Philosophy bros,How does one address conspiracy theories in discourse? Obviously if you're going to make a refutation of anything you need to make an actual case, use evidence, make inferences, etc. But sometimes certain claims are so outlandish and so compact that it seems like a huge waste of time spending hours researching them just to both get a handle on what their actual thesis is and how to address the points made per the bullshit asymmetry principle. Would it simply be reasonable to invoke Occam's razor in these types of situations?
>>18245645I think those kinds of debunking responses are necessary because there will be people who are genuinely curious about the merits of a theory and will be convinced if they don't see any refutation. But for most normies, seeing something widely ridiculed is enough to turn them off from it, and ridicule is also a valid response imo when the theory is something really far-fetched like flat earth.
