25 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

Why did you start this thread?

To prove that all conspiracies are bs?

If you want to do that, you should start with simpler ones.

Not something like climate change, where the science is too complex to prove or disprove.

Read the title! You seem to have difficulty answering questions and staying on topic.

the topic "Why so many conspiracy theorists and what to do about them"

I suppose reading your posts does supply evidence as to why there are so many conspiracy theorists – and it does say 'theorists' – so examples of conspiracy theories are not nrcessarily on topic either unless used as an example to answer the OP, but rambling on about 15 minute cities has little to do with conspiracy theorists unless you are attributing their creation to lizard people or something similar.

You remind me of the student who, when asked to write a paper on William II, started by saying he knew nothing about that and so then presented an essay on William I ... needless to say, he failed that assignment

Edited August 17Aug 17 by kwilco

52 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

Why did you start this thread?

To prove that all conspiracies are bs?

If you want to do that, you should start with simpler ones.

Not something like climate change, where the science is too complex to prove or disprove.

You seem to have misunderstood the thread completely.

The title is “Why so many conspiracy theorists and what to do about them?” It isn't “Let’s examine individual conspiracy theories and prove them one by one.”

The subject is the mindset and reasoning of conspiracy theorists — why people are attracted to conspiratorial explanations, why they reject overwhelming evidence, and how you deal with that kind of thinking.

So your premise is wrong from the outset.

And as for “climate change is too complex to prove or disprove” — that is another misunderstanding. The underlying science isn't some mystical intellectual puzzle. The basic mechanism is remarkably straightforward: greenhouse gases absorb outgoing infrared radiation, increasing their concentration changes Earth's energy balance, and the planet warms.

The complexity lies in predicting exactly how much, where and how quickly the consequences will unfold — not in establishing whether greenhouse gases warm the planet.

And that is precisely the point of my OP: when virtually the entire relevant scientific community agrees on the fundamental conclusion, why do some people respond by declaring the science “too complex to prove” rather than examining why they distrust the evidence? – in scientific terms it is as proven as the link between smoking and cancer – in fact, more so.

You haven't actually addressed the question in the OP.

You've simply changed the subject.

31 minutes ago, kwilco said:

"Why so many conspiracy theorists and what to do about them"

There is an increasing number for sure. The World Cup this year alone created another 10,069.

What to do about them? IMO, round them up. Lock them up, but not before screening and separating the Flat Earthers from the Big Foot enthusiasts. And! Unless the theory is proven factual after all; leave them locked away, to chat among themselves.

Edited August 17Aug 17 by Stiddle Mump

Mate of mine, retired 75 years old, took up YouTube with a vengeance as the non workers are wont to do to take up time in their now meaningless lives.

Convinced himself the world was flat, scanned me with his phone after my first COVID jab and found nothing and declared it must have been a placebo.

Refused the COVID jab on the basis it would cause heart problems. Drank his own urine based on some nutters conviction on YouTube.

Long story short, he blacked out a couple of times. Told him and his wife to go and see a real doctor.

They did.

Straight to palliative care and dead three days later.

There's one answer to the OP. Given enough time time they will die out. At least on this forum.

10 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

separating the Flat Earthers from the Big Foot enthusiasts

QED – you've missed the point! - It's not the theory; it's the mindset.

2 minutes ago, emptypockets said:

Mate of mine, retired 75 years old, took up YouTube with a vengeance as the non workers are wont to do to take up time in their now meaningless lives.

Convinced himself the world was flat, scanned me with his phone after my first COVID jab and found nothing and declared it must have been a placebo.

Refused the COVID jab on the basis it would cause heart problems. Drank his own urine based on some nutters conviction on YouTube.

Long story short, he blacked out a couple of times. Told him and his wife to go and see a real doctor.

They did.

Straight to palliative care and dead three days later.

There's one answer to the OP. Given enough time time they will die out. At least on this forum.

Unfortunately, they seem to recruit faster than they die – the internet is without doubt responsible for a lot of this – it has brought about the revival of the snake-oil salesman.

