[redavni]

The dichotomy of conspiracy theory / not conspiracy theory is semantic poison. This entire article is reinforcement. Do you see it?

Are you the kind of person who believes convincing sounding research from an Ivy League school posted on social media and wikipedia articles? Is your epistemology based in socialmediaism?

[intended]

Do you know that we've seen a difference in how information cascades through conspiracist networks vs science oriented ones?

If you want a better differentiation, is computer science the same as magic? Is there no difference between the skills someone develops as a professional and expert in their field, and the lay person? Everyone has the same level of ability and willingness to understand a subject?

For example, did you read the article before commenting?

[redavni]

Conspiratorial networks? I'm not wasting my time reading research which is probably entirely intentionally incorrect conspiracy theories that people believe. Might was well have done research into whether people believe Gone With The Wind was actual history. Reading the research is not necessary because of the framing. The framing makes the research useless for truth seeking.

The idea here is exactly what you say, belief in authority because science people spend time on it. Essentially this is science as religion. Which was exactly my point.