> No, the best indicator is, "does this rhetoric serve to promote an agenda more than it serves to explain a phenomenon we did not understand previously?"
That’s not a good indicator of “what is a conspiracy theory”.
All movements for social change are positively brimming with “rhetoric that serves to promote an agenda”, and isn’t trying to “explain a phenomenon that we didn’t understand previously”-it is a persuasive discourse not an explanatory one. On the contrary, activists often resist complex explanations for phenomena relevant to their cause, because many of them see nuance and complexity as a distraction from persuading the masses to support them, and simple messages do that best. None of that makes such movements a conspiracy theory - conspiracy theories exist in such movements too, but most of their leaders are smart enough to view those theories as baggage holding the movement back, and hence discourage them rather than encourage them.
Conspiracy theories are found all over the political spectrum-both on the far left and the far right, and everywhere in-between. They can serve any political agenda-including agendas you or I support. The problem with defending your agenda using a conspiracy theory, is that even if your agenda is correct, arguing for it on the basis of an unfalsifiable theory is almost always irrational, and it is irrational to defend even a correct agenda using an irrational argument.
> All movements for social change are positively brimming with “rhetoric that serves to promote an agenda”, and isn’t trying to “explain a phenomenon that we didn’t understand previously”...
Then it doesn't meet my criteria and I have no problem with it? I don't think we disagree.
I'm not trying to say every argument for an ideology is a conspiracy theory. I don't have a problem with ideology (though I have problems with particular ideologies), and I don't have a problem with making a case for an ideology. I have a problem with "justifying ideology by stealth" as I called it, deceptive framing which seeks not to argue by presupposing your conclusions in your unstated assumptions. (The same goes for related concepts like "agenda".)
I guess I neglected to include the requirement, "...and it is represented as theory to understand a phenomenon, rather than a set of normative ideas."
If I could have expressed myself in a less confusing way, I'm open to suggestions. Based on the responses I didn't explain myself that well.
> I'm not trying to say every argument for an ideology is a conspiracy theory. I don't have a problem with ideology (though I have problems with particular ideologies), and I don't have a problem with making a case for an ideology. I have a problem with "justifying ideology by stealth" as I called it, deceptive framing which seeks not to argue by presupposing your conclusions in your unstated assumptions. (The same goes for related concepts like "agenda".)
That's a different issue from conspiracy theories.
For example, a traditional conspiracy theory in left-wing Australian politics, is that the centre-right Australian government intentionally timed the April 1954 defection of KGB agent Vladimir Petrov (based at the Soviet Embassy in Canberra), to maximise the political damage to the centre-left opposition in the next month's election. It wasn't until 30 years later that the release of secret government records proved the conspiracy theory false (although who knows, maybe there are some left-wing diehards out there who still believe in it: how can we be sure those secret records weren't faked or tampered with prior to their release?). That was a conspiracy theory, but it had nothing to do with "justifying ideology by stealth".
> I guess I neglected to include the requirement, "...and it is represented as theory to understand a phenomenon, rather than a set of normative ideas."
In practice almost all normative disputes sooner or later become factual disputes as well. An ideal model of human rationality might suggest "we are never going to agree on values, but at least we can agree on facts", but in practice humans rarely work that way. Everybody does it, at least to some degree, nobody is entirely innocent of the temptation to read the data in the way which best supports their normative biases.
I don't know anything about Australian politics in 1954 so I can't comment on that example. I can tell you that I can identify an ideology for every conspiracy that I am familiar with. Off the top of my head:
- Flat Earth conspiracism is about an anti-intellectual pan-Christian traditionalist ideology
- QAnon is about a similar pan-Christian ideology, and a sort of radical personal responsibility
- Antisemitic conspiracy theories are about an ideology of white supremacy, and of mythic struggle among "races". It's an ideology of strict good and evil, defined not by actions or outcomes but by alignment in a sort of cosmic conflict.
Factual and normative disputes are both fine, I'm arguing against a form of bad faith.
May I ask if you've ever had an extended conversation with a conspiracy theorist?
> I can tell you that I can identify an ideology for every conspiracy that I am familiar with.
Are you familiar with UFO conspiracy theories such as Area 51/Roswell/etc? What is their ideology? How about JFK assassination conspiracy theories, what ideology are they? What is the ideology of the moon landing hoax theory? Or the conspiracy theory (which a taxi driver once tried to convince me of) that the passengers on MH370 were abducted by the CIA? [0]
> - Flat Earth conspiracism is about an anti-intellectual pan-Christian traditionalist ideology
Wikipedia [1] says:
> Research on the arguments that flat Earthers wield shows three distinct factions, each one subscribing to its own set of beliefs. The first faction subscribes to a faith-based conflict in which atheists use science to suppress the Christian faith... The second faction believes in an overarching conspiracy for knowledge suppression... The third faction believes that knowledge is personal and experiential. They are dismissive of knowledge that comes from authoritative sources, especially book knowledge
So, contrary to what you say, it says only one branch of Flat Earthers have a Christian ideology. Also, it isn’t “pan-Christian”: almost all Christian Flat Earthers are non-traditional Protestants (such as “independent Fundamentalists”); very few Christian Flat Earthers are Catholics or Orthodox or traditional Protestants (Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Methodists, etc). At the time of Christianity’s founding, most educated people believed the Earth was round, and the vast majority of Christian leaders accepted that societal consensus; it is only in modern times that a tiny fringe has emerged to question it. The idea that belief in a Flat Earth was ever widespread in the history of Christianity is actually a myth that was invented by polemicists in order to defame Christians (especially Catholics) [2]
> - Antisemitic conspiracy theories are about an ideology of white supremacy, and of mythic struggle among "races".