4 minutes ago, kwilco said:

Unfortunately, they seem to recruit faster than they die – the internet is without doubt responsible for a lot of this – it has brought about the revival of the snake-oil salesman.

Agree 100%

26 minutes ago, kwilco said:

The subject is the mindset and reasoning of conspiracy theorists — why people are attracted to conspiratorial explanations, why they reject overwhelming evidence, and how you deal with that kind of thinking.

No, no, no, no, no.

You have deluded yourself that the science behind global warming isn't that hard to understand.

As I have pointed out, the more complex the science is, the easier it is to come to conclusions that the average person cannot verify. You simply do not have the scientific background to understand climate change science. You are just deluding yourself that you do to validate your stance on conspiracy theorists.

Majority doesn't prove anything.

Overwhelming (alleged) evidence doesn't prove anything.

Because the world is set up like a Pyramid.

The guys at the top set the agenda, and if you deviate from it, you risk losing your job.

There may be (possibly) many scientists who do not agree with the climate change science, but just keep their mouths shut to not ruin their careers.

That's why often only a minority of scientists will challenge anything.

They already work outside the system.

Edited August 17Aug 17 by save the frogs

3 minutes ago, kwilco said:

QED – you've missed the point! - It's not the theory; it's the mindset.

TBH, wid yer Kwilco, I don't agree.

There is a world of difference between those that believe in God and those that think the Loch Ness Monster can speak perfect English. Albeit with a Scottish accent.

One is based on books that have sold millions. Whilst t'other is credible due to first-hand confrontations outside McHaggis Bar in Inverness.

What about the first rule of being a doctor? Do no harm?

Edited August 17Aug 17 by Stiddle Mump

2 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

No, no, no, no, no.

You have deluded yourself that the science behind global warming isn't that hard to understand.

As I have pointed out, the more complex the science is, the easier it is to come to conclusions that the average person cannot verify. You simply do not have the scientific background to understand climate change science. You are just deluding yourself that you do to validate your stance on conspiracy theorists.

Majority doesn't prove anything.

Overwhelming (alleged) evidence doesn't prove anything.

Because the world is set up like a Pyramid.

The guys at the top set the agenda, and if you deviate from it, you risk losing your job.

There may be (possibly) many scientists who do not agree with the climate change science, but just keep their mouths shut to not ruin their careers.

That's why often only a minority of scientists will challenge anything.

They already work outside the system.

The majority work inside the system and are acutely aware of where the next paycheck or grant comes from. Follow the money

Conspiracy theorists show two hallmarks

No critical thinking

and "research' skills - a lack of understanding of how to use the internet

18 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

No, no, no, no, no.

You have deluded yourself that the science behind global warming isn't that hard to understand.

As I have pointed out, the more complex the science is, the easier it is to come to conclusions that the average person cannot verify. You simply do not have the scientific background to understand climate change science. You are just deluding yourself that you do to validate your stance on conspiracy theorists.

Majority doesn't prove anything.

Overwhelming (alleged) evidence doesn't prove anything.

Because the world is set up like a Pyramid.

The guys at the top set the agenda, and if you deviate from it, you risk losing your job.

There may be (possibly) many scientists who do not agree with the climate change science, but just keep their mouths shut to not ruin their careers.

That's why often only a minority of scientists will challenge anything.

They already work outside the system.

This is almost a textbook example of the conspiracy mindset you’re claiming to describe…

You start with the conclusion — “the science must be too complex to trust” — then invent an invisible hierarchy of people supposedly controlling thousands of scientists, assume dissenters are being silenced, and treat the absence of evidence for that conspiracy as evidence that the conspiracy is working.

That isn't scientific scepticism. It's unfalsifiable reasoning: whatever the evidence says, the conspiracy is simply assumed to explain it.

And nobody needs to personally understand every equation in climate science to establish whether the conclusions are reliable. We don't individually verify every calculation in medicine, engineering or particle physics. We examine the independent evidence, replication, predictions, competing explanations and expert consensus.

