"Bigfoot" isn't inherently a conspiracy theory. If you say that bigfoot exists, you're wrong, but not necessarily a conspiracy theorist. To be a conspiracy theorist, you also have to posit a grand conspiracy to conceal the existence of bigfoot.
If you posit a conspiracy that only involves a few people who could plausibly coordinate to conceal the truth, that's also not a grand conspiracy, and we don't call people conspiracy theorist for believing in regular, everyday criminal conspiracies.
> If you say that bigfoot exists, you're wrong
That not a philosophically supportable statement. "There's insufficient evidence to warrant belief in your claim" is more realistic.
loading story #47398188
> If you posit a conspiracy that only involves a few people who could plausibly coordinate to conceal the truth, that's also not a grand conspiracy, and we don't call people conspiracy theorist for believing in regular, everyday criminal conspiracies.
No, but we did call people conspiracy theorists for believing the thing Snowden subsequently showed to be real.
loading story #47398559
> If you say that bigfoot exists, you're wrong, but not necessarily a conspiracy theorist.
I’m not sure if “I’m just a cryptozoologist” is much of a vindication.
loading story #47396447