3 ms·

"they tend to diverge rather greatly from mainstream consensus." How is that consensus arrived at? Science. Many may appear to apply the scientific method, but

"they tend to diverge rather greatly from mainstream consensus." How is that consensus arrived at? Science. Many may appear to apply the scientific method, but simply reject anything that doesn't confirm their prior beliefs. Science discovered the earth was round and put a man on the moon. Rejecting that, or "questioning the sources", is inherently anti-science. They can use science to work out things, and use it to debunk their own theories. They don't because their beliefs are born out of social and political factors. But the result is a society in which science is trusted less, and that is bad for all of us. A close relative is incredibly deep into conspiracy theories, so I like to think I understand their thinking quite well. There is a large difference between conspiracy theories and actual conspiracies. The NSA spying on us was an actual conspiracy. A fake moon landing is a conspiracy theory. The existence of a certain number of real conspiracies doesn't give any more weight to other conspiracy theories. tldr: Conspiracy theories are bad and hurt society by weakening science.

ColanR 7y ago
"science" is the enactment of the scientific method, which involves hypotheses and Ockham's Razor. > "questioning the sources", is inherently anti-science There is no sense in which this is true. Have you ever gone to a doctor for a second opinion? Peer review itself is based on "questioning the sources" of an article. In my example, the questioning is extended to whole fields of study, or groups of scientists. And my real world example, Monsanto, is exactly why such larger categories of sources should be questioned. > There is a large difference between conspiracy theories and actual conspiracies. No, there isn't. The only difference is in the amount of information available. Many people found the US surveilance conspiracy compelling, at a level of information it sounds like you would have disparaged. That makes them perceptive, not anti-scientific. TLDR: mistrust is often well-placed, and those who believe the scientific community is above question are naive.

ColanR 7y ago

"science" is the enactment of the scientific method, which involves hypotheses and Ockham's Razor. > "questioning the sources", is inherently anti-science There is no sense in which this is true. Have you ever gone to a doctor for a second opinion? Peer review itself is based on "questioning the sources" of an article. In my example, the questioning is extended to whole fields of study, or groups of scientists. And my real world example, Monsanto, is exactly why such larger categories of sources should be questioned. > There is a large difference between conspiracy theories and actual conspiracies. No, there isn't. The only difference is in the amount of information available. Many people found the US surveilance conspiracy compelling, at a level of information it sounds like you would have disparaged. That makes them perceptive, not anti-scientific. TLDR: mistrust is often well-placed, and those who believe the scientific community is above question are naive.