Entertaining hypothesis vs Belief

Saw a study on "education reduces belief in conspiracy theories." The trouble with the study is that like many recent studies it was an exercise in confirmation bias. It is like doing a study announcing "education reduces ignorance on the subject studied." Well "duh", isn't that what it is supposed to do? 

That they have to present it as statistics speaks to flaws in our education system. Besides I don't see much anaecdotal evidence that smart people are less susceptible to the rabbit warrens of conspiracy theories and paranoia. There are "beautiful minds" everywhere. And drugs are no help when rumors abound presenting alternative narratives about life. The logic always comes with purported evidence and emotional triggers.

What helps with conspiracy theories is scientific method. The problem is not with entertaining the notions. For example, the premise that hacked autopilots were used to attack the targets of 911, is after all a premise based on a few facts. The planes did have autopilots. It was a plausible hypothesis. 

What leads one to reject that hypothesis is a preponderance of evidence.  But you have to verify and validate facts to get there. If you start rejecting facts as facts because you are attached to your first hypothesis that is the rabbit hole. Educated people fall down it too.

There are alternative explanations for facts. Those are called hypothesii. There are facts that are a priori and facts that are testable.  A testable fact can be falsified or verified.  The material world is best governed by testable facts. 

 

For example,  A commandment like "thou shalt not kill" can be an a priori statement of principle. But the margins require verification. Does the passage prohibit all killing all the time? Or does it refer solely to murdering fellow humans. When is killing permissable? When is it immoral and how much?. Is killing an annoying fly as big a sin as killing a chicken for dinner? Is killing a chicken for dinner the same as killing Uncle Joe? 

We learn [usually have to teach ourselves] Law and logic as a tool to try to establish nuance on life. The better educated one is, the more one understands the nuances.

 One is going to go down rabbit holes of conflicting stories. One is going to have to evaluate competing narratives. The trap is our emotions will tell us to reject some facts, either for the sake of the argument or because accepting them hurts. Not a good idea. Truth hurts the way a minor injury does. Lies feel good til the poison hits, or ones fall reaches bottom. Then the pain can be so bad, one goes numb to it. People die, fanatics, clinging to falsified beliefs that way.