I have no problem with people questioning everything. Heck, I do that all the time. But if someone tells me that something isn't true, and provides zero evidence or zero arguments to work with. What is the point of talking? Yes, science has to always be questioned, you shouldn't trust science the same way you don't need to trust the code. You need to understand it, see if there are any flaws, and work on fixing them. Saying, this doesn't make sense, and something else is the correct way, without any sound reason whatsoever is plain idiocy.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I do tend to avoid conspiracy theories that seem to have a strong religious element attached them. Also I avoid conspiracies that target the left or the right. If a conspiracy is true it shouldn't matter what your political views are or religious affiliation, and it should be just as easy to convince anyone of the truth equally. That's my theory anyway.
Since we were talking science I wouldn't completely agree with this because most of the time the truth is ever so slightly different that what we currently think. So when scientists are trying to prove those things it takes a lot of work and a lot of convincing evidence.
But when you are claiming that something so very different is true, it shouldn't be hard to present it (at least surface level stuff) because the original idea would have countless big holes in its model that you could point to. Which you are unable to do when challenging the heliocentric model with flat earth.