Conspiracy theories are something that I have never
really thought to analyze. I would see them and wonder whether they were true,
but this was an internal dialogue. That is their nature, after all; conspiracy
theories look at all the fuzzy details of an event and explain them in a way
that makes sense—sometimes more than the accepted reality does. This creates doubt
in the mind of the reader and feeds into our desire to know the truth of everything.
We want to be the hero who overthrows the system, but we do not want to be “one
of those crazies” who obsess about Bigfoot and UFOs. We cannot believe both, so
we do exactly what conspiracy theorists do: we try to poke holes into both
versions.
Does the government try to cover up their mistakes? Is Area 51 really an extraterrestrial holding facility? For me, it has always been about what I know and whether I can still feel morally correct if I reject the given history. Can I believe that the Holocaust did not exist? No, because I do not think that I could stomach believing that so much bloodshed and suffering never happened. I also feel sick at the prospect of belittling the pain of millions on the assumption that they are lying to gain pity. But couldn’t I then be falling for the theory I have doubted?
Disregarding this whole process,
the article analyzes the structure of unwarranted conspiracy theories and their
weak points. I love that the author recognizes that these theories are too good
to be true; he points out the psychology of humans and how we love to have a
complete story, going so far as to create one where none exists. When we think
about those things as we take in strangely fitting stories, it is easier to see
falsification where it exists.