[pinkmuffinere]

I mean, at some point we are convinced as a convenience. You can use mathematical formulations describing _how_ a motor works without understanding why they are true. Similarly, I don't believe that there is a grand conspiracy involving chemtrails, even though I haven't proven that all the theories I've heard are false. I'm just fairly confident that this _could_ be done, given enough time and resources. But practically, I have to get on with my life.

[Loquebantur]

Being lazy incurs costs. With regard to "conspiracies" that cost is explicitly vulnerability to them.

Neither "chemtrails", "UFOs&aliens" nor "telepathy" appear particularly "plausible". But that could just as well be a statement about your method of determining 'plausibility'?

You invoke limited personal resources to justify complacency. Likely, you estimate the costs of being wrong as negligible since you never really thought about possible implications and do not know about any being particularly relevant to you. That's an argument from ignorance.

[pinkmuffinere]

Ya, I agree, my main point is that arguments from ignorance are acceptable sometimes. My main claim to schiffern is something like "Being convinced without the ability to explain the argument is sometimes fine." As specific examples, I propose chemtrails and how-motors-work. I think it is totally acceptable to dismiss the in-depth explanation for most people, because for most people they just aren't that important.

Are you claiming that you never dismiss anything without fully understanding it? Do you completely understand all of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Baha'i, etc? I think it is possible to generate an infinite list of things you don't fully understand. And yet you of course have to take a practical stance on some of these things for your everyday life.