[wolfgke]

First: I used your "nutty conspiracy theories" wording.

> But then why do you judge the conspiracy theories to be nutty, if they are on just as firm an epistemological footing as actual history?

But to elaborate on your argument: Because of the dubious epistemological footing indeed "actual history" has not the highest reputation to me. The reason I disregard lots of "nutty conspiracy theories" rather lies in the fact that many "conspiracists" have a tendency to find conspiracies in other topics, too, where falsification is much better possible. Thus I tend to judge by looking at the track record of the respective person.

[foldr]

So, you believe that the moon landings weren't faked solely becuase of the credentials of the people who say that it was faked? You believe that the Holocaust happened solely because Holocaust deniers say crazy things about other topics? That seems really, really, off base.

[wolfgke]

> So, you believe that the moon landings weren't faked solely becuase of the credentials of the people who say that it was faked?

This is exactly one example for my "where falsification is much better possible" - in this case because of physics.

[foldr]

It would not have been physically impossible to fake the moon landings. Physics tells us that the moon landings could have happened, but it doesn't tell us that they couldn't have been faked.

But by picking over the details of a particular example you're missing the point. Surely you don't want to say that you can reject crazy historical claims solely because the proponents of those claims make outragerous claims in other areas too. If you think the moon landings are an exception, for some reason, then let's look at other examples. E.g. Holocaust denial.