What Is a Conspiracy Theory?

whay about JFK assassination. 70+% of population thinks there were multiple shooters. does this make it not a conspiracy theory.

 

But believing the NSA is spying on us to me is not a conspiracy theory like believing bombings and school shootings are staged. One is our govt lying the other is just cuckoo.

 

Many people who thought they knew what was real turned out to be totally wrong. What makes you think you're any different?

The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.
--Socrates

 

Once again, I think 99% of us understand that belief in Bigfoot should probably not be taken seriously.

Believing that Govts don't always tell us everything, is considerably less nutty.

Spot the difference.

 

The question I'm posing is not: Who or what is rational?

The question I'm posing is: What is a conspiracy theory?

 

Why wasn't it a conspiracy theory?

 

Asked and answered already.

 

Why won't you just answer the question?

Who gets to decide which ideas are to be taken seriously and which ones are not?

Let me guess... you?

 

Bingo!!!

 

the foremost expert on primates in the world believes that Bigfoot exist.

 

Your answer is circular. Basically, you're saying you know because you know. That's a tautology. Yet as I've already explained, many people throughout history who thought they knew what was real turned out to be totally wrong. You think you're immune to this? For thousands of years, masses of people believed that monarchy was a perfectly legitimate form of government. Ancient Egyptians believed the pharaohs were living Gods. So why are you so certain of your ability to distinguish between what is real and what is fake?

 

Translation: I agree with you, so you must be right!

 

If the content of the theory is as nutty as a fruitcake, it can probably be dismissed as 'conspiracy'.

If the content of the theory is unspectacular, unromantic, pedestrian, and vaguely plausible, then it's less a conspiracy and more a speculation.

Two good examples are

a) 9' tall hairy ape men are lurking in public parks on urban fringes - we just can't see them. Somehow.

b) Certain federal agencies have had a hand in some less than strictly legal shenanigans in the name of political expediency.

Again, spot the difference.

 

Yes, I knew the marathon bombings were real. Yes I know school shootings are real. You don’t?

 

A conspiracy theory is a theory that has been proven to be incorrect by evidence gathered in official investigations and/or through a thorough consideration of the facts and a dissection of the components of the conspiracy theory.

The critical thing you are missing in your description of a conspiracy theory is that it exists in opposition of the known facts. Further, there is never any complete body of evidence to fully support the veracity of a conspiracy theory. Most or all conspiracy theories are comprised of nothing more than logical leaps made possible by circumstance and supposition as well as a rearranging or misinterpretation of the facts. This has the unfortunate effect of making the conspiracy theory sound possible or even reasonable to uninformed or non-expert people (most of the population).

When you combine that increasingly devalues reality and facts in favor of whatever you want to believe on an individual basis regardless of reality and conspiracy theories are a stronger phenomenon than ever before.

They're still complete bullshit, but they sure are popular and they're getting more and more popular as the years roll on.

 

Yup...you’re not taking this personally at all : )

 

More circular reasoning based on vague criteria.

Again, you're using totally subjective criteria. Why not just admit that a "conspiracy theory" is entirely in the eye of the beholder? That it has no objective or consistent meaning?

What makes you think I don't know the difference?

As I've already told you, the point of this thread is to define what a conspiracy theory actually is. So how can you give examples of a "conspiracy theory" if you haven't even defined what it is yet?

 

How could you NOT know the difference? They're entirely different propositions.

and ....

As stated in my very first post in this thread, a CT can be either or. A tool for institutional silencing, or a fun pastime for bored basement dwellers.

 

Because we’re in a ‘opinions and belief’ forum.

 

"Official investigations"

Well, if the evidence comes from an investigation that is "official", then it must be valid, right? It's not like "officials" have ever made errors or intentionally distorted the truth before. They are perfect angels whose methods are infallible!

You act as if synthesizing a fact is some straightforward process. In reality, synthesizing facts can prove exceedingly difficult, which is why so many things that were believed to be "facts" turned out to be wrong. In science, there is at least some method for identifying and correcting errors, but that method is actually quite limited. In politics, there are no experimental conditions that can be controlled or replicated. Synthesizing facts in such a context is extremely messy and uncertain. I'm sure it's a comforting thought to believe that your understanding of the "facts" is both accurate and precise, but in all probability, it isn't.

 

What makes you think I'm taking this personally?

 

Again, what makes you think I don't know the difference between those two propositions?

That's not a definition.

So how can you give examples of a conspiracy theory if you haven't defined what a conspiracy theory is?

As far as I can tell, your definition of a conspiracy theory can be roughly described as any idea that upsets you. You certainly haven't produced any objective criteria that would allow us to identify a conspiracy theory.

 

Yes, I'm aware of that. But that doesn't actually answer my question.

If you cannot define what a conspiracy theory is, then how can you give examples of conspiracy theories? Do you not see the contradiction in logic there?

 

If you have some evidence to show that an official investigation cannot be trusted, then present it. Your inherent distrust of anything official is not a substitute for evidence or facts. Doubting facts because of their source and for no other reason is a logical fault.

The only one feeling any comfort is someone who feels free to disregard any facts or realities they see fit to disregard, typically for no other reason than they don't like them. You doubt and doubt and doubt. You come up with a million arguments and emotions to question anything with an official source. But you and those like you never bring anything to the table. You don't counter the official facts with facts of your own and then let the two battle it out in the arena of pure meritocracy. You simply cast doubt upon anything you don't like by trashing its source and then go home, happy that you've managed to convince yourself that there's another uncomfortable fact you can feel free to ignore.

I won't be patronized by someone who has nether the fortitude to deal with reality nor the chops to prove accepted facts to be wrong. Its nothing but doubt without effort. Its the easy way out. Ignorance truly is bliss.

 

A conspiracy theory is something that people want to keep hidden from society or that only a few people believe. There is an association of paranoia and craziness associated with the believer. Some are likely true and many are probably not. There are lots of secrets that most people don't know. Classified top secret military stuff and secret societies are popular ones. I think the theories are good to have some skepticism of the government by the people. Not everyone drinks the Kool Aid.