Check me on this.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Who has the burden of proof- the conspiracy theorist, or the debunker?

My take on this is that the burden is solely on the CTer's part. They claim to have proof that something happened. They also claim that debunkers provide counter-evidence the burden of proof should be on the debunkers. Now, I think counter-evidence is a bad move on part of debunkers. They should instead look at the evidence the CTers provide and judge if it's valid. If it's not, they can explain why, of course, but they don't have to, say, prove John Hinckley acted alone. The CTers' demand is rather like asking a jury to provide proof for their verdict.

Or am I wrong?

[Hermit]

It's not a trial where someone is innocent until proven guilty. Both sides need to argue to their best ability that their respective case is true.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It's not a trial where someone is innocent until proven guilty. Both sides need to argue to their best ability that their respective case is true.

It's not a trial, but it's not a double burden either. Take this site, for example:http://eviljedi.tripod.com/pearl.htm I don't have to prove FDR didn't allow Pearl to Just Happen. I can take Wiley's evidence of a conspiracy point by point and evaluate it. That in itself is enough to debunk the claims of conspiracy.

[Hermit]

Both sides need to argue to their best ability that their respective case is true. Debunking is part of that, yes. The "burden of proof" principle was designed to protect people from wrongful convictions. I don't think it applies outside the legal sphere.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Both sides need to argue to their best ability that their respective case is true. Debunking is part of that, yes. The "burden of proof" principle was designed to protect people from wrongful convictions. I don't think it applies outside the legal sphere.

I don't argue with CTers. I examine their claims and debunk the ones that need it. I talk about them, not to them.

[AshtonBlack]

Both sides need to argue to their best ability that their respective case is true. Debunking is part of that, yes. The "burden of proof" principle was designed to protect people from wrongful convictions. I don't think it applies outside the legal sphere.

I'm not sure I agree. An argument, I had assumed, is where one party makes an assertion and presents evidence. The other party need only debunk the evidence, not necessarily provide evidence against the original assertion. It still leaves the question open, of course, but it means only the assertion is flawed.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Both sides need to argue to their best ability that their respective case is true. Debunking is part of that, yes. The "burden of proof" principle was designed to protect people from wrongful convictions. I don't think it applies outside the legal sphere.

I'm not sure I agree. An argument, I had assumed, is where one party makes an assertion and presents evidence. The other party need only debunk the evidence, not necessarily provide evidence against the original assertion. It still leaves the question open, of course, but it means only the assertion is flawed.

This. And CTers are contradicting the know body of work, issuing a challenge to reality. If they can't prove their case, they fall flat. (This doesn't stop them, of course.)

[Rum]

Conspiracy theorists are usually flying in the face of some sort of accepted consensus. Now I am sure not every consensus actually reflects the reality of a situation, but I am willing to best most do, more or less. For example for every million people who believe we landed on the moon there are probably only a few dozen who believe it was all a massive illusion. I am going with the consensus here and it is therefore up to theparanoid CTer to prove otherwise.

This may not be full proof, but if you don't take a position akin to this you start living in a world where you can't be at least vaguely sure that anything you believe is correct!

..which may of course be true too, but I would rather not live in that sort of world.

[.Morticia.]

conspiracy theorists are impervious to facts ( they are given 'opposer warnings' )

they have already heard most of the facts already and have been taught that these facts are wrong and that the 'debunking' is proof of the conspirators desire to keep people in control , ignorant etc

the best argument is to ignore the actually conspiracy and talk about psychology and personality, like talking to a cult member

[Gawdzilla Sama]

conspiracy theorists are impervious to facts ( they are given 'opposer warnings' )

they have already heard most of the facts already and have been taught that these facts are wrong and that the 'debunking' is proof of the conspirators desire to keep people in control , ignorant etc

the best argument is to ignore the actually conspiracy and talk about psychology and personality, like talking to a cult member

They're the source for much bad information. I refute those claims with facts. Then I stand back and let the reader decide. I don't engage the fringer, there's no point.

[Tero]

There is a conspiracy of conspiracy theorists. They don't really believe the stuff, they have been paid by the Illuminati.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

There is a conspiracy of conspiracy theorists. They don't really believe the stuff, they have been paid by the Illuminati.

Disinformation agents.

[.Morticia.]

conspiracy theorists are impervious to facts ( they are given 'opposer warnings' )

they have heard most of the facts already and have been taught that these facts are wrong and that the 'debunking' is proof of the conspirators desire to keep people in control , ignorant etc

the best argument is to ignore the actually conspiracy and talk about psychology and personality, like talking to a cult member

They're the source for much bad information. I refute those claims with facts. Then I stand back and let the reader decide. I don't engage the fringer, there's no point

Internet debate is different to face to face.

I will generally state facts for the other readers.

Real life is different and the person spouting their conspiracy theory will react differently than if he was on the net.

And I say he, most conspiracy followers are male, white , past middle age, under-educated, frustrated and feel left out of the political process.