From left wing to right wing, there’s seems to be a pretty healthy distrust of our government. It seems obvious to many that something fishy is going on. And of course, with any real conspiracy the best evidence is always suppressed.
I think many people agree that there are dealings going on behind closed doors that the public doesn’t get to know about. I want to know when and where these ideas about what happens in these closed rooms gets labeled a “conspiracy theory” (aka B.S.).
Hmm, that’s an interesting question. When does a “theory that there is a conspiracy” turn into a “conspiracy theory”?
During the Watergate flap, we had a theory that there was a conspiracy, but it did not turn into a “conspiracy theory”.
I think the difference has to do, first, with the level of paranoia, and second, with the degree of plausibility. It was perfectly plausible that Nixon’s White House aides were spying on the Democratic party, and the persons making the accusation (Woodward and Bernstein, et al), didn’t sound terribly paranoid.
Of course, it all depends on how much common sense you bring to bear on the question. Or what kind of “common sense” it is. Conspiracy theorists and non-conspiracy theorists alike will point to the same data and say, “A little common sense will tell you…”.
I think also one thing that characterizes a “conspiracy theory” is the scope of the conspiracy–it’s nearly always world-wide. Nobody ever claimed that the Watergate burglars were striving for world domination.
Now, Richard Nixon, that’s something else again… [joke, OK?]
:rolleyes:
“Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast!” - the White Queen
TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Six days, 14 hours, 33 minutes and 5 seconds.
264 cigarettes not smoked, saving $33.03.
Life saved: 22 hours, 0 minutes.
How I wish this were true in the “real world”. Who asks for evidence these days except the skeptic minority?
(What, you don’t believe there’s a skeptic minority? They’re out there, I tell you, a bunch of ‘em. Lookin’ to disprove your angels and debunk your creationist science!)
Tracer,
What does it take to be a conspirator? Just keeping your mouth shut?
There are many UFO conspriracy theories out there. The simplest one is that the government has hidden evidence of UFO landings from us.
This seems like a conspiracy that could be maintained by a few top military personel in the know. There would have to be a number of military personnel that would wind up seeing things,but perhaps they could be fooled by saying it was related to top secret technology.
As far as the “petty conspiracy theories” are concerned are there any further criteria? Once again consider that the best evidence would of course be suppressed.
Labeling an explanation a “conspiracy theory” is generally an attempt by the labeler to discredit it. Often the same explanation is both a “conspiracy theory” and a plain explanation depending on who you ask. The “October Surprise” is an example.
Historians hate conspiracies and attempt to ignore/discredit/minimize any that come to light. This has led to a rather poor acceptance of theories that involve conspiracies/secret societies in the official accounts.
To me, there are two answers to this: the literal and the popular. In modern times, the popular answer to “what is a conspiracy theory?” is the “Grand” type listed above – i.e., a some huge multi-level conspiracy functioning on a national or global scale to keep from the general public some astonishing fact that it ought to know. The literal answer, of course, is that a “conspiracy theory” is a theory that a conspiracy exists. During the O.J. trial, the defense theorized that the L.A. police department conspired to plant evidence and convict Simpson; that’s obviously a “conspiracy theory,” but most people who talk about “conspiracy theories” are talking about the Illuminati, or U.F.O.s, or something equally earth-shattering and, IMO, implausible.
The problem with conspiracy theories, as even the OP highlights, is that those who espouse them often demand that the government prove a negative – ie, prove that the stock market is not run behind the scenes by a cabal of Jewish bankers! Prove that the U.S. government is not hiding extraterrestrials at Roswell. And if you point out that zero evidence exists for such a theory, they say “Sure! But the people who knew about it have been silenced! Or they’re in on it!” There’s just no way to disprove any of it. But conspiracy theories (in the modern, popular, sense) often are based on such unproven, over-generalized statements as:
No offense to you, m3, but let’s just look at that: “Something fishy” is going on? What? It’s hard to get more generalized, and therefore less amenable to critical thinking, than that. The evidence of conspiracies is always suppressed? Actually, until the evidence comes out, nobody knows there’s a conspiracy at all, right? So by theorizing that evidence is leaked and then suppressed, you are expanding the theoretical conspiracy exponentially – now it not only includes the conspirators, but the media or the government or whomever else may be responsible for “suppressing” the information. “Many dealings” behind closed doors? Again, dealings about what? Sure there are decisions made that the general public is not filled in on, in myriad areas, defense being the obvious one; this does not translate to a vast conspiracy.
It is very difficult to deal with people who believe in grand conspiracies, because even the total lack of evidence is taken of evidence of how pervasive the conspiracy is. I’ve dealt with Freemen who believed (apparently sincerely) that the government was planting identifying microchips under the skin of babies, which is why a mother should not go to a hospital to give birth. Point out that there is no evidence of this, and that no such “microchips” appear on any X-rays or any child, and they say “Sure, that’s because the chip is of a new, non-detectable variety.” You just can’t argue with these people. Believe me, I’ve tried.