I think determining what is a "conspiracy theory" is deserving of its own thread. Seems much of other threads devolves into discussions about it anyways so perhaps we can just hash it out here.
I propose that a "conspiracy theory" in terms of how popular usage determines it involves three key elements.
1) It provides an alternative explanation for an important event that has a popular or widespread narrative.
2) This alternative explanation would require a major reassessment of both the event and larger social paradigms or organizations.
3) The alternative explanation was reverse engineered to fit into some preexisting prejudice or ideology.
The first point is what I will call the classical definition. In fact I think if you looked up most dictionary definitions you would find something very similar. But a dictionary definition differs from how the term is actually used.
People know that "conspiracy theory" is a pejorative. So when they come across ideas that they don't like for political or ideological reasons they will call the idea a "conspiracy theory" then defend that it is so by citing the classical definition knowing that it will, by extension, be associated with the other two elements and be seen as less credible than it is.
As such we see people try to smear ideas they don't like as "conspiracy theories" all the time. That doesn't mean they really are. It just means the proposed idea is either dangerous to their politics or pocketbook.
For me the most important element of a "conspiracy theory" is the last one. It wasn't stumbled upon or formulated out of pure research or investigation. It was thought up and then searched for.
Say a bridge collapses. The official explanation is that improper welds was the cause. But you look at the pictures with some knowledge of bridge construction and see, instead, evidence of improper foundation work. You start to campaign to get the proper explanation out and exonerate some poor scapegoated welder.
That isn't a conspiracy theory even though it is an alternative explanation that does satisfy the classical definition. Sure there might be people that deride it as one in an attempt to smear it but that doesn't make it so. If you had just seen the bridge collapse on the news and said "Jews own the company that did the foundation work and Jews like to collapse bridges to keep us in a state of fear so it must have been faulty foundations" that would have been a conspiracy theory even though it would have been coincidentally right about the foundations being faulty.
Agree or disagree with me but I think this makes sense.
I propose that a "conspiracy theory" in terms of how popular usage determines it involves three key elements.
1) It provides an alternative explanation for an important event that has a popular or widespread narrative.
2) This alternative explanation would require a major reassessment of both the event and larger social paradigms or organizations.
3) The alternative explanation was reverse engineered to fit into some preexisting prejudice or ideology.
The first point is what I will call the classical definition. In fact I think if you looked up most dictionary definitions you would find something very similar. But a dictionary definition differs from how the term is actually used.
People know that "conspiracy theory" is a pejorative. So when they come across ideas that they don't like for political or ideological reasons they will call the idea a "conspiracy theory" then defend that it is so by citing the classical definition knowing that it will, by extension, be associated with the other two elements and be seen as less credible than it is.
As such we see people try to smear ideas they don't like as "conspiracy theories" all the time. That doesn't mean they really are. It just means the proposed idea is either dangerous to their politics or pocketbook.
For me the most important element of a "conspiracy theory" is the last one. It wasn't stumbled upon or formulated out of pure research or investigation. It was thought up and then searched for.
Say a bridge collapses. The official explanation is that improper welds was the cause. But you look at the pictures with some knowledge of bridge construction and see, instead, evidence of improper foundation work. You start to campaign to get the proper explanation out and exonerate some poor scapegoated welder.
That isn't a conspiracy theory even though it is an alternative explanation that does satisfy the classical definition. Sure there might be people that deride it as one in an attempt to smear it but that doesn't make it so. If you had just seen the bridge collapse on the news and said "Jews own the company that did the foundation work and Jews like to collapse bridges to keep us in a state of fear so it must have been faulty foundations" that would have been a conspiracy theory even though it would have been coincidentally right about the foundations being faulty.
Agree or disagree with me but I think this makes sense.
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1IuPtWQ
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire