I would like at the moment to briefly examine why some are motivated to prefer explanatory observances by virtue of “conspiracy theories.” The logic used by conspiracy theorists is based on the principle of “cui bono” (who benefits). When an event occurs, the theorist asks “who benefited from this event?” The explanations that then follow are usually a hidden person or group caused the event through some hidden conspiracy. The most obvious logical fallacy here is that it's derived from innumeracy – which is naivety about statistics and probability. We sometimes fall prey to our basic human instinctual desire for order and meaning imposed on patterns we see instead of believing an occurrence is a statistical fluke or random event. The next logical fallacy noticeable is the confusion between correlation and causation. In other words, we sometimes prefer to think that all correlations are real and not coincidence. We have to remember that even when we establish that a correlation is real, there may be myriad explanations of causation. (ie: we see what appears to be chem-trails in the sky and since some bozo on the street told me it's true, then it must be, clearly). Another logical fallacy with conspiracy theories is that they employ post-hoc reasoning, which is to use formally invalid logic by invoking arguments only after we know they're needed to construct crudely creative colloquial conclusions. This is why I disregard conspiracy theories as it is an intellectual category of splendid irrelevance.