3 ms·

You're just repeating yourself without addressing what he said.

• eridius 9y ago
  Yes 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).