I think there's a bit of a survivorship bias in the Hitler example. Because although the probability is low for that one sperm, there were probably millions of other sperms across Germany and Austria that might have had similar results, had they been given the chance.

I think there's also a very real bias when it comes to expert reporting on events like this. For example, there still are engineers trying to prove that the trade center towers could not have collapsed like that just from an airplane. And how is the public to know which experts are correct? It's not just a matter of trusting the experts, but of trusting the people who chose which experts had a say.

Similarly, we're normally taught to mostly trust the justice system, but it seems to break down when it comes to Trump. And the system of expert reporting could be similar here.

As I said, I'm not actually convinced that this was a staged attempt. And I've also tried to demonstrate how not all conspiracy theories are equal. There has to be a way for an average person to determine which ones are credible, and which aren't.

And there's often a strong shame element for even posing questions along those lines, which isn't the right way to determine what to believe. And so rather than labelling things as "consperatorial thinking" or not, we should just ask whether someone has applied correct logic and probabilities or not.

Sometimes the probabilities are very hard to know, in which case it's best not to pick a side too readily.