aka illocutionary force - the meaning the expression communicates when used in context)
(Another example: "fat chance". Parse that as "fat" + "chance" and it means what? a broad chance? But as a whole expression, it means, "that's really, really unlikely".)
But language is fluid. Old connections die, and new connections are born every day.
The meaning of "conspiracy theory" is slowly being transformed into "true theory about the existence of a conspiracy", because more and more people are realizing that the so-called 'theories' they have derided as "conspiracy theories" are in fact turning out to be true.
Similarly, in a pragmatic practical sense, "conspiracy theory" will likely come to mean "the person who is making this comment does not know anything about the truth and has a closed mind", because that's what is saying more and more.
Great stuff man
/werdnerd
Theories are theoretical until absolutely proven true. So when our theories are proven factual, we simply just call the result, REALITY.
I like the direction you're headed in.
However, note: no theory can be 'absolutely proven' until you have absolute knowledge, and that's not feasible. There may always be a case where some new factor comes into play, and the theory needs to be modified. Even if something is proven 1000 times, it's inherently not absolute, because 'proven' simply refers to reaching a certain threshold of evidence.
When we have enough evidence, we hold something to be proven, but that doesn't mean its absolute.
When a theory is proven, it then becomes 'truth'. We hold it to be true.
In this entire area of thought, I think it's valuable to recognize that all these things hinge on a deliberate choice made by people. We choose to accept something as true because it reaches the threshold of evidence we require. We consider a theory to be proven, because we make a deliberate choice to recognize it as such because it satisfies our criteria.
Same with how we approach 'reality'. We need to recognize that a) each of us has a 'map' of reality - that is, our conceptualization of what 'reality' is, and that b) the map is not the territory. How we see or understand reality is not reality itself.
Ideally, we aspire to our map or concept of reality being accurate and representing reality as closely as possible, but it's important in some areas to remember that our conception of reality and reality itself are two separate things.