Revisiting Demarcation
Drawing a line between a theory which is explained by the actions of a conspiracy and a "conspiracy theory" is a focus of this intermittently updated blog. The issue, in a nutshell, is when does an explanation transform from a "conspiracy theory" to "theory containing a conspiracy" of which the latter has at least the resemblance of plausibility (remember possibility for the purposes of this blog is defined in the logical manner, not the colloquial one). So the standard test case for this position is the Watergate affair. Prior to the event called "the Saturday Night Massacre" anyone claiming that the Watergate break in had presidential approval or even knowledge could be dismissed as "merely a conspiracy theorist." For the most part that would be correct, the accusations were coming with little to no evidence and only a minor book by two obscure Washington Post reporters were even trying to make any kind of link.* So we have event