“Majority doesn't prove anything” is technically true — but it's a straw man. The argument isn't “scientists are right because they're the majority.” It's that multiple independent lines of evidence converge on the same conclusion, and proposed alternatives fail to explain the observations.

As for your imaginary army of scientists who secretly disagree but remain silent to protect their careers: that's not evidence. It's a story constructed specifically to make the theory impossible to disprove.

Ironically, you've just demonstrated the very mindset the thread is about.

7 minutes ago, kwilco said:

This is almost a textbook example of the conspiracy mindset you’re claiming to describe…

You start with the conclusion — “the science must be too complex to trust” — then invent an invisible hierarchy of people supposedly controlling thousands of scientists, assume dissenters are being silenced, and treat the absence of evidence for that conspiracy as evidence that the conspiracy is working.

That isn't scientific scepticism. It's unfalsifiable reasoning: whatever the evidence says, the conspiracy is simply assumed to explain it.

And nobody needs to personally understand every equation in climate science to establish whether the conclusions are reliable. We don't individually verify every calculation in medicine, engineering or particle physics. We examine the independent evidence, replication, predictions, competing explanations and expert consensus.

“Majority doesn't prove anything” is technically true — but it's a straw man. The argument isn't “scientists are right because they're the majority.” It's that multiple independent lines of evidence converge on the same conclusion, and proposed alternatives fail to explain the observations.

As for your imaginary army of scientists who secretly disagree but remain silent to protect their careers: that's not evidence. It's a story constructed specifically to make the theory impossible to disprove.

Ironically, you've just demonstrated the very mindset the thread is about.

Sorry, I don't want to keep going around in circles.

You get the last word.

There is evidence all over this thread of people who are not really good at using the internet and show no critical thinking skills. I've compiled here a list of "The 7 Deadly Sins of Using the Internet to Write or Form an Opinion".

Using this guide is a good way of protecting yourself against conspiracy theories

1.     Cut and Paste.

Saying something is “cut and paste” is not an argument; it is merely the transfer of someone's writing from one screen to another. It isn't even necessarily unoriginal work, but dropping a wall of pasted text without your own synthesis, framing, or critical evaluation adds zero analytical value to a discussion…it may be just getting your own work off your computer and putting it on a site that's your opinion – so saying “cut and paste” is actually meaningless without an explanation.

2. Confusing Search with Research

Searching is transactional: you're looking for a specific piece of existing data—checking a bus timetable, finding a phone number, or looking up a word definition. You have a target, you retrieve it, and you're done.

Research is true investigation: It is a systematic, iterative process aimed at building new understanding, evaluating evidence, or reaching a reasoned conclusion. Research involves gathering multiple perspectives, cross-examining data, identifying biases, and synthesising findings.

3  - Treating Search Engines as Sources …

Google itself is not a primary source, a publisher, or an authority on a topic. It does not "know" things; it points to web pages hosted elsewhere. Claiming "I found this on Google" is equivalent to saying "I found this in a library." The credibility depends entirely on the specific document, journal, or site retrieved—not the engine used to locate it.

4. Misunderstanding AI...

Generative AI is not a search engine, a source, a factual database, or an oracle, and it doesn't do the thinking for you. AI is a drafting, reasoning, and synthesis tool. It can structure ideas, summarize long texts, or spot logical fallacies, but human oversight is strictly required to verify claims. It can organise notes or pull an outline together, but the human running it must still provide and inspect the primary data before putting their name on the final claim.

5. Mashing Up Sources & Blaming the Messenger

People frequently confuse the messenger with the message, accusing a poster of claiming something when they are simply reporting what a source says. Furthermore, web users constantly fail to distinguish between the three tiers of information:

a - Primary Sources - (The Raw Data): First-hand evidence—official government figures, original research data, legal court documents, or direct eye-witness accounts.

b - Secondary Sources - (The Analysis): Peer-reviewed journal articles, expert commentaries, and analytical reports that take primary data, test it, and put it into context.

c - Tertiary Sources - (The Summaries): Encyclopedias (like Wikipedia), travel guides, and general reference lists. These are great for getting a quick 10,000-foot overview, but tertiary sources—which are the most common on forums—should never be relied on as the final word in a serious debate.

