Who doesn’t love conspiracy theories? 9/11, JFK, flat earth, the list goes on. But really – ask the conspiracy theorist to give their best piece of hard evidence and many times it isn’t hard evidence at all. Then ask them for a falsifier, something that would prove their theory wrong in their mind. Find that falsifier and present it to them. Guess what – their mind remains unchanged.

Coca-Cola is being sued by two pastors for making blacks and hispanics fat. The company uses thin people in its commercials, even though if someone drinks a 12 pack of Coke everyday they’ll probably be fat and out of shape.

See More See Less


Leave us a review, comment or subscribe!

Meet the hosts

I am the CEO of Preuss Media LLC as well as a 20-something political commentator, blogger, talker, musician, bookworm, and weight lifter. Although lacking a formal college degree (something I boast about), my strange brain contains a wealth of knowledge of economics, political science, and philosophy.


  • Let me get your thoughts on this. I’m not a philosopher but I’ve noticed it seems like people – even professional philosophers are confused about what they can and can’t know. You know Descartes guy? asked, “what can I know for sure” eventually came to, “I think therefore I am.” He thought (correctly) that the only thing you can know for certain is that you’re having a subjective experience. You might not know what that experience means but you know you’re having it. You know you exist because to experience is to exist, but everything else you think you know is not what you know but what you believe. I think that’s right but if you think I’m off base, let me know. So here’s where people seem to go wrong: they seem to think that means everything is up for grabs – that there is no truth, that all other things are equally uncertain. This assumption to me seems to manifest in such things as post modernism. But the assumption is not true is it? Some beliefs we may hold about what our subjective experience means may be true and others are almost certainly not. See, after that subjective experience we have to use tools to discern the difference between those beliefs that are probably true, and those beliefs that are probably not true. Its these tools that help us decide what to believe as “true.” And what are those tools? Logic mostly, which is usually dependent on evidence and reason. But anyway, my whole point is this is theory is very simple, its easy to understand and intuitive. It seems to me that if philosophers and thinkers would just recognize this basic fact about the scope, composition and nature of knowledge a lot of confusion and ill-conceived beliefs would be weeded out of the dialogue and civilization. What do you think? Is my premise right? Would it make a difference at all?

    Jump to Discussion Post 6 replies