Comment by still_grokking | Hacker News Reader

Comment by still_grokking | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

And here we go again…

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!

I agree. Wikipedia "watered down" the meaning of "conspiracy theory" so that it could be used in situations it couldn't before. In effect, defending its use in closing off argument and discussion.

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.

I disagree that many conspiracy theories can be falsified. How often believers, when confronted with evidence, find it convincing and dismiss the conspiracy?

If you can present evidence you can prove or falsify it, right?

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.

But a conspiracy theory is a social construct not subject to rational thought. The notion of falsifiability only makes sense in the context of a conversation between actors willing to accept this.

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.

You're repeating what you've said already. Seemingly without even noticing what I've said. Where are you heading?

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.

> 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".

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.

How can this interpretation be the common one when a common knowledge collection like Wikipedia says otherwise? (I've checked eight language versions besides the English one. Please note also the historic background of this term which is in sync with the common definition).

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.

> How can this interpretation be the common one when a common knowledge collection like Wikipedia says otherwise?

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.

> 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 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).

"Conspiracy myth" has been introduced in German media mostly to denounce conspiracy theories as "not even theories". It's itself loaded language, ironically.

But at least you wouldn't have to argue about the meaning of that term. You can just outright refuse it and say that the thing that is talked about is in fact a conspiracy hypothesis.

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).

The problem with introduction of terms like "conspiracy myth" from the official/media side is that it's kind of reinforcing the notion that "they" are trying to "hide" it, just this time with language manipulation, so it's pretty much counterproductive, or preaching to the choir. There seems to be an obsession in recent years with cleaning up language in a symbolic way, as if that would actually change reality.

Often conspiracy theorists will take evidence against their conspiracy and twist them into evidence for it. “Of course, that’s what the Apollo astronauts would want you to believe!” The evidence against is actually evidence of an even bigger conspiracy!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com