Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
I love how people are pushing the conspiracy angle with absolutely no understanding of the science and a couple of links to a blog from someone who equally has no understanding of science. For some reason people think that two different opinions are equally, even if one is factually wrong. Typical conspiracy angle rubbish, one day these people will learn the value of evidence.
|
David Aaronovitch has a new book out about this sort of thing (Voodoo Histories: The Role of the Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History), and had an article in the Sunday Times this week about 9/11 conspiracy theorists, but made the general point that
"The construction and circulation of audio and visual material devoted to 9/ll revisionism is easy on the internet. Cheap movies, often made using material not cleared for copyright, made and narrated by non-professional film-makers, have been posted on Google video, YouTube and other sites specialising in moving pictures. Invariably such items make the same claims to accuracy and balance as do mainstream TV programmes, but have been concocted with the smallest fraction of research and resource, though no little ingenuity".
I think the same thing is happening with the H1N1 outbreak - people are supposed to extend the same credibility that is given to Subject Matter Experts and the World Health Organisation, to proponents of various conspiracy theories such as "it is a man-made virus released by government agencies/New World Order/insert boogie-man of choice" (imho), who do not supply any evidence (that stands up to independent scrutiny). Should David Irving be given the same credence as the Holocaust Memorial Museum, or the National Enquirer the same factual equivalency as the Encyclopedia Brittanica?