In the original article was it just me or were there no examples of why the initial beliefs were wrong?
Not saying Chem Trails are real, or supporting any other conspiracy, but it seems you could invert the article and talk about the cult of skepticism that inhibits investigation to phenomena that threaten the prevailing status quo?
And that the narrative would read almost the same?
I don't think we should get too hung up on labels, I myself have objected to the use of terms such as 'sceptic' or believer', but nevertheless sometimes we need a convenient shorthand to convey at least an approximation, in order to move on to actually be able to say something, or we'd never get past discussing the definition of 'it'.
In the past, I served my time playing for the sceptics team. And for a while I was on the conspiracists team too. All of these things have been part of a journey for me.
Now I look at things like this. We can look at a photon as a particle and find a particle. We can look at a photon as a wave and find a wave. We find what we expect to find. The world isn't 'out there', it is created inside our own minds. We can choose how to view the world. Now during my foray into the world of conspiracies, it led me into a world where I was disempowered and fearful. That isn't a good place to be. And remember, this is all within the mind. So, I moved on, I no longer feel either disempowered or fearful. Into that space has come something more positive, including to a large extent, the idea of love. But as I made that internal shift, I lost interest in the ideas I'd been exploring previously. That's the reason why nowadays I walk away from those concepts.
It is though a personal journey, and I encourage others to follow their own dreams, make their own choices as they see fit.