Taxonomy

The biggest hurdle in dealing with conspiracy theories is how to define them. A later post will deal with the term "Conspiracy Theory" in much greater detail but for now let's just assume the common parlance of the term and discuss what exactly we mean and more importantly how we can divide the various conspiracy theories into their proper categories. In an earlier post I referred to two types of CTs: Academic and Historical. Academic theories, properly understood, are those dealing with specific knowledge that is hidden from the public. These include hidden cures, ancient aliens, secret discoveries, etc. Historical theories deal with the secret behind historical events, e.g. the truth about assassinations, disasters, and the actual workings of governments.

Since I made that claim though I realize that this is an insufficient categorization. Which makes this type of analysis all the more tricky since finding a top-level taxonomy can only begin with the proper definition of the term itself. Now, I'm not going to be dealing with that right now because the research isn't done yet and is the focus of my dissertation. So, once again, we are just making an assumption of definition and dealing with the most obvious cases. Any objections in the comments are welcome.

The first differentiation that we must make is between direct and implied CTs. 

Direct CTs are those that are obviously conspiracy theories. These are the claims the directly posit not only an alternative view on reality but also that there is a group that wishes and actively works to keep this hidden from the public. The claims of the Flat Earthers that the world is not a globe but a flat disc is accompanied by the direct and overt claim that governmental agencies, notably NASA (in the US) are hiding the disc shaped world from the general public. That the CIA not only assassinated JFK but also covered up their role and pinned it on Lee Harvey Oswald. Any theory which explains the world, either historical or contemporary, with secret societies is by this categorization a direct conspiracy theory. 

Implied CTs are those in which the claimant is not directly asserting a conspiracy apparatus but in which the claim itself would require one in order to be true. For example, homeopathic claims that their "treatments" work and are being suppressed by "Big Pharma" imply that all of the pharmaceutical companies, university research labs, medical colleges, and all medical professionals working in the relevant fields are conspiring together to keep the secret of homeopathy's efficacy. Claims that the free energy exists but is actively being surpressed by energy companies (Oil, Coal, etc.), car companies, and battery manufacturers imply a conspiracy. 

The distinction between the two is what we in Philosophy call "fuzzy" because someone may claim an implied conspiracy and not realize the full extent of what they are saying. In some cases this may cause them to realize that their claim is implausible or it may lead them to just admitting the direct version and continuing on. However this isn't a devastating problem for the distinction merely a minor objection. 

The next differentiation is that between event conspiracies and super conspiracies. This is a more obvious distinction that is easily graspable. 

An event conspiracy limits itself to one event or situation. The CT here lives in an isolated box that doesn't touch other events or states. In reference to the homeopathic claim, the person making it could believe official explanations of everything else, even other medical claims. They might believe that chiropractics is BS, that there's no such thing as energy fields, and that anything else labeled "pseudo-medicine" is ineffective; with the exception of their own homeopathic remedies. Similarly one might believe that the sinking of the Titanic was part of an insurance fraud scheme perpetrated by JP Morgan because of the earlier Olympic collision with the British Warship the HMS Hawke, and let it lie at that. 

Super Conspiracies weave a narrative thread between events that span decades or even centuries. These are the theories that are identified usually by certain key phrases or words such as "Illuminati, Rothschild, Tri-Lateral Committee, International Bankers, Deep State, etc." In this world, major global events are connected by the whims of the conspirators. In the preceding paragraph the CT regarding the sinking of the Titanic was labelled as an event conspiracy. However, there are some theories which take the event and thread it into a Super conspiracy by making the event not only an insurance fraud but also an assassination of three men Benjamin Guggenheim, Isa Strauss (real name Isidor Strauss), and Jacob Astor. These three men were allegedly against the creation of the US Federal Reserve and all died on the Titanic. This latter theory takes into account the single event but then ties it to an unrelated event of the creation of the US Federal Reserve Bank, which is a focal point of many conspiracy theories. 

Obviously the two differentiations would be combined. The Flat Earth theory would be a Direct Super conspiracy since all of scientific history would need to be included as well as it actively postulating the coverup. It would also link together competing space agencies as the Cold War requires that both NASA and their Soviet counterparts all agree to keep the "round earth lie" going. The homeopathic claim could be an Implied Event or an Implied Super depending on how far the homeopath goes with their alternative medical beliefs. It could also fall into the Direct  category showing us that the difficulty of these kinds of differentiation is that it depends on the particular beliefs of the claimant themselves. 

The distinctions could not be universal as applied to the conspiracists themselves for the reason that it would require engagement of the particularist variety discussed four posts ago and only upon such an engagement could we truly get an understanding of how far the theory goes. 

It is important to understand that we are not discussing the intricacies of the theories themselves only a superficial glance at both their breadth and depth. To get into these facets of the theories themselves is a much broader project that will be taken up in the future. For now, let us rest with this first rudimentary differentiation before considering the nuances that are sure to come.