Quote:
Originally Posted by rei  how do you know most of the forms of media you listed were committed to sharing truth even if it went against established perspectives? |
How do you know they don't?
For me, I compare different sources and form my opinion on them. Much more I cannot do (or don't want to do).
Quote:
|
my favorite pleasure reading is SciAm Mind, and they don't really tread very far past the boundary between established, almost dogmatic approaches to science, and the things that might be more on the fringe but are still worthy of dissemination.
|
Maybe so. SciAm etc cater to a specific readers group. As all media do. They are not obliged to address 'fringe science'.
Quote:
|
my sense is that in that time period, unless you really dug through a lot of material in a college library, your options basically consisted of materials that reinforced a primarily mainstream view.
|
Not only then, now too. There's simply too much information too digest on many many topics. We all have to learn to shift gold from the sand, quickly decide what is valuable and what is not.
Quote:
|
more time to collect it means increased chance someone will decide it's not worth the trouble. so yes, it was there, but i think we need to consider realistically how much the average person is willing to work at getting to the truth. frankly, finding truth that feels right to you takes a lot of work. and i'm not sure most americans, non-counter-culture americans, from that time would be interested in doing that. wouldn't they be more likely to assume the talking tv heads were telling them what they needed to know? that's what i meant in the earlier post when i said americans seemed less suspicious of organized entities (gov't., media) then.
|
Again, not only then, but also now. See e.g. 9/11, the War on Terrorism etc.
But even if you're right, there's no way (I think) the 'fake' moon landings could have been kept secret from e.g. the Russians and the Chinese who had an interest to publish such a fake about their biggest rival. The humiliation for the USA would simply have been too much of a risk. And for what benefit?
I repeat my point about CT and logical reasoning. CTs I have seen are too complicated, too unlogical if you think it through, too much fear mongering, too much blaming, complaining and disempowerment.
And in the case a CT is correct (I don't say conspiracies don't exist at all) not much is done about it (and not very effectively either) by the people who believe them.