Wikipedia talk:Conspiracy theory/Main Archive1

message: Well, I am not in favor of conspiracy theories, but I am in favor of labeling certain theories "conspiracy theories."  Any theory that explicitly claims a secret and deliberate act by a group of people is by definition a conspiracy theory.  One of the remarkable features of conspiracy theories is that they are by definition unverifiable (lack of evidence only proves how great the conspiracy actually is).  This is the very opposite of a scientific theory.  Since "verifiability" is a core value of this encyclopedia, we should certainly take it into account when explaining different theories.  I agree that we should allow for "alternate theories." The question is, "alternative to what?"  I think we should mean "Alternative to other scientific theories" and not "alternative to any scientific theory."  In other words, I see an alternative theory as alternative to the theories accepted by major institutions (e.g. CDC, WHO, or FBI) — but such theories should nevertheless be scientific theories that can generate falsafiable hypotheses.  Any theory that does should be labeled "Alternative theory."  But any "theory" that doesn't shouldn't be dignified with the term "alternative." The difference between an alternative theory and a conspiracy theory is not political, it is epistemological. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  20:29, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: For

message: Please post comments on the above summaries here. zen master    T  20:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick look at how you tried to frame the debate by creating the section below is seemingly evidence you are interested only in mischaracterizing my position.  By what exact basis are you against a Pro vs Con debate other than you don't like it?   People can tweak the above summaries with commenting and/or discussing here.  zen master    T  20:43, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

text: ok, up to what point exactly?  How do you respond to the argument that because "conspiracy theory" has multiple definitions, and because some of those definitions can be used to discredit a subject, such usage should be depreceated?  "conspiracy claims" is too close to "conspiracy theory" in my opinion.  Neutraily in titles also means least ambiguious (ambiguity leads to POV).  Why state in an articles title "people X were conspiring over subject Y" when you can just state exactly what they are alleging?  For example, the Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda article is titled very straigtforwardly (though I disagree with that article's title for different reasons). zen master    T  21:00, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Jayjg, are you an Cberlet actually debating?  When you say "take control of the page" it's really me making sure the issue is not misframed.  You have done nothing but micharacterize my position and actions.  How did you become an admin exactly?  zen master    T  21:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Did you catch the point about "conspiracy theory" being wrong in a title because of its multiple definitions? zen master    T  02:35, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: :The term "conspiracy theory" is used as a description and isn't only a perjorative term, though it is also that. A conspiracy theory explains a set of circumstances with reference to a secret plot by powerful conspirators. One of the distinguishing features of a conspiracy theory is that it tends not to be falsifiable in the minds of believers. In other words, if the claim is made that 4,000 Israelis were warned not to go to work in the WTC on 9/11, and it's later established that only 10 Israelis were, in fact, ever employed there, the conspiracy theory evolves to include the claim that the Mossad and USG conspired to alter the records, and that the names of 3,990 Israeli employees have now disappeared. That is, the conspiracy theory represents a closed system, not amenable to the standard rules of evidence (similar to psychoanalysis, for example). This evolutionary growth in the face of evidence disproving the theory is one of the things that distinguishes a conspiracy theory from a matter of simple controversy that surrounds the subject. A controversy or unresolved issue is simply a matter of a debate about the facts, but a conspiracy theory is ideology. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:55, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
::True, but I don't think that is a defining, necessary or exclusive characteristic of conspriacy theories.  It is more of an expression of the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance in general.  The ultimate example of people irrationally believing in something unfalsifiable, and moving the goalposts in order to be able to continue believing in it, is not conspiracy theories but religion.  On the other hand, many people believed the official conspiracy theory about Saddam Hussein being an imminent threat with stockpiles of WMDs, and rationally stopped believing it when it was revealed to be based on fabrications and exaggerations. Chameleon 17:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am fully aware that I am not using the term "conspiracy theory" in the same way as it is usually used.  As noted in the article Conspiracy theory, the term is colloquially used as a shorthand or code for "wacky theory".  I am attempting to use the term in a literal, NPOV sense.  Are you admitting that you want the title of the article to use "conspiracy theory" in its common colloquial sense?  That would be an admission of POV pushing.  To use the term in that sense would be the same as calling the article Silly theories about AIDS, i.e. it would prejudge the issue, and not be NPOV.  Finally, the comparison with religion is a good one and illustrates the issue.  Chameleon 18:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Slrubinstein, you write: "Bush's arguments for an invasion were wrong, but they weren't conspiracy theories precisely because Bush believed that a thorough ivestigation would reveal WMDs."  I don't understand this.  Let's assume arguendo that Bush sincerely believed that the investigation would find WMDs (an assumption I think is probably false, but we'll never know for sure).  Are you saying that if someone sincerely believes something, then it's not a conspiracy theory?  That's the kind of attitude that makes people think "conspiracy theory" is a loaded term -- that, along with implying crackpottery, it implies duplicity.  My take on it would be: The theory that Iraq had WMDs wasn't a conspiracy theory because, well, it didn't involve either a real conspiracy or an imagined one (Bush's subjective beliefs are irrelevant either way); the theory that Iraq had cooperated with Al-Qaeda in engineering the 9/11 attacks was a conspiracy theory, because it involved disparate actors communicating and expressly coordinating efforts to achieve a particular result, and keeping their cooperation secret; and, despite that latter point, an article title like Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda conspiracy claims would be inappropriate because of the loaded nature of the word "conspiracy".  Also, you say you agree with SlimVirgin, but I'm not sure which points you agree with.  SlimVirgin seems to suggest that, to determine whether something is a conspiracy theory, one should make an assessment as to whether its adherents (1) pay attention to evidence and adjust the theory to fit new data, or (2) inevitably explain away new data in terms consistent with the original theory.  If we accept that distinction, then characterizing something as a conspiracy theory is inherently POV and the term shouldn't be used in article titles.  Instead, the substance could be presented in the body of the article, with the opinion properly attributed ("The Prime Minister charged that Bush was fixated on finding a conspiracy between Saddam and al-Qaeda and persisted in that view despite all the evidence to the contrary" or "The Prime Minister said, 'It's appalling that so many people have died because of Bush and his conspiracy theories'"). JamesMLane 08:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: From [[Talk:AIDS conspiracy theories]]

message: "Conspiracy theory" does include the meaning "highly speculative theory" or even "crazy theory".
Some theories are, in fact, highly speculative - and it's not POV to say so (indeed, it may be POV not to say so). But I would suggest that "conspiracy theory" should, as a rule, be avoided. Why use loaded words when you can just as easily be direct and precise? Mirror Vax 22:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely.  Why needlessly use ambiguous phrases and take a chance of not being neutral when direct and precise alternatives exist? zen master    T  22:38, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't use loaded words. Be direct.