Who rigged the Twin Towers

Originally posted by happypunter: ↑

This article may help some here better understand our confused conspiratorial friends

How Not to Become a Conspiracy Theorist

What separates the conspiracy theorist from the intelligent sceptic is not the possession of some odd-sounding hypotheses; it’s what they then go on to do with these hypotheses. Here are some of the key differences:

– Evidence

Intelligent sceptics know that hypotheses cannot be sustained indefinitely without evidence. They can be trialled for a time, but eventually have to be positively backed up by concrete proof or else graciously and uncomplainingly abandoned.

– The Burden of Proof Intelligent sceptics know that the burden of proving a hypothesis must invariably fall on them, as the challengers to the status quo, and not on the upholders of the established ideology. They accept that it is their duty to show that ghosts really do exist; and not the responsibility of everyone else to prove that they don’t.

– The Courage to Abandon a Hypothesis Upholding quarrelsome hypotheses delivers some hugely redemptive emotional pleasures. One often feels empowered and superior to all those who still blindly trust in the status quo. They, the idiots, may well think the rocket went to the moon; we know the whole thing was filmed in a downtown studio. Our job may not be so significant nor our house very grand, but we – unlike the stuck-up professors – know what really happened to the Fuhrer after the war.

Intelligent sceptics certainly know how nice it would be if they were proved right; but they can bear the humiliation of turning out to be miserably wrong. It would of course be deeply emotionally convenient if they really were to discover the secrets of cheap nuclear fission, if the elderly, rich man was in truth a sexual predator or if climate change did turn out to be a hoax. But they are also wise enough never to let their wishes overpower the more stubborn and unyielding claims of reality.

– Basic Trust

The conspiracy theorist sees skullduggery everywhere; their default position is that everyone must be a liar and that simply everything is a cover up. Their fear of being taken for a dupe is so great, there can be no glimmer of trust. For their part, the intelligent sceptic proceeds through the world with an attitude of basic credence and initial benevolence. They dare to take things at face value, confident in their power to alter their views – perhaps quite quickly – in a much darker direction were the facts to demand it. They are internally strong enough to take a chance to believe in the goodness and truthfulness of strangers.

Conspiracy theory is never really a problem of intelligence. It’s an emotional wound that overpowers the higher faculties of the mind – and is therefore best treated not with a barrage of countervailing facts, but with reassurance, kindness and love, for it’s here that the problem invariably began.

Expand

You're a little more understanding than me, when it comes to people who seek to pour poison in other people's brains.

Your link makes a very good point, about the obligation of the sceptic to provide a hypothesis. This, for me, is the crucial difference between indulging in conspiracy porn to titillate the senses or radicalise others, and exercising critical literacy in a rational manner.

Of course we do need to question what we receive. But unfortunately, 9/11 conspiracies have become like a gateway drug for too many into a paranoid upside-down world where obvious facts are disputed, and the most unlikely foolishness is embraced.

For many it's like a cryptic crossword and a supposedly harmless pastime. Yet there are few of us from that time from around the world, who worked internationally or dealt with governments, who didn't know people who were there, were a witness, or lost people they loved. Even then, before social media and smart phones with video cameras, we were deeply interconnected, and people from over 27 countries died in NY that day.