The YouTuber Milo Rossi [1], who debunks archaeological conspiracy theories (and makes educational content about archaeology) likes to say (paraphrasing slightly) "you don't need to make up conspiracy theories to be mad at the government, you can be mad at the actual government for what they actually do." Institutions/"the establishment" deserve skepticism but that skepticism has to be grounded in the real world and in evidence you can actually acquire. Not in supposition about a nebulous "they" pulling the strings. Conspiracy theories rapidly devolve into something entirely unfalsifiable.

A key smell test is: Does receiving pushback or counter evidence strengthen your conviction that you are correct? If so, you're going down a dangerous path. You're painting yourself into a corner where you will have a lot of trouble changing your mind, even if you're wrong.

The "main stream media" is the worst source, except for most of the other ones. It's not valuable because it is gospel - it's plain to see that the media is fallible. It's valuable because it adheres to any standard of evidence whatsoever while producing content at scale. It's like what people sometimes say about Wikipedia, it's the best place to begin your research but it doesn't have to end there.

[1] https://youtube.com/@miniminuteman773

▲

ryandrake 12 hours ago | parent [-]

> A key smell test is: Does receiving pushback or counter evidence strengthen your conviction that you are correct?

The parallels with religion are obvious here too. I would guess that the fall or organized religion participation in America directly matches the rise in political zealotry and/or conspiracy theory belief. There’s always something people believe more strongly the more it is opposed.

	▲	maxbond 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		To be honest, while there are definitely religious fundamentalists or literalists who suffer from this kind of thinking, I don't find it to be any less prevalent among people who identify as atheists or rationalists. It's a problem of rigid thinking, overcommitment to ideology, and being unwilling to question and overturn your premises. If you are willing to hold beliefs lightly, entertain ideas even if you do not accept them, and remain open to new evidence and to changing your mind, you're probably on the right track regardless of other factors. A lot of religions teach that reality and God's will is mysterious and open to interpretation. That can be the cornerstone of an epistemic humility, if you cultivate it that way. (I'm agnostic for what it's worth.)