People who are critical to the west easily swallow such theories while pro-vest people just as easily find them ridiculous.
In my opinion, people who understand the positives and negatives of western information flow recognize that the information flow claiming it was islamic fundamentalists is correct, that it is not some conspiracy to blame muslims, while the people who accept various non-western information sources such as pronouncements by various mullahs, and do not really have a detailed understanding of how the west lies and how it doesn't, get this one wrong.
I guess we can agree that the most rational response would be to enter a state of aporia until sufficient evidence is at hand.
No, I don't think we can or should agree to that. The west including its governments have not attributed a major attack to Islamic Terror which turned out on further evidence to not be Islamic Terror. Western authority is good on this topic. the evidence that the Charlie Hebdo massacre was Islamic Terror was good as virtually from the first reports of the crime. Certainly long before this post went up, it is a really safe conclusion that Islamic Terrorists shot up Charlie Hebdo.
I don't think you are using the word "aporia" right, but by its actual definition or by its definition implied by your context, it is not needed here, we know the acts were committed by Islamic Terrorists and that the counter-conspiracy theories are the usually erroneous kind arising from the same kinds of sources and motivations that they usually arise from.
The west including its governments have not attributed a major attack to Islamic Terror which turned out on further evidence to not be Islamic Terror.
I'm not sure whether that statement is true in that form.
Glenn Greenwald on democracy now:
And so you have a lot of them who work at think tanks, like Brookings Institute, which employs Will McCants, who misled American media outlets into believing for a full day and then telling the world that the Anders Breivik attack in Norway was actually the work of a jihadist group.
FBI informants also pay Musli...
After the terrorist attacks at Charlie Hebdo, conspiracy theories quickly arose about who was behind the attacks.
People who are critical to the west easily swallow such theories while pro-vest people just as easily find them ridiculous.
I guess we can agree that the most rational response would be to enter a state of aporia until sufficient evidence is at hand.
Yet very few people do so. People are guided by their previous understanding of the world, when judging new information. It sounds like a fine Bayesian approach for getting through life, but for real scientific knowledge, we can't rely on *prior* reasonings (even though these might involve Bayesian reasoning). Real science works by investigating evidence.
So, how do we characterise the human tendency to jump to conclusions that have simply been supplied by their sense of normativity. Is their a previously described bias that covers this case?