In the Sunday New York Times, February 24, 2013, Justin Gillis discusses some academics who study conspiracy thinking on the 'net. Interesting reading, particularly since the academics he mentions suggest that conspiracy thinking is attractive to some because it offers a magical solution to what can be difficult questions. What causes climate change? Why did the Twin Towers fall? (Not necessarily just the physics of the fall, but why did some people decide that an attack needed to be mounted on the U.S. and its ways of thinking?) Did humans evolve or not? One could spend time and energy thinking about these questions, but if there's a one sentence answer that feels good, pouncing on that is so much easier. And often it comes with talking points to "defeat" the "other side" in debate in front of an audience that itself may want a definitive answer, not more questions.
Or maybe people would like to avoid thinking altogether, and just call it in. Well, we can't do that anymore, if we ever could The stakes, in my opinion, are too high. We have to do some critical thinking about some things. While I might sometimes wish for a Magic 8-Ball to run things in academia, or in politics, I really don't think that solution is a great idea. (Yes, I hear you saying you think people have been using it for years...).