I was away for a few days. I came back and posted this response in another thread, then realized (after reading the next 3 pages) that the thread was better off dead.

So I'm posting my response in a new thread. If a conversation does branch out from here, can we keep it on topic?



The critique ought to be applied to all situations in which one presents a claim along with 'facts' presented to substantiate the claim. You ask yourself: Were the facts cherry picked? To what degree? Are the facts be given with sufficient and correct context? Is false logic being used as conclusions are drawn from these facts?

Yes, these questions should also be applied to scientific theories.

Often, conspiracy theory arguments fail this litmus test.



I'm sure you can name dozens of correct theories which were treated with ridicule. In some cases, this is largely because humans are closed-mined. In other cases, and especially with scientists, it is largely because these theories were not, at first, adequately supported by evidence.



That is absolutely true.

and people use all kinds of facts as political tools, this neither changes the facts, nor does it make the conclusions these people reach accurate.

We must look at how the facts are being correlated to one another.

... while keeping in mind that you need at least two relations of facts to establish a correlation.

A relates to B as C relates to D; this is 1 correlation.

A relates to B not the least as C relates to D; this is a 0 correlation.

As I read this with interest, I realized the perfect example would be "Global Warming". The problem is real. The facts are straightforward, but the amount of disinformation and conspiracy theory "crap" widely distributed is enormous.

Thus the drawback of having freedom of speech/press with little to no personal responsibility attached to the spread of known falsehood.