> It seems like you have narrowed your point all of the way down to "generalizations about truth are bad because humans are not omniscient".

That's a rather imperfect characterization, but at least you realize that it "seems" this way, not that it --is-- this way.

An improvement would be something like: "[Generalizations about the truth that are presented as the accurate, comprehensive truth] is bad, because it distorts the public's perceptions of reality. One can often know(!) whether these generalizations are manufactured truth. An example of one such way is when knowing a truth would require omniscience (ie: "there is no evidence)".

However, what one cannot know(!), for sure, is whether this manufacturing is performed consciously. That the "just so" stories are so consistent in their timing, and details (or lack of details), suggests that this process may often not be purely organic. That many confirmations of conscious and coordinated behavior have been discovered (but mostly in the past, funny that) lends further support to the idea that it does actually occur, at least sometimes (a funny sentence if you think about it).

> People make generalizations about truth because they are not omniscient. Social cues combined with critical thinking allow me to believe that over a billion people live in India even though I have never been there.

This is true, but not comprehensive - but many people perceive it as comprehensive.

> Something is broadly considered a conspiracy theory when there is broad evidence for it being false and circumstantial evidence for it being true.

This is what people are told (about how they themselves and others behave), but it's not the actual reality of how people behave. If this was actual reality, it would require that the masses ("broadly") actually think ("considered") about the ideas [1] contained within each conspiracy theory.

For the most part, people do not do this, and this can be seen in the comically inaccurate way they discuss the ideas, on the very rare occasion that they do. They discuss (and believe, as fact) the distorted and simplified "just so" version that the media tells them, not the actual one that exists within the conspiracy theory ecosystem [2]. I suspect you likely have a fairly strong belief [3] about whether what I say here is true or not - whether you have any curiosity about what the actual truth is, is likely a different story - this applies to a large percentage of conspiracy theorists as well.

> You are absolutely hiding behind generality by not defending any specific conspiracy theory.

No, this is how your mind is conceptualizing it. I am not "hiding" behind anything, I am simply discussing the general nature of conspiracy theories. Is this a violation of some natural law?

> Assertions of the forms you mention do not on their own distort the public's perception of reality.

Actually, this is your perception of it. Think about it: By what means do you know the thoughts of the public, which is composed of hundreds of millions of people? Of course you have no way of knowing what people think! Yet, it sure doesn't seem like you don't, does it! It seems rather crystal clear that you know this, does it not? But if you trace the lineage of that knowledge in your mind, what do you find? Go ahead, try it!

> The Earth IS round. The Holocaust DID happen. These statements do not distort the public's perception of reality.

Here you have resorted to a strawman rhetorical technique, and a rather obvious one at that. I doubt this convinces even you.

> Quit hiding behind rhetorical tricks and give an example statement that does distort the public's perception of reality.

Here you go: https://www.google.com/search?q=election+no+evidence+fraud

How does one make sense of all of this complexity and uncertainty? What should a person believe? Shall we believe what the newspaper man, and telly man, or conspiracy theory man, tell us is true (even though it's very often obvious that they literally do not have the technical means of knowing(!) what they say is true, is actually true?

One novel approach, taking The Clear Pill, is offered by Curtis Yarvin (Mencious Moldbug):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__0jqfKj6_U

Now I'm not suggesting you adopt this approach, I'm just pointing it out as an option [4], and as a demonstration of how things are not as they seem (to the mind).

Most people can conceptualize and accept the flawed nature of human cognition when discussing it in the abstract, but this skill seems to vanish when the point of focus turns to concrete reality. Then, perception is perceived as 100% accurate. I imagine there is an evolutionary explanation for this strange inconsistency, but I suspect that explanation may not be comprehensive.

--------

[1] the actual ideas, as opposed to the distorted allegations advertised in the media

[2] which is very often an inconsistent mess full of contradictions - but not always

[3] many people incorrectly consider these beliefs "knowledge", or even/usually "facts"

[4] there are many available options to choose from, and you've already "chosen" one (or had one chosen for you - see: culture), whether you realize it or not