So my daughter has a class in college on conspiracy theories. It seems to be disigned to "inoculate" college kids from them (after college today, is designed to murder skepticism and graduate credulous dingbats that believe them selves to be the enlightened elite).
Whats interesting is she is supposed to write a paper on a consparicy theory and explain it and show how it's been "debunked" Then she is supposed to analyze what is wrong with people that keep believing it.
1/2
She texted me and asked me if she was missing something because she finds the debunking, relies on 1 of 3 things: A contrary expert opinion. She asks how can an opinion "debunk" something without discrediting the evidence with counter evidence?
Or it relies on facts with limited or shakey proof put out by the very people who are suspected of being part of the conspiracy. She asks, what else are they going to say? Or it calls into question one supporting piece of evidence with reasonable 2/3
I don’t see part 3/3 of your thread. However, just thinking what’s unreasonable about this exercise? Presenting evidence for and against theories like, the moon landing was faked or the flat earth theory seems reasonable. At some point we need to be able to rationally come to some conclusions based on the presented evidence.
