How to think about the words conspiracy and theory
Better language leads to better thinking
I think the term conspiracy theory should not be weaponized so as to foreclose thought and debate. Instead…
The word theory should mean the same thing for historical subjects that it means in science.
In science, a theory is a robust well-supported explanation of facts.
This is almost the exact opposite of how people use the term when discussing historical subjects.
People will say, “Well, that’s just a theory,” as if the word theory describes something that is improbable. But the reverse is true…
A theory is a substantial thing that conforms to most or all of the evidence.
We already have other terms for ideas that are less substantial. The words hypothesis or speculation describe explanations that have not yet been tested. I think science employs these kinds of words in roughly the following way…
- A speculation is an explanation that has not yet been formed in a way that can be tested.
- A hypothesis is an explanation that has been formulated in such a way that it can be tested.
- A theory is what a hypothesis becomes once it has been tested and confirmed.
- Error is the word for a hypothesis that has been tested and falsified.
- Law is the term for a theory that has been tested and found to apply at all times under all conditions.
Thus, we could/should talk about conspiracy hypotheses and conspiracy speculations and conspiracy errors while leaving the word theory for those conspiracy explanations that make the most sense. This would make our historical use of the word theory align with our scientific use of it. For instance…
- Our theory about the conspiracy that killed Abraham Lincoln is very strong, even though a few details are open to question.
- Our theories about the interlocking conspiracies that led to the Watergate burglaries and the cover-up that followed are less certain, though there is no doubt that one or more conspiracies were involved.
Both things qualify as robust and useful conspiracy theories, not mere speculations or hypotheses. And it certainly isn’t an error to refer to the Lincoln assassination and the Watergate events as conspiracies. That’s exactly what they were, and the explanations we use to describe them are robust theories. They are good conspiracy theories!
Another good example is the theory of evolution. We think of it as a powerful scientific explanation, but it was not arrived at through experimentation like happens in physics and chemistry. Rather, the theory of evolution explains the past history of life by examining the patterns of evidence left behind by that life. This reality establishes two things…
- The word theory can refer to both historical and scientific explanations
- A theory is more than just a hypothesis or speculation, it is something with sufficient support to be provisionally accepted
Seen in this light, I think conspiracy explanations for the murder of JFK rise to the level of theory, whereas explanations about what happened to World Trade Center building 7 are still at the hypothesis or speculation stage. I think the same is true for the extraterrestrial explanation for some UFOs/UAPs. Your mileage may vary with regard to those specific issues, but I think my overall case for how we should deploy and treat the phrase conspiracy theory is correct.
In summary, I think we need to deweaponize the term conspiracy theory while deploying more accurate phrases to identify those explanations that aren’t so good.
Copyright © Perry Willis 2023
Perry Willis is the co-founder of Downsize DC and the Zero Aggression Project. He co-created, with Jim Babka, the Read the Bills Act, the One Subject at a Time Act, and the Write the Laws Act, all of which have been introduced in Congress. He is a past Executive Director of the national Libertarian Party and was the campaign manager for Harry Browne for President in 2000.
