The Conspiracy Theory Detector

[Michael Bailey]

typical reductionist stuff, acting as if there is some authoritative
narrative somewhere that is *not* a conspiracy theory...

I think reception theory is relevant, too: who is the audience for a
given conspiracy theory, and what constellation of sectors is being
targeted, and what does the author expect they will do with the
knowledge, and what responses are noticed among them...

a-and story theory, ie, there can be a lot of fricking truth in a
story that is made of partially or even completely fictitious material
- eh, Pynchon fans?

and maybe that Locard, look for traces on anything touching the events...

and cui bono, obviously

and quis custodiet custodiam

also, are we playing tiddly winks with manhole covers? - noticing a
massive trend of any kind doesn't necessarily mean you have the power
to change it

just my 2 cents, maybe Lincoln pennies or maybe wheat pennies, or iron
war pennies, or maybe a couple of penny blacks...



On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Dave Monroe <against.the.dave at gmail.com> wrote:
> The Conspiracy Theory Detector
> How to tell the difference between true and false conspiracy theories
>
> By Michael Shermer  | December 14, 2010 |
>
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-conspiracy-theory-director
>



-- 
"Such regulations may, no doubt, be considered as in some respects a
violation of natural liberty. But those exertions of the natural
liberty of a few individuals, which might endanger the security of the
whole society, are, and ought to be, restrained by the laws of all
governments, of the most free as well as of the most despotical." -
Adam Smith