|
A conspiracy theory is a
theory
that defies common historical or current understanding of events, under
the claim that those events are the result of manipulations by one or
more secretive powers or
conspiracies.
-
A "conspiracy theory" is a colloquial term for
referring to unconventional theories about current or historical events
as unfounded, outlandish, or irrational.
Conspiracy theories in general allege that some particular event —
such as an
assassination, a revolution, or even the failure of a product — resulted not solely
from the visible action of overt political or market
forces, but rather from covert manipulation.
But because routine conspiracy theories are often simply allegations
of
covert action, and because these tend to be based on little or no
solid evidence, the expression "conspiracy theory," in common speech is
used to refer to allegations of collusion that the speaker considers
unproven, unlikely, or false.
Conspiracy and conspiracy theory
The word conspiracy comes from the Latin "conspirare," ("to breathe
together"), and in contemporary usage it is a situation where two or more
people agree to perform an illegal or immoral act. The essential
components are the involvement of at least two people, secrecy and
malicious intent. The actual existence of countless thousands of such
conspiracies is well-known and includes organized crime and gangs as well
as cartels in restraint of trade, organized political bribery, and so
forth. At any given time, hundreds or thousands of conspiracies are
afoot. Such conspiracies are
crimes in
most nations, and one can be prosecuted on the basis of conspiring to
commit an illegal act or being part of a network that was engaged in
doing so. For a discussion of this sort of conspiracy, see the article
conspiracy. (Note: The term "conspiracy theory" is thus sometimes
also used refer to sociological attempts to study the phenomenon of conspiracy.)
While the term conspiracy theory could refer to any theory
positing the existence of a conspiracy (but as yet unproven), it can be
used by people as a disparaging rhetorical device to refer to ideas that,
in their opinion, are:
Historians generally use the term conspiracy to refer to a
conspiracy that is considered to be real, proven, or at least seriously
plausible and with some element of support.
The waters are muddied by the fact that powerful groups or individuals
may have an interest in trying to discredit those who accuse them of real
or imagined crimes. The label of "conspiracy theory" has been used to
mock or denigrate social and political dissent, for instance when a
powerful public figure is accused of corruption.
The term conspiracists can be used disparagingly to refer to
a person who is likely to believe in a conspiracy; psychologists note
that a person who believes in one conspiracy theory can be a believer in
other conspiracy theories as well.
Ridicule, and even the diagnosis of schizophrenia has been used as a
means of silencing political dissent, for example in the Soviet Union
(see anti-psychiatry).
In justifying the classification of a theory as a conspiracy theory,
detractors tend to level accusations that the theory is:
-
Not backed up by sufficient evidence.
-
Phrased in such a way as to be unfalsifiable.
-
Improbably complex.
Defenders point out in response that:
-
Those powerful people involved in the conspiracy hide, destroy, or
obfuscate evidence.
-
Skeptics/apologists are not (in their opinion) prepared to keep an
open mind.
-
Skeptics/apologists may be politically motivated and have a vested
interest in the status quo.
Falsifiability
Karl Popper claimed that science
is essentially defined as a set of
falsifiable theories; theories and claims which are not falsifiable
are thus not science. Critics of conspiracy theories sometimes argue that
many of them are not falsifiable and so cannot be scientific. This
accusation is often accurate, and is a necessary consequence of the
logical structure of certain kinds of conspiracy theories. These take the
form of uncircumscribed
existential statements, alleging the existence of some
action or object without specifying the place or time at which
it can be observed. Failure to observe the phenomenon can then always be
the result of looking in the wrong place or looking at the wrong time —
that is, having been duped by the conspiracy. This makes impossible any
demonstration that the conspiracy does not exist. Establishing a negative
is philosophically problematic, though perhaps especially so in this
context.
Falsificationists might also claim that this makes such theories
unscientific.
For example, consider how one would prove the widely believed
UFO conspiracy theory (in which aliens are said to have visited
Earth), followed by the official denials (perhaps chiefly because the
U.S. Government, or others, is hiding the evidence) that any such thing
has happened. Since the theory does not specify when or where or how the
visits or the conspiracy occurred, it is not possible to show it to be
false. Even if, for example, we were given the run of the
Pentagon (or some other government's) archives, the possibility
always exists that there is an archive somewhere else detailing the
conspiracy, to which we do not have access.
Jerry Bowyer, referring to allegations that the
2003 War in Iraq was the result of
George W. Bush doing the bidding of
oil companies,
said that "I like this conspiracy theory better than the rest because it
is one of the few that actually permits empirical disconfirmation". He
considered that the declining share prices of oil companies was empirical
evidence against this theory.
[1] (http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/comment-bowyer103102.asp)
(In opposition to this, one may point out that subsequent looting of
Iraq's oil fields by major American oil companies would be empirical
evidence supporting the theory, though there are those who observe that
this has not, or will not have, happened.)
In response to this objection to conspiracy theory, some argue that
no political or historical theory can be scientific by Popper's
criterion because none reliably generate testable predictions. In fact,
Popper himself rejected the claims of Marxism
and
psychoanalysis to scientific status on precisely this basis. (Most
scientists today dispute the idea that Marxism is science at all;
similarly, most neurobiologists and many psychiatrists now agree that
classic forms of psychoanalysis have no scientific basis.) This does not
necessarily mean that conspiracy theory, Marxism, and psychoanalysis are
baseless, irrational, or false; only that they are not science by
Popper's criterion. Such arguments have raised a debate on whether
Popper's criterion should be applied in the social sciences as strictly
as in natural sciences. Popper's criterion has been criticised for
slowing down scientific progress due to its restrictiveness. A debate
between Popper and his former student
Paul Feyerabend became quite famous.
Some people distinguish between falsifiable accusations of
conspiracy and unfalsifiable conspiracy theories, though,
in light of the above, it is not clear that this distinction is
justified. |