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 the event would not have occurred.
The difference between these theories and the conspiracy theory is that the conspiracy theory isn't supported by substantive evidence. In Keeley's terms it's errant data which supports claim. Errant data is problematic because it contains data which may or may not be relevant ascribes relevance and then attaches that data to the intent of the accused conspiracy. In short, it becomes circular reasoning.
For instance take the bill folding conspiracies that claim if you fold a dollar bill, or other bill, in a certain Origamic manner you can reveal the Free-Masonic/Illuminati conspiracies messages. The first step in buying these claims is special pleading: you have to assume that these organizations exist and that they placed the messages within US currency. Once that is assumed the hunt for errant data begins, and it's not hard to see how this is accomplished: fold a bill in an innumerable amount of ways and eventually you'll find something that kind of, sort of looks like evidence for the original accusation.
This is not a theory because it makes no predictions or observations. Just to get this out of the way, no, predicting that you can find a symbol by folding a dollar bill up doesn't count because we assumed the conclusion as evidence for the premise.
While they have explanatory power it is not supported by substantive evidence. This throws back to the earlier problem of those who make accusations without evidence that later turn out to be true. These would more correctly be called "conspiracy accusations" rather than 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 the event would not have occurred.
The difference between these theories and the conspiracy theory is that the conspiracy theory isn't supported by substantive evidence. In Keeley's terms it's errant data which supports claim. Errant data is problematic because it contains data which may or may not be relevant ascribes relevance and then attaches that data to the intent of the accused conspiracy. In short, it becomes circular reasoning.
For instance take the bill folding conspiracies that claim if you fold a dollar bill, or other bill, in a certain Origamic manner you can reveal the Free-Masonic/Illuminati conspiracies messages. The first step in buying these claims is special pleading: you have to assume that these organizations exist and that they placed the messages within US currency. Once that is assumed the hunt for errant data begins, and it's not hard to see how this is accomplished: fold a bill in an innumerable amount of ways and eventually you'll find something that kind of, sort of looks like evidence for the original accusation.
This is not a theory because it makes no predictions or observations. Just to get this out of the way, no, predicting that you can find a symbol by folding a dollar bill up doesn't count because we assumed the conclusion as evidence for the premise.
While they have explanatory power it is not supported by substantive evidence. This throws back to the earlier problem of those who make accusations without evidence that later turn out to be true. These would more correctly be called "conspiracy accusations" rather than theories.
Comments
Post a Comment