3 ms·
Conspiracy by whom, for what benefit?
by eridius 9y ago
Conspiracy by whom, for what benefit?
- colordrops 9y agoOnce again, meaningless statement. Depends on the situation. For example, a situation with conflicts of interest or other incentives for doing shady things behind the scenes, which is a pretty common scenario in politics and corporate affairs. Point is that Occam's razor isn't a blunt instrument that eliminates entire classes of theories from all phenomena. Each one must be evaluated individually as to which theories are contextual and consistent. Some call for evaluating conspiracies, some don't.
- eridius 9y agoSome do. But the overwhelming majority of cases don't. Conspiracy theories are almost never right.
- mythrwy 9y agoSadly often neither are official explanations. Which is probably why we get "conspiracy theories".
- tambienben 9y agoThis might be especially true when the source of the official explanation has skin in the game. Politics is a hairy business.
- ionised 9y agoYou're just repeating yourself without addressing what he said.
- eridius 9y agoYes I am. The point of contention here is whether Occam's Razor means that you can generally discount conspiracy theories. My argument is that conspiracy theories are almost never right, so you can generally discount them as a whole unless there's specific evidence that makes a conspiracy a plausible answer. And in the specific case of this article, I asked who's supposed to be behind the conspiracy and why, with no answer. colordrops claims that Occam's Razor doesn't mean you should discount conspiracies and that you need to evaluate each one, which is why I reminded everyone that conspiracies are almost never right, with the implication that this means you generally can and should discount them (unless presented with specific evidence implicating a conspiracy).