"Unproven theories that threaten someone's worldview are typically met with the same reaction as an opposing political opinions, and for similar reasons. Rarely is it based in logic and consideration, since adjusting one's worldview takes a lot of energy."
I disagree that most opposition to conspiracy theories comes from fear of having to adjust one's worldview, or that logic and consideration are rare. This statement makes critics of conspiracy theories out to be closed-minded and unreasonable, which is a common argument made by proponents of conspiracy theories to justify not having their worldview threatened by criticism.
Rather, logic and consideration are the reason most conspiracy theories are rejected, because most such theories are not rational, nor do they present compelling evidence.
"My advice is to foster a worldview in which you accept that the world is poorly understood and many things are possible, and then you won't have to do significant reorganization (or denial and attack) every time an interesting new idea comes your way."
Speaking of something obvious that goes without saying, most people already accept that the world is poorly understood and many things are possible. I believe that. That has nothing to do with the credibility of any particular conspiracy theory, and it does seem as if you're arguing against either accepting or rejecting any particular one under the implication that because the world is poorly understood, anything could be possible.
The most charitable interpretation I can make is that you're just arguing against rejecting conspiracy theories for purely emotional reasons... but my reply to you didn't contradict that premise at all, yet you and everyone else here assumes I'm simply closed minded and irrational.
I believe your point of view contributes to the problem. Even if that's not your intent, that is the result.
I do apologize for singling you out personally. That was unnecessary, and you did nothing to deserve it.
> I disagree that most opposition to conspiracy theories comes from fear of having to adjust one's worldview, or that logic and consideration are rare. This statement makes critics of conspiracy theories out to be closed-minded and unreasonable, which is a common argument made by proponents of conspiracy theories to justify not having their worldview threatened by criticism.
This is the crux of the disagreement then. Many of the prominent critics of conspiracy theories, especially ones who becomes full-time skeptics, are indeed closed-minded, in my opinion. But you describe it as a conscious activity (experiencing a fear of adjusting one's worldview) when really it's subconscious and most people are unaware of the mental gymnastics they are doing to shoot down an idea. Or for the more dedicated ones, they are playing debate rather than caring about the issue at hand, which can also be seen by groups such as the flat Earth-ers (if you think most of them actually think the Earth is flat, you have been memed).
I think you are in the minority in that most people agree this phenomenon exists, but very few can apply that knowledge to themselves. I can mostly only do so in hindsight, but entertaining ideas is definitely a practice-able skill.
> Speaking of something obvious that goes without saying, most people already accept that the world is poorly understood and many things are possible.
Perhaps among the average populous, but amongst people who are often the smartest in the room, especially the people perusing HN, this is definitely NOT true. A decade ago, I was certainly one of these people. I felt I could understand any technology from first principles rather easily, and no one around me seemed to be provoking any questions I couldn't answer. It was arrogance, and now I see it in others, too. Far more so in educated and scientifically minded circles.
I disagree that most opposition to conspiracy theories comes from fear of having to adjust one's worldview, or that logic and consideration are rare. This statement makes critics of conspiracy theories out to be closed-minded and unreasonable, which is a common argument made by proponents of conspiracy theories to justify not having their worldview threatened by criticism.
Rather, logic and consideration are the reason most conspiracy theories are rejected, because most such theories are not rational, nor do they present compelling evidence.
"My advice is to foster a worldview in which you accept that the world is poorly understood and many things are possible, and then you won't have to do significant reorganization (or denial and attack) every time an interesting new idea comes your way."
Speaking of something obvious that goes without saying, most people already accept that the world is poorly understood and many things are possible. I believe that. That has nothing to do with the credibility of any particular conspiracy theory, and it does seem as if you're arguing against either accepting or rejecting any particular one under the implication that because the world is poorly understood, anything could be possible.
The most charitable interpretation I can make is that you're just arguing against rejecting conspiracy theories for purely emotional reasons... but my reply to you didn't contradict that premise at all, yet you and everyone else here assumes I'm simply closed minded and irrational.
I believe your point of view contributes to the problem. Even if that's not your intent, that is the result.