When I worked in a bar, I was pass the quiet hours by chatting aimlessly to the regulars.  We spoke about football, about politics and about life in general.  One reoccurring chat I had with one patron though was about conspiracies.  He was a great believer in them and I, its fair to say, am not.  This led to much heated debate and some considerable fun.

He believed we didn’t go to the moon, that global warming was a myth and that there were seven people who ruled the world(no idea why it was seven).  Now, you may well say, what concern is it of mine what a person believe?  Perhaps in many ways you have a point.  But what upset me about these theories was not that they were pretty ridiculous, but that this intelligent man was somehow unable to reason out why they were so silly.

Now, the example of the moon, or global warming could be gone into.  We could debate for many a hour the evidence, and no doubt some evidence could be brought up on your side.  Given a few thousand words I could refute everything you say, and point out all the evidence that point towards the landing.  But this would take too long.  Lets look at the more simple reality, the Global illuminati.

Now, to understand why is it that a small group of people don’t in fact rule the world, it is necessary to understand what it takes to rule one state.  The rule of the British government over the British people is partly by consent.  So, it is not a total rule of masters of the world.  But lets consider it, what is necessary to rule Britain?  Firstly, you need 500,000 civil servants.  Perhaps they earn £20,000 each.  So, you need £10,000,000,000.  This is the money to pay your team of people to run the state.  Now, its more than clear that no individuals have incomes sufficient to employ this many people, so could not rule the world themselves.

So then, what mechanism could they use?  Bribes?  Well that would leave a trace.  Threats?  Lets skip back to our mathematics who has the resources to threaten a state?  The lack of mechanism is a real issue.  Then we come to evidence?  What hard evidence is there?

Ok, so my friend is a bit silly.  But what worries me is that people don’t evaluate ideas.  So, if you had two explanations for a phenomenon which would you choose?  Well, you’d pick the one that:  Had a mechanism, and fitted the majority of observable evidence, and preferably was supported by Occam razor .

This is my problem with conspiracy theirs.  Most of them just make no sense at all, if you apply the simple test of evaluating ideas.