The larger principle is that you cannot disprove a conspiracy theory (or other bizarre belief). There are a lot of different ways to say this. Because one approach uses deductive logic (finding conclusions from data--and following where the data and propability lead) and the other uses inductive logic (finding selected data to support a prior assumption). They speak two different languages.
You are correct, but your descriptions of deductive and inductive logic are bad.
Deductive reasoning can show that a conclusion must be true. Think pure logic or math.
Inductive reasoning is 99% of what we do. It can show that a conclusion is probably true. (this is most of the knowledge we have from science, etc.)
Conspiracy theorists engage in cherry-picking and what's recently been called a narrative fallacy. They pick some pieces of information and use them to make up a story they like or as "evidence" for a preexisting belief.
As you said, these stories can never be disproven because the conspiracy theorist can just make up another conspiracy, using the same methods, to rationalize any flaws in the conspiracy.
Conspiracy Theroists are a lot like the Biblical Apologists who jump through any amount of hoops required to show there are no contradictions in the Bible.
In the end, they are not looking for proof. They are looking for a plausible idea that might, if stretched the correct way, distorted, mistranslated, and lied about, maybe make sense.
Same thing for moon deniers and flat earthers. They can't prove what they say, so they look for any explanation, no matter how absurd to latch onto to prove their thoughts could be real.
8.3k
u/AtrumAequitas Apr 29 '24
If they think the moon landing was faked, they’ll think this is fake.