Meaning of the phrase "conspiracy theory"

[color=#2e1a6b]I intend to make a few threads regarding police states, false flags, and the true motives of the U.S. federal government. However, I wanted to clarify a phrase that I am bound to faced when making such threads: Conspiracy Theory. this is probably the most powerful phrase in the history of politics. Any claim can be greatly discredited or dismissed just by calling it a conspiracy theory. Because the phrase is so powerful, people constantly try to pin that word to their opponent's position. Such a powerful phrase is dangerous when not constrained to a strict definition. Because it doesn't have a Because people don't follow a strict definition, this word can greatly hinder what could be an intelligent debate. I would like to ask a series of questions in order to pinpoint the actual meaning of the phrase. I'm directing these questions towards Biglundi (since he uses the phrase most), but I'd like to hear some responses from other members too.

1. What is the definition of the word "conspiracy"?

2. What is the definition of the word "theory"?

3. What is does the phrase "conspiracy theory" mean?

4. If a claim is a "conspiracy" or "conspiracy theory", does that affect the probability of it being true?

5. Is the claim that "the collapse of WTC tower 7 was a controled demolishion" a conspiracy theory?

6. Is the claim that "a group of 19 middle-eastern men secretely formulated a plan to do something unlawful and harmful" a conspiracy theory?


here are my answers to these questions.


[color=#2e1a6b]I feel that most people use this phrase as if it just means "questioning the government". Pretty much everyone would answer "yes" to question 5, but people don't even consider calling the terrorists part of a conspiracy theory. I've been called a conspiracy theorist just for implying that the government isn't trying to benefit the people, even though that really has nothing to do with conspiring. FPoD and I have been called conspiracy theorists for saying the government could have lied. If I question the government, I'm an irrational conspiracy theorist, regardless of how likely it is.

Question 1:
1. A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.
2. The action of plotting or conspiring.

Question 2:
1. A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be...: "Darwin's theory of evolution"
2. A set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based: "a theory of education"; "music theory".

Question 3:
Combine the two previous words for your answer.

Question 4:
If a claim that has no weight is tossed out, then there isn't any reason to believe it unless it is something completely serious, like the Nazi movement suddenly came back to the surface and is now a day away from attacking somewhere. If there's some evidence that's true, then get the troops ready to attack the Nazis before they cause too much damage. If no evidence exists, keep watch over the city for the next few days. However, don't let anyone know, unless it exists solely to have the government cause panic amongst the citizens. In which case, get a new leader.

Question 5:
I do believe you mean demolition. Anyway, it depends on the amount of evidence that supports that. If there isn't any evidence, or all evidence that leads to the theory resulted in a dead end, then yes, it's a conspiracy theory. Otherwise, it's just a premature assumption.

Question 6:
It's too vague to be anything else. There could be a group of 19 middle-eastern men plotting something, but there's nothing specific about it. It's more like you're predicting the future than anything else. How else do you think whathisname was "correct" on Hitler's existence long before he existed? Because he was vague enough about it.

Answers 1 and 2 courtesy of Dictionary.com.

Oh this is going to be fun.



Pretty much going with your definition on this. A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.



A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

If we're speaking scientifically, the word 'theory' means something different.

A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

As you can see, there are two largely different ways to use the word. In reference to conspiracy theorists, I use the former. In the case of explanations that have been tried and true and observed, I use the latter.



A conspiracy theory used in conjunction thusly is a supposition about a secret group to do something unlawful or harmful in order to explain a particular phenomena.



Alone, no. But systemically conspiracy theories tend not to be true, if the word theory is defined how I usually apply the word in conjunction with conspiracy. As such, I have sufficient justification to be skeptical of a conspiracy theory, especially one that runs counter to my observations, and one will require immense amounts of evidence to convince me of its validity.



Yes.



Yes. But there's an equivocation here. In the latter I would use the word 'theory' in the scientific viewpoint, in reference to the WTC bombings. In the former I would use my former definition of the word 'theory'.


[color=#2e1a6b]I feel that most people use this phrase as if it just means "questioning the government". Pretty much everyone would answer "yes" to question 5, but people don't even consider calling the terrorists part of a conspiracy theory.[/quote]

Mainly because one claim has evidence, and the other has speculation.



They are secretly gathering to put forth legislation that does not benefit the people. Wouldn't you call that a harmful action? Seems to match your definitions to me.