6. Confusing the "Internet" with the "Web" Most people don't know what the internet actually is:

The Internet (The Infrastructure): The global hardware—a massive web of physical wires, undersea cables, routers, and servers linking machines worldwide. It is the carrier that moves all kinds of digital data back and forth, handling many backend services that do not use web pages at all.

The World Wide Web (The Content): What most people wrongly call "the internet." Invented in 1989, the Web is merely a service running on top of the internet infrastructure, consisting of text, pictures, and videos linked by URLs and viewed through a browser.

7. The "Absence of Proof is Proof of Cover-up" Trap

Unfalsifiability - Treating a lack of evidence for a claim as "proof" that powerful entities are hiding it. In critical inquiry, a claim must be falsifiable—meaning there must be a defined set of facts that could prove it wrong. If every piece of counter-evidence is dismissed as "fake news" or part of a cover-up, the argument leaves the realm of rational investigation and enters unfalsifiable belief.

Edited August 17Aug 17 by kwilco

11 minutes ago, kwilco said:

There is evidence all over this thread of people who are not really good at using the internet and show no critical thinking skills. I've compiled here a list of "The 7 Deadly Sins of Using the Internet to Write or Form an Opinion".

Using this guide is a good way of protecting yourself against conspiracy theories

1.     Cut and Paste.

Saying something is “cut and paste” is not an argument; it is merely the transfer of someone's writing from one screen to another. It isn't even necessarily unoriginal work, but dropping a wall of pasted text without your own synthesis, framing, or critical evaluation adds zero analytical value to a discussion…it may be just getting your own work off your computer and putting it on a site that's your opinion – so saying “cut and paste” is actually meaningless without an explanation.

2. Confusing Search with Research

Searching is transactional: you're looking for a specific piece of existing data—checking a bus timetable, finding a phone number, or looking up a word definition. You have a target, you retrieve it, and you're done.

Research is true investigation: It is a systematic, iterative process aimed at building new understanding, evaluating evidence, or reaching a reasoned conclusion. Research involves gathering multiple perspectives, cross-examining data, identifying biases, and synthesising findings.

3  - Treating Search Engines as Sources …

Google itself is not a primary source, a publisher, or an authority on a topic. It does not "know" things; it points to web pages hosted elsewhere. Claiming "I found this on Google" is equivalent to saying "I found this in a library." The credibility depends entirely on the specific document, journal, or site retrieved—not the engine used to locate it.

4. Misunderstanding AI...

Generative AI is not a search engine, a source, a factual database, or an oracle, and it doesn't do the thinking for you. AI is a drafting, reasoning, and synthesis tool. It can structure ideas, summarize long texts, or spot logical fallacies, but human oversight is strictly required to verify claims. It can organise notes or pull an outline together, but the human running it must still provide and inspect the primary data before putting their name on the final claim.

5. Mashing Up Sources & Blaming the Messenger

People frequently confuse the messenger with the message, accusing a poster of claiming something when they are simply reporting what a source says. Furthermore, web users constantly fail to distinguish between the three tiers of information:

a - Primary Sources - (The Raw Data): First-hand evidence—official government figures, original research data, legal court documents, or direct eye-witness accounts.

b - Secondary Sources - (The Analysis): Peer-reviewed journal articles, expert commentaries, and analytical reports that take primary data, test it, and put it into context.

c - Tertiary Sources - (The Summaries): Encyclopedias (like Wikipedia), travel guides, and general reference lists. These are great for getting a quick 10,000-foot overview, but tertiary sources—which are the most common on forums—should never be relied on as the final word in a serious debate.

6. Confusing the "Internet" with the "Web" Most people don't know what the internet actually is:

The Internet (The Infrastructure): The global hardware—a massive web of physical wires, undersea cables, routers, and servers linking machines worldwide. It is the carrier that moves all kinds of digital data back and forth, handling many backend services that do not use web pages at all.

