Members of my family are, I think it's fairly safe to say, pretty nutty about conspiracy theories. With the recent anniversary of the 11 September attacks, the subject has reared its head once again, and it got me thinking about applying evidence-based rationality to these claims.
I think of the conspiracy theory movement as a lawyer in a courtroom:
Lawyer 1 (Conspiracy theorist): this is my evidence for a government conspiracy..
Lawyer 2: this is my evidence in response to that, debunking your evidence.
Now the next stage should be to get the first lawyer respond with a further response showing why the second lawyer is incorrect in his debunking before the judge makes a decision, but what's happened with conspiracy theorists instead is that they've stuck their head out the courthouse window and shouted their original evidence loudly to anyone walking past, who then start passing it around to each other as if they were proven facts.
Show me some good solid rebuttal of the debunking evidence instead of just the original 'evidence' and the logical process can get to a final judgement. Shouting out the window the points already refuted is a poor method of finding the truth.
Wild flights of fancy, evidence ignoring, spreading rumour and downright mistruths, and all generally carried out by those without solid foundations or education in the subjects they are discussing. I'm sure you can see the parallels with religion here.
So I'm interested to know whether Atheists generally apply logic and reason to these 'conspiracies' and find them lacking, or whether we have some die-hard 'truthers' on these boards?
The floor is yours.