The issue with disinformation, conspiracies and everything similar is that it's not very simple to logically prove one or the other. There are so many unknown f

The issue with disinformation, conspiracies and everything similar is that it's not very simple to logically prove one or the other. There are so many unknown factors, and different base truths that people would have to agree on. Usually it's the way where someone forms a belief for whatever reason. It could be because it's just beneficial for them. E.g. someone who likes gas guzzlers might want to reject climate change just because they want to keep doing what they are doing guilt free. So then whatever logic skills they have, they would only apply it to argue against climate change. Not try to figure out whether there actually is climate change. It would just make them more skilled in finding logic around areas with many unknown factors. Then - the article says to warn about potential conspiracy theories that might be arising. But if someone is prone to consider conspiracy theories, wouldn't that possibly have the counter effect, the Barbara Streisand effect. Wouldn't they think that "that's exactly what people behind the conspiracy would do, try to convince us of it not being there".