Five steps to prevent valid information from becoming "conspiracy theory".Submitted by snakepit22 on Wed, 01/16/2013 - 16:07
When dealing with issues as serious as we are, it is important to ensure that you are sharing information in a manner which effectively convinces your audience. Here are five hints to ensure your information does not get discarded as just another conpsiracy theory.
1. Don’t use inconsistent news reports as evidence of conspiracy. News reports are generally inconsistent. They aren’t the official mouthpiece of the government or the police. They are just entertainers trying to get the news out as fast as they can and they make mistakes all the time. Their inconsistency doesn’t prove a conspiracy and should never be used as an "official story" which you use to poke holes in.
2. Don’t tell me to “google” whatever your evidence is. If you google “Adam Sandler dead”, do you know what you will find? You will find websites that say that Adam Sandler is dead. The web is filled with erroneous information and googling the tag line to the information you want me to believe will only lead me directly to a web site supporting your view, whether it is true or not.
3. Don’t commit an argument from ignorance. Basically, don’t claim that a lack of information is sufficient evidence of the conspiracy, especially when that information is unlikely to be given out anyway. The lack of surveillance video showing the murder of 20 children doesn’t prove a cover-up. That sort of video would never be made available to the public anyway, so claiming conspiracy simply because the video will not be released is simply not reasonable. Facts are proven by evidence, not lack of evidence.
4. Don’t tell people to “wake up” or call them “sheeple”. When you first begin with an insult, you make it less likely that anyone will want to continue listening to your ideas.
5. Increase your standard for truth. You commit the fallacy of “argumentum verbosium” when you overload the debate with details regardless of their merit. An overwhelming amount of flimsy or downright untrue evidence will deter the common person from continuing to listen to the debate. They will miss the good evidence because they stopped listening after hearing too much of the flimsy evidence.