TED Conversations

Michael Fullerton

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Why is someone a "conspiracy theorist" merely because they question the government account of something? Isn't that plain old skepticism?

Skepticism is supposed to involve objectively questioning claims based on evidence. Why then is someone called a conspiracy theorist when they merely question a government's extraordinary claim which is seriously lacking in evidence?

+2
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Aug 23 2013: some conspiracy theories are plausible, while others require a great big leap of faith and incredulousness. the problem of course is that the incredulous outnumber the plausible and since almost all conspiracy theories deal with subject which tend to make people uncomfortable, it is easy to dismiss all such theories as foolish and ill informed.
    • thumb
      Aug 25 2013: Where is the evidence that the incredulous conspiracy theories outnumber the plausible and who is it that decides? Dismissing an argument because you find it too hard to believe is a logical fallacy, the appeal to incredulity fallacy. Using illogic to dismiss arguments is the epitome of foolish and ill informed.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.