This rather condescending article seems to define "conspiracy theory" as something that is always by definition untrue, rather than something that may ultimately be true but is "officially" considered untrue at the current time.
It is of course a simple matter to disapprove the notion that all conspiracy theories have been false. Many prove to be true.
I remember well when the notion that LIBOR looked manipulated was ridiculed as a conspiracy theory. Years later it was front page news.
Are most conspiracy theories false? Probably.
But the notion that "talking to conspiracy theorists" starts with a presumption of superiority of one's own assumptions is to be fundamentally unscientific -- and is often merely an appeal to authority.
Take the death of Jeffrey Epstein: I place myself squarely on the side of the conspiracy theorists. How would you "talk to me"?
It is of course a simple matter to disapprove the notion that all conspiracy theories have been false. Many prove to be true.
I remember well when the notion that LIBOR looked manipulated was ridiculed as a conspiracy theory. Years later it was front page news.
Are most conspiracy theories false? Probably.
But the notion that "talking to conspiracy theorists" starts with a presumption of superiority of one's own assumptions is to be fundamentally unscientific -- and is often merely an appeal to authority.
Take the death of Jeffrey Epstein: I place myself squarely on the side of the conspiracy theorists. How would you "talk to me"?