This is a response to a comment on this post.

What do you mean by “more going on”? Who led you to believe what you used to believe?

I think conspiracy theories by definition do not give sound reasons for their claims. That’s why they are conspiracy theories and not accepted fact. Did you ever notice how those who push forward conspiracy theories are rarely if ever experts in the particular area the theory focuses on? For example, the most famous of the “scholars for 9/11 truth” is a theologian. That’s because if he put forward his ideas in any scholarly journal, but especially any scholarly journal remotely connected with structural engineering, aviation, strategic or anti-terrorism studies or the like, he would be laughed out of the room. (he might well have done this.)

There are all sorts of strict (and not-so-strict) standards in the academic world (some of which were in those wikipedia articles I sent you). There are literally tons. You ask whose standards are they? They are the standards of the philosophical and academic tradition of the western world. Though some have been disputed over the generations, most are almost totally accepted – when I say almost totally I say that because the are always a few people who disagree – across the world. I’m not trying to sound like a snob here, but one of the things you learn in University is what these standards are and how to apply them; both to yourself and others.

I have never read a single piece of conspiracy literature that would pass for an academic journal article. They can’t. They don’t believe in following these standards because if they did, they wouldn’t have cases. The standards don’t form a box. Rather they are a tool for letting us figure out who is full of shit, and who is telling the truth / making a valid argument.