Antisemitic conspiracy theories are extremely popular in the Arab and Muslim worlds, but in that context have nothing to do with white supremacy. To quote Wikipedia’s article on the infamous antisemitic hoax “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” [3]
> Neither governments nor political leaders in most parts of the world have referred to the Protocols since World War II. The exception to this is the Middle East, where a large number of Arab and Muslim regimes and leaders have endorsed them as authentic, including endorsements from Presidents Gamal Abdel Nasser and Anwar Sadat of Egypt, President Abdul Salam Arif of Iraq, King Faisal of Saudi Arabia, and Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi of Libya. A translation made by an Arab Christian appeared in Cairo in 1927 or 1928, this time as a book. The first translation by an Arab Muslim was also published in Cairo, but only in 1951.
The 1988 charter of Hamas, a Palestinian Islamist group, stated that the Protocols embodies the plan of the Zionists. The reference was removed in the new covenant issued in 2017. Recent endorsements in the 21st century have been made by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Sheikh Ekrima Sa'id Sabri, the education ministry of Saudi Arabia…
The Nation of Islam has been a major promoter of the antisemitic conspiracy theory of Jewish responsibility for the Atlantic slave trade. [4] Their ideology is definitely not white supremacy. Antisemitism is found all over the ideological spectrum, even among secular progressives [5]; it is a disease which transcends the boundaries of ideology - and antisemites of any and all ideologies are susceptible to accepting antisemitic conspiracy theories
> May I ask if you've ever had an extended conversation with a conspiracy theorist?
Yes, a good friend of mine was quite taken in by PizzaGate, and tried hard to convince me of it, although in the end we agreed to disagree. Also, whatever is the ideology of PizzaGate as a whole, I know my friend didn’t share it. I’m convinced his credulity on that topic was more about his personal dislike of Hilary Clinton than disagreement with her actual policies (e.g. he was and is the kind of guy who says things like “abortion is a women’s issue, men should stay out of it”)
> Yes, a good friend of mine was quite taken in by PizzaGate.
I'm sorry that happened. That's really rough. I've also known some conspiracy theorists.
> Are you familiar with UFO conspiracy theories such as Area 51/Roswell/etc? What is their ideology? How about JFK assassination conspiracy theories, what ideology are they? What is the ideology of the moon landing hoax theory? Or the conspiracy theory (which a taxi driver once tried to convince me of) that the passengers on MH370 were abducted by the CIA?
"You gave me three examples? Well why don't you give me ten more?"
It seems like you're just trying to bury me in questions. Yes I am familiar with some of these, but I don't think this is really a good faith question or that you would be convinced if I provided you with my analysis of them, so I don't see why I should put in the effort.
> Flat Earth
> Antisemitism
So what I said was correct for a large subset of these groups (if we leave the pan-Christian part aside, my argument stands regardless of whether it is Christian or pan-Christian), and there are additional sects of the theory...? Presumably advocating different ideologies (eg you cite literal religious extremists - are you going to tell me that isn't ideological with a straight face?)? That doesn't really impact my argument. (I also just disagree with the analysis of that Wikipedia article, those are not distinct subsets of the Flat Earth community.)
I feel like you're starting to become uncharitable. I'm not really seeing a substantive disagreement here, frankly and meaning no disrespect, I'm seeing a series of nitpicks. So I think this is where I'll have to bow out of the discussion.
I never assumed bad faith on your part, yet here you've done that to me. It isn't kind, and it ignores the explicit statement in the site guidelines [0] to "Assume good faith"
I actually do have a substantive point. I admit I probably could have made it clearer. I'd be happy nice to clarify, but you are telling me you don't want to hear it.
That’s not a good indicator of “what is a conspiracy theory”.
All movements for social change are positively brimming with “rhetoric that serves to promote an agenda”, and isn’t trying to “explain a phenomenon that we didn’t understand previously”-it is a persuasive discourse not an explanatory one. On the contrary, activists often resist complex explanations for phenomena relevant to their cause, because many of them see nuance and complexity as a distraction from persuading the masses to support them, and simple messages do that best. None of that makes such movements a conspiracy theory - conspiracy theories exist in such movements too, but most of their leaders are smart enough to view those theories as baggage holding the movement back, and hence discourage them rather than encourage them.
Conspiracy theories are found all over the political spectrum-both on the far left and the far right, and everywhere in-between. They can serve any political agenda-including agendas you or I support. The problem with defending your agenda using a conspiracy theory, is that even if your agenda is correct, arguing for it on the basis of an unfalsifiable theory is almost always irrational, and it is irrational to defend even a correct agenda using an irrational argument.