Getting Down to Brass Tacks

I think I've hit on a way to talk to people when an accusation of conspiracy is thrown into the discussion in a way that's respectful and keeps things on track.

For example, a creationist might assert that the only reason radiometric dating is thought to be reliable is because there's a scientific conspiracy to suppress results that would cast doubt on the method.

The tactic I'm hoping might gain some traction is to point out that conspiracy theories don't contribute to the discussion by inventing one of my own in the opposite direction.  I could point out, for example, that it's hypothetically possible that there is a conspiracy on the part of creationists to make radiometric dating look unreliable; the conspiracists merely misrepresent results or invent anecdotes so that the method looks dubious.

If this gives me enough room, of course, I would hope to be able to explain that conjectures about conspirators get us nowhere, because they can be used to explain away any inconvenient fact or assert that any claim we like is what's really going on (and a shadowy conspiracy is hiding that from view).  Far better, it would seem, to keep the discussion on the level of fact and whether or not certain conclusions are reasonable based on those facts; this might give us a chance to discover the truth of the matter, or at least eliminate whatever mistakes we can.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Catch the Snowflakes, Little Children; Count Them As They Bury You Alive

If They Move Too Quick, They're Falling Down Like a Domino

Big Bangs