I don't tend to toss out the word 'conspiracy theorist' unless little to no valid evidence is being brought forth to support a positive claim to knowledge about what the government did or did not do. Simply saying, "Well this might be the case." is not enough for me, personally, to call you or anyone else a conspiracy theorist. Saying, "This IS the case, and we're being lied to." with little to no valid supporting evidence, however, is.

[color=#2e1a6b]I figured you could use a break from 42


[color=#2e1a6b]Both of your definitions are some form of "explanation". The scientific definition entails much more certainty, however, it's confined to pertain only to "some aspect of the natural world". I'll elaborate more later.



[color=#2e1a6b]You don't know that. A much more reasonable statement for you to make is that "systemically, conspiracy theories tend to lack evidence".



[color=#2e1a6b]If I provided enough evidence, would you believe a conspiracy theory?



[color=#2e1a6b]As I emphasized earlier, your scientific definition said "some aspect of the natural world". The claim about tower 7's collapse seems to be more related to the natural world than the claim about people planning something harmful.

I realize that your trying to say that some theory's have more evidence and are more credible than other theories, which I agree with. Why don't you just say this instead of trying to apply 2 different definitions to the same word?.



[color=#2e1a6b]Or because the mainstream media only reports evidence for one claim, and ignores/ridicules evidence for the other.



[color=#2e1a6b]not beneficial =/= harmful
it could result in harmful, but this is not necessarily the case.



[color=#2e1a6b]If the sentence loses meaning by replacing "conspiracy theory" with "theory", you're probably abusing the phrase.

Just for kicks, I searched up various ways you have used the phrase:

Please do.



So I'm not allowed to say that things are not true now?

I can be certain that they aren't based on evidence to contrary mutually exclusive explanations. Yes, I can say they're not true.



Yes. Of course the word 'theory' in the way that I use it in conjunction with 'conspiracy 'would change its meaning to the scientific form. You know, one that has empirical evidence to support it.



Because there's a different between a scientific theory, and a colloquial theory. "Truther theory" In my book, is not the same kind of theory as "Germ Theory".



Could be that, I find that highly unlikely and a little silly but sure, it could possibly be that, in the same sense it could be ANYTHING.



True, but I find that to be an eensy bit disingenuous.

Hmmm, could you give me an example of something you think the governmental is 'conspiring' to do that is not beneficial, but is not harmful?



No, that's just what equivocation is. Many words have multiple meanings. That's just a fact.



Yup, all of them used after someone made a positive claim, not simply, "It 'could' be this." but "It IS this." with, as far as I saw, little to no supporting evidence given. Which matches exactly with what I said. Here, I'll highlight what I mean.





[/quote]

Most conspiracy theories don't hold their ground on the "theory" part.

[edit]
That phrase gets thrown around a bit.
I guess if you say something that is indeed a fact, and someone doesn't agree with that statement, they could easily call it a conspiracy theory.

[color=#2e1a6b]We need to further examine your definition of "theory"

As you noted, "theory" has a different definition in a scientific context, however, this definition of "theory" only applies to scientific claims. Your problem is that you apply this definition to non-scientific claims, which is rather absurd when closely examined.

You defined a scientific theory as


[color=#2e1a6b]And you said the claim that "a group of 19 middle-eastern men secretely formulated a plan to do something unlawful and harmful" falls under this scientific definition. so let me ask:

is this claim an explanation of some aspect of the natural world?

is this claim repeatedly confirmed through both observation and experiment?


[color=#2e1a6b]That's called evidence of absence. Besides, even if you could rightfully claim they weren't true, you'd still be guilty of hasty generalization



[color=#2e1a6b]SOPA
...or just about anything lobbied by corporations



[color=#2e1a6b]Wait, I thought you were the one saying that the government should have control of what medication I'm allowed to take... and I did give evidence that the labeled purpose means nothing...

What is the definition of the word "conspiracy"?
In my definition, conspiracy is a secret scheme with specific goals, woven between the lowest possible number of participants (conspirators) to avoid leaks, and put in effect by the most discrete means available to these participants.

The scheme needs to be “secret” because it is done with the ultimate goal to give power to a specific group in a given society (the conspirators always included).

