4 ms·
This study seems to be quite badly designed. The only two "conspiracy theories" being analyzed are the disbelief in climate change and the distrust of officiald
by _cs2017_ 6y ago
This study seems to be quite badly designed. The only two "conspiracy theories" being analyzed are the disbelief in climate change and the distrust of officialdom (which includes media and politicians). Scientists disagree with each other on many topics, so distrusting them doesn't cross the line of conspiracy theory. Media, on both sides of the political spectrum, is quite biased and low quality these days; so distrusting the media is also quite reasonable.
Not to mention, both topics, and especially the climate change, has a huge political connotation. So the answers of people would often be merely a reflection of their political beliefs.
Why not pick the real, obvious, non-political conspiracy theories? Like 9/11 didn't happen; people didn't land on the Moon; earth is flat; etc?
- dTal 6y ago>climate change has a huge political connotation Isn't this begging the question? Climate change has a political connotation exactly because conservatives believe it's made-up, and the only way they can square this counterfactual with the huge number of independent confirmations is the assumption that they are all somehow in cahoots - i.e., a conspiracy. While I agree that a less politicized choice of topic would be more enlightening, I can imagine that going out of your way to avoid "political" topics may just be an exercise in mitigating the very effect you're trying to measure.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]