Comment: The all-or-nothing theory of conspiracy theories

(See in situ)

The all-or-nothing theory of conspiracy theories

The plea here isn't that conspiracy theories be abandoned entirely, just the ones that can't be supported with evidence and sound arguments. How in the world is that controversial? Are those objecting to this tacitly admitting that they don't have evidence and sound arguments to back up *any* of the conspiracy theories? Some comments do make it sound like all of the conspiracy theories stand or fall together. But surely nobody really believes that.

To the people who are objecting to this call for sound arguments, can't you point to even just one conspiracy theory for which the best arguments are simply too weak to take seriously? And if so, what is it about the arguments for the conspiracy theories you reject that make them too weak to accept? In other words, do you have any standards at all for what arguments you'll accept in support of a conspiracy theory, and if so what are those standards?