Critical thought requires falsifiability and evidence, but conspiracy theory only requires belief.
What you're talking about is actually the cliché of a "conspiracy theory".
A lot of things that are called like that aren't anything one could call "a theory" at all. The point is: Any random BS claim isn't a conspiracy theory.
A conspiracy theory is nothing more than speculating that some parties are working or worked together in secret (conspired) to achieve something. That's all. Such a theory can usually be falsified. (At least in theory).
But there is this framing that "conspiracy theory" means some arbitrary BS. That's actually why labeling something as "conspiracy theory" immediately shouts down critical thought in a lot of folks. Just call something "conspiracy theory" and the cliché kicks in and people will dismiss that something as BS.
By the way: The English version of the Wikipedia disagrees. But only the English version. I've also looked at Boarisch, Deutsch, Español, Français, Italiano, Nederlands, Polski, Русский. Only the English version adds that a conspiracy theory "is an explanation for an event or situation […] when other explanations are more probable. The term has a negative connotation, implying that the appeal to a conspiracy is based on prejudice or insufficient evidence." Should we proceed to construct a conspiracy theory form that observation? Someone got obviously their framing into Wikipedia!
Anytime you have an event or situation upon which origin or cause people have varied takes, some explanations might seem more probable than others. That doesn't make the others "conspiracy theories", it just makes them less probable possibilities. It's sometimes even used when the true probabilities aren't even known.
So it's falsifiable. Otherwise you couldn't ever present any evidence.
Whether someone is willing to believe in some evidence shown doesn't change anything about the fallibility property.
The context of conspiracy theories is different. It's emotional. Goalposts get shifted, evidence is made up, no rational discourse possible.
So they cannot be falsified.
I try one more time:
Your definition of conspiracy theory is simply wrong. You're not talking about conspiracy theories, you're talking about the cliché of a "conspiracy theory". You're repeating the made up framing.
Please look up the definition in Wikipedia. Any language version besides the English one supports what I've written a few comments above, and disagrees with what you're saying.
Ah, a prescriptivist, I see. Regardless of what you think is the "correct" meaning of conspiracy theory, it's in widespread use with a different meaning, what you call a "cliche". Whether you accept this or not doesn't make this usage less real; it just might make your conversations with other people harder.
PS: I speak Spanish and regardless of what Wikipedia says, the common usage of "teoría conspirativa" is the same as what you describe as a cliché.
What you describe as "common" is a framing. Someone tries to blur the distinction between "some random BS" (like alien abductions, flat earth, whatever) and proper theories that suspect some conspiracy. The goal is likely to push any conspiracy theories into the space of random BS so that they can be dismissed easily without further discussion.
That's exactly the topic we're talking about here: "Conspiracy theory" is made into a thought-terminating cliché.
It's not my burden to explain how. I'm not even sure why or how: it just is a widespread usage. I'm telling you it's also the widespread usage in my native language, and your answer seems to be "but Wikipedia!" -- go figure.
> That's exactly the topic we're talking about here: "Conspiracy theory" is made into a thought-terminating cliché.
I understand that's the gist of your argument. I'm just saying it's also a convenient defense deployed by people who engage in conspiracy theories, a sister defense of the old "you're narrow minded!". If something is a conspiracy theory, it's not a TTC to call it one.
That's a fair point.
Actually that's a good question!
I've suggested an explanation already.
>> Someone tries to blur the distinction between "some random BS" (like alien abductions, flat earth, whatever) and proper theories that suspect some conspiracy. The goal is likely to push any conspiracy theories into the space of random BS so that they can be dismissed easily without further discussion.
It's also notable that the German version of the Wikipedia proposes two distinct terms to resolve the ambiguity in the usage of the more and more blurred term "conspiracy theory": "conspiracy hypotheses" and "conspiracy myths". But I wouldn't call those terms common in any sense… (Indeed, as a native speaker I've never heard of those).
It would make discussion more easy. The term "conspiracy theory" may in fact be ambiguous to some folks. The other terms aren't. Only that almost nobody uses them (or I just don't know, as I'm avoiding most of the main stream media because of the constant bombardment with propaganda BS).
Rather it is whether the term "conspiracy theory" can be introduced into a conversation and terminate thinking.
"Someone called my rant a conspiracy theory, therefore I'm on to something!"
So it must be treated as "conspiracy", and not critical thought, according to you?
There can be no evidence yet, it becomes a problem when unfalsifiability makes evidence irrelevant.
Alice: Trump won Georgia, but the Dominion voting machines flipped it. Look at how many votes came in for Biden late at night.
Bob: It took a long time to finish counting the mail in ballots, and precincts report their results in large batches. Anyway, there was a hand recount of all the paper ballots that were scanned by the machines. If the machines had flipped votes, the paper ballots would still show the originals.
Alice: Then the hand recount was faked.
Bob: But observers from both parties were present for the recount. By this time the machine flip theory was widespread, so the Republican observers would be on high alert to make sure the recount is right.
Alice: Those might not be real Republicans. Like the Secretary of State, they are probably RINOs. Plus the paper ballots themselves were fraudulent. The signatures were faked.
Bob: So do you still think the Dominion machines did something wrong, or did they accurately scan the fraudulent paper ballots? Anyway, the state bureau of investigation did a signature audit in Cobb county and found no intentional fraud and only a couple of mistakes where somebody signed for their partner or something.
Alice: The GBI is in on it. The fraud was really in Fulton county, so that's where they should've done the signature audit. Didn't you see that batch of secret ballots they hid under a table and pulled out when nobody was looking?
Bob: The security camera footage shows that the ballots from under the table are the same ones that were opened from envelopes while the observers were watching. They were just the next batch waiting to be scanned, nothing abnormal about them. The state released the whole footage online, including the parts Trump's lawyers conveniently skipped past.
Alice: I know it was stolen. The details of how they did it might never come out, but I can tell Trump really won.
I'm guessing you're not a scientist.