everyone always says that conspiricy theories are based on poor research, however, people who research them (or at least the ones I'M familiar with) know that they are subject to much more scrutiny than everyone else (like the news). wouldn't this generally mean that people who research conspiricy theories have to do far better and more complete research in order to be taken the least bit seriously?
2006-08-14 11:44:08 · 5 answers · asked by list 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
example: David Icke. now, i don't necessarily buy EVERYTHING the man writes, but if you've ever read one of his books, you'd know that he does INCREDIBLY good research, and cites his sources very well (each chapter usually has between 2 and 5 pages of bibliography).
2006-08-14 11:46:46 · update #1
Conspiracy theorists are not testing their theories, they've already decided what they believe. As a result, they select information that supports their theory, and ignore anything that damages their claim.
2006-08-14 11:54:56 · answer #1 · answered by Jay S 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Not necessarily. Because many conspiracy theories exist outside mainstream media, they are not subject to traditional media rules regarding research and verification.
A good example is the recent popularity in "alternative" medicine. Healers and herbalists are not subject to the same established criteria as doctors and pharmacists, even though there are plenty of word-of-mouth claims as to their effectiveness. Like conspiracy theories, the people who endorse "alternative" medicine are the people who already believe in, or profit from it. The absence of third-party verification for any theory is like a person who claims he is a doctor, who can present many happy clients, but no medical degree, license or certification.
If anything, mainstream media has been dismissive of conspiracies and there is a big difference between "skepticism" and "scrutiny." Many theories, even the "grandaddies" like Area 51 and JFK, are treated more like entertainment items than hard news.
2006-08-14 19:21:50 · answer #2 · answered by a_man_could_stand 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Reasearch ought always be done on a given theory.
I found that it a good chance to learn some things that I didn't know before, and sometimes the research debunks the theory.
Research takes alot of time and even then, the chances of being taken seriously are only inceased by probably 50%, from my experience.
The idea is to find out the truth. Without bias.
2006-08-14 18:49:13 · answer #3 · answered by profile image 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not necessarily. When have you ever heard of a conspiracy theory proved true? Most conspiracy theories are based on one or two pieces of information that is mis-interpreted. generally this information is dramatic in nature, and it becomes interesting. When you mix it with perceived "fact" then it becomes even more intriguing. If you look at sources from conspiracy theories, it is generally 1 source, when there is 10 sources to disprove that "fact." people just love to buy into them because these theories are so far fetched and we prefer that to reality.
2006-08-14 18:53:12 · answer #4 · answered by realsimonrulz 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. It isn't their research that is better. It's their imagination.
2006-08-14 20:43:22 · answer #5 · answered by SPLATT 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