"Immune to Evidence": How Dangerous Coronavirus Conspiracies Spread - 2020-05-17

From UmbraXenu
Jump to: navigation, search
F0.png "Immune to Evidence": How Dangerous Coronavirus Conspiracies Spread May 17, 2020, Marshall Allen, ProPublica

What are some differences between conventional and conspiratorial thinking?

You can start with healthy skepticism vs. overriding suspicion. As a scientist, I'm obviously skeptical. I'm questioning anything people say. I look at my own data and other people's data with a skeptical eye. But after skeptics have been skeptical, they are quite capable of accepting evidence. Once something has withstood scrutiny, you accept it. Otherwise you're in a state of complete nihilism and you can't believe anything.

That crucial second step of acceptance is absent in conspiracy theorists. That is where conspiracy theorists are different. Their skepticism is a bottomless, never-ending pit of skepticism about anything related to the official account. And that skepticism is accompanied by extreme gullibility to anything related to the conspiracy. It's an imbalance between skepticism for anything an official may say and complete gullibility for something some random dude on the internet will tweet out. It's that imbalance that differentiates conspiracy thinking from standard cognition.

Wikipedia cite:
{{cite news | first = Marshall | last = Allen | title = "Immune to Evidence": How Dangerous Coronavirus Conspiracies Spread | url = https://www.propublica.org/article/immune-to-evidence-how-dangerous-coronavirus-conspiracies-spread | work = ProPublica | date = May 17, 2020 | accessdate = May 21, 2020 }}