>I think it has more to do with the fact that one opinion is supported by more conspiracy nuts. Evaluating an empirical claim based on the aggregate character

>I think it has more to do with the fact that one opinion is supported by more conspiracy nuts. Evaluating an empirical claim based on the aggregate character of those who are supporting it rather than actual steelmanned arguments is poor epistemic hygiene. It's a commonly-used justification for tribal epistemic closure - "the red tribe has lower IQ than average, therefore they are wrong in every disagreement with the blue tribe." There's an equally-negative opposite of a "conspiracy nut" here - something like "sheeple".