What is the definition of the word "theory"?
Theory comes from the greek Theoria (speculation, contemplation, looking at) which comes from Theoros (literally: “spectator”) which in turn comes the combination of two words: Thea (a view, a perspective) and horao (I see, I look)

Given this etymological understanding it gets quite clear that the word theory had originally a definition of “way to look at objects”, “the speculation to objects”, “the contemplation of objects”. In other words, theory is a quantification of an object (usually in a system) under the prism of certain perspectives (the premisses).

This is somewhat confusing because since the XVI century Theory started to be associated exclusively with institutional science and “scientific theory” to be the only kind of theory acceptable. So the less scientific a theory seems to be, the less of a “theory” the theory seems to be. But this is in fact a theft of meaning. Scientific theory means only the perspective of an object under the prism of methodological science, not the only possible theory.

What is does the phrase "conspiracy theory" mean?
The view that some actions or states in society are sourced in a conspiracy scheme.

If a claim is a "conspiracy" or "conspiracy theory", does that affect the probability of it being true?

Literally no.

But usually the term is used in a pejorative way, implying that the announcer of the theory is paranoid.

Is the claim that "the collapse of WTC tower 7 was a controled demolishion" a conspiracy theory?
Yes.

Intuition points out that the building collapsed by the impact of a plane, if the impact of a plane was not the cause of its downfall but a controlled demolition, the demolition was then secret and the impact of the plane was only a deceitful act. The demolition would be the discrete mean to achieve something on the objectives of a greater scheme.

Is the claim that "a group of 19 middle-eastern men secretely formulated a plan to do something unlawful and harmful" a conspiracy theory?
In a very elastic definition, yes.

Personally, I agree with cruz737. Lately the term has been used more like a swearing than anything else, used to disgrace a theory in implying its announcer is paranoid but completely ignoring the facts while in doing so.

And on a side note, I find the term “government conspiracy” misleading. How can a whole government be conspiring against the population all the time? It is usually certain groups that are conspiring and use the governmental devices as tool for their schemes, not exactly the whole government, like if it was an homogenous institution.

Fun Fun.



Are 19 middle eastern men planning to blow up the WTC natural objects performing a natural chain of causation? I believe so.



Sure. There are videos of it, the videos are tested, there's case studies done on the bombers, also scrutinized and tested, so I have to ask what your objection is, since your questions just allow me to explain how my original contention was correct.



I suppose I must have missed putting a couple words in there. I meant to say that when one explanation has no evidence, and a mutually exclusive explanation does have evidence, then the one with evidence is to be preferred and the one without evidence rejected. That's very scientific.

Also, it'd only be a hasty generalization if I were to say, "Some conspiracy theories aren't true, therefore they are all not true."

Which of course I never said. I said that conspiracy theories being systemically untrue gives me rational reason to be skeptical of new ones.



...Um...did you just say SOPA isn't harmful? Surprising coming from you, but whatever. Aside from the fact that SOPA could easily be seen as harmful, and depending on the value you place on autonamy, you could say it is rationally, others could say it DOES benefit society. Either position seems to go against your assertion. Of course, this isn't a thread about debating SOPA so I'll move on if you want to.



No, you simply said that the labeled purpose means nothing. And yes, I do believe the government should have control over what medication you're allowed to take.

Over what most people take as medication really. Because people, in general, are not doctors, and are quite stupid.

There are people who choose not to take ANY medication and think that the only medication they need is prayer. I say, those people don't get to force their children follow that practice.

Again, this deviates from the topic.

[color=#2e1a6b]I see your point how intuition determines what is secret and what isn't, however, I was asking about WTC tower 7, not the two tall towers that were hit by a plane

What does your intuition point out about the collapse of Tower 7?



[color=#2e1a6b]if your gonna call this "an explanation of some aspect of the natural world", then pretty much every claim could fall under this category.



[color=#2e1a6b]My first objection is that you can't confirm this through experiment. This is why it's absurd to take a term used in science and apply it to historical claims.

My second objection is that is that we (the public) don't have videos that [b]repeatedly confirm this claim. I'm not saying there's no evidence, I'm saying there's not enough evidence to fit this definition.



