• Philo@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    27
    ·
    5 months ago

    Claiming…no evidence though…just like Musk had no science backing him. For example, just ignore the G-force on the passengers that’s just an inconsequential matter.

    • HandBreadedTools@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      5 months ago

      I’m not making the claim myself, just explaining it is a bit different than engaging in what we colloquially understand to be conspiratorial thinking. I would argue it falls under that category in the most broad, objective sense, but I would also argue that the common belief about conspiratorial thinking is that it is when someone believes demonstrably false information.

      The difference is that most conspiratorial thinking is believing something despite overwhelming evidence of the contrary while this situation is believing something despite a lack of conclusive, objective evidence (that being no official statement from Musk or investigation into him about this). There is a lack of overwhelming evidence in support of Musk.