The World Wide Web (The Content): What most people wrongly call "the internet." Invented in 1989, the Web is merely a service running on top of the internet infrastructure, consisting of text, pictures, and videos linked by URLs and viewed through a browser.

7. The "Absence of Proof is Proof of Cover-up" Trap

Unfalsifiability - Treating a lack of evidence for a claim as "proof" that powerful entities are hiding it. In critical inquiry, a claim must be falsifiable—meaning there must be a defined set of facts that could prove it wrong. If every piece of counter-evidence is dismissed as "fake news" or part of a cover-up, the argument leaves the realm of rational investigation and enters unfalsifiable belief.

Funny you would say that, since I would guess you used AI yourself. The proof is in the fingerprints left all over your text.

39 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Funny you would say that, since I would guess you used AI yourself. The proof is in the fingerprints left all over your text.

QED – if you disagree with something I've posted, you should discuss it, saying "AI" is not anargument, it seems you still don't know what AI is even – or how to use it or how or why? As said, it isn't an argument, as I explained earlier, I'm dyslexic and use Grammarly or Quillbot. Every view expressed is MY opinion from MY study. - BTW - I"ve been an academic writer since 1988, and lot of the stuff I use I originally wrote a long time before AI was available.

As you appear to demonstrate, another area where conspiracy theorists have difficulties is “critical thinking"—many don’t actually know what it is - isn’t just "thinking hard"—it’s a specific, disciplined approach to evaluating information objectively. It means following the evidence wherever it leads, testing assumptions, spotting logical fallacies, and actively trying to prove yourself wrong before declaring you’re right.

 

This video part of “fake news, fact and fiction", is worth a watch, as it deals with critical thinking and clearly explains the sort of mistakes people make that draw them to conspiracy theories…

 

This video provides a short overview of how critical thinking skills help spot bias, spin, and false information when navigating online news and social media, the difference between search and research the use of Google and a search engines, how AI is misunderstood as a tool; and other areas for research, primary, secondary, and tertiary sources

Understanding the distinctions between retrieval, analysis, and information tiers is essential for navigating digital media, academic study, and everyday problem-solving.

 

https://youtu.be/E_2CwOpt0NY

 

YouTube

Edited August 17Aug 17 by kwilco

9 minutes ago, kwilco said:

QED – if you disagree with something I've posted, you should discuss it, saying "AI" is not anargument, it seems you still don't know what AI is even – or how to use it or how or why? As said, it isn't an argument, as I explained earlier, I'm dyslexic and use Grammarly or Quillbot. Every view expressed is MY opinion from MY study. BTW - I"ve been an academic wroiter since 1988 and lot of the stuff I use was originally written a long time before AI was available.

As tyou appear to demonstrate, another area where conspiracy theorists have difficulties is “Critical thinking” – many don’t actually know what it is - isn’t just "thinking hard"—it’s a specific, disciplined approach to evaluating information objectively. It means following the evidence wherever it leads, testing assumptions, spotting logical fallacies, and actively trying to prove yourself wrong before declaring you’re right.

 

This video part of “fake news, fact and fiction” is worth a watch as it deals with critical thinking and clearly explains the sort of mistakes people make that draw them to conspiracy theories…

 

This video provides a short overview of how critical thinking skills help spot bias, spin, and false information when navigating online news and social media, the difference between search and research the use of Google and a search engines, how AI is misunderstood as a tool and other areas for research primary secondary and tertiary sources

Understanding the distinctions between retrieval, analysis, and information tiers is essential for navigating digital media, academic study, and everyday problem-solving.

 

https://youtu.be/E_2CwOpt0NY

 

YouTube

Edited August 17Aug 17 by kwilco

35 minutes ago, kwilco said:

QED – if you disagree with something I've posted, you should discuss it, saying "AI" is not anargument, it seems you still don't know what AI is even – or how to use it or how or why? As said, it isn't an argument, as I explained earlier, I'm dyslexic and use Grammarly or Quillbot. Every view expressed is MY opinion from MY study. - BTW - I"ve been an academic writer since 1988, and lot of the stuff I use I originally wrote a long time before AI was available.

