This seems like a false dichotomy....it is possible (well, for some people at least, or at least in theory) to consider conspiracy theories using disciplined reasoning, perhaps assigning a "likelihood score" to each one.
I believe that by society avoiding them altogether, and their oddly visceral (natural, or conditioned?) reaction of disgust to them when they do encounter them, it allows those who are conducting covert operations of any kind a very great degree of latitude. I mean, look at how long a subset of society knew about Epstein, and even once it does accidentally burst into the mainstream, poof it's forgotten, even though it involves the sexual abuse of children, one of societies most emotional traumatizing topics. There's a lot of very interesting human psychology involved here.
the problem is that most conspiracy theories are internally consistent; they tie up a lot of loose ends if you're willing to assume a couple wild premises. the flat earth conspiracy is plausible if you're willing to believe that every astronaut, airline pilot, and everyone else in a position to verify the curvature of the earth is in on it. to me the unreasonable premises are what make a theory have the "tinfoil" quality. the idea that there's an international ring of powerful child sex traffickers is plausible; the idea that a specific person is involved is not as plausible until you have more evidence than a bunch of emails about pizza.
No one knows what the aims of the cult was, or how many people said nothing about it.
It is almost as if for the halls of power a different set of laws of physics applies...
Internally consistent with uncertain if not delusional beliefs. This isn't insurmountable for all people, but I believe it is possible for a much larger proportion of the general public than is currently the case, with the right sort of education (logic, epistemology) of course.
> if you're willing to believe that every astronaut, airline pilot, and everyone else in a position to verify the curvature of the earth is in on it
Among many other things. This is a prime example of unnecessarily delusional thinking, I would say in part because the only place unrestricted group thinking actually takes place is within the conspiracy sphere, which is likely vastly over-represented by delusional people.
> to me the unreasonable premises are what make a theory have the "tinfoil" quality
To you, a poster on HN and therefore most likely a highly logical person. But can the same be said of the general public, who rarely exercise their logical capabilities, and whose mental model of reality is largely shaped by what they consume in mass media? And, is your assessment based on the ridiculous and often (but not always) misrepresented conspiracy theories that float into the mainstream, or is it based on a significant history of immersion in the culture? The difference matters.
> the idea that there's an international ring of powerful child sex traffickers is plausible; the idea that a specific person is involved is not as plausible until you have more evidence than a bunch of emails about pizza.
Might "a bunch of emails about pizza" be a good example of a conspiracy theory that was misrepresented?
Do you have any theories why there's so little media interest and outrage/suspicion in the general public about the Epstein affair, particularly considering there's plentiful evidence that protecting children, particularly when it comes to sexual matters, seems so effective at inflaming public emotions? And yet, when a case arises where there's plenty of smoke (although, very little of it that actually made it onto TV, which seems odd in itself), the result is little more than a collective yawn.
I think this situation is very interesting on many different levels.
Confirmation bias hacks work by preventing the target from even looking for the signal. Or worse.
when it comes to the government in particular, if it's possible to do X and it's possible to keep X secret, they're probably already doing it. if X is relevant to you, you should certainly take it into account regarding your threat model, but you should probably mitigate known risks first.