This is a common excuse from people believing in all-encompassing conspiracies.  That the most common explanation for something would come from the conspirators.  One accuses loads of people of lying for no other reason than one’s own suspiciousness.  To those claiming this I want to ask a question.  What are the differences between ideas you trust and don’t trust?  Can’t you give a coherent answer without referring to all-encompassing conspiracy?  If so, you have likely never thought about it.

Myself, I trust all science making sense to me.  For some everything unexpected is patently absurd.  But I am not one of those.  Something don’t need to match expectations for me to find it credible.  I get a particularly tickling feeling when something is completely unexpected and yet fully understandable.  On the other hand, there are claims I first has to consider.  If something specific is true, what consequences would it have?  Can’t I see these consequences I don’t think it holds true.  However, I then presuppose others to misjudge rather than lie.

Moreover, one has to consider if a hoax is even possible.  Everyone is not as unaware of what happens in nature around them as flat-eathers seem.  Take for example tides.  I don’t understand how the gravity of the Moon creates two high and low tides a day.  But it does not make me deny that tides have such a double rhythm.  At least hundreds of millions of people live along coasts with noticeable tides.  If the double rhythm was a hoax, it would have been too easy to expose.

One does not have to believe in ideas one does not understand.  One only has to presuppose individuals presenting an idea to themselves think it holds true.  People can’t be completely silent or lie consistently throughout their entire lives.  Human error does not allow for people to succeed in a hundred percent of the cases.  Not to talk about the problem of factors outside human control.  Some don’t seem to spend a thought of such.

Uploaded on the 3rd of October 2023.