Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
In 2012, cognitive scientist Stephan Lewandowsky and his colleagues surveyed more than 1,000 climate blog readers and observed a link between science denial and conspiracy theorizing. People who denied scientific propositions such as the link between AIDS and HIV or climate change and human activity were more likely to subscribe to conspiracy theories like Princess Diana was murdered or AIDS was created by the government. How did climate deniers respond to evidence associating science denial with conspiracy theorizing? With more conspiracy theories, of course!
[link:http://skepticalscience.com/recursive-fury-huffpo.html|
= new reply since forum marked as read
I think it depends on the topic and on one's pov or on the evidence.
eg I don't know what conspiracy is being referred to re GMO.
I think there is nothing secret abot the "debate" [which I put in quotes bec. I think there is sufficient scientific evidence about GMO's, altho perhaps not everyone here shares that view?]
So the GMO issue- some people think they're good and some think they're bad.
What is a definition of "conspiracy theorizing"?
I use the term 'conspiracy theorist' interchangeably with 'nutjob' [which doesn't always make for a lot of friends, 
]
For example in the case of those who claim that Sandy Hook CT shooting either never took place, or there were 2 shooters, or it was arranged by someone who wanted to test out police responses...
Claims like these imo, anyway, are so outlandish as to be eligible for "nutjob". But I know left-wing, otherwise reasonable people, who embrace these theories.
On the other hand, people can claim that the president is run by a small bunch of handlers, and if those handlers are the "Bilderberg" group, then I call it a conspiracy theory. Bt I don't think it is a conspiracy theory to say that our election system,our government, is run to benefit a small number of rich corporatists. to me, that is plain fact.
