First, a caveat. It is patently obvious that conspiracy beliefs from the political right have done extensive real-world damage. From vaccine denialism and election conspiracies to climate change denialism and immigrant scapegoating, the impacts have been death, ecological destruction, and the rise of fascist ideologies. Plenty has been written about those harms, and nothing in this piece is meant to minimize them.

But conspiratorial thinking is growing on the left (by "left" I mean anyone left of center politically in the US), and if we want any legitimacy when we claim to value truth and evidence, we need to call out conspiracy theories and the faulty logic behind them, even when they "feel right" or are politically advantageous.

Here are a few conspiracies I've seen become commonplace on Reddit, often alluded to in the top comment on a related story. This isn't meant to be a full debunking of each one. The point is to show how surface level the analysis is, and how believers are falling into the same traps we mock the right for.

The 2024 election

This one drives me crazy the most. The left devoted years of (deserved) mockery to 2020 election deniers, and now a decent chunk of the left are doing the exact same thing. Put the evidence from both groups side by side and it is fascinatingly similar. Look at these weird graphs. Look at these really strange results in this one tiny county. Satellites! Worse, I've repeatedly seen people cite as legitimate evidence a podcast interview where Elon's toddler was rambling. I read these comments and think: we say the right is dumb?

The Trump assassination attempts

The evidence I've seen: The flag was positioned for a photo op? Sure, it looked a little odd, but that's it? The ear healed too quickly? Internet commenters are apparently wound-healing experts, when in reality superficial wounds on the ear heal quickly and scarring can be minimal.

Then the correspondents' dinner incident happened, and the immediate reaction was the same: fake. Before any actual evidence. A knee-jerk response because it "felt right," and because it's exactly the kind of thing Trump would do to elicit sympathy and provide political cover for his ballroom. But "he would totally do this" is not evidence.

The Charlie Kirk shooter's texts

"The texts were obviously fake." That was the immediate take after the alleged shooter was apprehended and the FBI released some of the evidence. Yep, the way they were written was cringeworthy. But think about it for a moment. Would the FBI (even led by someone incompetent) risk faking text messages in such a high-profile case, when the defense would obviously do its due diligence and verify the messages against the actual devices and carrier records? This kind of surface-level, knee-jerk reaction is lazy. With even a tiny bit of critical thinking, these ideas fall apart.

So why care about this? Because there are consequences when the left falls for conspiracy theories. We lose credibility. We become more susceptible to other conspiratorial thinking. And we divert attention and outrage away from real, documented harms. On elections alone: the gutting of the Voting Rights Act, active voter suppression efforts like voter roll purges, and the push to eliminate mail-in voting, among many others.

I've been harsh in places, so I want to be clear about something: I don't think everyone who has entertained these theories is dumb. Many people who believe conspiracy theories are very smart, regardless of their politics. But all humans share the same vulnerability. If a headline "feels right" or validates a belief we already hold, we are much more likely to believe it.

It's worth knowing that we're all susceptible to this kind of thinking, and worth staying on guard. That's how we avoid being taken advantage of by grifters promoting these theories, and how we keep our outrage pointed at the harms that are real and documented.

Author here. Interesting case study in how fringe claims get handled.

In 1994, Robert Bauval proposed that the three Giza pyramids were deliberately arranged to mirror Orion's Belt, the claim behind The Orion Mystery and countless documentaries since.

Bauval's Giza–Orion claim was called pseudoarchaeology for decades, correctly in most respects. However, the dismissals were never quantitative, and one of them (Fairall's 1999 "it only works in mirror image" argument, repeated everywhere since) is factually incorrect: the optimal alignment uses pure rotation, no reflection.

Meanwhile the core three-point shape correspondence is genuinely significant against an exhaustive enumeration of all 695,520 bright-star triplets, and every extension: shaft alignments, orientation, the 10,500 BCE dating, the Nile Valley map; all fails quantitative testing.

Moral: dismissal isn't evidence, and measurement beats both camps.

Peer-reviewed in JAHH: https://www.sciengine.com/JAHH/doi/10.3724/SP.J.1440-2807.2026.02.06.

AMA.

What's the jist on "Healing touch"?

Someone I know who is very smart and in a medical field is very into it.

They stress that it was created by a nurse. Alright, but that doesn't mean to me that the 1 nurse was correct. All sorts of educated people make mistakes and/or grift. I see more at least somewhat credible sources publishing positive info about it than in past years, but I am wary that it may just be woo crawling into legit medical spaces.

Thoughts? If it's not real, is it at least mostly not harmful compared to other woo? Don't want to crush this person's feelings, but also don't want to entertain the idea of superpowers.

Assuming this incident is not a hoax involving an invisible thread, how does a skeptic explain how a bottle at the back of a shelf gets pushed out on to the floor?

I just can’t with this shit anymore. Sooo many angles of ridicule here, I don’t even know where to start. And some wonder how conspiracy theories are so prevalent in the United States…

The Core Theory also tells us something very im­portant about the world: there is no such thing as astrology and life after death. Carroll had written about this on his blog, and he repeats this spectacular argument again in the book. Using our fundamental ontology, the world, including our bodies, is made of particles interacting according to equations of the Core Theory. The important point here is what kind of particles is the soul made of? If souls are made of the same ordinary particles as human bodies, there is no afterlife. On the other hand, if they are made of a different particle, this certainly would require a new physics to describe the interaction between our bodies—collections of ordinary Core Theory particles—with the soul. But every experiment ever performed says the Core Theory provides the correct description of how its particles behave at everyday energies.

Roughly speaking, I think The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe and The Demon-Haunted World describe how we can know about the world and the universe, and The Big Picture by Sean Carroll describes what we currently know, as far as we can tell.