Let's be crystal clear: I will not indulge even the hint of conspiracy theories, or the ideologically based anti-science attitudes I'm seeing here.
I can understand where you are coming from MHS and to some extent that attitude is the right one, but can one have too rigid a stance on it and therefore be too dismissive? Like Bob said, just because the internet is full of moronic conspiracy theories ranging from why the upstairs toilets won't flush to the 'real' reason why Joe Bloggs' third wife left him, it doesn't mean there are no conspiracies at all. For the record, I do not believe there was any conspiracy related to the
Titanic disaster and almost certainly none that led to the
Dali accident; but in the latter case, I do agree that the authorities should have said that they would hold a full investigation into the events that led to the event before asserting that they would rebuild it with public funds. The way Biden jumped in with that assurance, it sounded like they had already accepted it as an "Act of God" and while that might still have been the case, we all know that one cannot be certain in this day and age.
The other thing here is what one means by a "conspiracy"; it doesn't necessarily have to involve home-grown elements in this globalized world we are living in and the term can be applied to any nefarious act deliberately planned behind the scenes and excecuted. To that end, the
Titanic disaster certainly wasn't a conspiracy and very likely, neither was the
Dali accident. But when you think of something like 9/11, it most certainly
was a conspiracy whichever way you look at it. Sure, all those claims that CIA were behind it, the Government knew all about it beforehand etc are utter nonsense but the fact that a large and well organized international terrorist group planned, trained operatives within the target country and executed it 'successfully' (from their warped point of view)
does amount to a conspiracy, doesn't it? Then look at the Oklahoma City bombing incident, which revealed at the very least that there were more things involved than first met the eye.
I do not want to deviate too far from the topic of this thread but would like to say something about the acccusation of "anti-science attitudes" that you made. I am definitely anything but anti-science, but having been in the field myself all my professional life, know full well about the shenanigans that go on in the field of Medical and Pharmaceutical Research, particularly the latter. They are full of "conspiracies" (for lack of a better term) where genuine research heading in what is seen as an "undesirable" direction gets quashed by withdrawal of funds, facilities and sometimes even the licence to continue. To explain this in simple terms, consider a
hypothetical situation whereby some young reseracher in a Chicago lab has found what promises to be a "Universal cure" for all forms of cancer at any stage (please understand that I am not suggesting that anyone is even close to this in the real world); what do you think will happen? Do you believe that he/she will become a national and international celebrity overnight, have dinner with POTUS and eventually receive the Nobel Prize? No, because such a discovery, if true, will very seriously affect the economies of several countries (starting form the US itself) and organizations that spend vast fortunes on cancer research. Similarly, of someone discovers an absolutely safe and perpetually self-powered cold-fusion power source that, with further development, can be potentially used to run all vehicles including ships and planes, you can only imagine the implications on different countries, international relations and economies.
That's not being anti-science but being realistic.
