Helvíti gott innslag á Metafilter um samsæriskenningar:

"On a less personal level, this kind of stuff pisses me off because it achieves precisely the opposite of what it claims to achieve. There is an element to conspiracy theories, which is always used to validate them, which suggests that by not accepting the "official" explanation, the proponents of the theory are somehow sticking it to the man. If it weren't for the brave conspiracy theorist we'd all be sheep with no hope of ever breaking out of the cycle of propoganda and deceit that "they" are trying to foist on us. It's an attractive position, and, as mrmojo suggests, impossible to falsify, and one which, when applied to politics, might have some traction. When applied to science, however, it only serves to authorize the views of people who don't understand the science on a given subject. The very idea that there is an "official" version of some scientific theory mistakes arguing by assertion and authority (the province of the conspiracy theorist) with arguing by evidence based in hypothesis and experiment (the scientific method). The two are not the same."

Allt innslagið er hér.

Það er líka nokkuð gott innslag um þetta í nýjasta Grapevine.