Right but this is exactly the kind of toxic attitude I was talking about in the OP.
That's not a good strategy.
This same type of dismissive blind trust was employed to inject the majority of the world with experimental drugs just recently: All the while everyone chanting "trust the science". The actual scientific method tells us the opposite: that we should never trust the science and that we should always be trying to prove the current paradigm to be incorrect. A blatant lack of respect for people trying to do exactly that isn't the healthy response, and is more of a signal that our own brainwashing from childhood will immediately reject such theories no matter how much evidence there is to back them up.
And I agree. I should add a bit of context next time I comment. But I tried to talk with the said person for at least 20 minutes. No progress was made, even though I tried giving countless examples where their logic fails and the way they can verify that. Was called dumb for it numerous times throughout the conversation.
Yeah that's very frustrating.
Infuriating even.
I get it.
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.
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.