[color=#2e1a6b]A mutually exclusive explanation is very different than a mutually exclusive claim. The entirety of an explanation can be mutually exclusive, but the claims within the explanation are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Let's look at this simplified scenario:

[color=#2e1a6b]If claim A has evidence, The probability of explanation 2 is unaffected. If claim B had evidence, the probability of explanation 2 would decrease proportionally to the strength of the evidence. What I'm saying is that you need evidence for Mutually exclusive claims, not mutually exclusive explanations.


SOPA is way off topic, but just for the record, the Oxford dictionary defines harmful as:

"causing or likely to cause physical injury, especially that which is deliberately inflicted"

I'll say for you first 4 all you have to do is inter-compare words in the dictionary because those aren't up for debate you're either right or wrong. I take the same stance on Conspiracy theories as I do on religion, until undeniable hard facts come up to prove something without a shadow of a doubt right or wrong I am completely being open I'm told I'm wrong when I'm guessing at stuff when you can back it up with logic.I say all this because I love conspiracy theory talks and hope to be in most threads you post on the subject.

Referring to the WTC building I'll say that I myself believe that it is very strange that nobody mentions this building collapse and the fact that the media was essentially able to cover up an entire building collapsing points to somebody or bodies didn't want people to know or pay attention to it. Our internet is our most powerful tool against things like this.

Oh, you got me there. Can't believe I didn't notice the “7” next to “WTC”, just read WTC and thought of the two towers. My bad. :P

Considering the same sentence in regard to WTC 7 I would say that at first no, the sentence doesn't literally imply in a conspiracy theory.

Mostly because intuition serves us little in the case of WTC 7. The building indeed fell down like in a controlled demolition and the smoke pattern that appeared few moments before it fell is very similar to controlled bombings. But intuition would also point out that if it was a controlled demolition by bombs there would be a very characteristic blast sound, which is absent. Thermite could have been used instead of bombs but the probabilities of engineering such a complex plan and make it work with thermites are not really good. Also, WTC 7 was the first of its kind. There were other buildings which fell by fire but not one as big. WTC 7 was in fact the first major building to fall by fire, being the first of its kind, intuition will provide little to us, actually, it will confuse us more than anything. The variable are so many and so unknown that intuition is not really reliable.

So, at first you could say it was a controlled demolition and it wouldn't imply in a conspiracy theory.

But after the firemen say it was by fire, the government say it was by fire and many other private investigation institutions also conclude it was by fire, and all of them present the same very reliable conclusion, to say it was a controlled demolition would imply in a conspiracy theory because it would be saying these groups are all lying to us to hide something.

Before all these facts came out I would say the sentence would be not a conspiracy claim, after these fact I would say it is.

Now, I would say it is.

Yes, all non supernatural claims fall under scientific scrutiny. The difference between a scientific theory and the 'theory' as in 'conspiracy theory' is that I use the word 'theory' in 'conspiracy theory' to mean something that has little to no evidence, and is more along the lines of a colloquial definition of...guessing and speculating.



Science applies to historical claims all the time.

Take forensics for example. In the past, at some point, someone killed someone using something. Forensics can determine all of that...is that not science? Is that not applied to 'history'? To the past?



All the evidence I've seen confirms this explanation, and as such it counts scientifically as a theory to me, and no evidence I've ever seen runs counter to it. So it does fit the definition.



And what I'm saying is you need evidence for both. It just so happens for 9/11 I do. And the conspiracy theorists don't.




So brainwashing isn't harmful. I prefer the online oxford dictionary which says "http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/harmful?q=Harmful" causing or likely to cause harm. And harm CAN mean physical damage, of course according to this same dictionary it can also mean damaging other non material things, like World Cup prospects, or making a situation worse, rather than better, "doing more harm than good." You don't think SOPA makes the online situation worse?

[color=#2e1a6b]I didn't say it's absurd to apply science to historical claims, I said it's absurd to apply a scientific term to a historical claim. I haven't studied forensics, but I doubt they declare their claims to be a scientific theory.

And... my first objection is that you can't confirm this through experiement



[color=#2e1a6b]The evidence doesn't repeatedly confirm this explanation through observation. Unless you have evidence that the public is unaware of



[color=#2e1a6b]What you were saying is that evidence for one explanation makes another mutually exclusive explanation untrue, and I explained the problem with that reasoning.

You have no basis to claim that systemically conspiracy theories tend to be untrue, other than evidence of absence



[color=#2e1a6b]This is impressive: we disagreed on a definition... while using the same online dictionary