But Are They Even Theories?
We call them "conspiracy theories" and the first part seems obvious. We have accusations of groups of people meeting in secret to concoct a plan. This is, by definition, a conspiracy. However the latter part of the term is suspicious. Are they even "theories"? The problem that we are having is that there is a colloquial definition of the word and a formal definition of the word. Formally a theory is a construct of a series of propositions, supported by evidence, indicating an explanation of an event or phenomenon. In an earlier post I indicated how we can have historical theories of conspiracy using such events as the "Pazzi Conspiracy" and the standard in the literature "Watergate." In both of these cases there is an accusation of conspiracy supported by historical evidence. They are explained in the words of Dentith that the "conspiracy" is the salient cause of the events, in other words, without the direction of a secretive group t