Chambers <Ben### [at] gmailcom_no_underscores> wrote:
> http://www.cracked.com/funny-44-conspiracy-theories/

  I have to admit one thing, though: Some conspiracy theorists are quite
clever. They are real masters at presenting evidence in a way that fools
even an intelligent, educated person who has done his research on the
subject so that he has no idea what the real explanation is and is basically
bereft of counter-arguments without extensive additional research (which,
fortunately, as usually already been done and can be found with a google
search).

  I, for example, have read quite a lot of material by both the conspiracy
theorists and the debunkers, and I am quite familiar with all the "classical"
conspiracy theory claims and the presented "evidence" supporting those claims,
as well as the true explanations (which are usually rather simple when you
know the facts). Yet even I, from time to time, stumble across some "evidence"
that I just have no answer to and can't give any explanation all by myself.

  Basically this "evidence" presented by the conspiracy theorists consists
of really clever trick questions: By the way they are presented, they can be
quite convincing and it's difficult to come up with any other explanation.
(Yet usually when you read a competent debunking of the claim, the facts
become quite clear and obvious.)

  This is also usually the reason why scientists and debunkers don't like
to go to eg. discussion panels eg. in live radio against conspiracy theorists.
The conspiracy theorists will usually have prepared a bunch of cleverly laid
out trick questions which the debunker has never thought of before, and in
a live situation the debunker has only a few seconds to come up with an
answer. Like with all clever trick questions, this can be really difficult,
even if the answer is really simple. While the conspiracy theorist is wrong,
it gives the impression that he wins the discussion because the debunker is
surprised by this kind of trick question and has only a few seconds to
respond.
  (The situation would be very different if all the questions and arguments
were presented to the debunker well in advance, and the conspiracy theorist
would be prohibited from asking anything that wasn't presented in advance.
But of course this is seldom if ever done.)

  If even I get tricked by such cleverly presented "evidence" ("tricked" in
the sense that I just can't come up with the correct answer on my own),
I don't find it at all surprising that so many people believe in the
conspiracy theory.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message