4 ms·
Your argument is actually addressed in the article: > It may be worth acknowledging the fact that certain conspiracies – like Watergate – have occurred in the
by armada651 6y ago
Your argument is actually addressed in the article:
> It may be worth acknowledging the fact that certain conspiracies – like Watergate – have occurred in the past, but they were supported by incontrovertible evidence rather than rumour and supposition.
Even if they turn out to be true, those were all conspiracy theories before there was sufficient evidence for it. And you would have been a conspiracy theorist had you believed any of them without sufficient evidence.
Being a conspiracy theorist is not about whether your theories are true or not. It's about what kind of evidence you use to support your theories.
- tinus_hn 6y agoI’m not sure how these stories being conspiracy theories before there was evidence is an argument against conspiracy theories turning out to be true. Without evidence there’s no proof that something is true. But without evidence on the contrary there’s no proof it isn’t true either.
- armada651 6y ago> Without evidence there’s no proof that something is true. But without evidence on the contrary there’s no proof it isn’t true either. You are arguing that the conspiracy theory label is unjustified. But if the proof for your theory is primarily based on absence of proof to the contrary, then it would rightfully be labelled a conspiracy theory. Even if a conspiracy theory turns out to be true that does not make the label unjustified.