On the general topic of conspiracy theories and their methods of 'research' and the way many conspiracists tend to draw conclusions.
I was very recently struck (once again!) by the contrast between the take by most CTers on what counts as reliable, trustable facts/evidence, and the research methods of many genuinely dilligent investigative journalists and researchers.
Excellent review in last Saturday's Guardian of two books on the Oil Industry
I'm sure both books will have their drawbacks (I particularly want to read Maass's book mind) but it does look like they approach the subject (the power of the oil industry) with a systematic and credible and logical and rational approach to evidence gathering and fact presentation. Perhaps Bower, given his track record, will err on the side of sensationalism, but both book seem to be highly critical of the Oil Establishment and related government actions/policies.
It would be interesting to check the notes/citations of the two books and see how many 'conspiracy theory' sites or books are cited.
I would guess none.
Conspiracy theorists rarely work like this, being far too tempted to speculate, guess, draw random 'conclusions', bring in any and every half relevant half connected fact or pseudo-fact into a grand theory of everything, and have a thoroughly cavalier approach to 'reputableness' of sources.
Such CTer favoured sources very much including whale.to/rense/Icke/Alex Jones/wedemandthe9/11truth!!!1!!ONE!.blog.com type 'sources' racked up to the gunnells with confirmation bias and preconstructed 'conclusions'
Most CTers have learnt little about reliable methodology from independent investigative journalists and researchers and historians. The latter people can have their faults and their own biases all right, but they come up smelling of relative roses compared to your most 'out there' conspiracy theorists.
I was very recently struck (once again!) by the contrast between the take by most CTers on what counts as reliable, trustable facts/evidence, and the research methods of many genuinely dilligent investigative journalists and researchers.
Excellent review in last Saturday's Guardian of two books on the Oil Industry
Review conclusion said:At a time when much contemporary non-fiction is devoted to the construction of theory, strategy and metanarrative, these two books simply provide the facts: facts that news channels and the continually updated online newspapers seem systemically incapable of digging out. They are each, in their own way, a tribute to the power of the meticulous, journalistic book. Both open a window on the global nightmare we have created: Bower's is a story of power, Maass's a story of powerlesseness.
I'm sure both books will have their drawbacks (I particularly want to read Maass's book mind) but it does look like they approach the subject (the power of the oil industry) with a systematic and credible and logical and rational approach to evidence gathering and fact presentation. Perhaps Bower, given his track record, will err on the side of sensationalism, but both book seem to be highly critical of the Oil Establishment and related government actions/policies.
It would be interesting to check the notes/citations of the two books and see how many 'conspiracy theory' sites or books are cited.
I would guess none.
Conspiracy theorists rarely work like this, being far too tempted to speculate, guess, draw random 'conclusions', bring in any and every half relevant half connected fact or pseudo-fact into a grand theory of everything, and have a thoroughly cavalier approach to 'reputableness' of sources.
Such CTer favoured sources very much including whale.to/rense/Icke/Alex Jones/wedemandthe9/11truth!!!1!!ONE!.blog.com type 'sources' racked up to the gunnells with confirmation bias and preconstructed 'conclusions'
Most CTers have learnt little about reliable methodology from independent investigative journalists and researchers and historians. The latter people can have their faults and their own biases all right, but they come up smelling of relative roses compared to your most 'out there' conspiracy theorists.