2 ms·

People respond differently to "the world is flat and I know it because you can't trust any experts and they all say the world is round" vs "the world is flat an

People respond differently to "the world is flat and I know it because you can't trust any experts and they all say the world is round" vs "the world is flat and here are my satellite observations supporting the claim." Lots of conspiracy theories turn out to be true. Even more turn out to be false. The derision comes from absolute conviction in the absence of evidence. If evidence appears, people can change their opinions and still deride you for unquestioning beliefs before there was evidence.

George83728 3y ago
Accusations of government malfeasance are in a completely different class of claim than 'the earth is flat'. The fact that you even compare them at all is part of the problem. You shouldn't be evaluating claims purely based off the offered evidence. You need to also factor in the plausibility of the claim. If I say a cop punched me but I have no proof, that claim should be considered plausible. If I say a space alien abducted me, that should fail the plausibility test. In either case there is zero evidence, but that doesn't mean you should judge these claims to be equally dubious. Doing so isn't rational. P(A|B) = P(B|A) * P(A) / P(B) P(Claim|No Evidence) = P(No Evidence|Claim) * P(Claim) / P(No Evidence) P(Claim) for government malfeasance is very high, but very low for flat earth. P(No Evidence|Claim) is fairly high for government malfeasance, but virtually zero for flat eartherism. These aren't remotely comparable claims.
baryphonic 3y ago
A big tell for me that a "conspiracy theory" might actually be true is when the only refutation is, "that's a conspiracy theory"/"you're a conspiracy theorist!" Most conspiracy theories that are false are fairly simple to refute, and most skeptics can give a good counter example quickly. E.g. if you fly around the earth in a straight line, you'll return to your point of origin. I noticed this myself in 2020 when I gently suggested that lab leak was an explanation for COVID worthy of investigation. The negative responses were swift, and all consisted of ad hominem & appeals to authority.

George83728 3y ago

Accusations of government malfeasance are in a completely different class of claim than 'the earth is flat'. The fact that you even compare them at all is part of the problem. You shouldn't be evaluating claims purely based off the offered evidence. You need to also factor in the plausibility of the claim. If I say a cop punched me but I have no proof, that claim should be considered plausible. If I say a space alien abducted me, that should fail the plausibility test. In either case there is zero evidence, but that doesn't mean you should judge these claims to be equally dubious. Doing so isn't rational. P(A|B) = P(B|A) * P(A) / P(B) P(Claim|No Evidence) = P(No Evidence|Claim) * P(Claim) / P(No Evidence) P(Claim) for government malfeasance is very high, but very low for flat earth. P(No Evidence|Claim) is fairly high for government malfeasance, but virtually zero for flat eartherism. These aren't remotely comparable claims.

baryphonic 3y ago

A big tell for me that a "conspiracy theory" might actually be true is when the only refutation is, "that's a conspiracy theory"/"you're a conspiracy theorist!" Most conspiracy theories that are false are fairly simple to refute, and most skeptics can give a good counter example quickly. E.g. if you fly around the earth in a straight line, you'll return to your point of origin. I noticed this myself in 2020 when I gently suggested that lab leak was an explanation for COVID worthy of investigation. The negative responses were swift, and all consisted of ad hominem & appeals to authority.