I'm not really sure what to make of this. On the surface, this may seem logical, but do remember that even if something looks like something, your preconceived notions may still be blurring you from what you assume is true, but not necessarily what is true. Superficial details may not itself be enough to determine the truth, as looking within may reveal something else. If you mean, if the evidence stands up to scrutiny and yet fools blindly dismiss it, it is valid (as in the case when science is presented to science denialists, or personally, when I tell people in my country who support the descendants of the dictator Ferdinand Marcos that the regime they idolize is responsible for crimes against humanity and then they shut me off on the grounds of me being part of a conspiracy by their political enemies). If you mean, however, that those people who accuse others of being conspiracy theorists are all wrong and willfully ignorant, it becomes much more complex to the point of being fallacious.



To go back to the duck example, if you were told by someone that a bird that looks superficially like a duck isn't taxonomically or scientifically considered a duck, you may adamantly insist on it and people in the know would call you a loon (for the ornithologically challenged, there are birds that look like ducks and their relatives but are not, such as loons and grebes, which all look like paddling birds). The alternative, of course, is if you look up what bird, exactly, are you looking at and determine whether they really are ducks or something else, and you will be either vindicated (it was a duck, everyone was wrong, glad I checked) or corrected (whoa, it wasn't a duck. You were right. My mistake).



Essentially, while a rational person would delve deeper into it rather than relying on naive precognitions and superficial details to ascertain the truth, those considered conspiracy theorists will stick to their belief with the dangerous fervor of a fanatic. For instance, a person who believes that some nebulous malevolent organization is in charge of all the companies may seem vindicated when they see all their brands owned by the same people, but if they took a business course, they would see it as bigger firms investing in and buying competing companies to hedge their bets, which may bring up a few legitimate issues in itself, but is far from the "the evil shadow government controls all that we buy."



Also, one should also recall that while Occam's razor isn't 100% accurate, it can give a good starting point in which scenario is more plausible. Saying that the recession is caused by irresponsible bankers is more plausible than assuming that it was all a ploy by an evil cult led by a particular family. Sometimes bad things happen because of stupid things. This reasoning is not to say that conspiracies do not exist, but that real conspiracies tend to have a solid paper trail and conspiracy theories do not. The issue with the NSA is a real conspiracy and was eventually found out as it was corroborated by evidence. The rumor that the world's leaders are all a triangle-worshipping cabal of lizard people is a conspiracy theory as there is no evidence to support that these leaders are anything other than a bunch of people who may or may not hate each other and may sometimes be corrupt or incompetent.