The question I always come back to is, “what do I expect to be true”? If I believe that the earth is a spheroid, then I expect that satellites rely on orbital

The question I always come back to is, “what do I expect to be true”? If I believe that the earth is a spheroid, then I expect that satellites rely on orbital mechanics. If I learn about orbital mechanics, I expect to find math that describes orbits. If I learn about that math, I expect that it’s based on the geometry of circles and ellipses. I don’t have to have firsthand knowledge of these things. I can just build a network of expectations based on other things I know. And when something I observe doesn’t match my expectation, I can shake the tree a bit and figure out why. Individual assumptions can always be challenged with experimental evidence, and the knowledge network only becomes more complete as a result. Every conversation I’ve had with conspiracy theorists suggests that they can’t (or won’t) do this. For them, knowledge is an accumulation of discrete units. Facts need not be built on other facts. Each wild belief is essentially a different Russel’s Teapot: Falsifiability is optional, and contrary evidence is easily waved away as propaganda. Bold predictions don’t need to ever come true, as there are always bolder ones to take their place. I think it comes down to different goals. Their goals are not to make dispassionate predictions about the world, but to fit the world into a mold that matches their emotional state. And to signal to others that their feelings aren’t just valid, but real— Explained by forces that the rest of the world dismisses as “crazy”.