As you appear to demonstrate, another area where conspiracy theorists have difficulties is “critical thinking"—many don’t actually know what it is - isn’t just "thinking hard"—it’s a specific, disciplined approach to evaluating information objectively. It means following the evidence wherever it leads, testing assumptions, spotting logical fallacies, and actively trying to prove yourself wrong before declaring you’re right.

 

This video part of “fake news, fact and fiction", is worth a watch, as it deals with critical thinking and clearly explains the sort of mistakes people make that draw them to conspiracy theories…

 

This video provides a short overview of how critical thinking skills help spot bias, spin, and false information when navigating online news and social media, the difference between search and research the use of Google and a search engines, how AI is misunderstood as a tool; and other areas for research, primary, secondary, and tertiary sources

Understanding the distinctions between retrieval, analysis, and information tiers is essential for navigating digital media, academic study, and everyday problem-solving.

 

https://youtu.be/E_2CwOpt0NY

 

YouTube

I said your texts have the fingerprints of AI assisted writing, and then you tell me you use Grammarly and QuillBot. That pretty much explains what I noticed. The rest about my critical thinking and conspiracy theories is just you changing the subject.

20 hours ago, Hummin said:

I said your texts have the fingerprints of AI assisted writing, and then you tell me you use Grammarly and QuillBot. That pretty much explains what I noticed. The rest about my critical thinking and conspiracy theories is just you changing the subject.

So what is your complaint?

...and what do you mean by "fingerprints"?

You still haven't explained yourself.

Edited August 18Aug 18 by kwilco

3 minutes ago, kwilco said:

So what is your complaint?

...and what do you mean by "fingerprints"?

My complaint is the irony. You started by telling others they do not understand AI and criticizing how they use it, while your own writing is clearly AI assisted. By fingerprints I mean the very structured wording, repeated definitions, balanced sections and polished teaching style. Then you confirmed you use Grammarly and QuillBot, which are AI assisted tools. I never said the opinions were not yours.

Why did you accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist and lacking critical thinking, simply because I pointed out the irony?

You didn't, it isn't, and I do understand AI, which you clearly don't, which is why you're like a conspiracy theorist.

You were trying to imply that stuff I'd posted was somehow inaccurate or not my opinion—sadly, as you are so poorly informed, you don't know your elbow from.....

Edited August 18Aug 18 by kwilco

19 minutes ago, kwilco said:

You didn't, it isn't, and I do understand AI, which you clearly don't, which is why you're like a conspiracy theorist.

You were trying to imply that stuff I'd posted was somehow inaccurate or not my opinion—sadly, as you are so poorly informed, you don't know your elbow from.....

No, he said is was AI assisted. Is that not true?

23 minutes ago, kwilco said:

You didn't, it isn't, and I do understand AI, which you clearly don't, which is why you're like a conspiracy theorist.

You were trying to imply that stuff I'd posted was somehow inaccurate or not my opinion—sadly, as you are so poorly informed, you don't know your elbow from.....

I have to assume your post was a reply to mine?

Please read my post one more time. I do not believe there was anything unclear about it.

On 8/18/2026 at 3:18 PM, kwilco said:

Why so many conspiracy theorists?

A lot of people still have common sense?

13 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

A lot of people still have common sense?

“Common sense" is for when people agree with your prejudices

“Common sense” isn’t a method — it’s just your personal intuition dressed up as authority. It’s shaped by your upbringing, your culture, your biases, and your blind spots. What feels “obvious” to you often just means “familiar.” Science exists precisely because common sense is unreliable: the Earth feels flat, heavy objects feel like they should fall faster, and the Sun feels like it goes around us. All wrong. Critical thinking tests instinct against evidence; “I believe my own etyes and common sense” just protects whatever you already believe. If your argument depends on common sense alone, you’re not reasoning — you’re rationalising.

On 8/18/2026 at 2:47 PM, Yellowtail said:

No, he said is was AI assisted. Is that not true?

