Talk:Conspiracy theory

From RationalWiki

I removed this:

"With all these claims, whether they be religious ones or claims about UFOs or faces on Mars or grassy knolls or WTC #7s falling down, you name it, there's always a tidy explanation for the lack of evidence. God has to hide so people can believe in him rather than just look up and say, hey, there's God. The UFOs are covered up by the CIA because if the Russians knew we were getting all our technology from Alpha Centauri they'd initiate a nuclear first strike before our perfect reverse-engineered Centaurian missile shield was ready. One faction in NASA sent the Mars probe to cash in on the contracts, and the other faction caused it to "fail" with buggy software to keep it from seeing the Martian monorail system, because if society saw how efficient mass transit worked on Mars, they'd demand it here on earth and the Oil Lobby mightn't like it."

Because I couldn't make hide nor hair of what it was trying to say. Maybe I missed the point? Maybe it was just a rambling rant? Let us discuss this. ħuman 01:46, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

Anyone bought/buying "Voodoo Histories" by "David Aaranovitch" about conspiracy theories [1][2]? _and marmite 08:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Concern trolling

I maybe wrong but isn't this site supposed to be unbiased because whoever wrote this page was dong a very poor job of it. They blatantly were trying to convince the reader that conspiracy theories are all untrue. While I do not support the large majority of conspiracy theories the author should not simply dismiss them all, after all even by their definition of a conspiracy theory they are unable to disprove those theories.^{— Unsigned, by: 66.90.104.230 / talk / contribs}

Um no, this site is not suppose to be unbiased, we are biased towards reality. Sometimes that is hard to determine, so the balance of probability is used, along with we logical devices such as burden of proof. Read some of the info about our site if you would like to learn more. - User = π 12:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

As someone who often removes a lot of the uneeded and OTT bias from RW, I fail to see where any of the BONs accusations are. Perhaps if they were more specific rather than vague-ish - well, that'd be wishful thinking. The calim that the article suggests "conspiracy theories are all untrue" is blatantly false, it very clearly mentions that once a conspiracy theory has been proven, it becomes a conspiracy and it's out in the open and known - hence a conspiracy theory is either A) not proven to be true or B) proven not to be true. It's in the first section of the article. ArmondikoV^{...I'll masturbate your squibble!} 01:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)