Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Alan Allshouse's avatar

Thanks for this framework, Dr Jack. I can use this immediately.

Also for consideration: Those CTs that I’d once categorized in the Nutso bin can (in light of new evidence) move out of the nuthouse and closer to Certain [& vice-versa].

Expand full comment
Jeff's avatar

Good article. I know people who have bought the idea that conspiracy theories and hypotheses are automatically false. Even Steve Bannon has a sign in his office that says "there are no conspiracies" and "there are no coincidences." Sorry, Steve. You have it 180 degrees backwards.

I ask those that I know, then how is it that we have laws on the books about conspiracies and lawyers have to provide evidence of them in court to get convictions? And I remind them that Occam's razor is one of the most powerful principles of logical induction, and that inductive criteria for plausibility is all that a rational person should use when evaluating causal claims.

Then they hit me with "well, what about giving people the benefit of the doubt?" And I remind them that even Aesop's fables tell us that some people clearly DON'T deserve any such benefit, because they've proven themselves untrustworthy BEYOND reasonable doubt to REASONABLE (i.e., ethical) people. And that has to be factored in to the analysis if an ethically-behaving society is your goal. And how else could we decide between two parties that make contradictory claims if the only other evidence you had about them, other than their credentials, was what you knew of them from their history? Like Robert Malone and Anthony Fauci, e.g.?

Then they change the subject.

Expand full comment
47 more comments...

No posts