What Is a Conspiracy Theory?

The term "conspiracy theory" is a term that gets thrown around a lot - this forum even has a section dedicated specifically to conspiracy theories - but what does it really mean?

If we interpret the term as a simple aggregation of its component parts (conspiracy and theory), then it simply means a possible explanation of an event or series of events that involves a secret agreement or plan between two or more individuals. But that could apply to almost every single story where uncertainty about the facts exist.

For example, if I claimed that the Bush administration had an ulterior motive for starting the war in Iraq, that would technically qualify as a "conspiracy theory". Specifically, it is a possible explanation for an event that involves a secret agreement or plan between two or more individuals. Yet many people find this "conspiracy theory" highly plausible and reasonable. What are we to make of this?

As another example, if I claimed that Donald Trump colluded with the Russian government in order to win the US Presidential election, that would also qualify as a conspiracy theory. Yet stories relating to this alleged "collusion" between Trump and the Russians have been making regular appearances in the Current Events forum for about a year now. Apparently, some conspiracy theories are more equal than others.

So what, exactly, is meant when someone uses the term "conspiracy theory"? And what specific criteria would result in a thread being sent to the "conspiracy theory" subforum?

 

According to PF's own subforum, the only definition provided is: Theories surrounding major historical events and the forces shaping today's world.

So does that mean any attempt to explain a "major historical event and the forces shaping today's world" qualifies as a "conspiracy theory"?

Is the term "conspiracy theory" really just a way of silencing unconventional or unpopular forms of political dissent? It sure seems that way.

 

I'm a huge conspiracy person.

Basically it means covering up knowledge of the truth from the public.

Like the fake moon landing for example.

 

That's the definition of a conspiracy. But what's the definition of a conspiracy theory?

What makes that a conspiracy theory?

 

A conspiracy theory is something that certain people believe happened that rational people know didn’t happen.
For example, there are certain types of people who think the Boston Marathon bombings were fake. Anyone who is rational knows the bombings were very real.

 

So who gets to decide what is rational? Let me guess... you? People who think like you? Has there ever been a time when the "rational people" (whoever they are) turned out to be wrong?

There are also certain types of people who thought the CIA overthrew the Iranian government in the 1950's. And for decades, the CIA kept claiming they were not involved. Then, after decades of lying, the CIA finally admitted the truth. Turns out the "conspiracy theorists" were right all along, and all the "rational people" were just parroting the lies of the government.

 

Ironic... ECA's sign line is: People don’t look at the argument any more. They look at who’s saying it.

Yet his entire definition of a conspiracy theory is based on who is saying what instead of what they are saying.

 

Who gets to decide? I dunno, maybe the loved ones of the people who died that day? How about the hundreds who lost legs? How about the cops in Watertown who were involved in a gun fight with the two terrorists? Or how about the people who live in the neighborhood where the gun fight took place?

 

You seem to be taking this personally? Why???
And I don’t know you from Adam so who you are is not a factor in my opinion on this subject

 

I'm talking in general. You said a conspiracy theory is something that certain people believe happened that rational people know did not happen. So the question becomes: Who gets to decide who the "rational people" are? What happens if the "rational people" turn out to be wrong? Or do you refuse to even accept the possibility that someone operating under ostensibly rational assumptions can be mistaken?

 

I'm not taking it personally. I just think it's ironic that your definition of a conspiracy theory is based on who is saying it instead of what is being said.

 

As another example, certain people were claiming that the NSA was collecting data on millions of Americans. And for years, those people were labeled "conspiracy theorists" by all the "rational people". Then Edward Snowden leaked a trove of top secret government documents that proved the NSA really was collecting data on millions of Americans. Turns out, the "conspiracy theorists" were right and all the "rational people" were just parroting the government's lies. History is full of examples of conventional wisdom being proven wrong. In fact, some of the greatest truth-tellers in history were viewed as "nuts" or "kooks" during their time.

 

It’s not based on who is saying it. I don’t personally know the history of the people who commented that the Marathon bombings were fake. I’m going by what I know is real. The bombings were real.

 

I go by what I know is real. I know the marathon bombings were real. I know school shootings are real. As opposed to some who think those have been fake. That’s how I know.

 

I do not care who says the earth is flat, or who says vaccines cause autism, nor who says the wtc fell because of explosives, or who says that the london bombings were a government plot, or who says that the pentagon was hit by a missile,

 

Who didn’t know NSA was collecting data? It’s the NSA...it’s what they do.

 

It can be both.

It can be a very useful silencing tool on the part of perpetrators/govts/agencies to encourage skeptics to call a suspicion a conspiracy theory. Has been used very effectively, for many years, especially in the west, where transparency is more pronounced than in other parts of the world. When it's no longer easy to keep secrets, you ridicule the teller.

Then there are things like Bigfoot. It's blindingly apparent that no such creature exists ... yet there are those who spend their lives looking for him. Such people often become angry when others scoff.

 

I think we can safely acknowledge that anyone who thinks Bigfoot/Grey Aliens are lurking in the green fringes of our suburbs, is not rational.

 

In other words, many supporters of Donald Trump would qualify as "Conspiracy Theorists"

 

Excellent post by the way. I look forward to the replies.

 

Good for you.

Care to answer the question I posed at the beginning of the thread?

 

Lots of people didn't know that the NSA was collecting data on MILLIONS of AMERICANS, including their phone calls, text messages, and emails. That was kept totally secret from the American people and James Clapper even lied to the Senate about the existence of these programs.

 

So who gets to decide which ideas are to be taken seriously and which ones are not?

 

anytime anyone gets close to explaining who really runs the world, it's labeled a conspiracy. basically, you must assume the news feed written to keep you in the free range field is true, or you're a conspiracy theorist.

 

So would you. Your belief that Donald Trump colluded with the Russians clearly qualifies as a conspiracy theory, and a particularly outlandish one at that.