Replies

The problem I've run into with most conspiracy theories is that they never try to prove their theory right -- they expect others to prove it wrong. That's a reversal of what we usually require to accept a truth.

The reason that's an issue is because it takes very little effort to throw infinite amounts of made-up crap against the wall without proof, but lots and lots of effort to dig up the evidence to disprove all that crap. And because they can invent it random crap faster than you can debunk it, you're basically just playing rhetorical wack-a-mole.

So, my practice with conspiracy theorists is this: Give me your very best fact. The one you believe is strongest and most suggestive that your theory is true. And if I can't adequately address that one, then I'll start paying more attention and go on to the next.

But if I can show that your very best piece of evidence if flawed, inconsequential, or otherwise worthless, that's it. I consider your theory deserves to be mocked.

I found this was a great way to address the 9/11 Truthers, of whom there were quite a few here.

My approach is the exact opposite.

My default position is the government lies about everything.

Those who wish to defend the government narrative have the burden of proof.