People can misread evidence, or it can lead people the wrong way, not to mention how some of it may be fake. Processes are more critical in understanding systems than their so-called 'results', or evidence. It can't tell us everything, let alone the right things all the time. Some evidence may even be placed out there around a bit of real evidence to trick people. That's why evidence alone I think is insufficient. Reason and systems dynamics can reveal lot a lot more. Why stuff happens rather than what it produces is where the real reasonings behind things can be seen. I think this has a good application to many conspiracy theories, which may indeed be present, and program people accordingly, but those obsessed with these conspiracies can also be misled. For reference, see my illuminati rigged sports Heat Spurs nba finals 2013 thread, which in that scenario, I actually decided that the NBA may have shifted the currents a bit in a very tight spot, but half the problem itself could be the paranoia that arises from these kinds of things; if either the Spurs or the Heat were clearly the more dominant team, than the NBA couldn't have done anything about the result. Conspiracies don't 'determine' things, so much as they may 'influence' things I think, albeit with very subtle pushes which we should know are present, but not totally freak out about. The most effective conspiracies are very shadowed and hard to prove or detect.
I'm curious about what the following forum members on my friends list think about this topic:
@Ene @greenfairy @Mal+ @Mole @Rasofy @superunknown @The Great One @Time