Yeah, it can be frustrating at times. I wonder, also, the impact of various chemicals on the brain (such as psychedelics) in connecting hemispheres in such a way to see patterns even where they don't exist. I get how that could have been an evolutionary advantage, even believing things which were not true, in order to survive and spread the genes, but I wonder how useful it is today.

Thanks again for sharing this.

I read your post and didn't think there was much value in responding to it as you seem pretty set in your opinions. The School of Life is anything but a scientism channel. It talks about philosophy, relationships, and human interactions, and I've enjoyed it quite a bit.

Whether you like it or not, "Conspiracy Theorists" as a term in popular use has gained a reputation for tin-foil hat wearing silliness. To me, the point isn't about CIA involvement in that process but about helping the most number of people find truth. If changing language is required to do that, so be it, just like focusing on "voluntaryism" over "anarchy" because the word anarchy is so misunderstood. If "intelligent skeptic" is a more useful term, that's what I'll use.

I have met a number of people who, IMO, have poor epistemologies. I recognize this because I also had a pretty poor epistemology for most of my life. They rely on their own experience and intuition instead of reason, logic, evidence, and skepticisms. They have made certain truth claims part of their identity so confirmation bias is in full swing, preventing them from easily and quickly changing their positions if given more convincing evidence.

One thing I was curious about after reading your post is what you mean by

> HUGE LOGICAL FALLACY OF APPEAL TO AUTHORITY HERE

How do you see the appeal to authority fallacy? I've asked you this before, but I don't think I got a clear response. Saying, "Hey, this authority on this topic has this well supported opinion" is _not_ an appeal to authority fallacy. As explained <a href="https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority">here</a>:

> **You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true**.
> It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence. However it is, entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not.

I've got much love for you, Graham, but I disagree with you on some aspects of how you come to knowledge via epistemology (from my perspective). You seem (to me) to put more trust in personal experience and intuition whereas I've done enough study on the human brain to think these things are not reliable. I'm not mad at you or judging you, I just recognize we have a different process which, given the same inputs, come up with different outcomes.

Briefly rewatching the video I see, straw man, straw man, straw man, straw man, false dilemma, appeal to authority, appeal to popularity, throwing the baby out with the bath water, the use of the term 'conspiracy theorist as an ad hominem, the characterization of suspicion as, always, nothing more than fragility brought on by wounded emotions. Oh, sorry,you only asked for one.

Genuine, intelligent skeptics, who deal in empirical facts would know that relying on the word of government propagandists is an utterly indefensible position, and that 'conspiracy theory' has an actual definition that is NOT equal to, 'some fantasy made up to justify suspicions borne of psychological trauma'. The whole thing is, in fact, a quite well crafted ad hominem woven to create the illusion that all is right in the world, and those who experience fear, for genuine reasons, should simply be loved more.

If this were the venue for such a thing, I would teach a class on the differences between logic, and emotional persuasion.

Okay, I'm bored now, I think I'll go learn about actual things.

I was intel and I am joking just a tad but yes, intelligence like George Soros who is not an American citizen or a Hungarian, or A Russian citizen and yet he spends more money to implement his policies and he is supposed to be Jewish yet all the policies he supports are against Judaism not for it.  and so, in some ways I am very serious that a conspiracy is in the works and he is just a paid point man

It's an obvious reply, we can both see the sun and the moon but have you ever seen a spherical celestial object other than the sun and the moon? I'm not talking images NASA gives us or pictures in a book but from a high powered telescope. We believe what we are told, very little of what we think is primary source material. Did you take a look at flightradar as I suggested, at a guess, probably not but you will claim to be learned which is true. You learned but did you ever discover?

Well I would not label them "conspiracy theorists", I would just call them crazy people. They are not actually conspiracy theorists because they have no evidence to back up their theory. Therefore they are more conspiracy failed hypothesis pushers. They don't have a "Theory" because theory is backed up by evidence. They have a failed hypothesis, like the "Flat Earth Theory" is not a theory it is a failed hypothesis. 

My issue with it is this. 

By labeling the nutjobs who believe in Flat Earth just as an example "conspiracy theorists", it allows the media to label anyone who believes in any other conspiracy a "Flat Earther". They just lump everyone in together and use that term to discredit everyone who mistrusts government.