It's only fake-believe: how to deal with a conspiracy theorist
I love how people are taking the opportunity here to go from the topic this article talks about (the virus) to just generally shitting on anyone who believes anything they deem unworthy enough to be derided as &quot;conspiracy theory&quot;... despite the fact that the term itself was part of a conspiracy and that the purpose is often the very same fallacy referenced in #5 (&quot;The thought-terminating cliche&quot;). The many people who have and are sure to reinforce this with claims like &quot;conspiracy theories are just attempting to create a reason where there is none&quot;, or &quot;conspiracy theories and theorist completely reject logic&quot; and the many variations thereof are doing the same thing.<p>I find it promising though how at least some people see through articles like this. On the topic of conspiracy theories on hn, I generally keep my comments meta to avoid devolving conversation, which I will do here as well to demonstrate how this article itself is full of fallacy.<p>1. The strawman fallacy and false consensus. Almost always articles of this sort, henceforth generally referenced to as &quot;tfa&quot;, start off with or contain some variation of the strawman fallacy, wherein the weakest versions of any given conspiracy theory or set thereof are used to establish the baseline expectance that you the reader also should assume there is no merit to any of this, because there is no nuance. The article does this in the first paragraph. It attempts to use the false consensus effect to solidify the strawman.<p>2.  The cherry picking, texas sharpshooter, and composition fallacies. Via rhetorical devices like &quot;Since many conspiracy theories arise from feelings of uncertainty and fear...&quot; tfa creates an illusion that there is no truth to be had in any of said conspiracy theories. The use of the word &quot;many&quot; softens this effect only slightly, and most readers will glaze right past it and fall for the rhetorical trick. It creates a false consensus that conspiracy theories aren&#x27;t arrived at by those searching for truth based on the evidence, but rather by some faulty reasoning or cause. Of course uncertainty and fear contribute, and may <i>sometimes</i> play a part in the origins of conspiracy theories, but very often there are many kernels of truth (ignored by detractors) that are the true origins, with uncertainty and fear only being mechanisms by which they are spread to those who didn&#x27;t understand the at least partially true origins in the first place.<p>3. The meta-dragon. By ignoring the very real issues with scientific incompetence and malice, the part about invisible dragons applies to itself.<p>4. Appeal to authority. The great irony of the fake authority section is that it itself is a logical fallacy in an apeal to authority. Even more convienient when they get to predetermine who the authorities are worthy to appeal to. Even more ironic in this part is the reference to the tobacco industry using the tactic they speak about in an attempt to explain why pharma industry <i>wouldn&#x27;t ever do that</i>.<p>5. Begging the question about bandwagons and black and white fallacies with some straw thrown in. Section 3 does them all. I tend to lean towards Michael Parenti&#x27;s views in the way he turns the ridicule around on what he calls &quot;coincidence theorists&quot;. It&#x27;s used all the time to dismiss arguments, and almost never stands up to scrutiny. Phrases like &quot;most people had the good sense to dismiss&quot; (bandwagon), &quot;electromagnetic waves caused the disease&quot; (strawman), and &quot;you could just as easily point to the 2011 film Contagion and argue that director Steven Soderbergh has been plotting the whole thing.&quot; (the fallacy fallacy) all together turn section 3 into a version of the black and white fallacy.<p>All in all, the entire article is an explosion of fallacies attempting to show how fallacious the conspiracy theories around the topic are. I shouldn&#x27;t have to say this, but please note, I&#x27;m not defending any of the particular theories put forth (though some of them have more merit than the impression given).<p>“Don&#x27;t take security in the false refuge of consensus.” - Christopher Hitchens