1/6 A quick look at Twitter this morning and I see the conspiracy theorists are getting shoutier. So I wanted to share a few thoughts. I know it's pointless to argue against a conspiracy theorist, but consider this:

2/6 Conspiracy theorists argue they are being 'scientific'. After all, they will say, they too are sceptics and rationalists who question everything, don't accept dogma and value the importance of evidence. But the truth is a conspiracy theorist is the opposite of a scientist:

3/6 ...They will dismiss any evidence against their 'theory' or even seek to assimilate it and interpret it in a way that confirms rather than repudiates their core idea, thus making their theory unfalsifiable, which BY DEFINITION, means it is unscientific.

4/6 Ask a conspiracy theorist this: what would it take for you to change your mind? This highlights the fatal flaw in their approach: they leave no room for doubt. In contrast, in science we learn to change our minds in the light of new evidence.

5/6 When conspiracy theories spread on social media – such as the ludicrous claims that COVID-19 is a bioweapon developed by China or that it is caused by RF radiation from G5 networks – then such misinformation undermines any sensible collective responsibility.

6/6 So, what is the difference between me, as someone trained in the scientific method and worried about, say, anthropogenic climate change, and someone who denies this? I'll tell you. Unlikely though it is, I really hope I'm proven wrong.