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.
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.