No, he didn't he was implying it was inaccurate, not my opinion or not valid

Edited August 20Aug 20 by kwilco

1 minute ago, kwilco said:

no he didn't he was implying it was inaccurate

That's not how I read it.

In any event, was it AI assisted?

5 minutes ago, kwilco said:

“Common sense" is for when people agree with your prejudices

“Common sense” isn’t a method — it’s just your personal intuition dressed up as authority. It’s shaped by your upbringing, your culture, your biases, and your blind spots. What feels “obvious” to you often just means “familiar.” Science exists precisely because common sense is unreliable: the Earth feels flat, heavy objects feel like they should fall faster, and the Sun feels like it goes around us. All wrong. Critical thinking tests instinct against evidence; “I believe my own etyes and common sense” just protects whatever you already believe. If your argument depends on common sense alone, you’re not reasoning — you’re rationalising.

None of those are examples of common sense, as I understand it.

9 minutes ago, kwilco said:

“Common sense" is for when people agree with your prejudices

“Common sense” isn’t a method — it’s just your personal intuition dressed up as authority.

You need to make up your mind. Either common sense is desirable or it isn't:

On 4/30/2026 at 7:33 PM, kwilco said:

I think we can all see the local legends on here who’ve replaced their common sense with YouTube clips and "leaked" PDFs? You know the ones.

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

You need to make up your mind. Either common sense is desirable or it isn't:

Why try to make a false dichotomy out of it? It doesn't matter if it's desirable or not; you need to understand what it is and what you are doing when you appeal to it

2 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

You need to make up your mind. Either common sense is desirable or it isn't:

You are making a false dichotomy. You’re taking taking my use of “common sense” in a specific rhetorical context and pretending I made a universal philosophical claim that common sense is either always desirable or always worthless.

Can I point out that common sense is useful as a starting heuristic, but it is not a substitute for evidence or critical thinking — which is the distinction my original post was making.

I seems quite an impressive attempt to manufacture a contradiction where none exists.

You seem to think I've said that “common sense” is either universally desirable or universally worthless. I said nothing of the sort. That's a false dichotomy.

Common sense can be useful as a rough starting point for navigating everyday life. It is not, however, a scientific method, a substitute for evidence, or an infallible guide to reality. Knowing its limitations is rather important — particularly when dealing with subjects where intuition is notoriously unreliable.

And that's exactly what I was getting at in the original post.

When I referred to people who had “replaced their common sense with YouTube clips and leaked PDFs”, I wasn't proposing common sense as a scientific methodology. I was mocking the conspiratorial version of “common sense” — the wonderfully convenient variety where whatever happens to confirm your existing prejudices is declared obvious, while anything contradicting them is dismissed as nonsense. i.e. “common sense is for when people agree with your prejudices.”

This is precisely why conspiracy theorists' version of common sense is such a poor substitute for critical thinking. If your “common sense” invariably tells you that the people you already distrust must be lying, you've discovered nothing except your own confirmation bias.

Incidentally, you've spent all this time trawling through my posts and apparently this is the contradiction you've managed to find. After more than 70 pages, you came back with one sentence from April 30th.

I'm almost flattered.

And perhaps you missed the larger point I've made repeatedly: when confronted with an elaborate conspiracy, sometimes the most useful first question isn't an 8,000-word rebuttal. It's simply:

“Why would anyone do that?”

Who benefits? How many people would have to be involved? How long could they realistically keep it secret? What evidence would actually falsify the claim?

Or, in the case of our reptilian friends:

“What exactly do the lizards gain from this?”

They may be called “common sense” but in fact, they're invitations to think about the plausibility of the claim before getting lost in 47 YouTube videos explaining the plot.

So no, I don't need to “make up my mind” about whether common sense is desirable.

I need to know when it is useful, when it isn't, and when it needs to be replaced by evidence, logic and expertise.

That's called critical thinking.

And the fact that you have apparently been hanging on my every word for 70 pages in order to find one sentence to attack suggests that, ironically, someone here is paying considerably more attention to me than I am to them.