How And Why Conspiracy Theorists Are Wrong

[fortigurn]

Source.

It is a question that drives conspiracy theorists, and other traffickers in fringe beliefs, batty: “Why don’t more experts and academicians agree with me?”

It’s a fair question. If a conspiracy theorist or other fringe believer, who is typically not an academician him or herself, has been convinced of something nutty—that 9/11 was an inside job, that Christianity is a false construct, that aliens visited the earth in ancient times, that global warming is a hoax, that colloidal silver cures cancer, etc.—it is difficult to understand why experts in various fields aren’t convinced by the same “evidence.” Usually the answer in the conspiracy theorist’s mind comes down to a dismissal of the value, independence, or honesty of experts and academicians: “They are all part of the Establishment. The truth I believe in fundamentally challenges the Establishment. Therefore, they’re either unable to recognize that it’s true, or afraid to endorse it.”

This blog will explain why this position is incorrect, and even absurd. I will do so by utilizing three case studies of fringe believers who can’t get any legitimate experts to sign on to their theories: Acharya S./D.M. Murdock, who claims that Christianity is a hoax; Erich von Däniken, who promotes the “ancient astronaut” theory; and Steven Jones, who maintains that the World Trade Center towers were blown up on 9/11 by “controlled demolition.”

[Mike D]

Is there any way to have that article published in flashing lights and with a trumpet fanfare?

[sankari]

This should be printed out and pinned to the forehead of Neil Godfrey with an electric rivet gun.

That goes double for Earl 'I-Make-Screaming-Lord-Sutch-Look-Astonishingly-Reasonable' Doherty.

In fact, once you realise they're both conspiracy theorists, a lot of things become clear.

[sankari]

There is one oversight in the article:

So the idea of Christ not existing is so taboo that the devout Muslim head of the history department at the University of Cairo is quaking in his boots to take on the topic? Who’s not going to publish him for taking that stance? Who’s not going to give him a grant for doing that sort of research?

No self respecting Muslim would deny the historicity of Jesus, since he is considered a prophet of God. I'd say that falls into the category of 'taboo.'