Between 2004 and 2006, a rogue elephant in a district of the Indian state of Assam was responsible for the deaths of 27 people. The terrified local community nicknamed the animal ‘Osama bin Laden’, after the then-leader of the global terrorist organisation Al-Qaeda.
The Indian government eventually issued shoot-to-kill orders, and a professional hunter was contracted for the task. Aided by the people of the small Assamese town of Behali, the hunter successfully cornered the destructive elephant and shot it dead.
While most of the affected population celebrated the elephant’s demise, a significant number of sceptics arose. They argued that an innocent animal had been slain and that ‘Osama’ remained alive and active. This belief persisted even though the elephant was never seen again. The doubters continued to present ‘evidence’ suggesting it was alive and had likely gone into hiding.
In 2011, when the terrorist Osama bin Laden was shot dead by American Navy Seals, sceptics flooded social media sites to claim that a ‘body double’ of the terrorist had been killed and the real Osama was still alive. They argued that the decision by the Americans not to release graphic photos and DNA evidence was a reason for doubt. The US government stated the decision was made to avoid inciting further violence and to prevent the creation of a shrine, and that DNA evidence from family members confirmed the identity beyond a doubt.
While it is wise to question everything in the information age, questioning the obvious is not an exercise in critical thinking
Despite the abundance of evidence confirming that he was shot and his body disposed of in the open sea, and that he was never seen or heard from again, a small but persistent group of sceptics remains unconvinced. In 2019, an acquaintance with a PhD in economics insisted that bin Laden’s killing was a hoax and that he was still alive. When I challenged the convoluted theories he offered to support his claims, he accused me of undermining ‘critical thinking.’
Critical thinking requires one to think clearly and rationally, basing conclusions on facts and evidence rather than emotion or personal opinion. The economist in question did the exact opposite. He presented his opinion as fact and relied on his emotional desire to see a violent “challenger” to “American imperialism” succeed as his sole “evidence”. More than evidence, this was wishful thinking.
For years, academics and scholars have been bemoaning the gradual decline in people’s ability to apply critical thinking. According to the American online learning specialist Holly Burns, and many like her, this loss is driven by several factors. Modern information consumption favours speed and superficiality over depth and reflection; our current social and political environment rewards fast, emotional responses and conformity; and many educational systems prioritise standardised testing and recall at the expense of developing complex reasoning skills.
Then there are growing incidents of formulating conspiracy theories and presenting them as outcomes of critical thinking. This is what my economist friend was doing. In an article for the British Psychology Society, the journalist and author Emily Reynolds posited that the confusion between conspiracy theories and critical thinking stems from their shared starting point: both involve scepticism and rejection of official narratives.
Both their starting point is a sceptical question. But their routes to investigate or answer the question quickly bifurcate. Critical thinking is about looking for the most convincing answer backed by solid evidence, even if the evidence produces an answer that is not to the liking of the questioner. A conspiracy theorist’s quest is more about ‘unmasking’ a perceived conspiracy and discarding any evidence that fails to back the claim of a diabolical plot.
Critical thinking does not reject official claims outright — rather, it rigorously tests these claims against evidence before reaching a conclusion. In contrast, conspiracy theorists immediately reject official narratives and declare them as lies used to conceal a ‘truth’, often without any convincing counter-evidence. Their subsequent effort is almost entirely focused on ‘proving’ this predetermined conclusion.
In the 2025 issue of the Journal of Intelligence, Professor Oscar Eugenio Tamayo Alzate wrote that critical thinking is “epistemic”. It involves thinking about the nature of knowledge and how we justify beliefs. It is a process of inquiry focused on acquiring true beliefs, evaluating claims and understanding the limits of what we know. It requires an understanding of how we construct, evaluate and use knowledge.
According to a 2017 essay in Current Directions in Psychological Science, whereas critical thinking’s motivation is epistemic, conspiracy theories have “existential motives.”
Studies have shown that people are likely to turn to conspiracy theories when they are anxious and feel powerless. Conspiracy belief is strongly related to lack of social or political control.
This dynamic is compounded by the now widely accepted consensus within the scientific community that individuals with low analytical and critical thinking skills often overestimate their own competence. And these are the people more likely to shape or believe in conspiracy theories. They genuinely believe that their ability to question the mainstream narrative is a sign of high intelligence and insight. This ‘delusion’ feels reassuring to a person confused or disturbed by certain events.
The individual actively looks for information that supports his belief in a conspiracy, refusing to accommodate and even suspect any evidence to the contrary. The sense of power in them comes from the belief that, apparently, they have decoded something secretive, hidden and only known to a few.
The final boundary lies in what is being questioned. Last year, a well-known TV journalist shared a meme-like image of a turkey crossing the road while carrying a kitchen knife. The journalist asked, “Is this real?” Apart from the image being clearly amateurish and having the AI tool watermark visible, questioning it was not an exercise in critical thinking. Nor did it warrant a deep dive.
While it is wise to question everything in the information age, questioning the obvious is not critical thinking. There is more than enough evidence that Osama the terrorist and Osama the elephant are both permanently gone, confirmed by both official evidence and robust critical assessment. Questioning these assessments is like questioning the obvious. Turkeys don’t walk around carrying knives.
Questioning this is not a sign of critical thinking, but sloppy pretence. And maybe, even delusions about oneself, which often lead to conspiratorial beliefs.
Published in Dawn, EOS, November 30th, 2025
Dawn – Home
none@none.com (Nadeem F. Paracha)
Read More
