Yesterday I slated a whole raft of conspiracy theories with loose use of epithets like 'bonkers' 'mad' etc.
If this in any way offends urb or anyone else I apologise -- I certainly didn't intend to attack as such any mental troubles anyone may have experienced. I don't even want to suggest that everyone who subscribes to conspiracy theories is themselves loopy --- Dr Jazz for eg is very rational and articulate (just comes out with a bunch of cobblers a lot of the time
)
I was really attacking the inherent
irrationality of so many of the
theories themselves and the fact that to beleive them, you have to suspend a whole lot of contradictory evidence and be prepared to be very selective in what you accept or not.
It is surely true that most conspiracy theorists are very reluctant indeed to condemn or question any other conpiracy theory (except possibly when it conflicts directly with their own) -- this solidarity of acceptance of all theories accross the board however implausible or however directly contradicted by more credible evidence, weakens their credibility as 'historians' I feel.
As someone
said, there's no point in being so 'open minded' that all your common sense falls out. A few more admissions by conspiracy merchants that some if not most theories floating about are ridiculous and much less likely to be true than less selective, more sensible, more facts-consistent versions, might go a little further to stop so many of us non-conspiracists think that 'open minded' to the conspiracy theorist means being prepared to swallow any passing 'anti establishment' pipedream passing by on the net.
As I said before, that version of being 'anti-establishment' discredits some really good investigative work by proper scientists and historians, oftenm themselves of an anti-establishment bent, who do all the necessary boring, tedious, fact checking and evidence using techniques of arriving at proof ...
Also, conspiracy theorists should show a greater relectance to condemn those who don't subscribe to their theeory as stooges of the establishment, evangelists for the scientific establishment, or as being brainwashed by the media. Doesn't up the persausiveness levels for you, that all too common tactic.
A last word to urb --- if the theories you believe are (as you seem to be saying) based on voices you hear, a lot depends surely on how much you want other people to concur with your reality. If you don't care whether others believe you or not, fair enough. But if you want to persuade others that there's something in any of the threories that have been linked to in this thread, then I hate to say it but you're going to have to be a good deal more persuasive than to say that I heard something or someone telling me so.
Can you not see that so many of those theories look absolutely ridiculous to the rationalist majority?
And for very good reason.
in my post above, but I'm just trying to outline why so many people struggle to be able to take many of these theories all that seriously ....
