The term "conspiracy theory" is used to dismiss and ridicule those who don't buy the official version of certain events, to shut them up and shut down any chance of a dialogue. It is important to have a forum where the raw facts and empirical data (not opinions, theories or interpretations) can be explored fully, from which as accurate a narrative as possible can be extracted. No topic should be banned, however controversial. When it comes to the truth, no event should be above reexamination if new information comes to light, even if it leads us to the very uncomfortable task of having to question and reassess the premises upon which we have constructed our reality.
Truth, facts and accurate information have nothing to do with who the person is or the context. Preselecting who is credible or not before they get to make their case is not good science. As to the context, it will privilege "facts" that justify the context.
In the spirit of free speech and true scientific inquiry, it is important to give a platform to all, not with the agenda of making them look like idiots but with a genuine curiosity that maybe, lust maybe, they might have something worthwhile to offer.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
That exact explanation is used by conspiracy theorists to try to legitimize absurd ideas.
And it seems you just made my point that all one needs is to call someone a "conspiracy theorist" to delegitimize anything they have to say.
(Are we caught up in some circular debate that could go on ad infinitum?)
A couple of observations:
If your a priori bias is:" conspiracy theorists are a bunch of nutters with half-baked ideas", then any argument you make and conclusion you draw will be consistent with that premise.
We humans tend to reject that which does not fit in our already established internal schema and beliefs.
In order to transcend these limitations, we must be aware of our biases and question the validity of our premises, and have the courage to withstand the discomfort of changing our ideas and opinions when warranted by new information.
In your work as a journalist, I would encourage you to provide a platform for dissident voices with an open mind. If the ideas are absurd, they'll fall of their own weight! As to the facts, they speak for themselves.
If the position is irrational, it will be derided as a conspiracy theory, because it is. If the position can be shown to be rational, it will cease to be a conspiracy theory. It's as simple as that.
What you say is logical, however it is not as simple as that. Rational and accurately documented positions can be labeled as "conspiracy theories" if they do not conform to the official or politically correct narrative. Conversely, the fact that something is official confers to it some legitimacy. An interesting example of that is the NIST report of the collapse of the three WTC towers on 9/11. Despite the egregious inaccuracies of its methodology and conclusions that have been identified (and disproved empirically) by a number of engineers and research scientists (including ex NIST scientists who worked on the report themselves!) the former gains its credibility from the government seal of approval whereas the latter are ridiculed as conspiracy theorists.
The whole field of influence, propaganda and psychological manipulation makes for fascinating investigation indeed, regardless of whether one personally believes that Martians are conspiring to enslave planet Earth or that our governments couldn't possibly tell any lies.
I see what you're saying. Every idea should be evaluated on its own merits, regardless of its popularity, endorsement, and (to a certain extent) civility. I agree.
I like how you expressed it so clearly :-)