Comment: No of course not

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Are you going to leave it (see in situ)

No of course not

Whatever gave you that idea?

What I'm saying, and I think what the OP was saying, is that *you* (and everyone individually) should be insisting on sound arguments. It's what each person should expect from themselves and it's what we should be insisting on from each other.

But to do that you need to apply some standards. Insist on solid evidence, and make sure it's not cherry-picked evidence. Insist on logical arguments, so that your conclusions follow from the evidence. If there's science involved, make sure you've got the science right. Don't mistake suspicions for conclusions. Etc.

If you do that, the conspiracy theories that survive that kind of rigorous investigation will be ones that you can say you have a rational reason to believe. And then if someone tells you you're delusional, you can call yourself a Martha Mitchell, because you had a good solid basis for your conclusion.

But people who mistake suspicions for conclusions, cherry-pick the evidence, make "I can't imagine any other explanation" arguments, get the basic science completely wrong, ignore or misrepresent mundane explanations, etc., and still somehow convince themselves that they've proven a conspiracy, aren't Martha Mitchells.