Am I dangerous? Looks like there's a concerted effort to label people who even read conspiracy theories as dangerous.

For instance,

[link to www.eurekalert.org (secure)]

If you search for news articles about conspiracy theories, you see the same theme emerging. Dangerous, unpredictable, criminal, nationalistic (huh?), racist, fascist,...

I find it pathetic to label people as bigoted or potentially dangerous, because they like to engage in thinking. It is abhorrent to suggest that even READING conspiracy theories can damage your integrity or ability to draw your own conclusions.

I am a scientist - formally trained in rigorous fact-based thinking. I'm also a big fan of conspiracy theories and have been a connisseur of CTs since 90s. It doesn't mean that I buy into Nibiru or Flat Earth, of course. I always draw my own conclusions.

I enjoy CTs. The off-the-beaten-track thinking, finding alternative angles, and reasoning based on incomplete information is actually what I do as a scientist. On GLP, there's sometimes good discussion on physics which I - as a professional - find interesting. I do spot holes in logic and evidence, but most of the time it is still a good exercise in thinking.

In CTs, the boundary conditions (testability of the claims or the sources, for instance) are less rigorous than in formal science, but so what? Politicians don't think and make decisions like scientists. People in general don't think like scientists. Most important of all, mainstream news do not fulfil the criteria for scientific work.

In CTs, there's more leeway to draw conclusions, which may not be as firm as in empirical science, but they are often interesting enough to warrant further thought.

Thinking, in general, is extremely important and this backlash against CTs clearly seems to want to suppress free thinking. That pisses me off.

It is as if people should just outsource all thinking to some approved "trusted sources". Curious, isn't it? I guess that's the sticking point to the mainstream news agencies, politicians and, yes, to many scientists. They lose their precious ivory tower or bully pulpit, and the naive trust of the people. They lose a lot of authority when that happens.

CTs are also entertaining. I love the off-beat or even outright bizarre ideas which get floated around here.

The downside of the CT community is often the inability to revise pet theories when confronted with evidence to the contrary. Furthemore, showing such evidence is often taken as a personal insult. That pisses me off, too. If your pet theory can't survive perfectly good evidence to the contrary, it should change no matter how much you love it. That's intellectually honest.